Hmmmmm, that's a tough one. Maybe not get involved at all as this is not covered under powers of the government by the Constitution? And please no 'interpretations' of said document and no Acts that have been passed in the past 140 years. Either it's in there or it's not. Forget the right and wrong of unions. I don't agree with them but they're there. The question is 'Does the national government have the right to force people to work when national security and/or defense is not involved'?
Funny you should say that. That is exactly what Feinstein is quoted as saying in an article I read in a San Franciso paper. Boxer, on the other hand, is saying Bush should have done more to get the businesses to end the lock out rather than this court order he is seeking.
The whole point I was trying to make is that with the dems split on this, they can't present a united front and cry "foul" about Bush being against union and organized labor. Actually, I see this as a being in favor of the unions since they were saying all they wanted to do is go back to work. Now they can.
I believe the dispute is more over them wanting the IT workers coming into the industry to be unionized but the companies are resisting that.
Ultimately it doesn't make a difference. This economic effect of this strike/lockout is a proverbial drop of water compared to the tsunami of unraveling credit and debt which has been ongoing.
The worst is yet to come, but this strike/lockout is miniscule compared to the large scale bubbles which are now imploding.