I'm glad to see Bush doing what is right, rather than what is politically correct.
1 posted on
10/07/2002 9:47:54 AM PDT by
snopercod
TAKE BACK THE SENATE!
Click The Logo To Donate
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
2 posted on
10/07/2002 9:48:13 AM PDT by
Mo1
To: snopercod
Agreed.
3 posted on
10/07/2002 9:50:11 AM PDT by
rintense
To: snopercod
Tom Daschle is a union lobbyist. He has sold out our homeland security for union votes and now the Democrat union members are selling out our national economy for the sake of over-paid union jobs. Call Tom Daschle and tell him to get his people back to work.
7 posted on
10/07/2002 9:59:44 AM PDT by
Eva
To: snopercod
The Dems are already trying to figure a way to spin this to make Bush appear the bad guy.
My guess is that they will try to portray Bush as anti-union and pro-big business.
To: snopercod
What's that? You mean have Big Government step in and interfere with the free market exchange?
Some small government advocates you people are.
To: snopercod
How is this 'good' again? Granted, I don't want to see a lockout and I can't stand unions. However, it is not the government's place to negotiate deals for the private industry. This isn't like the air traffic controllers situation where lives would possibly be at stake.
To: snopercod
I'M CUTE. BUT I CAN'T CAMPAIGN.
HELP TAKE BACK THE SENATE.
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!
TakeBackCongress.org
A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate
To: snopercod
Thank goodness. There is no way in the world that 10,500 workers should be allowed to take down the US economy.
Yes, it is technically a lockout but that's because the unions didn't want to strike (they make too much money and there wouldn't be any sympathy) so they were deliberately working at a slow pace, in effect striking without actually going out on strike.
I'm in agriculture and we are getting hammered over this. Bush is right to do this.
22 posted on
10/07/2002 10:20:40 AM PDT by
Wphile
To: snopercod
Others, however, say Bush can't ignore the economic implications of a prolonged shutdown, both for political and policy reasons. There also is no love lost between unions and Bush's most conservative advisers, some of whom note with
disdain that some of the longshoreman earn more than $100,000 a year.
Why can't the press just report the facts and not add there own interpretations?
To: snopercod
Honestly, given the current state of the US economy, Bush was a little slow in his filing IMHO.
To: snopercod
I live in Huntington Beach, which is about 17 miles south of the port in LA/Long Beach. The container ships are stacked up all the way down here, like a big line at the drive-through, spaced a couple hundred yards apart.
42 posted on
10/07/2002 12:01:09 PM PDT by
kezekiel
To: snopercod
Praise GOD! This takes huge courage! It IS the right thing! Thank you, President Bush!
To: snopercod
This resident of Huntington Beach, about 15 miles down the coast from LB/LA harbor is watching a truly stunning sight.
While yet to see 200 vessels, we've counted 20 and more, waiting just a few miles offshore. Never in 34 years has anything remotely like this happened. I bet never in the history of the port.
The combined Los Angeles/Long Beach harbors are the largest commercial port in the US. Two separate entities, next to each other.
I sure hope that a ship doesn't hit one of about eight offshore oil platforms.
The longshoremen live well, on $100 k per annum. They want to keep technology out of the work. Most of the jobs at stake are clerical.
All of the vessels standing offshore are an environmental and national security risk. An al Qaeda operative could theoretically go out among the waiting vessels, and do the suicide bomb-boat terror-act. Then blame it on the US, for not "protecting" the foreign vessel and crew.
I wonder if some crew members are discussing a strip ashore? Immigration issue, too.
One thing for sure: It is a once in a lifetime sight. The ships are huge. So many in one place.
To: snopercod
I'm not so sure it is right to order them back to work. They were locked out because they were playing games and letting work pile up while drawing full salary. Order them back and it continues.
OTOH, on Sunday the paper had a nice story in which they compared these western U.S. ports with European and Asian Ports. The western U.S. ports (especially the port of Oakland) was right there at the bottom of the barrel as far as productivity goes.
The story didn't go into it, but I'll bet their pay is near the top, but their productivity is near the bottom.
90 posted on
10/07/2002 2:42:49 PM PDT by
Who dat?
To: snopercod
Bush formed a board of inquiry This is one of those situations where a President can act Presidential and do what needs to be done. He will also acquire a group of political enemies whichever way he decides. Comes with the territory.
To: snopercod
But a committee won't do the trick! Taft Hartley would! I had hoped Bush would do something more than what he has done. Thousands of businesses, including mine, are taking the brunt of this union-caused (RAT influenced) economic debacle! Go Bush, GO!
To: snopercod
One of the things the Union complained about and walked out of the last round of talks over, was that the management negotiators had armed guards. They probably needed armed guards, but I have an answer to this complaint.
The President could assign armed U.S. Marshals (if there aren't enough regulars some temporarys could be appointed) to BOTH sides. Said Marshals to escort both sides in, and out of the meetings. No private armed guards allowed.
Let us see if the union KKKommunist pawns of the KKKommucratic Party can object to that!
136 posted on
10/07/2002 7:24:00 PM PDT by
LibKill
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson