--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joanna: > It's interesting that Bush has not treated this > situation so far as > Reagan > did the air traffic controllers. Any > speculation as to why he's holding > off? > > 1) the current situation is a lock-out, not a > strike.
Yes, but the union had already ordered a work slow down, so the PMA will say the lockout was preemptive and designed to pressure the union for a settlement. > > 2) though the law was doubtful, the air traffic > controllers' strike > appeared to be illegal at the time. This > allowed Reagan to screw labor > within the popularly perceived law. That he would fire them all certainly showed his resolve in dealing with them. It certainly put a damper on any other such groups employed by the government. > > 3) Bush's handlers think that they can blame > the second dip of the Dubya > recession on the long-shore union. Most Americans wouldn't even know what they are. > > and/or > > 4) they've made some sort of backroom deal that > we don't know about. The union leadership and the PMA are actually close on most things. But no doubt letting the surveillance jobs go outside the union is seen by the union as the thin edge of the wedge. If these unions really are about challenging the system, why don't the east coast and Gulf longshoremen go out on strike in support of their western counterparts? That would certainly slow down the coming military strike against Iraq. Oh, I answered my own question. CJ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
