Teamsters Back in Court to Stop Unsafe Mexican Trucks

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Bush administration broke yet another law in continuing to allow long-haul trucks from Mexico to use U.S. highways, according to a letter filed Monday by the Teamsters Union in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Congress passed an omnibus budget, signed into law Dec. 26, that includes a provision banning funds "to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones."

The Bush administration pretends the law doesn't apply to the existing program. It has said it will continue to allow some trucks from Mexico to travel beyond the narrow border zone.

"The lawlessness, recklessness and sheer arrogance of the Bush administration just blows my mind," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. "Did Transportation Secretary Mary Peters somehow forget she took an oath of office to uphold the law?"

Congress clearly intended to stop the pilot program dead in its tracks according to two days of debate and 20 pages in the Congressional record.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the provision would "prevent the pilot from going forward."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the provision's sponsor, said it would "prohibit the use of funds to continue this pilot program."

I love these “Teamsters stand up for America” stories.

Not really. I’d scratch out a reply but I recently read one I agree with and it was done better by someone else… from another board:

First of all (although perhaps not the most convincing to Teamsters), there's the matter of law and integrity; our country signed a treaty (which, second to the Constitution, is usually considered to be the highest law of the land) years back in which it committed to free trade with Mexico...and part of that commitment was to allow ("again", I might add!) cross-border trucking. Meaning that if we're NOT allowing at LEAST pilot programs to proceed, then this country is (1) breaking it's own law, and (2) not upholding its commitments.

Secondly, the goal of the whole deal is encourage MORE trade...and, in case you hadn't noticed, "trade" is what a labor body like the Teamsters should thrive on. The more trade, the more carriage of goods. The more carriage of goods, the more labor required to provide that carriage, and the more jobs are created. Seems to me that, if the Teamsters had any LONG RANGE viability, they would be able to successfully COMPETE for those NEW jobs. The fact that they seem absolutely SCARED of even the IDEA of competing says w-a-y too much about the state of the union, in my opinion.

Lastly, this is a PILOT program...designed to obtain the information similar to which the Teamsters SPOUT as if they "know" now. Of course, the Teamsters don't have any facts or any evidence beyond anecdotal to support what they proclaim....and here they're opposing a program designed to PROVIDE information/evidence one way or another. If that's not "head in the sand" operating, I don't know what is. And if it isn't going to be considered hypocrisy of the first order by the public at large, then I don't know what would be.

Frankly, the Teamsters are coming-off on this like spoiled children; children who think they can't survive without someone who *IS* willing to EARN their living supporting them.

In that sense, it's almost EXACTLY like the process of trucking deregulation a few years back. With dereg, the trucking industry grew by leaps and bounds. If the Teamsters hadn't maintained their obstinacy and/or kept their heads buried in the sand, they could have shared in that growth. Instead, they decided to bury themselves. Now they've got another chance; they can work to INCREASE trade and thus their JOB opportunities...or they can fight against, and continue their death spiral.

What do you think the odds are of the Teamsters making the correct, SUCCESSFUL choice?

And another:

I'm well aware that the Teamsters have "been fighting to keep the border closed for years"....as I'm aware that they fought deregulation of the trucking industry for years as well. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that the Teamsters - or, more specifically, their bureaucracy - don't believe that they can compete on a level playing field. Or that they can operate without some form of subsidy. I take that as a given. But the fact that they don't even PREPARE to function that way results in the debacles that happen to the union when the inevitable finally comes about...as with "deregulation", by way of example. My contention is that, if the Teamsters had EMBRACED positive change, and prepared for it, instead of "fighting" to keep it from coming about, perhaps they wouldn't have pissed away a million or more of their core industry jobs. And anyone who doesn't realize that opening borders economically results in "positive change" hasn't taken a look at the European community lately....or how its currency value has overtaken ours. To put it bluntly, this country simply can't afford to continue subsidizing a privileged minority that's unwilling to compete on the world stage.

As for "defying the will of the people and Congress"....well, I'm not too sure about that. As I see it (and I'm not a Bush defender by any means), trying to adhere to the elements of a TREATY (which, legally, would seem to trump any mere funding legislation) - a treaty, BTW, ratified by Congress representing "the people" and, without having been abrogated, is still in force...a treaty, to boot, that was not initiated by this administration to begin with - is not necessarily "defying" the law, but rather trying to uphold it. And one can't help but note that the recent funding legislation, as passed, prohibited funding for any NEW programs....but said nothing about those already in existence. So where's the "defying the will of the people and Congress"? Not sure I see it. Defying the will of the TEAMSTERS, sure...but, last I looked, the Teamsters represented a very, very small minority of "the People".

Yes, I realize that the Teamsters put out a lively PR blurb every now and then. But, as Teamsters (unfortunately), they're not all that inclined to stick just to the facts (for instance, do you remember their initial "UPS Card Check Agreement" announcement?). And my point in mentioning Jimmy the junior bringing the case up before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was meant to underline that perspective; i.e. - the 9th Circuit is notorious for approving radical claims...and then getting overturned by the Supremes. My contention, of course, is that if the Teamsters thought they had a good case and ultimately would prevail, they wouldn't be venturing all the way out to the West Coast to select a court to determine the validity of their claim; they would have saved money (in travel expense, if nothing else) and filed closer to home.

Granted, there are different perspectives on everything. Mine is that I hate the idea of Teamsters destroying themselves by essentially constantly demanding that others give them a free ride (as in tilting the playing field in their direction)...if only because that's the type of demand that ultimately comes back to bite them in the ass....just as it did with trucking deregulation. Surely it has occurred to you just how the public might view the union's claims that it's primarily concerned about "safety" and such, hasn't it? Especially in light of it's claims concerning "Mexican drivers" - LEGAL "Mexican drivers" - when, at the same time, it's hypocritically attempting to organize ILLEGAL drivers of the same nationality.

The Teamsters - what with frittering it away for years in a similar fashion - have little enough influence in the trucking industry now; why make things worse?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.