Replies

What other option did Bush have?

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.

"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."

I do believe you are correct about that. The basic argument (as I understand it) is that management is trying to break the union by changing the nature of the work performed from manual labor to technologically skilled labor. That by itself isn't bad, and the union has no objection. The problem is that management wants the new jobs created to be non-union jobs.

Hey! No one is going back to work without a new contract - the unions are mumbling about abiding by the "safety agreement." Tha means they are going to shuffle around and cause slowdowns like before the lockout began.

This is no solution.

The fight goes on.