St. George is Union Busting in the United States Senate

jtrain609

jtrain609

Antisocial Monster
I wonder if this could be said any more blatantly:

Three times in the last 10 days, senators' efforts to pass a bill to end the shutdown without making air service subsidy cuts have been blocked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Each time, Hatch has focused his remarks on the labor provision.

"I've been asked by our leadership to make these objections," Hatch explained Monday night. "What is important here – and it's not some itty-bitty little thing – is that you have labor regulators out of control."
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/faa-shutdown-cost_n_915854.html

The FAA shutdown is about Skywest lobbying their Senator from Utah to block legislation that will allow the Skywest pilot group to unionize.

This affects pilots at XJT, ASA and SKW directly, and I'd recommend everybody at these companies contact their Senators and voice their concerns about this issue. Shutting down the FAA because the funding doesn't exist is one thing, but trying to bust unions, and prevent organization through the United States Senate is deplorable.
 
meh.ro3066.jpg


Sigh.
 
E_Dawg said:
little known factoid: the coo of skywest is also the chairman of the RAA.
Click to expand...

Yep. Had lunch with him and all the top dawgs from OO in Ely once. I was out there in a mate's Hughes 500 catching elk and they stopped by ( were on a Harley cruise) and had lunch with us.

No dig on OO but there is a reason they were never on my interested list.
 
I predict that hatch will get his way. The debt ceiling debate showed that obama will cave to them and if he was willing to cave on something as big as that he won't blink twice to give up the fight for the FAA funding.
 
jtrain609 said:
I wonder if this could be said any more blatantly:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/faa-shutdown-cost_n_915854.html

The FAA shutdown is about Skywest lobbying their Senator from Utah to block legislation that will allow the Skywest pilot group to unionize.

This affects pilots at XJT, ASA and SKW directly, and I'd recommend everybody at these companies contact their Senators and voice their concerns about this issue. Shutting down the FAA because the funding doesn't exist is one thing, but trying to bust unions, and prevent organization through the United States Senate is deplorable.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to bust unions here. They simply want to ensure that any union representation vote accurately reflects the positions of the entire affected class, and not allow a small, vocal minority to speak for the entire group. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Skywest pilots can unionize anytime they want. All they have to do is get a majority of ALL pilots.

One other thing I found interesting in the article: "The lost ticket tax revenue is costing the government an estimated $200 million a week."

Only leftist/Stalinist-type central planners, like those who write for the Huffingandpuffington Post can look at the people keeping more of their own money as a "cost" to the government.
 
There is no election in the united states that gives a default vote to those not voting. That is like saying that anyone who doesn't vote in 2012 should automatically be counted for Obama (or another incumbent) because if they didn't vote they didn't want any change.
 
O&M said:
No one is trying to bust unions here. They simply want to ensure that any union representation vote accurately reflects the positions of the entire affected class, and not allow a small, vocal minority to speak for the entire group. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Skywest pilots can unionize anytime they want. All they have to do is get a majority of ALL pilots.

One other thing I found interesting in the article: "The lost ticket tax revenue is costing the government an estimated $200 million a week."

Only leftist/Stalinist-type central planners, like those who write for the Huffingandpuffington Post can look at the people keeping more of their own money as a "cost" to the government.
Click to expand...

LMAO...

Come on O&M...

The Huffingtonpost didn't write the article. They merely syndicated it from the AP. Sheesh, every time you do something silly and jump to a conclusion - when it's right in front of your face - you lose a little bit more credibility.

And, as Spira said. No election elsewhere in this country allows for a default for vote for those who fail to stand up and vote. Certainly shouldn't be the case when employees are seeking to have the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement.
 
Am I the only one that sees the irony in an article posted in HuffPo about union persecution? I mean, AP article or not...since HuffPo is the Gulfstream Intl of media it smacks of irony. A proto-SCAB publication bitching about union persecution - I love that.
 
WacoFan said:
Am I the only one that sees the irony in an article posted in HuffPo about union persecution? I mean, AP article or not...since HuffPo is the Gulfstream Intl of media it smacks of irony. A proto-SCAB publication bitching about union persecution - I love that.
Click to expand...

I see what you're doing there: trying to water down the word scab. Let me tell you, old man, that there is a world of difference between PFJ (or in Huffingtons case writing your diaries for free) and crossing a picket line.

However, I would be the first to guffaw if they did write some article about being forced to work for free.
 
Christ, you guys are hilarious.

No vested interest in what happens (re: union busting) and you're getting all hung up on the fact it was syndicated (and subsequently linked) to the HuffPost. Good misdirection.
 
O&M said:
No one is trying to bust unions here. They simply want to ensure that any union representation vote accurately reflects the positions of the entire affected class, and not allow a small, vocal minority to speak for the entire group. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Skywest pilots can unionize anytime they want. All they have to do is get a majority of ALL pilots.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why employees who don't care enough to vote should be given a de facto "no" vote anyway? Because hey, if they don't want a union, all they have to do is vote no...how hard is that?

It's a BS rule that needed to be changed.
 
So let me get this straight. The shutdown and cause of 4000 + people getting furloughed is due to Hatch holding out because of Skywest management and their distaste for unionization? Wow.
 
So, if an "strong vocal minority" takes control, wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority was, at best, apathetic towards the results? If you don't stand up for what you believe in (be it union or non), then you really don't have a strong say so in how things go, do you?
 
kellwolf said:
So, if an "strong vocal minority" takes control, wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority was, at best, apathetic towards the results? If you don't stand up for what you believe in (be it union or non), then you really don't have a strong say so in how things go, do you?
Click to expand...
Decisions are made by people who show up.
 
zmiller4 said:
Can you explain why employees who don't care enough to vote should be given a de facto "no" vote anyway? Because hey, if they don't want a union, all they have to do is vote no...how hard is that?

It's a BS rule that needed to be changed.
Click to expand...

Lack of a vote is not a "defacto" or "assumed" No, it IS a no. That's how these elections work, and how they have worked for decades. Why do YOU assume that if someone didn't vote, that it must be because of apathy.

There is a subtle, but fundamental difference between a political election, which is an "either/or" vote and a union election, which is "yes/no" vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top