Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:22:25 -0500, HK wrote: Your 49' RV sank at the dock, but was hoisted out and fixed up. Nope, not even built yet. I hope you're not referring to the election of Ronald Reagan. We could use someone with his common sense approach to leadership and management right now. Please. Our ATC system has never recovered, and is rapidly heading straight down the tubes. They played the strike card and RWR played the you are fired card. The system recovered. It is the incompetent government contracting method that has caused the problems. It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and increased demand for flights. The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances. It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20 years ago. Eisboch Of course not! Hehehe. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... HK wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:22:25 -0500, HK wrote: Your 49' RV sank at the dock, but was hoisted out and fixed up. Nope, not even built yet. I hope you're not referring to the election of Ronald Reagan. We could use someone with his common sense approach to leadership and management right now. Please. Our ATC system has never recovered, and is rapidly heading straight down the tubes. They played the strike card and RWR played the you are fired card. The system recovered. It is the incompetent government contracting method that has caused the problems. It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and increased demand for flights. The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances. It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20 years ago. Eisboch Of course not! Hehehe. Harry, The ATC workers went on strike because they wanted a more money, a reduced work week and a better retirement package. They did not address or express any concerns about flight paths, equipment or an increase in customer traffic. Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a discussion, but is very patronizing. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a discussion, but is very patronizing. Go pee up a rope, Reggie. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "HK" wrote in message . .. Go pee up a rope, Reggie. Heh ... that's basically what the ATC said to Reagan in 1981. Didn't work. :-) Here's something to refresh your memory: http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm Eisboch |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a discussion, but is very patronizing. Go pee up a rope, Reggie. Well that certainly contributed to the discussion. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a discussion, but is very patronizing. Go pee up a rope, Reggie. Well that certainly contributed to the discussion. More than you usually do. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a discussion, but is very patronizing. Go pee up a rope, Reggie. Well that certainly contributed to the discussion. More than you usually do. Harry, I thought you might like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYo1-tc9Mzw |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and increased demand for flights. The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances. It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20 years ago. Eisboch Of course not! Hehehe. Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal, even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in behalf and in the interest of the general population. So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the law and go on strike anyway? Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating the law. They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved. It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often enough some people will begin to believe it. Again, please correct me if I am in error. Eisboch |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and increased demand for flights. The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances. It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20 years ago. Eisboch Of course not! Hehehe. Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal, even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in behalf and in the interest of the general population. So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the law and go on strike anyway? Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating the law. They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved. It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often enough some people will begin to believe it. Again, please correct me if I am in error. Eisboch Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York. I always thought Reagan was a charlatan because of his involvement in the Iranian hostage crisis, his double-dealing with the Iranians later to sell them arms, his budget-busting deficit spending on military wastage, et cetera. I often wondered when in his terms he began to deteriorate mentally because of his illness. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and increased demand for flights. The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances. It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20 years ago. Eisboch Of course not! Hehehe. Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal, even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in behalf and in the interest of the general population. So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the law and go on strike anyway? Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating the law. They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved. It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often enough some people will begin to believe it. Again, please correct me if I am in error. Eisboch Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York. I always thought Reagan was a charlatan because of his involvement in the Iranian hostage crisis, his double-dealing with the Iranians later to sell them arms, his budget-busting deficit spending on military wastage, et cetera. I often wondered when in his terms he began to deteriorate mentally because of his illness. So if laws don't fit in with your philosophy, it's OK to break them? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|