UpNDownGuy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Posts
- 241
It's in the fine print...
Here are some of the details:
A paper copy of ALPA's new LM-2 report would be more than 30,000 pages long.
Does this seem like a good idea to you? Do you imagine that there are any legitimate reasons why a union would need to submit over 30,000 pages of information to the governemnt? Who do you think will read the 30,000 + pages, let alone analyze them in a meaningful manner? ALPA is not a large union compared to many in this country. You would need a whole new branch of government just to LOOK at this much information.
Or, here is an alternative idea. Let's see if it fits the situation:
AFL-CIO President John Sweeny claimed that the
implementation of new union reporting rules "is more evidence
of the Administration's blind determination to weaken
workers' organizations and is clearly political payback for the
workers' overtime pay win [October 2] in the House.
Hmmnnn, let's think about it. A completely unnecessary and useless requirement that is imposed ONLY on labor unions, and is multitudes more costly than the accounting requirement of any company in the US. Sweeny may just be on to something...
How about the method by which this requirement came to be?
The Office of Management and Budget received the final rule
and had at least 90 days to review it to ensure that the changes
do not cause any unnecessary burdens or costs. OMB is
required by law to conduct such reviews of newly proposed
governmental rules and regulations before they are
implemented. "Isn't it ironic," Capt. Woerth said, "that the
same OMB that has been reviewing for several years the
proposed flight-time and duty-time rules and now opposes that
NPRM because it would increase costs for airlines has taken 24
hours to review the new LM-2 rule before passing it on without
a single change or comment."
A regulation that would require unions to submit over 30,000+ pages of information. They looked at it for 24 hours, and decided it was perfect. Sound like the fix was in maybe?
I could go on and on about this, but what's the point? There is no possible legitimate reason for this regulation. It was "get the unions", pure and simple. Your President at his finest.
Here are some of the details:
A paper copy of ALPA's new LM-2 report would be more than 30,000 pages long.
Does this seem like a good idea to you? Do you imagine that there are any legitimate reasons why a union would need to submit over 30,000 pages of information to the governemnt? Who do you think will read the 30,000 + pages, let alone analyze them in a meaningful manner? ALPA is not a large union compared to many in this country. You would need a whole new branch of government just to LOOK at this much information.
Or, here is an alternative idea. Let's see if it fits the situation:
AFL-CIO President John Sweeny claimed that the
implementation of new union reporting rules "is more evidence
of the Administration's blind determination to weaken
workers' organizations and is clearly political payback for the
workers' overtime pay win [October 2] in the House.
Hmmnnn, let's think about it. A completely unnecessary and useless requirement that is imposed ONLY on labor unions, and is multitudes more costly than the accounting requirement of any company in the US. Sweeny may just be on to something...
How about the method by which this requirement came to be?
The Office of Management and Budget received the final rule
and had at least 90 days to review it to ensure that the changes
do not cause any unnecessary burdens or costs. OMB is
required by law to conduct such reviews of newly proposed
governmental rules and regulations before they are
implemented. "Isn't it ironic," Capt. Woerth said, "that the
same OMB that has been reviewing for several years the
proposed flight-time and duty-time rules and now opposes that
NPRM because it would increase costs for airlines has taken 24
hours to review the new LM-2 rule before passing it on without
a single change or comment."
A regulation that would require unions to submit over 30,000+ pages of information. They looked at it for 24 hours, and decided it was perfect. Sound like the fix was in maybe?
I could go on and on about this, but what's the point? There is no possible legitimate reason for this regulation. It was "get the unions", pure and simple. Your President at his finest.
Ummm, Ok....again, what are the specifics of what has changed? Yes I read that it would be really long, what exactly has changed from what was required below? What new information are they required to report?Since there are 10's of thousands of members I'm not sure it's too excessive. As far as weakening unions I still have not heard anything that comes close to this. IF you have the info please post but a little more paperwork, while maybe tedious, in no way weakens unions, unless you can give me an example.
