Rez O. Lewshun said:
Is it the Admins job to restrict it?
Nope. The fact that they do is certainly unfortunate, but I have much more important issues to worry about when voting: national security, the overall economy, states' rights, etc... I can't base all of my voting decisions upon labor issues, and neither should you.
Sounds like a quote from Civics 101. Are you willing to regress in your career for the benefit of all citizens?
Yes, but I don't think it has to be an either/or proposition. We can vote for politicians that are good for the country while upholding our profession at the same time. It certainly becomes more difficult when the administration isn't friendly towards labor, but again, I have more important things to worry about when voting for a President, Congressman, or Senator. An extra 5% on my next paycheck doesn't help me much if the President, Congress, and Senate are taking actions that will decimate the economy and create an environment of stagflation.
ok... I'll be stupid.... Did NAFTA effect the RLA? I really don't know.
Not likely, but it certainly affected labor in this country to an extreme extent. NAFTA has decimated the manufacturing sector in this country. You've frequently mentioned that labor always had a voice in the Clinton administration. A lot of good it did them.

Lip service from an administration may make you feel better, but it doesn't really help anyone.
How about this... what do you think of the Bush II Admin changing the LM-2 reporting requirements and causing unions to spend MILLIONS of dollars in dues money un-necessarily...
I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Again, I don't pretend that the administration is friendly to labor. I just believe that smart citizens prioritize, and national security, the war on terror, and the overall economy are much higher on the priority scale than LM-2 filings.