US Army May Break Goodyear Strike

[tmooses]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16226231/

There is no mention in this article of the reason for this strike. 30,000 retirees have had their health care eliminated. The US Army to break a strike for "national security"? What about the security of those who worked their lives for a company and retired with a contract for their health care only to have the company tear it up?

[Kagemusha]

1. Well someone out there thinks troops in Iraq are more important.

I'm fine with, and indeed, encourge you to disagree, but it's not like we should treat the lives of the troops in the field as a meaningless consideration, either.

I just imagine the headline alone is going to inspire very hostile reactions. I'm just pointing out, the troops aren't the enemy.

Edit: But, at the end of the article I see that the proposal is to send the Kansas plant workers, ONLY, back to their plant and require them to work, on condition that if a settlement is reached concerning the strike which will be allowed to continue EVERYWHERE ELSE, the settlement will be applied without penalty to the Kansas plant workers.

If that's as bad as it gets, that's nothing.

[aka-chmeee]

2. Goodyear Retiree here

Clarification:
The Union has offered several times since the strike began on October 5 to allow up to 200 workers to work producing the Hummer tires. Goodyear has refused all offers, insisting their scabs are doing ok.

We have not lost our health care insurance at this point. Goodyear wants to "get out of the retiree health insurance business" and has proposed a trust to provide it. Difference is largely that even by Goodyear's estimation, the amount they proposed for funding the trust is only about half what would be required to sustain benefits.

[murdoch]

3. The Republicans are who is trying to make this Army vs. union

The Republicans are who is trying to make this Army vs. union, which is ridiculous. The union has said they are willing to do the Army work and just the Army work, as someone else mentioned. Goodyear said they weren't interested and the Republicans are pretending the union never offered that.

The law says that strikes can be squashed by the government only when national security is at stake. To rephrase, if the Republicans want to break a strike, they can ONLY do it by saying national security is at stake. Thus, every major strike, they say national security is at stake. They say this because otherwise, they can not use the Taft-Hartley law to break the strike. The union has said they'll do the Army contract, but since Goodyear and the Republicans are using the Army as a bogus smokescreen anyhow, they don't care.

Bush tried to break the ILWU lockout on the West Coast with national security as well. The Taft-Hartley law says only national security can break a strike, so the Republicans say national security is at stake in EVERY major strike.

The Republicans (and Goodyear) are the ones trying to make this Army. vs union, not the union.

[Kagemusha]

4. Then I hope the Army whacks Goodyear on the head nice and good

I'm heartened to hear the union's been so reasonable.

Someone needs to tell the media then.

[GreenZoneLT]

5. They're talking about an injunction

The way the top post was headlined, I thought they were thinking about sending in cavalry with night sticks, a la Doug MacArthur in the '30s. The Army is considering filing suit against the union; big deal.

[talk hard]

6. damn, got me going 2 at first