>And as I keep repeating, as the legislation was written, this was not the
>typical jobs/economy fight, but a straight-up delivery of increased union
>members, mandated by the Feds, packaged in a bow by Bush for the Teamsters
>and building trades. -- Nathan Newman
-thanks for the clarification. -was there any counter-part to this under Clinton? -That's not a rhetorical question. I do know they -effectively de-unionized by accelerating contracting -out of Federal jobs, continuing what REagan began -with PATCO.
Yes, but they also gave pretty good support to local and state public employees unions fighting privatization. And it was under the Clinton administration that Project Labor Agreements - essentially allowing union shops in exchange for promise of "labor peace" for the life of the particular contract - became a key organizing tool for the building trades and a number of other groups unionizing private sector companies doing business with the government. The focus on Clinton approaches to the federal government workers is relevant but a tiny proportion of jobs funded with government dollars.
As to Bush, the first thing he did was announce the abolishing of all Project Labor Agreements by executive order. Under pressure, he allowed some already instituted to continue but barred any new ones being signed. The whole ANWR agreement with the Teamsters is actually an amazing piece of hypocrisy on that basis; it's amazing that the press has not crucified him at least a little for the complete ideological opportunism of barring it everywhere but where he needs it to cut a deal on behalf of his oil buddies.
-- Nathan Newman