<HTML>Ummm, what are you missing? Today I have seen and heard various commentaries saying that once shippers are ordered to end lockout and dockworkers go back to work under terms of the injunction instead even of a 30-day extension to their contract, then if dockworkers just work to rule, they may be subject to fines for violations of the National Security / economic necessity provisions of Taft-Hartley. I do not understand the full subtleties of this, but it seems unlikely to me that Bush and Co would suddenly soften their perpetual hard line about labor issues. Of course, in my rich fantasy life, there would be unionized Wal-mart workers in solidarity refusing to sell scab freight or supporters camping out at the gates of the ports if the shippers tried another lockout. DoreneC In a message dated 10/9/02 12:16:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jbdelong@uclink.berkeley.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Is it? (a) Injunction is issued. (b) Dockworkers go back to work. (c) Shippers pay dockworkers. (d) Dockworkers continue to work-to-rule--as they were doing before the lockout. (e) Not all that much cargo is moved--so shippers have a big incentive to settle: they're paying out wages and getting little in return. What am I missing? It seemed to me that Bush's injunction is actually going an offensive move against the shippers. But I may well be out of my depth here... Brad </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>