FAA

Yep....this is another example of Republicans hard at work

Obama urges Congress to end partial FAA shutdown.

Republicans have blocked a bipartisan Senate plan that would have extended the agency's authority to operate.

The partial agency shutdown led to the temporary layoff of thousands of employees and idled airport construction workers. It's costing the government revenue from lost airline ticket taxes.

The House and Senate are at odds over proposals to cut rural air service subsidies and make it more difficult for airline workers to unionize.

So they want to go on vacation, while the gov't risks losing $1 billion in revenue. The government has already lost more in revenue ($250 million) than the amount the Republicans insist be cut from the budget(16 million).

http://www.aolnews.com/story/faa-shutdo ... s/1883045/

The House and Senate are at odds over proposals to cut rural air service subsidies and make it more difficult for airline workers to unionize.

Oh, now that one is just rich. Keeping the rules of unionization that have been in place for going on 80 years is somehow transformed into making it more difficult for airline workers to unionize. No archer, the rules should not be changed to make it easier than it has been to unionize and as long as the Democrats insist upon that rule being changed the FAA will remain shut down. If you want the FAA up and operating, call Reid and tell him to stop insisting the rule be changed from its current form.

This is just inexcusable

WASHINGTON -- The failure of Congress to authorize a budget for the Federal Aviation Administration has put some 4,000 agency employees and tens of thousands of contractors temporarily out of work. But even some FAA workers who haven't been furloughed find themselves in a peculiar financial jam.

Roughly 40 FAA inspectors have been asked to continue working despite the stoppage because their jobs are important for air safety. Yet since Congress hasn't allocated money to the agency, these employees have to cover their own travel expenses until the shutdown is resolved. Although their wages and expenses will eventually be recouped, these workers will end up covering work-related credit charges -- and possibly interest -- until funding is freed up.

" Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said in a statement. "From day 1, House GOP leaders admitted openly -- almost proudly -- that they were doing this to gain 'leverage' toward a larger goal -- undermining worker rights."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 ... 16322.html

Keep squeezing the taxpayers, it will all work out in the next Presidential election. Even liberals are starting to feel the impact of the policies of their current President and Democratic members of congress.

How does doing your job and funding the FAA equate to squeezing the taxpayers? Are we to go without any safety on aviation? no traffic controllers? no inspectors? I'm glad I don't fly anymore. These people won't work for free for very long, actually if they were smart they would all walk off the job and bring aviation to a screeching halt. Maybe then congress would take notice.

Archer,
You need to read up more about it than these slanted paragraphs. Rural America is getting subsidized flights, taxpayers are paying $800 a passenger to keep flights going to places like Craig, Colorado. These subsidies need to stop, we have more important stuff to spend on.
The other big issue is the way union elections have been altered, if a union member doesn't vote in the election, that vote counts as a vote to start a union. Sounds a little unfair to me. It would be like holding a presidential election and the 50% of Americans who don't vote would have their votes going to the incumbent.

And final point, Harry Reid(D) shut down the Senate this week for recess, not the Republicans.

archer wrote: www.huffingtonpost.com/

I saw the source, and quit reading, knowing it wouldn't be worth the time.

archer wrote: How does doing your job and funding the FAA equate to squeezing the taxpayers? Are we to go without any safety on aviation? no traffic controllers? no inspectors? I'm glad I don't fly anymore. These people won't work for free for very long, actually if they were smart they would all walk off the job and bring aviation to a screeching halt. Maybe then congress would take notice.

ATC, ARTCC, filing flight plans, all working. The inspectors are airport inspectors from what I have read and deal with the construction and look at safety issues with existing runways and taxiways. I am a pilot and have had no issues. It is disappointing though that they get caught in the middle of this mess.

" Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said in a statement. "From day 1, House GOP leaders admitted openly -- almost proudly -- that they were doing this to gain 'leverage' toward a larger goal -- undermining worker rights."

This gem is rich as well. What the House GOP leaders have admitted from day one is that they will not tolerate the end around run the current executive is engaging in on a regular basis when Congress refuses to give him what he wants. The rules for establishing unions have been consistent for the last 75 years and Congress should not allow the executive to usurp their authority in the manner this executive has done. All that is necessary is for the Senate to stop acting as the executive's enabler of such usurpation and the legislation will find its way to the executive for approval or veto. If Obama wants to allow no shows to count as yes votes for union activation, he can veto the legislation himself when it gets there. Obama needs to stop having Reid act as his political shield from the consequences of his petulance.

Reid? Obama? Do you guys read at all? Last year the NMB (not Reid or Obama) ruled that in elections to decide whether airline & rail workers would join a union, only votes that were actually cast would be counted, which is the normal way to run an election. If workers do not want to join a union, all they have to do is vote "no".

All that is necessary is for the Senate to stop acting as the executive's enabler of such usurpation and the legislation will find its way to the executive for approval or veto. If Obama wants to allow no shows to count as yes votes for union activation, he can veto the legislation himself when it gets there. Obama needs to stop having Reid act as his political shield from the consequences of his petulance.

Honestly, Printsmith - I usually disagree with you but I seldom think of you as hardcore dumb. Obama did not do this and, in any case, no shows should not count either for or against.