Redallover: law

Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

I was so relieved today to hear that the professional engineers at Boeing reached a contract agreement, that's the SPEEA, for those of you not in the know. After all, their jobs are inherently dangerous and they desparately need protection against employer exploitation, even though they can't deliver a freakin' plane within a year of its original deadline. Union extortion!

This reminds me of THIS opinion piece and this comment:

Reading these comments are like watching my early years in Michigan. Living though unions and companys banging each other as if they were enemies and not having common interests. If any union member thinks they can get job security through a contract then they're not paying attention to GM, Ford and Chrysler workers around the country and the 30 year trail it took to get them there.
Many countries around the world demand we offset work, many have better skills and as a compnay we have to be prepared to be the absolute best we can in terms of cost, quality etc and use all of them. We have the best company in the world in terms of pay, benefits and jobs I for one don't need a contract to guarentee my job. Let me compete and I'll win every time. Why don't the unions in Seattle wake up and make sure that type of language is in place before someone at the top gets smart and closes Seattle for good. My guess is that decision is already being made. The Engineers up there are just as bad if not worse. Many of us in IDS can't wait until we start resigning these simple little people movers instead of the complex airframes we design.
A boeing senior manager

In reponse to an opinion piece, signed off on by the Editorial Board at The Seattle Times, hailing Judge Coughenour's decision (see Salmon Update below) as a huge victory for salmon, I wrote a letter to the editor(s) published in today's Seattle Times (reprinted here in its entirety):

Counting salmon Hatchery distinction errs The Times Editorial Board claims that "fiddling with the numbers does nothing to nurture and protect wild salmon" ["The administration's odd salmon count," Times, editorial, June 20]. That statement makes more than one tragically incorrect assumption.

First of all, many so-called "wild" or "naturally spawning" populations were all but gone and brought back through the use of hatcheries. Second, once hatchery fish are released into the wild, the offspring between a wild and hatchery fish is considered wild. Third, given that hatcheries have been operating for over 100 years, it is unlikely that there are complete runs of "wild" salmon without a hatchery-born ancestor.

District Judge John Coughenour's ruling is in direct conflict with the opinion Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, issued by Judge Hogan in the District of Oregon in 2001, which stated that both natural and hatchery members of the same population cannot be distinguished for listing purposes. Any further breakdown within a population is not a "species" that qualifies for Endangered Species Act protection.

Pacific Legal Foundation will appeal the latest decision and welcomes review by the 9th Circuit.

This challenge is imperative to uphold the plain language of the Endangered Species Act and to protect citizens from the overreaching and overzealous governmental regulation of private property.

Who's endangered now?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)