No, but Obama appointed Puchala, and she mediated our negotiations. That's the next best thing. The results speak for themselves.

Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas. Yes, it was a bad idea that Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall. To make up for that mistake we have Frank-Dodd now. The irony is you have people blaming one party for creating an issue, and when they try to create new laws to make up for the shortcomings they are heavily resisted.
The Republicans have total control right now. So we should see some legislation that improves Frank-Dodd to prevent the next financial crises right?

As far as NAI goes you believe it was simple argument in our favor. As with most things it was not. While I agree wirh our position I can see the risk in us entering into litigation with the EU. The major airlines of this nation have major stakes in Atlantic flying. Add to all this, Boeing lobbying against US. If Obama wanted to he could have let this happened a lot sooner than it did. He waited as long as he could.

If Obama was so bad for union labor, and this administration will be more favorable that is really exciting because I think Obama helped out unions more than his predecessor. How will you measure Trump's success for union airline pilots? At the end of his term we can compare what happened to what you expected. Just let us know what your expectations are.

Do you guys have to ruin EVERY single thread with politics?

Just keep it about 17-07v.

Create another thread about the Politics of Airlines.

If Memory serves me right hiring and recalls had began at a good pace back in 06-08, only to be stopped by age 65 and $142 barrel oil. And before you claim that Obama saved the economy, let remember he spent more than all others presidents combined and yielded the weakest GDP growth since the depression. Pretty poor ROI if you ask me. But I digress, we've agreed today the contract is good and hiring looks to continue for the foreseeable future. You postulate it was in due in large part to the mediator. I'd say she did her job by following traditional pattern bargaining. I think Delta's post-merger contract had more to do with us being able to raise the bar.

You're supposing that either party is friendly to organized labor. They're not, their all beholden to corporate money like little crack addicted hwores. None more so than HRC, but that's a moot point.

I am not supposing, I am using past actions as facts. Which party has made the union election process more fair? Which party has pushed for "right to work"?

Americans. According to Gallup, 71% of Americans support "right to work" laws and only 22% oppose them. The rest are undecided.

That means both parties support them.

I disagree with Gallup as its a false pretense. National Right to Work campaigns are foisted up as just one eyelash shy God and Apple Pie. They are very creatively written, particularly once they appear on the ballot which makes them look harmless and beneficial. When I read the ballot in my home state last year, I had to read it twice, that's how carefully worded it was. Only a crooked attorney could come up with something so sleazy and deceptive. In fact they are there to simply to destroy unions, lower wages, give worker bees less career options, retirement choices etc, etc, etc. I submit that if more people who polled as supporting NRTW laws actually knew more about them, that number would easily drop by a third, if not more. Further, I'd bet cash that at least a third could not tell you accurately what the damn thing meant five minutes after they left the polling booth.

What a farce. The don't change anyones "right to work" nor impair anyones ability to get a job. They simply enable people to receive full union benefits without paying for them. Just like SCABS. They are designed for one thing and nothing more, to destroy organized labor.

The question was who authors and pushes this type of legislation?

Hear, hear!