Should the U.S. allow a Dubai company to manage American ports? [Archive]

Flagg

02-22-2006, 05:58 AM

Nevermind the security issue, none of us really know the facts anyway. My only problem is I dont think a foreign company should be running our ports in the first place.

One already is, a British based company......it is a UAE based company that wishes to purchase the port infrastructure from them. SO it's my understanding that this is just a case of one foreign company attempting to sell to ANOTHER foreign company.

As far as the UAE goes, Dubai is turning into the ME's version of Hong Kong...it's a regional financial and economic centre of gravity. A lot of business going on in Hong Kong has little, if anything, to do with Hong Kong. Same goes for Singapore, or the Jersey Islands, or the Cayman Islands, or the UAE.

It's a shame this couldn't have been pre-empted with a shell/holding company HQ'd in a less politically/emotionally sensitive area.

I do a considerable amount of import/export and am aware of vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited by naughty people, but that's what effective customs and border security exist to negate.

I think this is a bit embarrassing, and appears to be a heck of a lot of showboating, in my amateur opinion, by folks that want to get free airtime to spout "I'll keep America safe, and most importantly, American!(Pleeeeeeease, vote for me!)"

Members of Congress are like crackheads when it comes to free air time, they surely must know and not care about the dubious foundation of their arguments.

It's just like the hearings on oil prices and the threat of "windfalll oil profit taxes".

It's to show the ignorant folks that they're "working hard".

Just my opinion.

dangerclose

02-22-2006, 01:54 PM

i'd want plenty of assurances beforehand that they will and that means a lot more research about their operations than has been done.

Even more research than would normally be done if it were any european country? You're not racially profiling or stereotyping are you?

It's funny how it's Bush taking the nuanced position while the dems are making the knee jerk, broad generalizations.

Geezah

02-22-2006, 02:39 PM

I'm not that bothered by it, currently (as mentioned above) a British company is running the show, an interested buyer just so happens to be in the UAE, and even though a couple of the 9/11 terrorists came from that country, I don't think that should disqualify legit business's from getting in the game.
How many of the London bombers were born in Britian?

Also, any security would be run by the coastguard.

PaulClift

02-22-2006, 02:42 PM

Well obviously there from an Islamic country so they are going to let in loads of terrorists!

Those 65% of yes votes are small minded, I'd expect more from a quality newspapers readership. If it was the American equivelant of the news of the world I'd understand.

ElHombre

02-22-2006, 02:45 PM

Even more research than would normally be done if it were any european country? You're not racially profiling or stereotyping are you?

It's funny how it's Bush taking the nuanced position while the dems are making the knee jerk, broad generalizations.

'nuanced', huh? he just admitted today he didn't know what was going on. story here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security;_ylt=AoLWFqsUh.OIGyvO_MfY5yus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

dangerclose

02-22-2006, 02:54 PM

'nuanced', huh? he just admitted today he didn't know what was going on. story here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security;_ylt=AoLWFqsUh.OIGyvO_MfY5yus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Nuanced in his defense of the sale.

While the democrats are suddenly clamoring about "national security", think longshoremen's union.

ElHombre

02-22-2006, 03:02 PM

Nuanced in his defense of the sale.

which his staff just admitted that he knew nothing about. perhaps he was too busy coining the term 'great british'.

While the democrats are suddenly clamoring about "national security", think longshoremen's union.

odd, the dems have been talking about the need for increased port security for a few years now while at the same time the administration gets Ds and Fs for it by the 9/11 commission.

Operation Ivy

02-22-2006, 03:45 PM

Nope

Bunch of people all around baltimore are not happy about this at all

Greek soldier

02-22-2006, 04:50 PM

ElHombre

02-22-2006, 04:52 PM

Why not? Protectionism dear Americans?? Why's that? I thought that the laissez-faire, laissez-passe' was favourable...

Had it been like that, then you shouldn't had allowed the merger (actually buy-out) between Daimler-Benz and Chrysler Corp. back in 1998.

germany wasn't found to be a source of suicide bombings. nor was half of the chancellor's family found vacationing with osama in a-stan.

Greek soldier

02-22-2006, 05:04 PM

UAE had two terrorists, the others were from Saudi Arabia. Hmmm....

Well, from what I've understood is that every Arab = terrorists.

BTW, the Arabs have 1.7% of Wall Street, should they be banned from stock markets too??

Ayura

02-22-2006, 05:06 PM

The level of intelligence from some of the users on this thread is speaking volumes.

Greek soldier

02-22-2006, 05:08 PM

Ayura, maybe all Arabs must do what the Saudis did in the US: Take ALL invested capital from whatever market, company etc. and leave forever.

What do you think??

Ayura

02-22-2006, 05:33 PM

Ayura, maybe all Arabs must do what the Saudis did in the US: Take ALL invested capital from whatever market, company etc. and leave forever.

What do you think??

I think that the same is true for the reverse. You mean the US hasn't done these things? What's to stop UAE from doing it.

ed316

02-22-2006, 05:57 PM

I see no problem with this deal. It's a case of guilt by association.

Clarsachier

02-22-2006, 06:51 PM

done business there for many years, I had to think about it a bit.

But yeah, I've no problem with it. I understand though, how a lot of Americans could have missgivings.

Geezah

02-22-2006, 06:55 PM

done business there for many years, I had to think about it a bit.

But yeah, I've no problem with it. I understand though, how a lot of Americans could have missgivings.

We sell Aggie Belts to a customer over there, apart from constantly wanting a friggin discount, and the weird address which includes behind the bird market in it, they always drop the cash.

One of the guys that works at their place mentioned Iran for some god forsaken reason, put the order on hold for 2mths while we had to go through the bloody government to get the all clear. Freight forwarder wouldn't touch it until we did and mentioned they would have to black list us if we went ahead with the shipment prior to getting the government nod:(

SHAM

02-22-2006, 07:29 PM

Nevermind the security issue, none of us really know the facts anyway. My only problem is I dont think a foreign company should be running our ports in the first place.

A danish company operates some of the larger ports, some of the train lines connected to them, a large number of american merchant navy ships and some of the larger american government subsidised sea lift command ships, or RFA without the grey paint as the brits would call it.

Clarsachier

02-22-2006, 07:34 PM

[
QUOTE=Geezah]We sell Aggie Belts to a customer over there, apart from constantly wanting a friggin discount, and the weird address which includes behind the bird market in it, they always drop the cash.

'If they don't get a price reduction through negotiation, they loose face. I had to learn to mark up my deals a few points higher than my bottom line to
give them room to 'talk me down.'

One of the guys that works at their place mentioned Iran for some god forsaken reason, put the order on hold for 2mths while we had to go through the bloody government to get the all clear. Freight forwarder wouldn't touch it until we did and mentioned they would have to black list us if we went ahead with the shipment prior to getting the government nod: ]

The U.S. government has to 'approve' of your UAE client?

Are those 'dual use' Aggie belts or something? p-)

Black list? HA!! From my 25 years in that business, 'something sound's fishy about that forwarder.' Anything's possible concerning TSA, of course. But the 'black listing' is BS. I guess you got all those info from the forwarder in writing?

Midav

02-22-2006, 07:38 PM

i'd want plenty of assurances beforehand that they will and that means a lot more research about their operations than has been done.

It's the same company. It's just trading ownership. No laws or anything is changing afaik. Security will still be the same.

Omaha

02-22-2006, 08:29 PM

Lets get one thing straight.

SECURITY is not being compromised. The Coast Guard and US Customs will still be doing what they have always been doing.

thegman

02-22-2006, 09:06 PM

ElHombre

02-22-2006, 09:49 PM

rep. sue myrick (r-nc) sent a letter to bush stating her opinion of this. it (http://images.redstate.com/images/myrickuae.pdf) reads:

In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO- but HE** NO!

:lol:

Limeyfellow

02-22-2006, 10:11 PM

Considering howmany people in the cabinet (such as John Snow etc) have ties to the company its not surprising that they got the contract, there been lots of calls for cronyism again.

Of course having a UAE company control the 6 most important ports in the US and a major ability to smuggle in things is not a nice idea. Add to that they will also control shipping of military equipment out of other gulf coast ports is not a good idea to some people since the UAE not only had two 9-11 hijackers but also recognised the Taliban, the royal family met with Osama bin Laden and refused to help in tracking him down and even gave him medical treatment there at a US medical facility even though there was a dead or alive order from the president to take care of him, due to the royal family offering their support and protection of al queida.

Mr Gently Benevolent

02-22-2006, 10:40 PM

http://danzigercartoons.com/img/2005/dancart2698.jpg

ogukuo72

02-22-2006, 11:00 PM

Should have sold it to us instead (Singapore that is! We were the other contending bid but lost out by a couple of billion dollars.)

ViktorNavorski

02-22-2006, 11:19 PM

Should have sold it to us instead (Singapore that is! We were the other contending bid but lost out by a couple of billion dollars.)

Meh...don't be greedy, you guys are still in second, ahead of Dubai.

ogukuo72

02-22-2006, 11:49 PM

Me, I'm happy about it. I'm not sure if Singaporean tax payers should help to foot part of the bill, which might very well be the case if the deals come through!

annihilation

02-23-2006, 12:29 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html

1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006/2/22/D8FUHNM00/D8FUHNM00_preview.jpg
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.
In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.
"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.
McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.
"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
___
Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.
http://img.breitbart.com/images/g_dot.gif

Omaha

02-23-2006, 08:32 PM

Heres whats goin down on the streets where i live (all this was from my parents and their friends):
1. Security will be lost, meanin terrorists could get in easier.
2. We dont need to be paying foreign countries that could support terrorists.
3. We cant have other nations operating in the US, it would cause US citizens to lose jobs

But i think theres not an issue with safety and if the company bought/won the contract, then they should get the job. And the Mercedes deal helped the US (or atleast it helped Alabama) alot. It brought jobs and tax money to the US. And i got my car from that plant.

I hope you corrected them...

1. Security is STILL run by our US customs agency and the Coast Guard. The management of the dock simply run the machines, they do nothing else.

2. United Arab Emirates (UAE) have actually helped us a lot in the ME. Second only to Israel and Jordan. Arab doesn't mean terrorist.

3. A large percentage of our ports are operated from other countries. Hell China has a few ports they manage. The workers are American (were else are they going to get workers for a port in Maryland?). And besides, the company that ran these docks WAS an English company. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) bought that company (P&O I think it was called) and now want to resume running it.

Nothing is changing. And to shut our doors to outside investment is going against our very system of business. Open market capitalism.

Considering howmany people in the cabinet (such as John Snow etc) have ties to the company its not surprising that they got the contract, there been lots of calls for cronyism again.

Yeah, when I read that I immediately thought kickback to prior business buddies. I hope that is simply a coincidence (even though there have been more than a few of those...).

ElHombre

02-23-2006, 10:16 PM

United Arab Emirates (UAE) have actually helped us a lot in the ME. Second only to Israel and Jordan. Arab doesn't mean terrorist.

but it should raise a few eyebrows when members of said country's gov't have had contacts with osama. like the time we couldn't hit osama with a missle because half the UAE royal family was with him.

Omaha

02-24-2006, 04:13 PM

but it should raise a few eyebrows when members of said country's gov't have had contacts with osama. like the time we couldn't hit osama with a missle because half the UAE royal family was with him.

Oh, no doubt, and it does. But baring them from doing legitimate business isn't how this country is run. Nor should it.

Investigate, yes. Make sure it is safe, yes. But don’t tie Arab and terrorist together.

ed316

02-24-2006, 04:18 PM

ElHombre

02-24-2006, 04:23 PM

Oh, no doubt, and it does. But baring them from doing legitimate business isn't how this country is run. Nor should it.

Investigate, yes. Make sure it is safe, yes. But don’t tie Arab and terrorist together.

but no investigation seems to have taken place (certainly not the legally mandated 45-day one). or, if it has, then this news seems to have taken a h*** of a lot of people by surprise. the populations and leaders of new york, maryland, and new jersey for starters. i would also like to know why the administration has allowed for some very questionable loopholes in the deal. letting them keep their paperwork out of US courts should be seen as a huge exclamtion point, IMHO.

ed316

02-24-2006, 04:31 PM

but no investigation seems to have taken place (certainly not the legally mandated 45-day one). or, if it has, then this news seems to have taken a h*** of a lot of people by surprise. the populations and leaders of new york, maryland, and new jersey for starters. i would also like to know why the administration has allowed for some very questionable loopholes in the deal. letting them keep their paperwork out of US courts should be seen as a huge exclamtion point, IMHO.

Didn't the deal happen of November of last year? If so why wasn't it a big deal then?

Omaha

02-24-2006, 04:34 PM

Didn't the deal happen of November of last year? If so why wasn't it a big deal then?

No one realized what a big story it would have made.

Clarsachier

02-24-2006, 04:47 PM

I agree with your conclusion, but there are some pertinent points you're wrong about. Mainly this one -

[QUOTE]1. Security is STILL run by our US customs agency and the Coast Guard. The management of the dock simply run the machines, they do nothing else.

1: U.S. customs does not 'run security'.

No. 2: And most importantly, the port managment is fully responsible for compliance with port security. Hiring security staffs, hiring or fireing all staff, following security procedures, ensuring the functionality of security electronics systems.

Acceptance and comfort with this deal shouldn't be on the basis that Dubai Port Operations will not be fully responsible for security.

ElHombre

02-24-2006, 05:23 PM

Didn't the deal happen of November of last year? If so why wasn't it a big deal then?

word of the deal wasn't released until a week ago.

even to the president.

James

02-24-2006, 06:16 PM

U.S. Customs requires that a complete cargo and crew manifest be submitted when incoming vessels are still (I think) 48 hours away (maybe 24 - I can't remember). If anything catches their attention, the coast guard will intercept the ship while it is still hundreds of miles away. Even after a ship unloads, the containers are inspected; some at random, and some because their is a flag of some sort. Random ships aren't able to simply pull into a port and make their way to a pier - it's not like parking a car. There are many layers of security and detail that the people making all this fuss about the deal don't even know about.
As for Bush not knowing... why would he? I'm sure he doesn't know that the NBA is trying to get the Washington State legislature to pony up $200 million to renovate Key Arena in Seattle either. He can't know everything.

Durandal

02-24-2006, 06:35 PM

I'm sure he doesn't know that the NBA is trying to get the Washington State legislature to pony up $200 million to renovate Key Arena in Seattle either. He can't know everything.

But his administration is not responsible for ok'ing this deal nor does the NBA have ANYTHING to do with a Strategic Asset.

A horrible analogy.

Clarsachier

02-24-2006, 06:35 PM

[
QUOTE=James]U.S. Customs requires that a complete cargo and crew manifest be submitted when incoming vessels are still (I think) 48 hours away (maybe 24 - I can't remember). If anything catches their attention, the coast guard will intercept the ship while it is still hundreds of miles away. Even after a ship unloads, the containers are inspected; some at random, and some because their is a flag of some sort. Random ships aren't able to simply pull into a port and make their way to a pier - it's not like parking a car. There are many layers of security and detail that the people making all this fuss about the deal don't even know about.

That's not particularly encouraging. A nicely prepared manifest is something any teenager can (and does) produce. U.S. ports are w i d e open.

From 1-3 hundred thousand containers are processed through major U.S. ports on a daily basis.

As for Bush not knowing... why would he? I'm sure he doesn't know that the NBA is trying to get the Washington State legislature to pony up $200 million to renovate Key Arena in Seattle either. He can't know everything.[/QUOTE]

The problem's the circumvention of the normal procedure of validation a port controller should be subject to. The administration bypassed that just like they bypass normal government accounting procedures so Haliburton got
'no bid' contracts.

Even though I havn't any problem with the UAE company in question, I have a big problem with the administration's neglecting these procedures.

Geezah

02-24-2006, 06:40 PM

We sell Aggie Belts to a customer over there, apart from constantly wanting a friggin discount, and the weird address which includes behind the bird market in it, they always drop the cash.

'If they don't get a price reduction through negotiation, they loose face. I had to learn to mark up my deals a few points higher than my bottom line to
give them room to 'talk me down.'

They got a fairly good deal, they wanted the same construction belst that John Deere use on some of their older machines, they wanted Polyester cord over Aramid(Kevlar) they then claimed that the belst were failing. I asked they send samples of the failed belts into one of our plants for testing with RGA and UPS number. Still waiting for them
Anyway, they wanted a discount ont he second part of an already inhouse order, that was not happening, we can negotiate on their next order, but the price will be close to a 60%GM;)

One of the guys that works at their place mentioned Iran for some god forsaken reason, put the order on hold for 2mths while we had to go through the bloody government to get the all clear. Freight forwarder wouldn't touch it until we did and mentioned they would have to black list us if we went ahead with the shipment prior to getting the government nod: ]

The U.S. government has to 'approve' of your UAE client?

Are those 'dual use' Aggie belts or something?

Black list? HA!! From my 25 years in that business, 'something sound's fishy about that forwarder.' Anything's possible concerning TSA, of course. But the 'black listing' is BS. I guess you got all those info from the forwarder in writing?

Yeah, because IRAN was mentioned in an email to DHL/Danzas over in UAE, it started the alarms bells a ringing, with IRAN being a sanctioned country, we have to make sure nothing suspect gets in, we had to go through the Guberment, tell them what we make and what application our product can be used in.
On the blacklisting, DHL/Danzas said that if we went ahead and proceeded with the shipment using a different forwarder, then they would have to let the powers that be know, the only way we could proceed from that point on was to get the all clear.
Also, I've dealt with DHL/Danzas(this particular office) for years now, so I know and trust them, and as far as black listing, it was nothing personal on their front, just doing their job.
I have all the emails saved on our server because of all the communications back and forth, I had to have the customer state that our goods would not be sold onto Syria, Iraq, Cuba and Iran, it was a real eye opener, don't want to go through that again.

James

02-24-2006, 07:11 PM

But his administration is not responsible for ok'ing this deal nor does the NBA have ANYTHING to do with a Strategic Asset.

A horrible analogy.

Perhaps so... My point was that Bush is held responsible for EVERYTHING. There's a whole cabinet that has a Secretary of Defense, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Homeland Security, etc.

It just gets old. Bah, nevermind.

Clarsachier

02-24-2006, 07:12 PM

They got a fairly good deal, they wanted the same construction belst that John Deere use on some of their older machines, they wanted Polyester cord over Aramid(Kevlar) they then claimed that the belst were failing. I asked they send samples of the failed belts into one of our plants for testing with RGA and UPS number. Still waiting for them Anyway, they wanted a discount ont he second part of an already inhouse order, that was not happening, we can negotiate on their next order, but the price will be close to a 60%GM;)

Gotta love those guys!

Yeah, because IRAN was mentioned in an email to DHL/Danzas over in UAE, it started the alarms bells a ringing, with IRAN being a sanctioned country, we have to make sure nothing suspect gets in, we had to go through the Guberment, tell them what we make and what application our product can be used in.

That makes sense. Danzas had to protect their interests which are much more exposed than yours.

[
QUOTE]On the blacklisting, DHL/Danzas said that if we went ahead and proceeded with the shipment using a different forwarder, then they would have to let the powers that be know, the only way we could proceed from that point on was to get the all clear.

How would they know you sent it if you didn't use them? Besides, somebody mentioned Iran to them not you.

Also, I've dealt with DHL/Danzas(this particular office) for years now, so I know and trust them, and as far as black listing, it was nothing personal on their front, just doing their job.

IMO, this is above and beyond 'their job.' After all, these are agricultural
machine parts.

I have all the emails saved on our server because of all the communications back and forth, I had to have the customer state that our goods would not be sold onto Syria, Iraq, Cuba and Iran, it was a real eye opener, don't want to go through that again.[/QUOTE]

Sounds to me like it was Danza's (not my favorite forwarder) that had their butt on the line and they put the onus on you by threatening to rat you out.
(A typical forwarder scenario.)

I'd get pretty pissed. But I don't think you have much choice but to do what you did. Anyway - Not my business. But interesting. Thanks for sharing.

It's ironic though, your UAE buyer can sell your shipment to anybody he wants
out of Jebel Ali FTZ. Then they can load it onto a dhow, along with the hot F14 parts p-) , and sail on over the gulf.

James

02-24-2006, 07:15 PM

That's not particularly encouraging. A nicely prepared manifest is something any teenager can (and does) produce. U.S. ports are w i d e open.

From 1-3 hundred thousand containers are processed through major U.S. ports on a daily basis.

U.S. ports are not wide open. There are many things that are done to secure them that are not public knowledge, or are not in the spotlight.

Here's a little picture: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml

Here are ports overseas where U.S. Customs works, inspecting cargo BEFORE it departs the country of origin:
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver, Canada
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Le Havre, Marseille, France
Bremerhaven, Hamburg, Germany
Antwerp, Zeebrugge, Belgium
Singapore
Yokohama, Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe Japan
Hong Kong
Gothenburg, Sweden
Felixstowe, Liverpool, Thamesport, Tilbury, and Southampton, U.K.
Genoa, La Spezia, Livorno, Naples, Gioia Tauro, Italy
Pusan, Korea
Durban, South Africa
Port Klang, Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia
Piraeus, Greece
Algeciras, Spain
Laem Chabang, Thailand
Shanghai , Shenzhen China
Kaohsiung Taiwan
Santos, Brazil
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Lisbon, Portugal

ed316

02-24-2006, 07:17 PM

Don't be suprise if UAE is not that helpful in the war on terrorism if the deal is blocked.

Omaha

02-24-2006, 07:49 PM

Don't be suprise if UAE is not that helpful in the war on terrorism if the deal is blocked.

This isn't some billion dollar earth shattering deal. Matter of fact, the reason no American company was interested was because the real money isn’t even in running the harbors (it's what the harbors move around). Besides, it isn't like the UAE has anything to do with this other than being the home country of this company.

But, your point still stands, why give them any reason to ruffle feathers.

remo williams

02-24-2006, 09:26 PM

watching msnbc right now and there's a story talking about how the "origional 6 ports" may actually be closer to 21..after googleing i found this...
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207614.htm
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,117283&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
i wasn't fond of the idea before,but with all these somewhat significant details emerging...it's only reinforcing the dislike.

Clarsachier

02-24-2006, 10:28 PM

[QUOTE=James]U.S. ports are not wide open. There are many things that are done to secure them that are not public knowledge, or are not in the spotlight.

What is known is that only 2% of inbound seafreight containers are inspected.
(and that doesn't mean physically.)

Here's a little picture: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml

And less than 1 percent of this 2%, are inspected in these foreign ports. Most are inspected after arrival.

I don't think too many people see much security in that.

Enigma

02-24-2006, 11:36 PM

I can’t find a problem in this investment. I mean if it was Iran attempting to negotiate a deal than I see a potential for an amber alert. The Saudi Prince along with an American investor now own the Fairmont hotels in CANADA!!

Durandal

02-25-2006, 12:18 AM

Perhaps so... My point was that Bush is held responsible for EVERYTHING. There's a whole cabinet that has a Secretary of Defense, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Homeland Security, etc.

It just gets old. Bah, nevermind.

This thinking kills me...

Its a cabinet he ƒucking chose. He IS THIER boss...he is ƒucking accountable.

I am tired of excuses from his people and those the like of you that somehow think that a boss, a leader is not responsible for $hit that happens on their watch. Where people say "it my responsibility" yet all they are are empty words and status quo.

You want to hear an appropriate analogy? Well here's one.

Its like expecting Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling to know Enron was tanking...I mean, can we hold him accountable for everything? I mean, how ridiculous is that? Why blame them?

ƒucking idiocy.

deagle

02-25-2006, 03:45 AM

I don't really understand the thinking behind it. The best I can come up with, is if the US at least has some influence in that region, it should deter terrorists, forcing them on the move to somewhere else (improving us interecepting them and tracking them, surveillance on them etc...). Problem is, we'll be relying on their "partnership/cooperation", which I don't think is dependable. just my .02

Bush didn't to a good job explaining it, as I first heard on the cnn liveupdate.

ViktorNavorski

02-25-2006, 06:10 AM

Its like expecting Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling to know Enron was tanking...I mean, can we hold him accountable for everything? I mean, how ridiculous is that? Why blame them?

ƒucking idiocy.
How about this example, I think it was MSNBC or one of the other news channel that did a short piece on Bernake and how he was more low key than Greenspan. Surprisingly, they went around the Hill asking Reps and Senators what not and more than half of them don't even know who Bernake is and this is in their own backyard. If the economy was to tank tomorrow, who would you blame. You're thinking of the Beltway as some sort of fluid dynamic in information management, but that has never been the case, it is called a bureaucracy for a reason.

Omaha

02-25-2006, 01:12 PM

Its like expecting Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling to know Enron was tanking

No, it would be like Ken Lay or Skilling having to know a copier broke down on the 6th floor 5 mins after it happened. You're reaching here, cut the crap.

These ports were operated by a foreign British company, then DP bought that company. There was nothing for the President to even be concerned about. Let alone know about the ****en thing.

The people that really know the circumstances of operating a port, don't have a problem with this deal. Security ISN'T an issue. Customs and the Coast Guard are taking care of it, like ALWAYS regardless of management.

But I guess facts never do matter in these sort of debates...

Para

02-25-2006, 01:52 PM

Should America own any thing out side their country and if so why, as this is basically the same question

Durandal

02-25-2006, 03:15 PM

No, it would be like Ken Lay or Skilling having to know a copier broke down on the 6th floor 5 mins after it happened. You're reaching here, cut the crap.

Now you're grasping. Sadly so...comparing National Security decisions to something so mundane. rofl

The people that really know the circumstances of operating a port, don't have a problem with this deal. Security ISN'T an issue. Customs and the Coast Guard are taking care of it, like ALWAYS regardless of management.

But I guess facts never do matter in these sort of debates...

Actually, if you have looked at my comments on this and other threads, I have never argued AGAINST ownership by a foreign nation or company. I HAVE often pointed out that Bush dropped the ball in his understanding of how problematic the situation would be and SHOULD have been on top of it.

Personally, I think the U.S. should be in ownership of all national strategic assets either through government control or a responsible, U.S. held company.

But that is neither here nor their.

Clarsachier

02-25-2006, 03:35 PM

Unfortunately, there's no organization in the U.S. who are efficient enough
to turn a profit managing large int'l ports.

The few comparable U.S. organizations don't have to be efficient. They just have to cough up the bucks for guys like Abramson to 'influence' the U.S. government to get them their allocation of 'pork pie' no bid contracts.

That being said, I'm sure Haliburton would love to take a shot at it...

Mastermind

02-25-2006, 03:42 PM

My Office isone block from a major rail line. Every day, I see ten to twenty trains pass, most are all container cargo and just about every one of them are chinese company logs. That is Communits chinese owned. The major stock holders for Chinese affiliates are Chinese military operations. The UAE sale is just one more multi-national doing what corporations do...expanding! Corporation seldome, if ever, have any national loyalties...their loyalties are strictly to the stockholders and nothing more. I have absolutely no problem with a UAE corporation operating these ports as I have no problem with Lebanese or Chinese, or Russian registered ships entering US harbors with 125,000 GT of cargo containers being off loaded by US owned cranes. What the heck is the difference?

Greek soldier

02-25-2006, 03:48 PM

The difference Mastermid is that some Americans don't want to hear about "Arabs"... And this buy-out is good for the US Economy, 'cos since 2002 some $200,000,000,000 invested capital from Arabs has left the US (say it NYSE or Bond Markets or just deposits). Bush is now trying to bring back a portion of them again in the US.

Clarsachier

02-25-2006, 03:54 PM

That brings up another point. China Ocean Shipping (COSCO) wanted to open it's own terminal in L.A. a few years back. Due to the tremendous amount of trade they carry between China and the U.S..

LA/LGB terminals services being the last stronghold of mafia-like unionism, charge exhorbitantly. From $800 to $600 just to offload one container and slap a set of wheels on it. (takes one minute max.) In some cases, these charges exceed the price to bring the container from China!~!

Obviously, COSCO could save/make millions avoiding that. Well predicably, the
politicians were on that like stink on sh*t. Since COSCO is nationalized, the rational was that COSCO was a part of the Chinese military. As if the (miniscule) U.S. merchant fleets arn't nationalized!!

So COSCO wasn't able to establish their port and still pay the huge fees to the unions. Which are passed on to the unwitting U.S. consumer.

Rant over.

Greek soldier

02-25-2006, 03:58 PM

Well predicably, the
politicians were on that like stink on sh*t.Since COSCO is nationalized, the rational was that COSCO was a part of the Chinese military

WTF?? Oh, man... Thank God here in Greece our politicians at least are not this stupid. COSCO wants to buy a Terminal and built a new Logisitcs Centre in the Port of Thessaloniki. :)

Omaha

02-25-2006, 06:31 PM

Now you're grasping. Sadly so...comparing National Security decisions to something so mundane. rofl

This isn't a matter of National Security. THERE IS NO RISK. That is why Bush never needed to even be briefed on it.

Actually, if you have looked at my comments on this and other threads, I have never argued AGAINST ownership by a foreign nation or company. I HAVE often pointed out that Bush dropped the ball in his understanding of how problematic the situation would be and SHOULD have been on top of it.

Personally, I think the U.S. should be in ownership of all national strategic assets either through government control or a responsible, U.S. held company.

But that is neither here nor their.

Well, that isn't how this country is run. Any business can invest in our nation and do what ever it is they want to. That is free market capitalism. That is what this country was built on. Simple as that.

ElHombre

02-25-2006, 08:53 PM

This isn't a matter of National Security. THERE IS NO RISK. That is why Bush never needed to even be briefed on it.

there's no risk in letting a country with known ties to a man responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people taking charge of a couple dozen ports? even the republican congress isn't buying that line of BS. and no one who's watched this administration in action believes that it has done a good job of vetting this purchase, either. h***, they couldn't even be bothered to do the legally mandated 45-day review.

and 'never needed to even be briefed on it'?!? for a guy whose political sucess has depended on claiming to being the only one able to 'defend america from terror', he'd have to be awfully trusting of his underlings to take their word that everything's okay. especially given their collective ineptitude.

either bush is in charge of his administration or he needs to head on back to crawford after returning the pay he's recieved from the gov't for the too many years he's claimed to be POTUS.

EDIT: missed a zero.

Omaha

02-25-2006, 10:49 PM

there's no risk in letting a country with known ties to a man responsible for the deaths of 3,00 people taking charge of a couple dozen ports?

And Bin Laden vacationed in Sweden in the 70's. Don't confuse the country with the company. Richard reed was from England, should we have shut down P&O after we arrested the shoe bomber?

A terrorist is a terrorist, by your reasoning we should have. Not to mention pull all our resources out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, AND Jordan, because we all know Zarquawi is Jordanian.

Unless you can show me where UAE activity helped Bin Laden after 9/11, or helped terrorists period, your point it moot.

Fact is, the UAE is a trusted ally in the war on Terror. With so many few real friends in that neck of the woods, I suggest we not preemptively smash a few toes with the hammer of racism.

Besides, I guaran-fvcking-tee, that if a Democrat was the president, you would be giddy like a school girl in the support of your fellow partisan in the white house.

ElHombre

02-26-2006, 01:05 AM

Unless you can show me where UAE activity helped Bin Laden after 9/11, or helped terrorists period, your point it moot.

haven't you been keeping up with the news? let's take a lookee here: half the UAE royal family was vacationing with osama in a-stan, two of the 9/11 terrs were from the UAE, and they received financing from there according to the 9/11 commission.

Fact is, the UAE is a trusted ally in the war on Terror. With so many few real friends in that neck of the woods, I suggest we not preemptively smash a few toes with the hammer of racism.

charges of racism coming from people who have perpetrated the biggest strategic blunder by their indiscriminate use of hatred-baiting are going to fall flat. either islamist terrorism is the biggest danger civilization has ever faced (the justification used for all actions since 9/11) and we must be wary or you can take those charges of racism and shove them up your a$$. if we have few friends in that neck of the woods it's because you and your ilk have agressively supported and defended policies which have caused that condition, a condition all the more tragic considering the wealth of support the US had immeadiately after 9/11.

Besides, I guaran-fvcking-tee, that if a Democrat was the president, you would be giddy like a school girl in the support of your fellow partisan in the white house.

hardly. if there was a dem or anyone with half a brain in the white house right now, we wouldn't be having anywhere near as many problems around the world and at home as we do right now. it comes down to a simple matter of competence. bush and his administration are not competent, they have never been competent, have no interest in becoming competent, and don't have the faintest idea of how to pull their heads out of their collective rectum.

i guaran-fvcking-tee that any other administration could do any worse than the bunch of idiots in charge right now.

ViktorNavorski

02-26-2006, 01:32 AM

Well lordy, if all these demagogues care so much about security and are so inform, should have subsidize or federalize SSA Marine for the bidding, too bad they were just as uninformed, but sure as heck very opportunistic with rhetorics now.

I wonder of Hillary Clinton is aware that the UAE is not the only Middle Eastern country operating ports in New York.

Omaha

02-26-2006, 02:17 AM

Hot damn, a good old fashioned debate.

haven't you been keeping up with the news? let's take a lookee here: half the UAE royal family was vacationing with osama in a-stan, two of the 9/11 terrs were from the UAE, and they received financing from there according to the 9/11 commission.

Link to a credible source on the first blip of knowledge if you would please.

Two huh? And again, the shoe bomber was from England, Zarquawi is from Jordan, and Timothy Mcvay is from...where the hell was he from again...maybe that will come to me later.

And finally link to a credible source on the third item.

Thanks.

charges of racism coming from people who have perpetrated the biggest strategic blunder by their indiscriminate use of hatred-baiting are going to fall flat. either islamist terrorism is the biggest danger civilization has ever faced (the justification used for all actions since 9/11) and we must be wary or you can take those charges of racism and shove them up your a$$. if we have few friends in that neck of the woods it's because you and your ilk have agressively supported and defended policies which have caused that condition, a condition all the more tragic considering the wealth of support the US had immeadiately after 9/11.

Oh, yeah that's right because Syria and Iran were our best buddies half a decade ago huh? And not to mention how much we were loved in Egypt. You make me laugh.

Wealth of support? From who? Where inside Arabia? Oh that's right, I guess the great state of Iran has a few thousand troops in Afghanistan fighting the taliban right?

hardly. if there was a dem or anyone with half a brain in the white house right now, we wouldn't be having anywhere near as many problems around the world and at home as we do right now. it comes down to a simple matter of competence. bush and his administration are not competent, they have never been competent, have no interest in becoming competent, and don't have the faintest idea of how to pull their heads out of their collective rectum.

Yet...we saw fit for him to be elected not once but twice. And let the Republicans control the congress. I guess he isn't all that incompetent now is he?

Sour grapes maybe?

i guaran-fvcking-tee that any other administration could do any worse than the bunch of idiots in charge right now.

More partisan bull**** from the good old man from Texas. Somethings never change.

Zoomie

02-26-2006, 02:43 AM

I wonder of Hillary Clinton is aware that the UAE is not the only Middle Eastern country operating ports in New York.
I bet she could really care less, this is just another political stunt by her. Funny how she didn't mention how her husband got paid more than $300k by the evil arabs in the UAE (<--sarcasm) For doing a 40 minute speech over there.

annihilation

02-26-2006, 02:48 AM

Clarsachier

02-26-2006, 01:21 PM

Are you okay with the fact that a Chinese company manages the Panama Canal? 1000 times more U.S. commerce goes through there than would be affected by the COSCO Long Beach deal.

Durandal

02-26-2006, 02:08 PM

Are you okay with the fact that a Chinese company manages the Panama Canal? 1000 times more U.S. commerce goes through there than would be affected by the COSCO Long Beach deal.

Each year the Panama Canal handles 203 MILLION tons of cargo. I'll search for the amount handled through COSCO Long Beach. If it handles 203 000 thousand tons or less than you are correct.

Edit: 51 MILLION tons. This includes imports and exports.

Assuming EVERY one of those 203 Million tons were from the U.S., which they are not, you are looking at just a little over 4 times...not 1000. Just letting you know...

Bombtrack

02-26-2006, 02:10 PM

They took our jobs!

Clarsachier

02-26-2006, 02:16 PM

They took our jobs!

Your jobs were 'outsourced' by the U.S. government.

IMO, this was possible even necessary due to the greed of the unions.

Durandal

02-26-2006, 02:20 PM

They took our jobs!

A good chunk of jobs are taken by other Americans, usually going to a non-union from a union facility.

Clarsachier

02-26-2006, 02:26 PM

Each year the Panama Canal handles 203 MILLION tons of cargo. I'll search for the amount handled through COSCO Long Beach. If it handles 203 000 thousand tons or less than you are correct.

Tonnage is not the criteria used in the calculation. TEU is the measurement used to calculate volume of traffic.

TEU = 20 foot container equivalent. So, a 40 foot container = 2 TEU.

BTW, the current Panama canal fee is US$ 165. per container. Consider that large container ships can carry 1000-3000 containers.

Bombtrack

02-26-2006, 02:52 PM

I thought I'd lighten the mood with a TV reference..

Durandal

02-26-2006, 02:53 PM

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-26-2006, 03:04 PM

I find it interesting that the nation that wants free globalised trade is so outraged by a foriegn firm owning something in America.

Or does free trade only exist when it's to America's benifit?

:)

Clarsachier

02-26-2006, 03:12 PM

2005 figures....

Long Beach (import and export) 4,567,473 TEU's

Panama Canal (traffic) 5,000, 000 (expected estimate given by the PAC)

Maybe I am missing something here...

Just learned a lot about TEUs in the last 15min. Interesting.

I think I know what it is ;

In reference to the COSCO LGB terminal, it was a container terminal.

The panama canal 'tonnage' will include POL, metals, vehicle ships, bulk, ect.
That's why I can say 'the volume' going throught that canal is so much greater.

Also, how many of those 4,567,473 Los Angeles TEU's were COSCO's?

Anyway the context of this discussion is security. So you have to take into consideration
the military's usage of the Panaman canal as well as commerce tonnage to assess strategic value.

Personally, I think the $$$ of trade is more interesting to discuss.

annihilation

02-26-2006, 05:51 PM

I find it interesting that the nation that wants free globalised trade is so outraged by a foriegn firm owning something in America.

Or does free trade only exist when it's to America's benifit?

:)

Not everyone in america is for globalization. It has its good and it has it bad. But I don't think the postive out weight the negative at the current time.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-26-2006, 06:03 PM

How so?

Wether ports are foreign owned or not. The government revenue from taxes remains the same.

annihilation

02-26-2006, 07:28 PM

How so?

Wether ports are foreign owned or not. The government revenue from taxes remains the same.

You talking about a owning the port or globalization?

I generally don't think any nation's port should be owned by a foreign entity, much like a few other entities. That being said, this is a legit purchase from one from company to another. (Also that company is not a free entity as it is own by the government of UAE.)

On globalization, I think it has great potential to up lift the world but it also has a great potential to bring the world down also. Workers and the enviroment in develop nations are protected by laws. In developing nations, they lack the laws or unions to protect the workers or the enviroment. So to make that item at an ever cheaper price, they get cheated. So far I don't think globalization is being used in a completely positive way.

Omaha

02-26-2006, 11:07 PM

Nobody can buy a port. They can manage it.

And to resist Globalization would be folly. It is going to happen whether or not we fight it or lead it.

annihilation

02-26-2006, 11:39 PM

Nobody can buy a port. They can manage it.

And to resist Globalization would be folly. It is going to happen whether or not we fight it or lead it.

Problem we aren't leading it in a proper way.

ogukuo72

02-26-2006, 11:59 PM

Like I said, let us do it! Singapore is a trusted ally of the United States! (Just ignore the fact that UAE is a trusted ally of the US too, and is critical to US geopolitical position in the Middle East.)

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-27-2006, 12:19 AM

So far I don't think globalization is being used in a completely positive way.

I couldent agree more.

The biggest problem with globalisation is that both developing and developed nations are getting screwed for the benifit of maybe 1000 people in the world.

Frogg

02-27-2006, 02:12 AM

How come no one was freaking out when DP (this same company) acquired the international terminal business of CSX World Terminals (http://arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=55840&d=10&m=12&y=2004) (largest rail freight network in the eastern US a couple years ago?

How come no one was freaking out when an Arab Kuwaiti company started running the port of Newark (http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_19_corner-archive.asp#090950 ) in New York?

How come no one was freaking out about Saudi Arabia operating nine US ports (
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/26/124049.shtml?s=ic
)? Saudi's company NSCSA (http://www.nscsaamerica.com/profile.htm#NSCSA%20Value%20Added%20Servic%20es).

Why now?

ogukuo72

02-27-2006, 02:34 AM

The media got bored with the story about **** Cheney shooting his hunting partner. :)

Frogg

02-27-2006, 04:24 AM

The media got bored with the story about **** Cheney shooting his hunting partner. :)

Aaaahhhhhhhh! Controversy, Crap, and Confusion. (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006380.php)

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cccp/Newsweek2-thumb.gif

ogukuo72

02-27-2006, 04:59 AM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cccp/CCC-Press2-thumb.jpg
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cccp/CCCpress_sm-thumb.jpg
These two ain't bad either.:)

annihilation

02-27-2006, 09:15 AM

I couldent agree more.

The biggest problem with globalisation is that both developing and developed nations are getting screwed for the benifit of maybe 1000 people in the world.

Thats pretty much right. Those jobs leaving industrial nations "to be more competitive" or going to nations with no laws set to protect the workers or the enviroment. What a great way to around laws of your nation by just moving plant to another nation with no laws or controls. So not only do you burn the worker for the develope world, you make no real progress for those in the developing nation either. There some exceptions but they are rare, atleast in the manufacturing world. As much as unions are not as needed in develop worlds, they are really needed in the developing world.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-27-2006, 09:26 AM

Unions are need period to stop this type of economic movements.

What can't a person buy with 3 billion as opposed to 5 billion?

And like a said there is about 1000 people on this planet that control 90% of all the worlds wealth.

Yet there are people starving, living in poverty, recieving inadequate health care and inadequate education.

There needs to be a global union movement with real power if we are going to take the full globalisation route to avoid both developing nations and developed nations getting screwed.

Durandal

02-27-2006, 10:09 AM

Unions are need period to stop this type of economic movements.

Huh?

You can look at the U.S. and see that Unions have helped cause the migration of jobs. Just a part of it of course, but a part none the less.

Look at the auto industry for instance. Most of (if not all) the Asian car manufacturers are without a union and pay competitive wages. They do not allow a union to strong arm the company into making agreements that are bad for it.

In fact, I'd argue that more companies would be MORE willing to have jobs in the U.S. if they were sans Union.

Unions were a necessary too in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with the lack of appropriate labor laws and operation laws, but now, they have a they simply form an organization and political role, more than anything else, but still claim to have the "worker" in mind, when what they should be doing is trying to work well with a company to avoid job loss...

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-27-2006, 10:19 AM

Disagree.

Who is to say that companies will not start working to lower wages, conditions, entitliments and work saftey once the threat of union industrial action is gone?

Australia has sharply curbed union power last year which will come into effect in a couple of weeks. Already 1 company has maid moved to cut the wages by 5%, new starters wages by 20%, lowered the amount of sick days and removed rostered days off in their new agreement.

And because this company is critical to the automotive industry here. the unions will no longer be able to take industial action over the issue.

There is the evidence there to what companies can and will do once the threat industrial action is removed.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-27-2006, 10:20 AM

If you want to see how important unions are. Watch Australia very closely over the next 12 months.

Mark my words there is going to be problems. Major problems.

Both constitionally, legally and as a matter of principle.

Durandal

02-27-2006, 10:23 AM

Who is to say that companies will not start working to lower wages, conditions, entitliments and work saftey once the threat of union industrial action is gone?

Current national laws that prevent such abuse and of course a history of operation that can be seen at plants owned by Toyota, Honda, etc...

Greek soldier

02-27-2006, 10:23 AM

Here in Greece labour Unions in 2002 were saying NOTHING of the textile companies that were moving to the Balkans and now they blame the current government for the unemployment!!!

No. Unions here in Greece are like a brothel: They give a sh!t about the workers. They only care for their own pockets...

Durandal

02-27-2006, 10:26 AM

Which, speaking in general terms, is the same in most places....the Unions are just as big business as the big business they claim to fight against...

The irony simply drips...

Clarsachier

02-27-2006, 10:45 AM

Perhaps there are unions that take care that their industry is competitive and economically viable. I don't know but I doubt it. I know of too many cases where their greed has destroyed their own industry.

The textbook example is how they destroyed the American steel industry.

Now, I think that unions' greed has helped destroy the U.S. auto industry.

When forklift drivers (like dockworkers at LGB/LA harbors) are making $100K per year, it's obvious that that industry is not economically viable and is sustained artifically.

annihilation

02-27-2006, 12:56 PM

Unions were a necessary too in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with the lack of appropriate labor laws and operation laws, but now, they have a they simply form an organization and political role, more than anything else, but still claim to have the "worker" in mind, when what they should be doing is trying to work well with a company to avoid job loss...

Wouldn't you say that much of the developing world is like the early 1900s compared to labor laws and operation laws? I think the Unions in the USA have gone overboard and need to be trimmed down (cost and such). But thats another topic in itself.

Omaha

02-27-2006, 07:04 PM

Drop the union crap Minardiau, you are out gunned every single time you bring the issue up.

The AFLCIO is nothing but a mouth piece for the Democratic party, not to mention the simple fact of raising wages means larger union dues. Of coarse they are gonna fight for every damn dollar, that means they can have more too.

BloodyTalon

02-27-2006, 07:18 PM

I wish I could take back my vote. At first I was against the deal but now I realise that there's nothing wrong with it.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

02-27-2006, 07:25 PM

remo williams

02-27-2006, 07:39 PM

Current national laws that prevent such abuse Toyota, ...
which is why many companies are looking to shut down us plants and move to one of the lower wage developing co's.where workers are just happy to have a job and will work ignorant to the inherrent job risks associated with their new job.ceos' mgs etc could give a flying fcuk about worker saftey in these countries..they can't however win that arguement here.for example the revelation on the new dangers fo chromium contamination that were revealed last week.to co's it's just another safeguard they'll have to pay for that overseas they would not.

Here in Greece labour Unions in 2002 were saying NOTHING of the textile companies that were moving to the Balkans and now they blame the current government for the unemployment!!!
No. Unions here in Greece are like a brothel: They give a sh!t about the workers. They only care for their own pockets...

i agree but the problem with that is unions are run by people.who can become flawed/tainted corrupted just like any other formal organization.the ideal,the purpose behind the necessity of having a union have been forgotten to a greater extent.make more,take more,give less to those who support you.it's even so bad in some cases that union officials believe they don't need the workers they're supposed to protect,yet happily take dues from.they've forgotten who they work for and why. ceo's /mgmt promptly use this as arguement for not needing unions and further demonizing them.if the unions got back to the basics(protect the worker,compromise,force if necessary etc,and mgmt would 1 use common sense.2 get past this cheaper is better,(i can tell you in many cases it's def not)and 3 everyone get their heads out of their asses and get thier shyte together things would be better off and more profitable for all...just my .02

Omaha

02-28-2006, 12:19 AM

Did you know that union dues help provide the following?

Monetory relief for workers on prolonged strike action

legal services to employees in disuputes/new contract discussions ect which are not cheap.

Unions were also soley responsible for the 40 hour week, holidays, sickleave, long service leave, occupational health and safety and indirectly caused companies to invest in new technologies.

If you get screwed over by an employer bad luck I guess?

Oh, well of coarse they would like the members to strike as long as possible. THAT INCREASES the wages and/or benefits most of them don't even deserve to begin with. Which then means they can charge heavier Union Dues, feeding their own greed.

It is in the employer's best interest to keep their members happy. Happy workers make great products. If you treat your employees badly, they leave, going to one of your competitors if the labor is skilled. Which means you need to replace those works with less skilled persons. Which means your product suffers. We see the same trend with 'scab' works during a strike. Not to mention the inefficiency of a union shop is appalling.

There is absolutely no reason unions have to be as big as they are.

You see on a daily basis with companies like GM and Ford. The unions smother the companies. The un heard of retirement pensions, and daily wages are outrageous. Yet, you see companies like Toyota, companies without union labor excel in the same field.

Unions are a cancer today, simple as that. From the auto industry to the airline companies. Hell even teacher unions are ****.

That being said, I'd love to be in a union. Do nothing all day, get a 2 hour lunch break, and collect 21 dollars an hour. Gotta ride the gravy train into the ground when the company folds though.