JTD I really appreciate your response and welcome your change in tenor. I put a lot of effort into double checking the facts that I do not have committed to memory, so that any numerical data I was reporting was as factual as possible. Thanks for letting me know that my time and effort was not wasted. The most frustrating part of this dispute to me is seeing opinions formed based on information I know to be false. To do the same would make me a hypocrite. Everything else is my honest opinion based on my knowledge of how the operations work and what I have been told about the negotiations.

The reason I asked about Boeing is, that I agree with you. They deserved no tax break. No state should engage in that sort of agreement and place that additional burden on the rest of its tax payers. It places states in a competitive bidding situation that is bad for their constituents and only stands to escalate. My problem with the way the IAM situation went down, is not the threat to leave for lower labor costs. First, this didn't occur during a labor dispute it was mid contract. Second, having worked on the wingline there when I was younger, I don't believe they really wanted to relocate. I think they just wanted a more favorable labor deal and long term agreement. This is where the connection comes in. How did they achieve it? They created fear in the community about what might happen if they left the region. This led to pressure on politicians to make sure it didn't happen. Then the focus turned to the IAM and the pressure of letting the community down resulted in a narrow yes vote on the offer. Now fast forward to today. What is similar? PMA is using the same PR firm that Boeing used to control the message and get what they wanted. Now, with the cargo backlog, we have people and businesses affected by a crisis that they have nothing to do with. We have a community that is concerned and rightfully so about the impact to the local and national economy. IMO this is exactly what the PMA and their PR firm wanted. You see, these people that are impacted by this they are our friends, our neighbors, and our community. The same cannot be said for the members of the PMA. I believe it was the PMA's plan all along to put us in the same difficult situation with the community as they did with IAM to get us to sacrifice our future.
It already worked twice so why not?

You might be surprised to find out that I share your disdain for poor work ethic. Most of us on the waterfront are hard workers who take pride in our work, the few that don't get the label POS. I think you can figure it out, once earned its a hard label to shake.

One of my best friends growing up is self employed and we have a similar relationship to you and your friend. I've learned a lot about the struggles of small business through my conversations with him. Its one of the reasons I'm aware of the effects of a big tax break.

When it comes to my unions service to the community, and willingness to stand up for those in need here and around the world. I'd have too say its one of the things about our history I'm most proud to be associated with. Sadly, over the last several years we have to really assess the risks, of taking stands like we did against Aparthied and South Africa. The penalties of doing so are real and severe. I've already been too long winded and my kids are getting restless, but If your interested about our contributions to the community both service and monetary I'm sure you can find out more online or I can elaborate more when I have time.

I too look forward to a resolution, my gut tells me we are real close. The thing that gives me pause is the strategy I outlined above, but after examining the facts I think the labor secretary is going to lean on PMA real hard.