After claiming once again that the U.S. House of Representatives has “done its job” by passing legislation that they know doesn't have any chance of being passed in the Senate and refusing to compromise, Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor defended their union busting provision in the FAA bill that John wrote about here.
CAVUTO: And you were also against the provisions in there that would make it easier... for FAA workers to unionize. And that was a point of contention and one of the reasons the Senate said, we just can't take up this measure that objects to that. So where do we stand?
CANTOR: Well, you know, that disagreement is really under the underlying bill. This was the extension that that really is not a part of this discussion. The issue about organization for labor has to do with being fair to both sides. And if you're going to be fair to both sides, you ought to give both the employees as well as the employers an equal opportunity to make the case.
As Rep. Jim McGovern pointed out the other day, I wonder if Cantor would be willing to apply the same standards to themselves in the United States Congress that he thinks is “fair” for unions with the language in their bill, in a provision that he and Cavuto conveniently forgot to mention during this interview on Fox.
MCGOVERN: From Wisconsin to Ohio to Maine, we have seen how Republican politicians are attempting to destroy a century of hard-fought labor protections. This bill represents more of the same.
The bill would reverse a National Mediation Board rule that allows a majority of those voting in aviation and rail union elections to decide the outcome. Instead, Tea Party extremists want to count workers who chose not to vote as automatic “no’s” against the union.
I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle would be willing to use that same standard in congressional elections? I wonder if they’d agree that every registered voter who didn’t vote—for whatever reason—last November would automatically be counted as a “no” vote against them. I doubt it.
Yeah, so do I. What I found really astounding here though was the fact that Cantor seemed to have no problem whatsoever with the airlines pocketing the extra money that should be going to fund the FAA instead of lowering rates for their customers. Actually, I'm not surprised that he believes this. I'm just surprised that he had no problem saying it out loud.
CAVUTO: Is it legal for airlines to still be collecting these FAA fees, taxes, whatever we call them?
CANTOR: Well you know, it's not a question of legality. It's a question of the fact that the authority, FAA, is not functioning right now so they cannot levy the tax. And what airlines have done is have stepped in and said well we're not going to pay that money to the Federal government. We're going to keep it towards our own bottom line. And I guess that's what business does. And again I think it speaks to the fact that the Senate hasn't done it's job and it is costing the Federal government and the taxpayers money. The Senate ought to return to Washington, take up the bill and pass the House bill. We've done our work.
"I guess that's what business does"... are you kidding me? So Cantor admits that what's going on is “costing the taxpayers money”, but is okay with the airlines charging customers for a tax they're not paying to the government. They sure don't worry about anyone who is not one of their rich buddies when it comes to paying taxes, do they?