I object to this, and I'll explain why. In the national capital region, we have a problem with the government hiring people on a temporary basis. If you hire somebody for 90 days, it's really for a particular short-time job--you need an expert; you need somebody to fill in the void. When you are hiring for 175 days, that is close to six months, which is very similar to what departments are doing. This keeps them from having to give permanency to these employees. So they keep somebody in there six months, then kick them out, and two weeks later they hire somebody else. It's good internal administration, but it's pretty bad for employees. I'm more scared of this than removing the right to strike, if I look at it on the employee's side. I'm against this.
People he would hire for six months would not have the same type of responsibility or job as those you would hire for 90 days.