• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal appeals court strikes down union notification requirement

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Employers cannot be required to post a notice that tells their workers they have a right to join a union and bargain for better wages, a federal appeals court ruled in the latest setback for the National Labor Relations Board.The so-called poster rule would have required more than 6 million private employers to post a one-page notice in a prominent place. Labor leaders hoped it would help stem the long decline in union membership in the private sector. Only about 7% of private-sector employees belong to unions.
But in a 3-0 decision Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the NLRB had overstepped its authority by requiring this "notification of employee rights."
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]This year, the same conservative-leaning court ruled that President [/FONT]Obama[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]'s recess appointments to the labor board were illegal.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Federal appeals court strikes down union notification requirement - latimes.com

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]More and more anti labor decisions and acts. When will it ever end? The National Assn. of Manufacturers called these posters "aggressive".. How is posting something on a wall notifying people of their rights "aggressive"? We might as well take down minimum wage posters, workplace safety posters now as well, since hey you know they notify people of their rights..[/FONT]
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Where's Obama now that you need him?

All I hear about is the unholy alliance between the Unions and Obama. So how is this possible? Doesn't he control everything?


[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Federal appeals court strikes down union notification requirement - latimes.com

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]More and more anti labor decisions and acts. When will it ever end? The National Assn. of Manufacturers called these posters "aggressive".. How is posting something on a wall notifying people of their rights "aggressive"? We might as well take down minimum wage posters, workplace safety posters now as well, since hey you know they notify people of their rights..[/FONT]
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
14,479
Reaction score
4,200
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wait a sec, the NLRB wanted to force employers to put up posts telling workers that they can join unions and bargain for better wages? What? Will workers be required to tell employers the lowest wage they are willing to work for? Remember, we need to be fair.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Wait a sec, the NLRB wanted to force employers to put up posts telling workers that they can join unions and bargain for better wages? What? Will workers be required to tell employers the lowest wage they are willing to work for? Remember, we need to be fair.
:doh
Are you saying there are no minimum wage posters in a workplace? Cuz every place i have worked at i see this somewhere


Or are you saying that workers have to tell their employees the lowest wage they will work for? As in physically tell? Because if so that would be impossible to enforce and make no sense and makes no connection in these two scenarios.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Federal appeals court strikes down union notification requirement - latimes.com

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]More and more anti labor decisions and acts. When will it ever end? The National Assn. of Manufacturers called these posters "aggressive".. How is posting something on a wall notifying people of their rights "aggressive"? We might as well take down minimum wage posters, workplace safety posters now as well, since hey you know they notify people of their rights..[/FONT]
The NLRB does not have the right to do this. It was the correct decision. From the part you did not quote: "Most workplaces include a variety of notices telling employees of their rights under the law, but business lawyers said Congress did not give the NLRB a similar authority. They said the labor board is supposed to act as a referee or judge in disputes between management and labor, not as an advocate for more union organizing." (emphasis added)
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The NLRB does not have the right to do this. It was the correct decision. From the part you did not quote: "Most workplaces include a variety of notices telling employees of their rights under the law, but business lawyers said Congress did not give the NLRB a similar authority. They said the labor board is supposed to act as a referee or judge in disputes between management and labor, not as an advocate for more union organizing." (emphasis added)
Simply informing workers of their rights is "advocating more union organizing"?
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Simply informing workers of their rights is "advocating more union organizing"?
since you think not requiring them to is anti-union, yes. BTW, they do not have a right to a union, just the right to try to unionize. Can't have a union of 1.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
since you think not requiring them to is anti-union, yes. BTW, they do not have a right to a union, just the right to try to unionize. Can't have a union of 1.
No. I said no "its anti labor" meaning that notifying people of their basic work rights is against labor rights as a whole union and non union alike.
So tell me again how is simply informing workers of their rights is "advocating more union organizing"?
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
14,479
Reaction score
4,200
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
:doh
Are you saying there are no minimum wage posters in a workplace? Cuz every place i have worked at i see this somewhere


Or are you saying that workers have to tell their employees the lowest wage they will work for? As in physically tell? Because if so that would be impossible to enforce and make no sense and makes no connection in these two scenarios.
That just doesn't make any sense at all.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
show me where labor is in the constitution.

there only 18 duties for congress....its not on the list.
:roll:
So how are unions and the right to join a union unconstitutional?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,360
Reaction score
33,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are people supporting this decision also against reading Miranda rights?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,360
Reaction score
33,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Jack Fabulous

Friend Zone
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
15,425
Reaction score
5,601
Location
midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No. I said no "its anti labor" meaning that notifying people of their basic work rights is against labor rights as a whole union and non union alike.
So tell me again how is simply informing workers of their rights is "advocating more union organizing"?
Since when is it the responsibility of the employer to promote unionization?

This is exactly what the court ruled on and they ruled correctly.
 

Fishstyx

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
765
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps instead of spending their money collected via union dues on politicians, they should be spending it on recruiting new union members. If the unions produced bettter results and offered a better product, their numbers wouldn't be dwindling into irrelevency.

And this seems something the Congress or the Department of Labor should institute via legislation or regulation. Court got this one right, this is well beyond NLRB's scope and purpose.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
NLRB...unconstitutional
Seeing as there was a time when union organizers would be beaten and killed, I can understand how keeping the general peace would necessitate making sure things like that don't happen again.
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Seeing as there was a time when union organizers would be beaten and killed, I can understand how keeping the general peace would necessitate making sure things like that don't happen again.
Yeah, but that would be the state government's duty, not the feds. That is if you agree that the NLRB is unconstitutional.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Seeing as there was a time when union organizers would be beaten and killed, I can understand how keeping the general peace would necessitate making sure things like that don't happen again.
That road runs both ways, Hobo. I know one man who was shot and killed by union thugs because he chose to drive a coal truck to feed his family despite a strike; my next door neighbor had his two front picture windows taken out by Teamster thugs when he did the same.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
33,337
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In today's information age, is it unreasonable to assume people cant educate themselves on what their union organizing rights are?

Or alternately contact UAW, UMW, Teamsters, SEIU or any other large union organization via phone and find out what's what.

It should not be the responsibility of the employer to tell workers what they need to do to organize a union, that should be on the unions.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Since when is it the responsibility of the employer to promote unionization?

This is exactly what the court ruled on and they ruled correctly.
How is posting people their rights "promoteing unionization"?
 

Jack Fabulous

Friend Zone
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
15,425
Reaction score
5,601
Location
midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How is posting people their rights "promoteing unionization"?
Can unionized employers, like most federal and state workers for instance, exercise that same "right" to post that employees could choose NOT TO join the union? Is this type of notification something that you would find on the bulletin board in the teachers lounge?
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Can unionized employers, like most federal and state workers for instance, exercise that same "right" to post that employees could choose NOT TO join the union?
Yes. Just because you have the right to join the union it does not mean you have to join or try to unionize. You can choose not to be in a union.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,673
Reaction score
20,409
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Federal appeals court strikes down union notification requirement - latimes.com

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]More and more anti labor decisions and acts. When will it ever end? The National Assn. of Manufacturers called these posters "aggressive".. How is posting something on a wall notifying people of their rights "aggressive"? We might as well take down minimum wage posters, workplace safety posters now as well, since hey you know they notify people of their rights..[/FONT]
Perhaps if unions hadn't abused their position over the years they might still be thriving. However, since many unions become entrenched and then spend all their time on feathering the union leadership's pockets and conducting political campaigns, they've lost their reason for existence. Most intelligent workers have come to understand that with the abundance of government legislation/protections in place they've got better ways to spend their hard earned money than on union dues.
 
Top Bottom