Right To Work States.... Are Working

[justabubba]

Like Haymarket you think to know a law one must support the law.

not at all. i laugh at your asking questions about the law, which questions any first year law student would already have the answers to

I believe that preventing an employer from terminating Union workers is a violation of the right of association.

and yet, the law is other than you would want it. what a depth of legal understanding you display [/sarcasm]

Just because Unions owned the FDR administration does not make the law correct.

and it has been 66 years since FDR's death, and those provisions of law have gone unchanged, "uncorrected"
that alone speaks to your 'understanding' of the "correctness" of the law

And your constant fixation with trying to prove I am not an attorney by those who clearly are not is funny.

you, not i, by the very unknowledgable questions and statements found among your posts, have proven you are without the requisite understanding of the law. i have simply pointed them out to show them to be without valid legal foundation. notably, you have not been able to respond and prove my assertions false

You are constantly wrong about every issue you challenge me on ...

your legend resides only within your own mind. i can recall no instance in which your argument has prevailed

... and given you have admitted you are a public sector union employee ...

wrong again
i WAS a public sector employee; long retired from federal service. but then why would i expect an attorney who specializes in labor law to realize that one does not have to be an active duty employee to serve as a union official [/sarcasm]

(I sure hope you aren't posting on government time since a lot of your posts would violate the hatch act)

again, a "stunningly astute" legal observation by you, and again, you are found wrong

... your position is hilarious

i missed it
what did you find funny, squire

 

[TurtleDude]

not at all. i laugh at your asking questions about the law, which questions any first year law student would already have the answers to

and yet, the law is other than you would want it. what a depth of legal understanding you display [/sarcasm]

and it has been 66 years since FDR's death, and those provisions of law have gone unchanged, "uncorrected"
that alone speaks to your 'understanding' of the "correctness" of the law

you, not i, by the very unknowledgable questions and statements found among your posts, have proven you are without the requisite understanding of the law. i have simply pointed them out to show them to be without valid legal foundation. notably, you have not been able to respond and prove my assertions false

your legend resides only within your own mind. i can recall no instance in which your argument has prevailed

wrong again
i WAS a public sector employee; long retired from federal service. but then why would i expect an attorney who specializes in labor law to realize that one does not have to be an active duty employee to serve as a union official [/sarcasm]

again, a "stunningly astute" legal observation by you, and again, you are found wrong

i missed it
what did you find funny, squire

since you never graduated from law school where do you get off constantly opining about what law students know?
Your constant fixation with my professional standing is indeed hilarious
you and Haymarket seem to feel that if someone disagrees with a current law they don't understand it. Between Haymarket's slavish devotion to the take from the few to buy the votes of the many tax system to your belief that union created laws that prevent the owner of a business from booting out parasitic organizations are beyond reproach the slavish worship of laws is hilarious.

 

[randel]

:lamo Craig Beckers NLRB? Yeah :lol:


The NLRB plans to rewrite the rules for union elections in a way that further strengthens the hand of the unions and undermines the freedom of employers to keep from having collective-bargaining contracts imposed on them against their will.

Obama’s NLRB is contemplating new union-election rules that would give employers less time to organize a countercampaign. There is absolutely no reason for doing so other than to weaken the employers’ position. Most union elections are conducted within a month or six weeks after union organizers file their petition for a vote; during the interim, employers have the chance to make their case against unionization, if they so choose. Under the fast-track votes contemplated by the new NLRB guidelines, that time would be reduced to less than three weeks, possibly as little as ten days. You’ll notice that it is only the employers who face a time limitation: The unions may spend as much time as they choose organizing their campaign before filing the petition for a vote. In some cases, employers have no idea that their workforces are being organized for unionization until that petition is filed, placing them at a distinct disadvantage. And even if they know that union organizers are approaching their workers, employers already face significant restrictions on how they respond...

This is every bit as crucial to the unions as was the “card check” proposal, which would have abolished secret-ballot voting in union elections, allowing union organizers to intimidate dissenters. It may prove even more effective a tool for amplifying the unions’ power. On top of this, the Specialty Healthcare case, currently under review by the NLRB, could change the union-election rules by rewriting the definition of a “collective-bargaining unit.” Current rules define those bargaining units as enterprises or major divisions of enterprises; the changes being contemplated would allow any two workers who hold the same job to conduct a union-organizing vote on their own, empowering the unions to cherry-pick sympathetic workers and take over a workplace piecemeal.​

wrong. elections in this country are pre-set, and neither the law nor the relevant agencies are not tilted in favor of either party. union elections would be the same as they are in this country only if we were to change election laws so that only Republicans (or Democrats) counted the votes.

the national review? charlie, really?? not the most unbiased source,but anyhoo...yes, the field is tiltled toward the employer, they are allowed to have 'captive audience' meetings(been there, suffered through that) allowed to have individual meeting, inquiring about why someone would want a union(been there, suffered through that) having the division manager show quite a bit of interest in you while you are trying to do your job, standing not 3 feet away from you, watching you, for hours(been their, suffered through that, he thought he was going to be able to intimidate me, he thought wrong) ....and many times employers don't know when there is an attempt going on to organize them?:lamo now thats funny, i don't care who you are

 

[justabubba]

since you never graduated from law school where do you get off constantly opining about what law students know?
Your constant fixation with my professional standing is indeed hilarious
you and Haymarket seem to feel that if someone disagrees with a current law they don't understand it. Between Haymarket's slavish devotion to the take from the few to buy the votes of the many tax system to your belief that union created laws that prevent the owner of a business from booting out parasitic organizations are beyond reproach the slavish worship of laws is hilarious.

thank you for again documenting your lack of understanding of the law ... and those bodies which create it

 

[TurtleDude]

thank you for again documenting your lack of understanding of the law ... and those bodies which create it

more silliness-who the heck do you think pushed for that law?

 

[justabubba]

more silliness-who the heck do you think pushed for that law?

unlike you, i do NOT believe it was the UNIONS which created the law
again, even a first year law school student would have that basic knowledge

 

[TurtleDude]

more silliness-who the heck do you think pushed for that law?

In case you are wondering the Wagner act AKA the National Labor Relations Act was the act that protected unions. It was named after Dem senator Wagner and passed in the height of the FDR administration's power even though some conservative dems thought it was socialist and some unions didn't like it originally. The Taft-Hartley act was passed over Truman's veto and curbed some of the excess power and corruption of big labor

 

[TurtleDude]

unlike you, i do NOT believe it was the UNIONS which created the law
again, even a first year law school student would have that basic knowledge

translation-you want to get picky in an effort to try to gain some points in a discussion you cannot win. The people who enacted that law were union backed and in some cases union owned.

remind me where you did your first year of law school since you spend so much time talking about first year law students

 

[justabubba]

In case you are wondering the Wagner act AKA the National Labor Relations Act was the act that protected unions. It was named after Dem senator Wagner and passed in the height of the FDR administration's power even though some conservative dems thought it was socialist and some unions didn't like it originally. The Taft-Hartley act was passed over Truman's veto and curbed some of the excess power and corruption of big labor

why would i have needed to wonder that?
my suspicion is you are doing whatever you can in a wasted attempt to present your "knowledge" of labor law
too late
you have been found out
but keep me laughing with statements such as the unions created law

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

unlike you, i do NOT believe it was the UNIONS which created the law
again, even a first year law school student would have that basic knowledge

PSRF - Public Service Research Foundation


FAIL.

 

[justabubba]

PSRF - Public Service Research Foundation


FAIL.

let me guess
you concur with turtledood that unions create law
the only mitigation of that ignorance is at least you do not also tell us you are a labor lawyer

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

let me guess
you concur with turtledood that unions create law
the only mitigation of that ignorance is at least you do not also tell us you are a labor lawyer

I concur with everyone that your semantics game is fail.

 

[TurtleDude]

J. Mack Swiggert-recently deceased senior Partner at the Taft law firm-wrote the Taft-Hartley act. I could say he created it even though he was not a congressman nor a senator and it was his boss-Senator Taft who introduced it. Yet Justabubba would whine about claiming Attorney Swiggert created the law.

 

[Mach]

cpwill, did you miss the point?

Certain people abuse unions long enough to retire off fat pensions and paychecks, and then proceed to use that to leverage themselves into some other job after retirement, for more comfy income at taxpayer expense. You seem to suggest these people are NOT better off by abusing the system. The trail of destruction they leave behind....well, someone else cleans that up, not their problem, they have their nest egg on the pubic dime, and you can't legally take it away. They won, and you're saying that shouldn't do that? They can just lobby to raise taxes on others if they get too painted into a corner after all.

 

[BWG]

:lamo Craig Beckers NLRB? Yeah :lol:


The NLRB plans to rewrite the rules for union elections in a way that further strengthens the hand of the unions and undermines the freedom of employers to keep from having collective-bargaining contracts imposed on them against their will.

Obama’s NLRB is contemplating new union-election rules that would give employers less time to organize a countercampaign. There is absolutely no reason for doing so other than to weaken the employers’ position. Most union elections are conducted within a month or six weeks after union organizers file their petition for a vote; during the interim, employers have the chance to make their case against unionization, if they so choose. Under the fast-track votes contemplated by the new NLRB guidelines, that time would be reduced to less than three weeks, possibly as little as ten days. You’ll notice that it is only the employers who face a time limitation: The unions may spend as much time as they choose organizing their campaign before filing the petition for a vote. In some cases, employers have no idea that their workforces are being organized for unionization until that petition is filed, placing them at a distinct disadvantage. And even if they know that union organizers are approaching their workers, employers already face significant restrictions on how they respond...

This is every bit as crucial to the unions as was the “card check” proposal, which would have abolished secret-ballot voting in union elections, allowing union organizers to intimidate dissenters. It may prove even more effective a tool for amplifying the unions’ power. On top of this, the Specialty Healthcare case, currently under review by the NLRB, could change the union-election rules by rewriting the definition of a “collective-bargaining unit.” Current rules define those bargaining units as enterprises or major divisions of enterprises; the changes being contemplated would allow any two workers who hold the same job to conduct a union-organizing vote on their own, empowering the unions to cherry-pick sympathetic workers and take over a workplace piecemeal.​

wrong. elections in this country are pre-set, and neither the law nor the relevant agencies are not tilted in favor of either party. union elections would be the same as they are in this country only if we were to change election laws so that only Republicans (or Democrats) counted the votes.

I think someone has already pointed out The National Review? - randel

Normally I don't mind reading biased sites (know thy enemy and all that stuff), but from your post, read how they portray two similar situations.

Most union elections are conducted within a month or six weeks after union organizers file their petition for a vote; during the interim, employers have the chance to make their case against unionization, if they so choose.

the “card check” proposal, which would have abolished secret-ballot voting in union elections, allowing union organizers to intimidate dissenters.

One 'makes their case'. The other 'intimidates'. Guess which side they support? LOL


This is a common occurance when conservatives write about union activities. Quite predictable.

 

[Kal'Stang]

so, the union engaging in legal actions is found by you to be thuggery
it is clear you have no concept what constitutes thuggery
you want your way and anyone who would challenge it is then found by you to be a thug
in my neck of the woods, that description of someone who whines unreasonably because he does not get his way is that of a spoiled brat

It wouldn't be the first time that people used the law in order to pressure someone into doing something. Often just the threat of a lawsuit is enough to make people capitulate. Especially those that don't have the money to go through a lengthy court battle.

 

[Kal'Stang]

how can you start so reasonably and then veer into such nonsense?

geo.

OH..so there is no such thing as "union busting"? Surely that is not what you are trying to say....is it?

 

[Henrin]

now... there IS a rational view.

geo.

:roll:


7890

 

[cpwill]

I think someone has already pointed out The National Review? - randel

Normally I don't mind reading biased sites (know thy enemy and all that stuff), but from your post, read how they portray two similar situations.




One 'makes their case'. The other 'intimidates'. Guess which side they support? LOL


This is a common occurance when conservatives write about union activities. Quite predictable.

:shrug: you can pick at the language (I would say that unions generally are far more eager to reach for coercive and violent language and acts than employers), but that doesn't alter the reality of the legal changes, nor does it alter their intent to give unions an increasingly unfair advantage over workers and employers.

 

[justabubba]

:shrug: you can pick at the language (I would say that unions generally are far more eager to reach for coercive and violent language and acts than employers), but that doesn't alter the reality of the legal changes, nor does it alter their intent to give unions an increasingly unfair advantage over workers and employers.

what is this "unfair advantage over workers and employers" you speak of

 

[randel]

:shrug: you can pick at the language (I would say that unions generally are far more eager to reach for coercive and violent language and acts than employers), but that doesn't alter the reality of the legal changes, nor does it alter their intent to give unions an increasingly unfair advantage over workers and employers.

far more eager to reach for coercive and violent language and acts? perhaps you should do some reading on the Reuther brothers, back when the UAW was in its infancy....seen some of the crap the brothers went though...assasination attempts and the like..one brother lost an eye during a hit on them

 

[Kal'Stang]

far more eager to reach for coercive and violent language and acts? perhaps you should do some reading on the Reuther brothers, back when the UAW was in its infancy....seen some of the crap the brothers went though...assasination attempts and the like..one brother lost an eye during a hit on them

Got anything more recent? The tides have turned.

Edit note: Oh yeah...what was that saying again that I've heard time and time again by my folks and people on this forum? ...Oh yeah..."Two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[randel]

Got anything more recent? The tides have turned.

Edit note: Oh yeah...what was that saying again that I've heard time and time again by my folks and people on this forum? ...Oh yeah..."Two wrongs don't make a right".

sounds to me like you are dismissing it because it is an example of violence against unions....

 

[Kal'Stang]

sounds to me like you are dismissing it because it is an example of violence against unions....

Nope, I'm dismissing it because its not recent history. If the situations were reversed would you accept such an example from me? Its like comparing segregation to today's policies. Besides, its common knowledge that in its infancy unions were threatened quite a bit. But that has no bearing on how things are conducted today.

 

[randel]

Nope, I'm dismissing it because its not recent history. If the situations were reversed would you accept such an example from me? Its like comparing segregation to today's policies. Besides, its common knowledge that in its infancy unions were threatened quite a bit. But that has no bearing on how things are conducted today.

i disagree, it does have a bearing, as many here would portray unions as 'thugs', and business as being totally innocent, at the absolulte mercy of unions.