DC Tom Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 More bull sh-- The idea Rush Limbo will be taken off the air by the government is silly. Only people that listen to right wing radio could believe this Consider the source - the NY Post. I think theyre' more concerned about the possibility of having to hire a liberal editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I was gonna say... The left would be better served by encouraging right-wing talk-radio, seeing as how it's currently populated by loons. That's so true. They drive the Republican agenda now. McCain is trapped by trying to appear sane yet appealing to those politically activated by right wing radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 More bull sh-- The idea Rush Limbo will be taken off the air by the government is silly. Only people that listen to right wing radio could believe this I denounce the bourgeoisie conspirators and their anti-people views! Down with the right on radio! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 So the Democrats were too spineless to end the Iraq War, something the voters gave them a mandate to do, yet they will be willing to ram through something as unpopular as the fairness doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I denounce the bourgeoisie conspirators and their anti-people views! Down with the right on radio! You non-Americans just don't get it! Talk radio is for the real America! Not the welfare America that pays no taxes and doesn't fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 You non-Americans just don't get it! Talk radio is for the real America! Not the welfare America that pays no taxes and doesn't fish The proletariat shall rise and throw off the oppressive yoke of the neo-conservative! Down with the capitalist swine!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Background on the "Employee Free Choice Act" from the leftist media http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20labor.html and from what looks like a rightwing blog http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/w...-on-secret.html Note that even McGovern has come out against it - but not any of the current Democrats in Congress, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Background on the "Employee Free Choice Act" from the leftist mediahttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20labor.html and from what looks like a rightwing blog http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/w...-on-secret.html Note that even McGovern has come out against it - but not any of the current Democrats in Congress, unfortunately. Will businesses still be allowed to fire workers for trying to organize a union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Will businesses still be allowed to fire workers for trying to organize a union? They aren't now, under NLRB rules. http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm1359.cfm Employers May Not Threaten Workers Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, employers have the right to communicate their views to their employees and may express their opposition to a union. A supervisor may remind workers that many union negotiation demands would be set by union bosses who know little about the company's day-to-day operations or that union dues are expensive and fund those bosses' six-figure salaries. Every story has two sides, and employers have the right to point out to their employees the drawbacks to union membership that they are unlikely to hear from union organizers. Employers may not, however, threaten their workers. They may not threaten to fire individual workers for joining a union, much less actually do so, or "predict" that unionizing would lead to strikes that would bankrupt the company and force it to undertake mass layoffs.[5] If the government finds that a company did threaten workers, it discards the election results and holds a new election. A company that illegally fires workers for joining a union must reinstate them and provide them with back pay. Unions Free to Make Their Case The First Amendment similarly guarantees union activists the right to express their views to potential recruits, but not to recruit new dues-paying members while workers are on company time. Union organizers may speak to workers during lunch breaks and other unpaid time at work, unless the company has a policy prohibiting solicitation by anyone--not just unions--on its premises. The law does not guarantee union organizers a special exemption to policies designed to avoid disruption at work. To ensure that unions have an equal chance to make their case, the law requires that companies provide union organizers with a complete and accurate list of all employees' names and addresses within seven days of the NLRB order to conduct an election. If a company fails to do so or provides an inaccurate list, the NLRB will set the election aside and order a re-vote.[6] Union organizers are free to contact employees at home or by phone to make their case; employers are not. It is actually an unfair labor practice (ULP) for a work supervisor to visit workers in their homes to discuss the election.[7] The law strikes a balance between the legitimate needs of both employers and union organizers, allowing both to make their case while protecting workers from intimidation. : Unions Usually Win Labor activists argue that NLRB elections "look more like the discredited practices of rogue regimes abroad than like anything we would call American."[19] If, contrary to NLRB investigations, employers systematically violated the law and intimidated workers, unions would lose most elections, but unions actually win 61 percent of all organizing elections.[20] This is strong evidence that employers are not tilting the playing field against union organizers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 They aren't now, under NLRB rules. http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm1359.cfm I suppose the Heritage Foundation would say that. But workers trying to oganize have to be extremely careful or they get fired, which yes, is against the law, but it takes so long to do anything about there is no point fighting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Will businesses still be allowed to fire workers for trying to organize a union? I suppose the Heritage Foundation would say that. But workers trying to oganize have to be extremely careful or they get fired, which yes, is against the law, but it takes so long to do anything about there is no point fighting it So, I guess you've answered your own question, eh? If they're not allowed to do it now, they wouldn't under the next admin w/ or w/out "check card." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 So, I guess you've answered your own question, eh? If they're not allowed to do it now, they wouldn't under the next admin w/ or w/out "check card." But we need to add a new law, to make it even more illegal. That'll fix it. Like it has gun violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I suppose the Heritage Foundation would say that. But workers trying to oganize have to be extremely careful or they get fired, which yes, is against the law, but it takes so long to do anything about there is no point fighting it Yeah, but at least they back up their research with facts. If you read the report you will find the statistics of cases brought before the NLRB etc. They also give the statistics from he NLRB on the time to resolve cases, which flatly contradicts the claims of those supporting this legislation. Just out of curiosity, do you think cases of illegal company behavior even remotely approaches that of illegal union intimidation? Have you ever seen a picket line and what they do to scabs? Do you think for one moment that a company could get away with that kind of harrassment? One big difference: if a company is found guilty, the company is punished severly. If an individual is 'found guilty' (assuming somebody wants to spend the money bringing it to trial) of illegal union coercion, it's an individual crime. So in practice companies are extremely carefull to tow the line on the legalities. Individuals who want to form a union don't need to be - they can throw all the bricks they want, they are doing it as individuals not as union policy. I'd be very curious to find out how many people have been convicted of union coercion in relation to how much of it we think occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Yeah, but at least they back up their research with facts. If you read the report you will find the statistics of cases brought before the NLRB etc. They also give the statistics from he NLRB on the time to resolve cases, which flatly contradicts the claims of those supporting this legislation. Just out of curiosity, do you think cases of illegal company behavior even remotely approaches that of illegal union intimidation? Have you ever seen a picket line and what they do to scabs? Do you think for one moment that a company could get away with that kind of harrassment? One big difference: if a company is found guilty, the company is punished severly. If an individual is 'found guilty' (assuming somebody wants to spend the money bringing it to trial) of illegal union coercion, it's an individual crime. So in practice companies are extremely carefull to tow the line on the legalities. Individuals who want to form a union don't need to be - they can throw all the bricks they want, they are doing it as individuals not as union policy. I'd be very curious to find out how many people have been convicted of union coercion in relation to how much of it we think occurs. Unions can be f-ed up I know. Niagara Falls on our side was an economic waste land because of the thug unions. The FBI had to clean them up. Rudy Guliani busted the Teamsters, I beleive. But honest unions take their bumps from employers and there has been violence used against. Many people have been killed trying to organize. My view on unions might be outdated, I'll admit. The economy today is different than it use to be. Still, if people want to organize they should be allowed to. And yes, something should be done to stop "union intemidation." I think back to my 4th grade teacher who refused to go on strike in Buffalo in 1978[?] with the rest of the teachers. But I don't think anything happened to her. I wouldn't throw the baby out with bath water. All unions are not run by goons, nor most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Just out of curiosity, do you think cases of illegal company behavior even remotely approaches that of illegal union intimidation? Have you ever seen a picket line and what they do to scabs? Do you think for one moment that a company could get away with that kind of harrassment? How old are you? 90? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 How old are you? 90? How old are YOU, 5? Get out of the coffee shop on the Upper West Side and pull the latte out of your ass and visit a construction site and see who REALLY runs the Unions. CLUE: Its not the Boy Scouts. And for a bonus, go to a Local 3 or Steamfitters Union site, don a helmet, go to the foreman or shop steward and say youre a non-Union guy sent by X Company to do some work and watch what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 And for a bonus, go to a Local 3 or Steamfitters Union site, don a helmet, go to the foreman or shop steward and say youre a non-Union guy sent by X Company to do some work and watch what happens. They'd murder you right on the spot, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The Sopranos isn't too far from the truth. Don't mess with the Laborer's union in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 They'd murder you right on the spot, right? You would be ok. But at the end of the day, your car wouldn't... Check out this video from CNN Here something in the card-check legislation from the Right-to-Work Foundation. Skip the infomercial at the beginning and go straight to the interviews... More on coercion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 You would be ok. But at the end of the day, your car wouldn't... Check out this video from CNN Here something in the card-check legislation from the Right-to-Work Foundation. Skip the infomercial at the beginning and go straight to the interviews... More on coercion I don't disagree with this at all. I remember the construction mob of Niagara Falls being brought to court in the 1990's by the FBI and a reporter trying to film them outside the courthouse getting punched. Still, you have Churches that steal, cheap, rape children, but that isn't all the churches. Most unions don't engage in violence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts