On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:01:04 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/12/2004 3:28 AM:
>
>
>> Ever cross a picket line? I have
>> crossed more than a few. They attempt to use violence, threats,
>> extortion, and vandalism to prevent decent people from exercising
>> their rights to work and shop.
>
>I've seen this happen. I've seen it alleged many, many times. Sometimes it
>happens. But, whenever it does, all one need do is get the NLRB on the
>phone. Such actions are illegal, and will be stopped very quickly. The
>NLRA statutorily requires that the NLRB give precedence to the handling and
>prosecution of any such charges.

The NLRB is a bad joke. It exists to protect the unions. That's why
the agression at the picket line is so blatent. They know reporting
the abuse wont result in any action.

>> They go out of their way to encourage
>> jury duty specificaly to get their cohorts off the hook if they get
>> arrested for perpetrating such crimes as well.
>
>I thought I'd heard everything, but this is a new one. Wow, managing to
>"pack" a jury pool that consists of thousands and thousands of possible
>jurors. And to think! Not one of the attorneys prosecuting such cases has
>thought to engage in voir dire and have such persons excluded for cause!
>LOL

Not every company is in a big city. Read a few of the old union
manuals from the 50s and 60s. They used to be pretty open about
things like that. Today too many see the unions for what they are.
That's why membership is down dramaticaly.

>> Even work slowdowns are
>> theft, and employers should have the legal right to answer them with
>> matching pay slowdowns.
>
>Yet another of those chimeras. Work slowdowns are specifically made illegal
>under section 8(e) of the NLRA. And, yet again, it's one of those sections
>of the Act where the NLRB is required by the statute to give the
>investigation and prosecution of the allegation precedence over all other
>pending allegations in the office. If it's true that you know of such
>violations, all you need do is call the NLRB. They'll take it from there,
>at no cost to you.
>
>HH

Nonsense. The NLRB is inherently pro-union and proves it rather
consistantly. Getting them to take any significant action against
union abuse is virtually impossible. It simply does not happen.

I can tell you from experience the companies are prosecuted to the
full extent of the law over mere accusations, while the unions have a
fre ride even with blatent abuse. When I was a Sharp in early 80s, we
won. The union lost the election in spite of many and blantent abuses
by the union and NONE by the company. The NLRB's answer? Force
another election, of course. That just gave the union another change
to spread more lies and make more accusations.

The company had great benefits. The doors were always open to
management for anyone with complaints. Until the union got in. That
went away, the benefits stagnated, the annual pay raises were twice
the rate of inflation every year before the union got in, and about
75% of inflation after. But they got dues check off, and that was the
only thing they wanted.

William R. James