On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:18:09 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/14/2004 10:23 PM:
>
>> 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.
>
>Nothing comforts one like a closed mind, does it? . . .

You tell me.

> Have you ever read
>the National Labor Relations Act?

Absolutely. In fact I carried it to work for a while.

>If you had, you'd know that the great
>majority of its provisions are aimed AT unions. You'd know that the Act
>provides for "expedited action" ONLY in cases involving illegalities
>committed by unions. You'd know that the biggest and most effective remedy
>that the Board can seek is an immediate injunction against the commission of
>such actions, and, guess what, the only provisions in it are those directed
>against unions. Take a look at sections 10(l) and 10(j) of the Act.

You seem to think the law existing is suppicient whether enforced or
not. That's the same reasoning used by the nuts who don't prosecute
the criminals for violating gun laws and then whine that more gun laws
are needed.

>Exists to protect the unions? . . . How can that be, when the Board's
>members and the General Counsel are all appointed by the president, and the
>president has been a Republican for most of the past thirty five years or
>so? And the Board's members, in turn, appoint each and every one of the
>Regional Directors and Regional Attorneys of each and every one of the
>Board's offices. And they're the ones who hire, fire and promote or don't
>promote all lesser officials and attorneys of the Board's offices. Do you
>truly believe that the Republicans, who have controlled the Board for the
>greater portion of the past four decades have somehow managed to overlook or
>countenance pro-union bias on the part of their offices and employees?

What difference does it make which socialist party they are in? I
used to think there was little difference between the republicans and
democrats. The republican control of the congress has clearly
demonstrated that there is really no difference at all.

>>>> 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.
>
>I've never said, nor would I be stupid enough to assert, that jury packing
>is not possible, especially (as you say) in small communities. However,
>don't you know that violations of labor law are prosecuted in Federal
>courts, not local courts. And that the prospective juror pools of all
>Federal courts are made up of at the least hundreds of thousands of people?

Who said anything about labor law cases? I'm talking about union
thugs facing vandalism, simple assault, etc. relating to strikes.
Someone getting punched crossing a picket line, or they car being
vandalized, or some anonymous phone threat to their hom isn't going to
be treated as a federal case. And in areas where the unions were
really big, it's been virtually impossible to convict the criminals
of such things. You would have a hard time in Detroit in the 1960s
getting a jury to convict someone for assaulting a worker crossing a
picket line.

>>>> 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.
>
>As I've said, you'd better do something about all those Republicans who are
>somehow shills for the unions then. I'll bet that the president doesn't
>know about what you know; why don't you tell him? If he found out about
>what you claim I'll bet he'd do something about it pronto.

Republican, democrat, socialist whatever the lable.

>> 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 Board does, indeed, run elections. And it does, indeed, sometimes set
>aside the results of elections. But, only where there has been a complete
>investigation of allegations of unfair and coercive conduct that improperly
>affected the results of the election; naturally, such decisions are,
>ultimately, reviewed by the upper courts, when the issue becomes whether or
>not the employer is obliged to engage in collective bargaining. . . The
>Board makes no secret of it's belief that elections cannot stand if the
>results of the election are tainted by unfair or coercive behaviour that is
>violative of the law. . . . And, just so you'll know, employers routinely
>hire top notch labor lawyers to represent them, and they routinely file
>objections to the conduct of elections that they lose; and the NLRB sets
>aside elections won by both unions and employers. You can look all this up
>if you care to; the NLRB is required to make a detailed report of it's
>activities each and every year to Congress, and members of Congress
>routinely delve into issues where they believe that any funny business has
>occurred. Happens all the time. . . . When you're looking over the Board's
>annual reports of it's activities please note that it contains data
>concerning literally thousands of cases, not just one person's ad hominem
>recollections.

There are thousands of cases. The NLRB protects the unions. The
federal government does via other agencies and regulations as well.
Ever see an "econimic strike"? I doubt it. Vrtually every strike is
over "unfair labor practices", the unions even keep stocked up on
those signs, but none for economic. So strikes are never over money,
huh? The real reason is that workers can be legally replaced for not
showing up if it's economic. So the unions lable every strike "unfair
labor practice" no matter what the issue is and the NLRB never
considers that fraud.

>I'll even venture to guess that the investigation of the Board in the case
>that you cite uncovered significant and numerous violations of the law that
>affected the results of the election. If the result has been 'fixed' by one
>of the sides do you think that the Board should simply shut its eyes to
>those violations? What if they're by a union?

I was there. I saw a lot of abuse by the union, lots of lies, lots of
blatently illegal acts by the union. NONE by the company. I have no
doubt the "investigations" by the NLRB's union whores who never even
showed up found whatever abuses the union claimed. Their
investigation amounted to simply rubberstamping whaver claims the
union filed.

>> 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.
>
>That I've said nothing about. I know nothing about it. I do know, however,
>that the NLRB will just as readily conduct an election to decertify a union
>as it does to certify one. If things were as you say, then why didn't the
>employees file a petition with the Board for another election, to kick the
>union out? Wouldn't have cost 'em a nickle.

Didn't get anywhere. The rules are different for getting the union in,
that's simple.

>I hold no brief for bad unions. Or unions that behave illegally. Or that
>are just greedy. Or stupid. . . . But, I'm glad as can be that it's the
>employees who are involved who are the ones that get to decide whether or
>not they want a union, or which one, or whether or not to keep one.
>
>HH

I've never seen or heard of a good union. As for whether is should
exist, that's up to the members, of course. But no company should be
forced to recognize it, bargin with it, or have anything to do with it
if they don't want to.

William R. James