On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM:
>
>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
>>>> thugs.
>>>
>>> Read the law. Check the cases.
>>>
>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.
>>
>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime
>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and
>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why
>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights?
>
>William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor
>Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith"
>upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white.

Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The
bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any
worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case
with the employers.

>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.
>>
>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and
>> enforced none the less.
>
>That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because,
>if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be
>perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and
>the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades,
>routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have
>for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the
>collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts.
>If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's
>absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And
>without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike
>who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law
>for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by
>employers.

Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called
"unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced
with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life.

>>> So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
>>> actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
>>> good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
>>> sincere. To be honest. To try.
>>>
>>> HH
>>
>> Wrong. By who's definition of "good faith" do you mean? Suppose I
>> own a company and have a hundren employees. They want to form a union
>> and meet during their off hours. Fine, no problem. But they want me
>> to bargin with them collectively. I say "No thanks, I don't do
>> business like that, I don't believe in it. Some employees are better
>> than others, some give more for the money and deserve better raises,
>> etc. I choose to buy labor a la cart." Good faith? I think so. I'm
>> entirely up front and honest. They are all free people. They can
>> continue selling to me a la cart, or they can take their business
>> elsewhere to some other employer who prefers to buy bulk. What's the
>> problem? But government would step in and force me to negotiate with
>> them to accept a contract of some sort. If they walked out on strike,
>> they would label it as an "unfair labor practice" stike and government
>> would refuse to respevct my right to fire those who refused to work
>> and hire replacements who wanted the jobs.
>
>The definition of "good faith" is indeed a deep subject.

Not really. It's only complicated by they fact that some want to
twist the concept and assume from the start that the business is
obligated to sign some sort of contract and give in on some demands.
In reality, "good faith" includes a business taking the position that
he doesn't believe in contracting for labor or buying labor in bulk so
there's really nothing to discuss or negotiate. But doing that would
mean an automatic ruling against him by the NLRB.

>Suffice it now to
>say that it's been debated, discussed, and decided in hundreds, even
>thousands of cases decides by the Board, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and
>the Supreme Court.

See above.

>At the moment, I'm tired and am about to turn in, but
>I'll be more than happy to cite some of them to you another time, as well as
>the precise language showing the reasoning they employed to reach their
>decision as to what does or doesn't constitute "good faith." . . . You're
>WAY off the deep end here. . . .

Not at all. Like I said the NLRB is a union support group.

>So, you ask, "by who's [sic] definition"?
>Well, in our democracy, by the definition of our courts.

Wrong. We have no democracy. We have a constitutional republic where
even the minority has rights, even business owners. We just need USSC
appointees who respect the constitution.

>Over decades and
>decades. And in many, many courts. Most notably the Supreme one. . . . As
>I've already said, quite naturally both the feuding sides try to 'label' the
>nature of the strike with the term that suits their economic purpose; no
>harm in that. But, it's the Board (the body set up by statute to do so) and
>the Courts that ultimately decide which is correct.

That's the problem. The courts put their own agendas over the
constitution. If I have x dollars, whether I choose to buy someone's
labor with it or not is my own business and mine alone.

>Sorry democracy displeases you so.
>
>HH

It does, that's why I choose not to live in one.

William R. James