On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:10:18 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM:
>
>> Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
>> to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
>> own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
>> ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>
>Yep, that's the gist of what you "said". And the gist of what I said, and
>still say, is that the SC and ALL the circuit courts of appeal, and the
>Board, have decided that WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN
>ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING WORKING HOURS AND AT THE WORK PLACE.
>
>Over the past three decades the Board and the courts have refined and
>revised certain details of the law regarding the situation you go on about,
>but, without exception, each and every precedent has adhered to the
>principle that the NLRA grants and protects the rights of workers to engage
>in union or other protected, concerted activities in efforts to preserve or
>protect their wages, hour or working conditions. Each and every such
>precedent has also recognized the truth of the principle announced decades
>ago that "the workplace is a _PARTICULARLY_ appropriate place" for workers
>to conduct such activities.
>
>Go hire a lawyer. No matter which side he's on normally. He'll tell you the
>exact same thing. That's what the cases hold. No matter whether YOU, or
>ME, or the lamp post like it or not.
>
>It's hopeless to debate this with you, oh, closed minded one, but, that's
>the law. . . . Go ahead and take your point of view. You'll lose if you try
>to impose your viewpoint in any workplace that is unfortunate enough to be
>controlled by you. And, it'll cost you big-time. And you'll be saddled
>with a union that you possibly didn't need to be saddled with.
>
>Talk about playing right into the opposition's hands!
>
>Just plain dumb!
>
>HH

Want to discuss dumb? How many times does one have to point out the
fact that we are discussing rights, actul constitutional rights, and
what is right vs wrong, and not necessarily what is enforced as
"legal" even via a court which doesn't respect the constitution, bor
you to comprehend it? This is alt.activism, not
alt.what-the-supreme-court-says-is-what-we-must-parrot-without-thinking.

OK, there are other groups crossposted in the thread, but the point is
your inability to discuss what is right and what rights people have,
and your apparent position that the courts cannot be disagrred with or
considered less than gods unles perhhaps if you disagree with them.

William R. James