Coffee (rec.drink.coffee) Discussing coffee. This includes selection of brands, methods of making coffee, etc. Discussion about coffee in other forms (e.g. desserts) is acceptable.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 01:33 AM
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
how much they are willing to trade and for what.


I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
and why people are hired and fired.

Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...


Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.


Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
Where do you live?


let's set something
straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar

value
don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something

they
were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and

I
will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but

it's
the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.


No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.


I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?



William R. James



  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 01:33 AM
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
how much they are willing to trade and for what.


I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
and why people are hired and fired.

Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...


Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.


Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
Where do you live?


let's set something
straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar

value
don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something

they
were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and

I
will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but

it's
the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.


No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.


I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?



William R. James



  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 03:57 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:33:20 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


"Wm James" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
how much they are willing to trade and for what.


I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
and why people are hired and fired.


I am in the US. Well... Mississippi if that's close enough.

Contracts are another matter. Of course if you agree to the terms,
then you are obligated. Mut the employer shouldn't be compelled by
law to negotiate with the union or sign any contract. In the US they
are, which is clearly a violation of the business owner's
constitutional rights even though it continues. If you sign a
contract under duress, extortion, etc, is that binding? No, it isn't.
But we will have to wait for a decent court to fix that.

Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...


Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.


Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
Where do you live?


I live in the US where propert rights exist. You are free to trade or
not to trade. You don't lose your rights when you decide to trade
money for labor. But you would be correct to say that the rights of
business owners are regularly infringed upon with the consent of the
courts who have had little regard for the constitution since FDR
stacked the USSC with socialists.

let's set something
straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar

value
don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something

they
were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and

I
will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but

it's
the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.


No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.


I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?


You said you couldn't have kept your job or gotten a raise without the
union. Why is that? Is your labor worth less than you are getting?
Is your employer only paying you more to avoid vandalism or other
attacks from thugs? I'd be ashamed to say that. I'd hate to think
I couldn't get someone to buy my labor without them facing threats.
Everyone I work for pays me because they feel they are getting what
they want for the price. I have worked in unionized shops, and
invariably, those who weren't willing to give the company their
money's worth tried to get me to join the union with the same
arguments claiming I needed the union. But they couldn't tell me why.
The union couldn't get me anything that I couldn't get for myself.
Even the flat tires they gave me for refusing to join would have been
trivial enough for me to accomplish on my own. Fortunately, the
idiots didn't know I keep a compressor in the vehicle so it only
wasted a couple of minutes. But why would I need to associate with
cowards, thugs, extortionists, and lazy mealy mouthed bums for
handouts when my labor has enough value to negotiate on my own behalf?

I'm not afraid of a company treating me poorly or not paying me
enough. If I don't like the pay of the conditions, I quit and sell my
labor elsewhere. Problem solved. The employer is the customer of the
employee. Like anyone else, if you give bad service, you shouldn't
expect the customer to keep shopping with you. If the customer doesn't
pay the bill, you stop giving them service. It's that simple.

William R. James



  #201 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 03:57 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:33:20 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


"Wm James" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
how much they are willing to trade and for what.


I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
and why people are hired and fired.


I am in the US. Well... Mississippi if that's close enough.

Contracts are another matter. Of course if you agree to the terms,
then you are obligated. Mut the employer shouldn't be compelled by
law to negotiate with the union or sign any contract. In the US they
are, which is clearly a violation of the business owner's
constitutional rights even though it continues. If you sign a
contract under duress, extortion, etc, is that binding? No, it isn't.
But we will have to wait for a decent court to fix that.

Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...


Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.


Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
Where do you live?


I live in the US where propert rights exist. You are free to trade or
not to trade. You don't lose your rights when you decide to trade
money for labor. But you would be correct to say that the rights of
business owners are regularly infringed upon with the consent of the
courts who have had little regard for the constitution since FDR
stacked the USSC with socialists.

let's set something
straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar

value
don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something

they
were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and

I
will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but

it's
the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.


No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.


I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?


You said you couldn't have kept your job or gotten a raise without the
union. Why is that? Is your labor worth less than you are getting?
Is your employer only paying you more to avoid vandalism or other
attacks from thugs? I'd be ashamed to say that. I'd hate to think
I couldn't get someone to buy my labor without them facing threats.
Everyone I work for pays me because they feel they are getting what
they want for the price. I have worked in unionized shops, and
invariably, those who weren't willing to give the company their
money's worth tried to get me to join the union with the same
arguments claiming I needed the union. But they couldn't tell me why.
The union couldn't get me anything that I couldn't get for myself.
Even the flat tires they gave me for refusing to join would have been
trivial enough for me to accomplish on my own. Fortunately, the
idiots didn't know I keep a compressor in the vehicle so it only
wasted a couple of minutes. But why would I need to associate with
cowards, thugs, extortionists, and lazy mealy mouthed bums for
handouts when my labor has enough value to negotiate on my own behalf?

I'm not afraid of a company treating me poorly or not paying me
enough. If I don't like the pay of the conditions, I quit and sell my
labor elsewhere. Problem solved. The employer is the customer of the
employee. Like anyone else, if you give bad service, you shouldn't
expect the customer to keep shopping with you. If the customer doesn't
pay the bill, you stop giving them service. It's that simple.

William R. James

  #202 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 06:39 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

in article [email protected], Alex Russell at
wrote on 06/11/2004 6:17 AM:

The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.


Well, if the "closed shop" is the only problem that you have with unions,
then you're in clover. The "closed shop" is absolutely illegal in America,
and has been for over half a century. Indeed, it is illegal not only to
"have" such a shop, it's illegal even for a union to _ask_ for one in the
course of its bargaining with an employer, even in a disguised form. Any
collective bargaining agreement providing for such a shop is illegal on its
face, and, if you know of one, all you need do is let the NLRB know of its
existence and sign a simple form called a "charge." The NLRB will take it
from there.

As for the dues being used to promote policies that members disagree with,
you're again in luck. Ever since the Beck decision, members have the right
to demand that any such dues be returned to them by the union. Hundreds of
thousands have made use of that right. (By the way, would you support a
correlative right on the part of a corporation's shareholders to demand that
the corporation repay its shareholders for the costs of its having
advertised, promoted, or advanced policies which the shareholder disagrees
with, including contributions to political parties, PACs, or candidates?) .
.. Again, if you know of an instance where workers' dues are used for such
purposes against their will, all you need do is file a simple form with the
NLRB and they'll take it from there, including getting all the workers'
money back for them, with interest. And, they'll require the recission of
any provision in the union's rules which purports to require workers to
submit to such a practice. . . . Simple. No cost to you.

HH



  #203 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 06:39 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

in article [email protected], Alex Russell at
wrote on 06/11/2004 6:17 AM:

The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.


Well, if the "closed shop" is the only problem that you have with unions,
then you're in clover. The "closed shop" is absolutely illegal in America,
and has been for over half a century. Indeed, it is illegal not only to
"have" such a shop, it's illegal even for a union to _ask_ for one in the
course of its bargaining with an employer, even in a disguised form. Any
collective bargaining agreement providing for such a shop is illegal on its
face, and, if you know of one, all you need do is let the NLRB know of its
existence and sign a simple form called a "charge." The NLRB will take it
from there.

As for the dues being used to promote policies that members disagree with,
you're again in luck. Ever since the Beck decision, members have the right
to demand that any such dues be returned to them by the union. Hundreds of
thousands have made use of that right. (By the way, would you support a
correlative right on the part of a corporation's shareholders to demand that
the corporation repay its shareholders for the costs of its having
advertised, promoted, or advanced policies which the shareholder disagrees
with, including contributions to political parties, PACs, or candidates?) .
.. Again, if you know of an instance where workers' dues are used for such
purposes against their will, all you need do is file a simple form with the
NLRB and they'll take it from there, including getting all the workers'
money back for them, with interest. And, they'll require the recission of
any provision in the union's rules which purports to require workers to
submit to such a practice. . . . Simple. No cost to you.

HH



  #204 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 07:01 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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.

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


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

  #205 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 07:01 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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.

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


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



  #206 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 10:23 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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

  #207 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 10:23 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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

  #210 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 11:17 PM
conservoZILLA
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

WHEN THE MOVIE PROJECTIONISTS WENT ON STRIKE THEY BROKE OUT Windows on
MOVIE GOERS CARS AND SLASHED TIRES

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.


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



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



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities Dan Clore Coffee 1 12-02-2009 12:42 AM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Coffee 0 12-12-2006 08:12 PM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Recipes 0 12-12-2006 08:11 PM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017