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
  #211 (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


  #212 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 11:18 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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

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?


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?


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.


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.

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?


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.

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


  #213 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 11:18 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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

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?


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?


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.


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.

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?


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.

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


  #214 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 11:43 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

in article , Michael Legel
at
wrote on 06/14/2004 1:33 AM:

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.


Actually, Michael, you're in my opinion being just a bit "too fair."

I say that in response to your statement that employers are restricted by
numerous laws from firing. I don't wish to be argumentative, but that's
just not the case.

In fact, there are relatively FEW laws that prevent employers from firing
employees. Whether on a whim or not.

An employer is prevented by just a few statutes from firing whoever he
wants, for whatever reason he wants. There is an old axiom that is still
used in labor law. It reads, "An employer is free to discipline an
employee, including by discharge, for a good reason, a bad reason, or no
reason at all." No kiddin'! That's still pretty much the law.

The NLRA has for nearly 70 years made it illegal for an employer to
discriminate agianst or discipline, including discharge, an employee for the
reason that the employees has engaged in union activities, or has pro-union
activities, leanings or sympathies, or has engaged in other concerted,
protected activities. But, an employer can discharge an employee for
virtually any other reason that he cares to, at any time, and will not be
held to have violated the law.

Generally speaking, the few other exceptions that lend support to employees
against discrimination by an employer involve such matters as racial
discrimination, sexual harrassment, retaliation against employees who give
testimony in labor law cases, and the like.

All in all, there's not many.

The mere fact that an employee is in a union will not shield him from being
fired. No, instead, whatever protection most workers get from unfair
discharge or other discipline is derived from the terms of their collective
bargaining agreement with the employer.

Such agreements commonly require that the employer's discipline not be
arbitrary or disproportionate, etc. They commonly provide for a procedure
to discuss any grievances of employees over issues of discipline, and
frequently provide that, (in the event that the employer and the union are
unable to reach an agreement concerning the matter), then the matter will be
decided by an arbitrator who is selected by _both_ sides. Then, if the
employer refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, the union can
take that decision into a Federal court and have it enforced if it seems
fair and regular on its face.

It is common to hear a lot about how unions keep employers from enforcing
work rules or fair discipline. That's just nonsense. No matter how strong
a union's contract is, an employer retains the authority to discipline
employees who engage in misconduct. Indeed, it is the norm for collective
bargaining agreements to explicitly provide that in the case of certain
egregious actions by employees, (such as drinking on the job, fighting on
the job, stealing or other illegal or dishonest activities on the job,
revealing the employer's trade secrets, and the like), an employee may be
discharged instantly, without even going through the lower stages of the
contractually agreed upon grievance procedure.

So, please forgive me for simply responding to those who routinely whine
about how an employer loses the right to run his business when a union is
selected by his employees. It's simply not true.

I don't deny that some employers do lose control. But, not the savvy ones.

HH


  #215 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2004, 11:43 PM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

in article , Michael Legel
at
wrote on 06/14/2004 1:33 AM:

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.


Actually, Michael, you're in my opinion being just a bit "too fair."

I say that in response to your statement that employers are restricted by
numerous laws from firing. I don't wish to be argumentative, but that's
just not the case.

In fact, there are relatively FEW laws that prevent employers from firing
employees. Whether on a whim or not.

An employer is prevented by just a few statutes from firing whoever he
wants, for whatever reason he wants. There is an old axiom that is still
used in labor law. It reads, "An employer is free to discipline an
employee, including by discharge, for a good reason, a bad reason, or no
reason at all." No kiddin'! That's still pretty much the law.

The NLRA has for nearly 70 years made it illegal for an employer to
discriminate agianst or discipline, including discharge, an employee for the
reason that the employees has engaged in union activities, or has pro-union
activities, leanings or sympathies, or has engaged in other concerted,
protected activities. But, an employer can discharge an employee for
virtually any other reason that he cares to, at any time, and will not be
held to have violated the law.

Generally speaking, the few other exceptions that lend support to employees
against discrimination by an employer involve such matters as racial
discrimination, sexual harrassment, retaliation against employees who give
testimony in labor law cases, and the like.

All in all, there's not many.

The mere fact that an employee is in a union will not shield him from being
fired. No, instead, whatever protection most workers get from unfair
discharge or other discipline is derived from the terms of their collective
bargaining agreement with the employer.

Such agreements commonly require that the employer's discipline not be
arbitrary or disproportionate, etc. They commonly provide for a procedure
to discuss any grievances of employees over issues of discipline, and
frequently provide that, (in the event that the employer and the union are
unable to reach an agreement concerning the matter), then the matter will be
decided by an arbitrator who is selected by _both_ sides. Then, if the
employer refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, the union can
take that decision into a Federal court and have it enforced if it seems
fair and regular on its face.

It is common to hear a lot about how unions keep employers from enforcing
work rules or fair discipline. That's just nonsense. No matter how strong
a union's contract is, an employer retains the authority to discipline
employees who engage in misconduct. Indeed, it is the norm for collective
bargaining agreements to explicitly provide that in the case of certain
egregious actions by employees, (such as drinking on the job, fighting on
the job, stealing or other illegal or dishonest activities on the job,
revealing the employer's trade secrets, and the like), an employee may be
discharged instantly, without even going through the lower stages of the
contractually agreed upon grievance procedure.

So, please forgive me for simply responding to those who routinely whine
about how an employer loses the right to run his business when a union is
selected by his employees. It's simply not true.

I don't deny that some employers do lose control. But, not the savvy ones.

HH




  #216 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 01:13 AM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

in article , conservoZILLA at
wrote on 06/14/2004 11:17 PM:

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


Look, as I've said repeatedly, I have no sympathy for lawbreakers, whether
union or management. But, I've also said repeatedly that if there is
evidence to support your statement that "they" broke out windows and slashed
tires, that's not only a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA, but
also criminal activity that is fully prosecutable under local and/or state
laws, as well as Federal laws.

Does it happen? . . . Of course it happens. There are frequently some
loudmouths on picket lines, and some of them seem to get their ideas about
labor-management relations and tactics and laws from the movies. Macho
bravado plays just as big a part in such incidents as it does elsewhere in
life. Alcohol is a frequent contributor.

Was the union, or its officials, responsible? Did they encourage, or just
give a wink and a nudge to, such activity? . . . . That's what is needed, my
friend. To hold the union responsible for the actions of such oafs it is
necessary to show that the union actually did something that caused or
encouraged it. Just like you can't hold a corporation responsible for each
action of its employees, you can't hold a union responsible for each action
of any of its members. It's been my observation over the decades that
courts are especially harsh in dealing with such activity if there's proof
as to its causation.

So, I've got to ask, how do you know who did it? And how do you know that
those who did it were acting at the behest of, or with the knowledge of, the
union? If you claim to have personal knowledge, did you give it to the
authorities? If not, why not?

I've prosecuted thugs like you describe. And sent a few of them to jail.

I've also prosecuted and jailed some from the management side of the table.

Whatever side they're on, if there's evidence to back up the charges, it'll
be prosecuted. But neither hunches nor speculation nor a visceral response
will carry the day. Maybe a hard rule. But, evidence is what will
determine the outcome, and only the evidence. If you ain't got it, tough.
Just like everywhere else in life.

HH

  #217 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 01:13 AM
Hawth Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

in article , conservoZILLA at
wrote on 06/14/2004 11:17 PM:

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


Look, as I've said repeatedly, I have no sympathy for lawbreakers, whether
union or management. But, I've also said repeatedly that if there is
evidence to support your statement that "they" broke out windows and slashed
tires, that's not only a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA, but
also criminal activity that is fully prosecutable under local and/or state
laws, as well as Federal laws.

Does it happen? . . . Of course it happens. There are frequently some
loudmouths on picket lines, and some of them seem to get their ideas about
labor-management relations and tactics and laws from the movies. Macho
bravado plays just as big a part in such incidents as it does elsewhere in
life. Alcohol is a frequent contributor.

Was the union, or its officials, responsible? Did they encourage, or just
give a wink and a nudge to, such activity? . . . . That's what is needed, my
friend. To hold the union responsible for the actions of such oafs it is
necessary to show that the union actually did something that caused or
encouraged it. Just like you can't hold a corporation responsible for each
action of its employees, you can't hold a union responsible for each action
of any of its members. It's been my observation over the decades that
courts are especially harsh in dealing with such activity if there's proof
as to its causation.

So, I've got to ask, how do you know who did it? And how do you know that
those who did it were acting at the behest of, or with the knowledge of, the
union? If you claim to have personal knowledge, did you give it to the
authorities? If not, why not?

I've prosecuted thugs like you describe. And sent a few of them to jail.

I've also prosecuted and jailed some from the management side of the table.

Whatever side they're on, if there's evidence to back up the charges, it'll
be prosecuted. But neither hunches nor speculation nor a visceral response
will carry the day. Maybe a hard rule. But, evidence is what will
determine the outcome, and only the evidence. If you ain't got it, tough.
Just like everywhere else in life.

HH

  #218 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 02:14 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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

  #219 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 02:14 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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

  #220 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 02:17 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:13:02 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
wrote:

Was the union, or its officials, responsible? Did they encourage, or just
give a wink and a nudge to, such activity? . . . .


That's the purpose of a picket line. Otherwise strikers would walk
around in FRONT of a building in public view to express their message
instead of blocking the gates of a plant around back where employees
enter. Strikes are primarialy acts of terrorism, attempts at
intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose
to a picket line.

William R. James



  #221 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 02:17 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:13:02 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
wrote:

Was the union, or its officials, responsible? Did they encourage, or just
give a wink and a nudge to, such activity? . . . .


That's the purpose of a picket line. Otherwise strikers would walk
around in FRONT of a building in public view to express their message
instead of blocking the gates of a plant around back where employees
enter. Strikes are primarialy acts of terrorism, attempts at
intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose
to a picket line.

William R. James

  #222 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 02:29 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
wrote:

So, please forgive me for simply responding to those who routinely whine
about how an employer loses the right to run his business when a union is
selected by his employees. It's simply not true.


It absolutely is true. If I own a business and a union is selected by
the employees, what happens if I exercise my right to deal with
employees as individuals? People are different and I don't believe in
negotiating things like pay with a group. I don't believe in
"seniority" for purposes of promotion, but qualification, work ethic,
etc. Nor do I believe is supporting the union by having my company
collect the dies for them. Do I have the right to refuse to negotiate
with a union? No, not accorting to the unconstitional laws infringing
on the rights of business owners.

If some employees fail to show up for work, I can fire them and hire
people willing to show up for work, right? What if the bums are
spending their days standing out in the drive blocking traffic and
threatening employees and carrying silly signs? Government says I
can't fire them, I can't even have the police arrest them for
harassment or loitering.

William R. James

  #223 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 02:29 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
wrote:

So, please forgive me for simply responding to those who routinely whine
about how an employer loses the right to run his business when a union is
selected by his employees. It's simply not true.


It absolutely is true. If I own a business and a union is selected by
the employees, what happens if I exercise my right to deal with
employees as individuals? People are different and I don't believe in
negotiating things like pay with a group. I don't believe in
"seniority" for purposes of promotion, but qualification, work ethic,
etc. Nor do I believe is supporting the union by having my company
collect the dies for them. Do I have the right to refuse to negotiate
with a union? No, not accorting to the unconstitional laws infringing
on the rights of business owners.

If some employees fail to show up for work, I can fire them and hire
people willing to show up for work, right? What if the bums are
spending their days standing out in the drive blocking traffic and
threatening employees and carrying silly signs? Government says I
can't fire them, I can't even have the police arrest them for
harassment or loitering.

William R. James

  #224 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 05:31 PM
James A. Donald
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:13:02 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
Look, as I've said repeatedly, I have no sympathy for
lawbreakers, whether union or management. But, I've also
said repeatedly that if there is evidence to support your
statement that "they" broke out windows and slashed tires,
that's not only a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
NLRA, but also criminal activity that is fully prosecutable
under local and/or state laws, as well as Federal laws.


We all know that not every law is enforced, not every crime is
prosecuted. The fact that a union exists is in practice a
rather good indication that certain laws are being enforced
selectively, certain crimes prosecuted selectively.

To this day, many people are extraordinarily bitter and
outraged that Margaret Thatcher chose to enforce some quite
ordinary laws against assault when a union boss proceeded to
intimidate those union members that had voted in a politically
incorrect fashion. They feel that it was quite extraordinary
to protect union members from being beaten up by union goons
coming in from far away places - and of course they are right.
It was quite extraordinary.
  #225 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 05:31 PM
James A. Donald
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:13:02 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
Look, as I've said repeatedly, I have no sympathy for
lawbreakers, whether union or management. But, I've also
said repeatedly that if there is evidence to support your
statement that "they" broke out windows and slashed tires,
that's not only a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
NLRA, but also criminal activity that is fully prosecutable
under local and/or state laws, as well as Federal laws.


We all know that not every law is enforced, not every crime is
prosecuted. The fact that a union exists is in practice a
rather good indication that certain laws are being enforced
selectively, certain crimes prosecuted selectively.

To this day, many people are extraordinarily bitter and
outraged that Margaret Thatcher chose to enforce some quite
ordinary laws against assault when a union boss proceeded to
intimidate those union members that had voted in a politically
incorrect fashion. They feel that it was quite extraordinary
to protect union members from being beaten up by union goons
coming in from far away places - and of course they are right.
It was quite extraordinary.


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 05:49 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