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

in article Ffbyc.2604$Qd.1655@clgrps13, 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

in article Ffbyc.2604$Qd.1655@clgrps13, 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

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

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

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

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

On 13 Jun 2004 10:09:02 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

(G*rd*n):
>> >As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
>> >of the rights of association, contract and representation
>> >supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
>> >other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
>> >subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
>> >in this regard.
>
:
>> Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
>> respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
>> around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
>> shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
>> willing to show up and do the work.
>>
>> You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
>> of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
>> whom he pleases too.
>
>
>So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
>organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
>something else?


I'll make you a deal. You get government out of it, and I'll stop
pointing out the facts. Until them, since you apparently don't thing
businesses are legitimate organizations, why don't you keep whining
about that?

William R. James

On 13 Jun 2004 10:09:02 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

(G*rd*n):
>> >As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
>> >of the rights of association, contract and representation
>> >supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
>> >other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
>> >subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
>> >in this regard.
>
:
>> Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
>> respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
>> around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
>> shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
>> willing to show up and do the work.
>>
>> You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
>> of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
>> whom he pleases too.
>
>
>So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
>organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
>something else?


I'll make you a deal. You get government out of it, and I'll stop
pointing out the facts. Until them, since you apparently don't thing
businesses are legitimate organizations, why don't you keep whining
about that?

William R. James

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
>

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
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

In the referenced article, (James A. Donald) writes:

>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.

Assuming you mean the miners' strike, people are outraged because the
state used the police, the secret services and the armed forces to
destroy an industry because they didn't like its union and because,
after the strike, the state used similar methods to plant smear
stories claiming that that union was in league with Ghadaffi (when in
fact Ghaddafi had supported the Thatcher government).
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

In the referenced article, (James A. Donald) writes:

>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.

Assuming you mean the miners' strike, people are outraged because the
state used the police, the secret services and the armed forces to
destroy an industry because they didn't like its union and because,
after the strike, the state used similar methods to plant smear
stories claiming that that union was in league with Ghadaffi (when in
fact Ghaddafi had supported the Thatcher government).
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

(G*rd*n):
>>>>As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
>>>>of the rights of association, contract and representation
>>>>supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
>>>>other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
>>>>subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
>>>>in this regard.

:
>>> Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
>>> respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
>>> around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
>>> shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
>>> willing to show up and do the work.
>>>
>>> You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
>>> of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
>>> whom he pleases too.

(G*rd*n):
>>So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
>>organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
>>something else?

:
> I'll make you a deal. You get government out of it, and I'll stop
> pointing out the facts. Until them, since you apparently don't thing
> businesses are legitimate organizations, why don't you keep whining
> about that?


How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

(G*rd*n):
>>>>As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
>>>>of the rights of association, contract and representation
>>>>supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
>>>>other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
>>>>subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
>>>>in this regard.

:
>>> Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
>>> respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
>>> around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
>>> shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
>>> willing to show up and do the work.
>>>
>>> You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
>>> of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
>>> whom he pleases too.

(G*rd*n):
>>So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
>>organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
>>something else?

:
> I'll make you a deal. You get government out of it, and I'll stop
> pointing out the facts. Until them, since you apparently don't thing
> businesses are legitimate organizations, why don't you keep whining
> about that?


How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

Wm James > wrote in message >. ..
Before
> >>you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
> >>somewhere else, what would you choose?

There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe) cannot imagine a
sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
responsible action.

Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
individuals collectively support a single management team that
represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
Martin

Wm James > wrote in message >. ..
Before
> >>you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
> >>somewhere else, what would you choose?

There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe) cannot imagine a
sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
responsible action.

Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
individuals collectively support a single management team that
represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
Martin

On 15 Jun 2004 16:21:26 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
>almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
>and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
thugs.

William R. James

On 15 Jun 2004 16:21:26 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
>almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
>and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
thugs.

William R. James

On 15 Jun 2004 13:57:22 -0700, (Martin) wrote:

>Wm James > wrote in message >. ..
>Before
>> >>you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
>> >>somewhere else, what would you choose?
>
>There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
>opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
>the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
>the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe)

No, But I am related to Jesse James, President Davis, President Tyler,
David Duke, and Deputy Cecil Price of the the "Mississippi Burning"
insident. Want to poke fun at that? Go ahead. I'm fromMississippi,
I'm used to people substitutiong insults for discussion.

> cannot imagine a
>sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
>responsible action.

I do not see anything "responsible" in supporting thugs harassing
people. If they want to sell their labor they are free to do so. If
they don't then no one is forcing them. If they don't want to shop
somewhere, they don't have to, if they do, that's their business too.
When they act to prevent by force or intimidation or even
inconvenience to attempt to prevent others from exercising their
rights to work or shop, that are not acting responsibly, they are just
two bit thugs undeserving of respect or consideration.

>Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
>individuals collectively support a single management team that
>represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
>important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
>act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
>The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
>shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
>Martin

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. If he
doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No peoblem. Just keep
government out of the business of butting into either party's business
and requiring participation. Fair enough?

William R. James

On 15 Jun 2004 13:57:22 -0700, (Martin) wrote:

>Wm James > wrote in message >. ..
>Before
>> >>you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
>> >>somewhere else, what would you choose?
>
>There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
>opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
>the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
>the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe)

No, But I am related to Jesse James, President Davis, President Tyler,
David Duke, and Deputy Cecil Price of the the "Mississippi Burning"
insident. Want to poke fun at that? Go ahead. I'm fromMississippi,
I'm used to people substitutiong insults for discussion.

> cannot imagine a
>sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
>responsible action.

I do not see anything "responsible" in supporting thugs harassing
people. If they want to sell their labor they are free to do so. If
they don't then no one is forcing them. If they don't want to shop
somewhere, they don't have to, if they do, that's their business too.
When they act to prevent by force or intimidation or even
inconvenience to attempt to prevent others from exercising their
rights to work or shop, that are not acting responsibly, they are just
two bit thugs undeserving of respect or consideration.

>Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
>individuals collectively support a single management team that
>represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
>important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
>act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
>The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
>shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
>Martin

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. If he
doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No peoblem. Just keep
government out of the business of butting into either party's business
and requiring participation. Fair enough?

William R. James

(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
> >almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
> >and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

:
> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
> thugs.


I think some of them want just a bit more rights than some
other people. Otherwise you would not have centuries of
legislation restricting or forbidding labor unions.

If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
fellow citizens.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
> >almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
> >and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

:
> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
> thugs.


I think some of them want just a bit more rights than some
other people. Otherwise you would not have centuries of
legislation restricting or forbidding labor unions.

If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
fellow citizens.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:14 PM:

> 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.

Well, that says all that needs be said concerning your objectivity, and your
willingness to face facts.

Jeez! A jerk who claims that thousands and thousands of people, over
decades, are "evil", and that nobody but him has tumbled to those facts,
shows himself for what he is.

Case closed!

Bye!

<Plonk>

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:14 PM:

> 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.

Well, that says all that needs be said concerning your objectivity, and your
willingness to face facts.

Jeez! A jerk who claims that thousands and thousands of people, over
decades, are "evil", and that nobody but him has tumbled to those facts,
shows himself for what he is.

Case closed!

Bye!

<Plonk>

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:17 PM:

> 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.


In the case of Thornhill vs. Alabama the Supreme Court held that there is a
First Amendment right to publicize a dispute between workers and their
employer. The fact that they do so in a way that you, a bigot and
ignoramus, don't approve of is of no moment.

Workers have a constitutional right to both publicize their grievances,
their dispute with their employer, and to appeal for the support of others.

If you don't like that, go to a country with a different constitution.

HH