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

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:29 PM:

>> 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.


Absolute and utter baloney.

If workers select a union as their collective bargaining representative then
an employer is obliged by law to engage in sincere negotiations. Nothing
more. The law imposes NO obligation upon an employer to agree to any
particular item, or, indeed, even an overall agreement.

What is forbidden is "surface bargaining." Or as it is called in the cases,
"shadow boxing to a draw." All that is required is that the employer make
sincere efforts to meet with his employees' representative and make sincere
efforts to negotiate in good faith, in an effort to compose differences.

If such efforts take place, and no agreement proves possible, then the law
recognizes that an "impasse" has occurred. Whenever a true impasse occurs,
an employer is then free to unilaterally impose his own terms, as embodies
in his last and best offer. Read the leading case of Taft Broadcasting.

The union is, of course, free to ask its members to engage in an economic
strike, in an effort to place economic pressure upon their employer. And,
of course, if they do so, then the employer is free to continue to operate
his business by hiring permanent replacements for the strikers.

Similarly, an employer is free under the law to engage in an offensive
economic lockout, in an effort to exert economic pressure upon employees.

Naturally, each side asserts whatever is to their own best interests. The
unions always claim that a strike is caused or prolonged by unfair labor
practices of the employer. Employers always claim the contrary, and that
the strike is simply the result of an impasse in negotiations. Ultimately,
the NLRB is forced to choose a side, based upon the evidence.

Typically, at the end of a strike the parties call a truce. A contract is
agreed upon, and all or most workers are recalled. If the strike is
determined to have been caused or prolonged by unfair labor practices of the
employer then the employer will be obliged to reinstate all strikers (except
any who have engaged in strike misconduct), with full restoration of
seniority, etc., and with backpay plus interest.

If the union is determined to have engaged in, or caused, or solicited,
strik misconduct then it is obliged to pay damages for the effects thereof.

None of this, of course, will make the slightest impact upon you. You have
already confessed your bias. Yet, others reading this thread may be caused
to do some reading independently, and to check which of us is telling the
truth and which of us is accurate.

I'll take my chances with any such examination.

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:29 PM:

>> 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.


Absolute and utter baloney.

If workers select a union as their collective bargaining representative then
an employer is obliged by law to engage in sincere negotiations. Nothing
more. The law imposes NO obligation upon an employer to agree to any
particular item, or, indeed, even an overall agreement.

What is forbidden is "surface bargaining." Or as it is called in the cases,
"shadow boxing to a draw." All that is required is that the employer make
sincere efforts to meet with his employees' representative and make sincere
efforts to negotiate in good faith, in an effort to compose differences.

If such efforts take place, and no agreement proves possible, then the law
recognizes that an "impasse" has occurred. Whenever a true impasse occurs,
an employer is then free to unilaterally impose his own terms, as embodies
in his last and best offer. Read the leading case of Taft Broadcasting.

The union is, of course, free to ask its members to engage in an economic
strike, in an effort to place economic pressure upon their employer. And,
of course, if they do so, then the employer is free to continue to operate
his business by hiring permanent replacements for the strikers.

Similarly, an employer is free under the law to engage in an offensive
economic lockout, in an effort to exert economic pressure upon employees.

Naturally, each side asserts whatever is to their own best interests. The
unions always claim that a strike is caused or prolonged by unfair labor
practices of the employer. Employers always claim the contrary, and that
the strike is simply the result of an impasse in negotiations. Ultimately,
the NLRB is forced to choose a side, based upon the evidence.

Typically, at the end of a strike the parties call a truce. A contract is
agreed upon, and all or most workers are recalled. If the strike is
determined to have been caused or prolonged by unfair labor practices of the
employer then the employer will be obliged to reinstate all strikers (except
any who have engaged in strike misconduct), with full restoration of
seniority, etc., and with backpay plus interest.

If the union is determined to have engaged in, or caused, or solicited,
strik misconduct then it is obliged to pay damages for the effects thereof.

None of this, of course, will make the slightest impact upon you. You have
already confessed your bias. Yet, others reading this thread may be caused
to do some reading independently, and to check which of us is telling the
truth and which of us is accurate.

I'll take my chances with any such examination.

HH

in article , James A. Donald
at wrote on 06/15/2004 5:31 PM:

> We all know that not every law is enforced, not every crime is
> prosecuted.


So?

We all also know that the rule of law is civilization's only realistic
choice in its struggle to evolve and improve.

Quite obviously, laws are imperfect. Law enforcers are imperfect.
Witnesses are mistaken, biased, or simply unwilling.

But, after several thousands of years of effort, law is the best we've got.

It doesn't do to simply point out the obvious, that the law screws up a lot.

HH

in article , James A. Donald
at wrote on 06/15/2004 5:31 PM:

> We all know that not every law is enforced, not every crime is
> prosecuted.


So?

We all also know that the rule of law is civilization's only realistic
choice in its struggle to evolve and improve.

Quite obviously, laws are imperfect. Law enforcers are imperfect.
Witnesses are mistaken, biased, or simply unwilling.

But, after several thousands of years of effort, law is the best we've got.

It doesn't do to simply point out the obvious, that the law screws up a lot.

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:09 AM:

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

Read the law. Check the cases.

The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.

If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.

So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
sincere. To be honest. To try.

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:09 AM:

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

Read the law. Check the cases.

The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.

If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.

So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
sincere. To be honest. To try.

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:

> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.

Sad.

Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
"rights?"

The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has long
recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to engage
in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at work.

According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.

If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
can't pick and choose.

If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
they wish to engage in union activities.

In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!

Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.

HH

in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:

> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.

Sad.

Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
"rights?"

The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has long
recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to engage
in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at work.

According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.

If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
can't pick and choose.

If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
they wish to engage in union activities.

In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!

Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.

HH

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
>
> Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
> work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
> collectively bargain.

Collective bargaining IS its own protection. If its greed causes it
to overextend itself beyond what the market will bear, why should the
government need to come to its rescue?

When employees conspire together in an attempt to exact more from
their employers, it's called "collective bargaining" and it's
considered good, like Mom and apple pie.

When employers try it because they don't like to be victims of
attempted extortion, it's called "collusion" and that's
bad...anti-American.

> Slowly but surely business is
> strangling the good out of America to profit by it.

How long can an unprofitable business provide people with jobs (if
it's not a government entity)? If I own a business and it doesn't
make a worthwhile profit, I'll have to find something else to do.
Fast.

> When major cartels
> control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
> all that is available.

But if the "major cartel" is a labor union, everything is great,
right?

JR

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
>
> Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
> work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
> collectively bargain.

Collective bargaining IS its own protection. If its greed causes it
to overextend itself beyond what the market will bear, why should the
government need to come to its rescue?

When employees conspire together in an attempt to exact more from
their employers, it's called "collective bargaining" and it's
considered good, like Mom and apple pie.

When employers try it because they don't like to be victims of
attempted extortion, it's called "collusion" and that's
bad...anti-American.

> Slowly but surely business is
> strangling the good out of America to profit by it.

How long can an unprofitable business provide people with jobs (if
it's not a government entity)? If I own a business and it doesn't
make a worthwhile profit, I'll have to find something else to do.
Fast.

> When major cartels
> control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
> all that is available.

But if the "major cartel" is a labor union, everything is great,
right?

JR

"Wm James" > wrote in message
news
> 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
There is no future for capitalism. If you outlaw unions, because then the
workers' only option is revolution.

Guys like you are the best allies of the unions because you are so
self-centered and disgustingly greedy. The South will not rise again.
M.

"Wm James" > wrote in message
news
> 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
There is no future for capitalism. If you outlaw unions, because then the
workers' only option is revolution.

Guys like you are the best allies of the unions because you are so
self-centered and disgustingly greedy. The South will not rise again.
M.

On 15 Jun 2004 20:03:24 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

(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.

Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.

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

I am a business owner.

William R. James

On 15 Jun 2004 20:03:24 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

(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.

Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.

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

I am a business owner.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:02:25 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:09 AM:
>
>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
>> thugs.
>
>Read the law. Check the cases.
>
>The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.

And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime
they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and
take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why
shouldn't the business owner have the same rights?

>If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
>chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
>who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.

Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and
enforced none the less.

>So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
>actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
>good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
>sincere. To be honest. To try.
>
>HH

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

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:02:25 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:09 AM:
>
>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
>> thugs.
>
>Read the law. Check the cases.
>
>The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.

And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime
they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and
take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why
shouldn't the business owner have the same rights?

>If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
>chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
>who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.

Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and
enforced none the less.

>So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
>actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
>good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
>sincere. To be honest. To try.
>
>HH

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

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.

(G*rd*n) wrote:
>> 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.

:
> Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
> US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.


You ought to study labor history some time, if you're so
interested in it.


(G*rd*n) wrote:
>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
>> fellow citizens.

:
> I am a business owner.


So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ 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.

(G*rd*n) wrote:
>> 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.

:
> Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
> US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.


You ought to study labor history some time, if you're so
interested in it.


(G*rd*n) wrote:
>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
>> fellow citizens.

:
> I am a business owner.


So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

--

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

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:31:49 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>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


Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
over the business owner's right to buy labor.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:31:49 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>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


Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
over the business owner's right to buy labor.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>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

Perhaps you should have someone without a comprehension problem read
usenet posts to you and explain them before you make such a fool of
yourself by replying.

Have them read and explain what I wrote to you. Then see if you want
to try a different whine.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>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

Perhaps you should have someone without a comprehension problem read
usenet posts to you and explain them before you make such a fool of
yourself by replying.

Have them read and explain what I wrote to you. Then see if you want
to try a different whine.

William R. James

Hawth Hill > wrote in message >...
> 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.

WR James´s point seems to have completely gone over your head.

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

WR James agrees with that.

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

He doesn´t have any problem with that. He has a problem with
intimidation, with coercion. Whoosh, right over your head.

Hawth Hill > wrote in message >...
> 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.

WR James´s point seems to have completely gone over your head.

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

WR James agrees with that.

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

He doesn´t have any problem with that. He has a problem with
intimidation, with coercion. Whoosh, right over your head.

Hawth Hill > wrote in message >...
> in article , James A. Donald
> at wrote on 06/15/2004 5:31 PM:
>
> > We all know that not every law is enforced, not every crime is
> > prosecuted.
>
>
> So?

So that was his lead-up to his main point. You snipped his argument.

> We all also know that the rule of law is civilization's only realistic
> choice in its struggle to evolve and improve.

You are implying that James is arguing otherwise, but his argument,
which you snipped, is quite different from what you're implying.

> Quite obviously, laws are imperfect. Law enforcers are imperfect.
> Witnesses are mistaken, biased, or simply unwilling.
>
> But, after several thousands of years of effort, law is the best we've got.
>
> It doesn't do to simply point out the obvious, that the law screws up a lot.

James didn't simply do that. He started with the obvious, with common
ground, then went to his main point, which you totally missed. You are
actually supporting his actual argument.

Hawth Hill > wrote in message >...
> in article , James A. Donald
> at wrote on 06/15/2004 5:31 PM:
>
> > We all know that not every law is enforced, not every crime is
> > prosecuted.
>
>
> So?

So that was his lead-up to his main point. You snipped his argument.

> We all also know that the rule of law is civilization's only realistic
> choice in its struggle to evolve and improve.

You are implying that James is arguing otherwise, but his argument,
which you snipped, is quite different from what you're implying.

> Quite obviously, laws are imperfect. Law enforcers are imperfect.
> Witnesses are mistaken, biased, or simply unwilling.
>
> But, after several thousands of years of effort, law is the best we've got.
>
> It doesn't do to simply point out the obvious, that the law screws up a lot.

James didn't simply do that. He started with the obvious, with common
ground, then went to his main point, which you totally missed. You are
actually supporting his actual argument.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:14:20 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
> wrote:

>> 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
> There is no future for capitalism. If you outlaw unions, because then the
>workers' only option is revolution.
>
>Guys like you are the best allies of the unions because you are so
>self-centered and disgustingly greedy. The South will not rise again.
>M.

ROTFLMAO! The unions are dead. They are losing members faster than
Janet Reno loses blind dates. Revolution? By people who are too lazy
to get enough training or work hard enough to make sure their labor
has value in the open market? Right..... I can see it now, a massive
revolutionay force who only wirks 30 hours a week, demands $20 an hour
for unskilled labor, takes 6 weeks off with pay every year plus
holidays, and spends most of the work day whining about their leaders.
Oh, and they demand the batle field conforn to OSHA safety regs before
they fight.

What a joke! The french could defeat them!

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:14:20 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
> wrote:

>> 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
> There is no future for capitalism. If you outlaw unions, because then the
>workers' only option is revolution.
>
>Guys like you are the best allies of the unions because you are so
>self-centered and disgustingly greedy. The South will not rise again.
>M.

ROTFLMAO! The unions are dead. They are losing members faster than
Janet Reno loses blind dates. Revolution? By people who are too lazy
to get enough training or work hard enough to make sure their labor
has value in the open market? Right..... I can see it now, a massive
revolutionay force who only wirks 30 hours a week, demands $20 an hour
for unskilled labor, takes 6 weeks off with pay every year plus
holidays, and spends most of the work day whining about their leaders.
Oh, and they demand the batle field conforn to OSHA safety regs before
they fight.

What a joke! The french could defeat them!

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:51:52 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:29 PM:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
>Absolute and utter baloney.

Your lunch?

>If workers select a union as their collective bargaining representative then
>an employer is obliged by law to engage in sincere negotiations.

Why? Am I not free? Do I not have the right to decide how and with
whom I am willing to trade? If I don't believe in unions, am I not
free to simply decline? That doesn't infringe on anyone else's
rights. The employees are free to take their business elsewere, just
as I am... in a free society.

>Nothing
>more. The law imposes NO obligation upon an employer to agree to any
>particular item, or, indeed, even an overall agreement.
>
>What is forbidden is "surface bargaining." Or as it is called in the cases,
>"shadow boxing to a draw." All that is required is that the employer make
>sincere efforts to meet with his employees' representative and make sincere
>efforts to negotiate in good faith, in an effort to compose differences.

OK, I state clearly and honestly that I do not believe in contracts
for labor, that I do not believe in buying labor bulk. So there will
be no contract and things like pay and benefits will be negotiated
individually. If the employee wants to hire a union negotiator for
that purpose, OK, as long as it's not coming out of my pocket and I'm
not collecting dues for the union, no problem. Is that "good faith"
in your view?

>If such efforts take place, and no agreement proves possible, then the law
>recognizes that an "impasse" has occurred. Whenever a true impasse occurs,
>an employer is then free to unilaterally impose his own terms, as embodies
>in his last and best offer. Read the leading case of Taft Broadcasting.
>
>The union is, of course, free to ask its members to engage in an economic
>strike, in an effort to place economic pressure upon their employer. And,
>of course, if they do so, then the employer is free to continue to operate
>his business by hiring permanent replacements for the strikers.

Kindly search the newspapers and archives and see hawmany examples of
"economic strikes" you can locate. I dare you.

>Similarly, an employer is free under the law to engage in an offensive
>economic lockout, in an effort to exert economic pressure upon employees.

But not to simple replace the bums blocking the drive with workers who
are willing to show up and do the job.

>Naturally, each side asserts whatever is to their own best interests. The
>unions always claim that a strike is caused or prolonged by unfair labor
>practices of the employer. Employers always claim the contrary, and that
>the strike is simply the result of an impasse in negotiations. Ultimately,
>the NLRB is forced to choose a side, based upon the evidence.

But the NLRB and the union have not invested a nickle in the business.
What business is it of theirs to decide how much or from whom the
busness owner purchases anything he uses in the busines whether it's
fuel, materials, tools, or labor?

>Typically, at the end of a strike the parties call a truce. A contract is
>agreed upon, and all or most workers are recalled. If the strike is
>determined to have been caused or prolonged by unfair labor practices of the
>employer then the employer will be obliged to reinstate all strikers (except
>any who have engaged in strike misconduct), with full restoration of
>seniority, etc., and with backpay plus interest.

I don't believe in seniority. And why should any employer have to pay
people who refused to show up for work? That's insane.

>If the union is determined to have engaged in, or caused, or solicited,
>strik misconduct then it is obliged to pay damages for the effects thereof.

Like that's going to happen. But if they didn't show up, they
shouldn't be considered employees. If they committed crimes of
vandalism, terrorism, or otherwise infringed on the rights of real
workers trying to go to work, then they belong in prison.

>None of this, of course, will make the slightest impact upon you. You have
>already confessed your bias. Yet, others reading this thread may be caused
>to do some reading independently, and to check which of us is telling the
>truth and which of us is accurate.
>
>I'll take my chances with any such examination.
>
>HH

Bias? Absolutely! I am totally biased toward any party's right to
spend their own money with whom they please.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:51:52 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:29 PM:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
>Absolute and utter baloney.

Your lunch?

>If workers select a union as their collective bargaining representative then
>an employer is obliged by law to engage in sincere negotiations.

Why? Am I not free? Do I not have the right to decide how and with
whom I am willing to trade? If I don't believe in unions, am I not
free to simply decline? That doesn't infringe on anyone else's
rights. The employees are free to take their business elsewere, just
as I am... in a free society.

>Nothing
>more. The law imposes NO obligation upon an employer to agree to any
>particular item, or, indeed, even an overall agreement.
>
>What is forbidden is "surface bargaining." Or as it is called in the cases,
>"shadow boxing to a draw." All that is required is that the employer make
>sincere efforts to meet with his employees' representative and make sincere
>efforts to negotiate in good faith, in an effort to compose differences.

OK, I state clearly and honestly that I do not believe in contracts
for labor, that I do not believe in buying labor bulk. So there will
be no contract and things like pay and benefits will be negotiated
individually. If the employee wants to hire a union negotiator for
that purpose, OK, as long as it's not coming out of my pocket and I'm
not collecting dues for the union, no problem. Is that "good faith"
in your view?

>If such efforts take place, and no agreement proves possible, then the law
>recognizes that an "impasse" has occurred. Whenever a true impasse occurs,
>an employer is then free to unilaterally impose his own terms, as embodies
>in his last and best offer. Read the leading case of Taft Broadcasting.
>
>The union is, of course, free to ask its members to engage in an economic
>strike, in an effort to place economic pressure upon their employer. And,
>of course, if they do so, then the employer is free to continue to operate
>his business by hiring permanent replacements for the strikers.

Kindly search the newspapers and archives and see hawmany examples of
"economic strikes" you can locate. I dare you.

>Similarly, an employer is free under the law to engage in an offensive
>economic lockout, in an effort to exert economic pressure upon employees.

But not to simple replace the bums blocking the drive with workers who
are willing to show up and do the job.

>Naturally, each side asserts whatever is to their own best interests. The
>unions always claim that a strike is caused or prolonged by unfair labor
>practices of the employer. Employers always claim the contrary, and that
>the strike is simply the result of an impasse in negotiations. Ultimately,
>the NLRB is forced to choose a side, based upon the evidence.

But the NLRB and the union have not invested a nickle in the business.
What business is it of theirs to decide how much or from whom the
busness owner purchases anything he uses in the busines whether it's
fuel, materials, tools, or labor?

>Typically, at the end of a strike the parties call a truce. A contract is
>agreed upon, and all or most workers are recalled. If the strike is
>determined to have been caused or prolonged by unfair labor practices of the
>employer then the employer will be obliged to reinstate all strikers (except
>any who have engaged in strike misconduct), with full restoration of
>seniority, etc., and with backpay plus interest.

I don't believe in seniority. And why should any employer have to pay
people who refused to show up for work? That's insane.

>If the union is determined to have engaged in, or caused, or solicited,
>strik misconduct then it is obliged to pay damages for the effects thereof.

Like that's going to happen. But if they didn't show up, they
shouldn't be considered employees. If they committed crimes of
vandalism, terrorism, or otherwise infringed on the rights of real
workers trying to go to work, then they belong in prison.

>None of this, of course, will make the slightest impact upon you. You have
>already confessed your bias. Yet, others reading this thread may be caused
>to do some reading independently, and to check which of us is telling the
>truth and which of us is accurate.
>
>I'll take my chances with any such examination.
>
>HH

Bias? Absolutely! I am totally biased toward any party's right to
spend their own money with whom they please.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:
>
>> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>
>Sad.
>
>Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
>"rights?"
>
>The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has long
>recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to engage
>in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at work.
>
>According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
>engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
>other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.
>
>If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
>can't pick and choose.
>
>If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
>chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
>that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
>of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
>they wish to engage in union activities.
>
>In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
>discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!
>
>Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.
>
>HH


What are you talking about? Again, please try to address the post you
are answering if you are attempting to make any sense.

William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:
>
>> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>
>Sad.
>
>Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
>"rights?"
>
>The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has long
>recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to engage
>in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at work.
>
>According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
>engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
>other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.
>
>If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
>can't pick and choose.
>
>If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
>chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
>that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
>of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
>they wish to engage in union activities.
>
>In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
>discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!
>
>Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.
>
>HH


What are you talking about? Again, please try to address the post you
are answering if you are attempting to make any sense.

William R. James

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> (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.
>
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> :
> > Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
> > US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.
>
>
> You ought to study labor history some time, if you're so
> interested in it.
>
>
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> >> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> >> fellow citizens.
>
> :
> > I am a business owner.
>
>
> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the
gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up deposit cans
out of the gutter ?

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> (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.
>
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> :
> > Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
> > US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.
>
>
> You ought to study labor history some time, if you're so
> interested in it.
>
>
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> >> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> >> fellow citizens.
>
> :
> > I am a business owner.
>
>
> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the
gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up deposit cans
out of the gutter ?

> ...

(G*rd*n) wrote:
> > >> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> > >> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> > >> fellow citizens.

:
> > > I am a business owner.

"G*rd*n" >
> > So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

"zztop8970" >:
> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the
> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up deposit cans
> out of the gutter ?


Not at all.
--

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

> ...

(G*rd*n) wrote:
> > >> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> > >> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> > >> fellow citizens.

:
> > > I am a business owner.

"G*rd*n" >
> > So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

"zztop8970" >:
> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the
> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up deposit cans
> out of the gutter ?


Not at all.
--

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

> (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.

Actually, I hadn't intended the question as an insult. Just a bit of
irony meant not for you but for anyone else following this thread. On
the other hand, your volunteering (with some pride?) that you are
related to Cecil Ray Price (not to mention some other scurrilous
characters) leaves me breathless--beyond what any insult could asuage.
So, again, not for you (you surely know the background of your
relations) here, for the alties, is a reminder of CR Price:

"Cecil Ray Price was the deputy sheriff . . .and the man in the center
of the conspiracy to murder Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney. Price was
the man who stopped the blue Ford station wagon on the afternoon of
June 21, the man who placed the three in the Neshoba County Jail, and
the man who, around 10:30 at night, sent the three civil rights
workers on their way to meet their murderers.

"Price, a Klansman, seemed to derive great pleasure from terrorizing
Neshoba County blacks. One night he showed up at a roadhouse popular
with young blacks, drew his six-shooter and shouted. . ." I'll end it
there.

By the way, if you are used to being insulted, it is definitely NOT
because you are from Mississippi.
Martin

> (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.

Actually, I hadn't intended the question as an insult. Just a bit of
irony meant not for you but for anyone else following this thread. On
the other hand, your volunteering (with some pride?) that you are
related to Cecil Ray Price (not to mention some other scurrilous
characters) leaves me breathless--beyond what any insult could asuage.
So, again, not for you (you surely know the background of your
relations) here, for the alties, is a reminder of CR Price:

"Cecil Ray Price was the deputy sheriff . . .and the man in the center
of the conspiracy to murder Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney. Price was
the man who stopped the blue Ford station wagon on the afternoon of
June 21, the man who placed the three in the Neshoba County Jail, and
the man who, around 10:30 at night, sent the three civil rights
workers on their way to meet their murderers.

"Price, a Klansman, seemed to derive great pleasure from terrorizing
Neshoba County blacks. One night he showed up at a roadhouse popular
with young blacks, drew his six-shooter and shouted. . ." I'll end it
there.

By the way, if you are used to being insulted, it is definitely NOT
because you are from Mississippi.
Martin

G*rd*n:
> > 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.

Wm James
> Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been
> a time in US history when anyone was not allowed to form or
> join a labor union.

I think he has in mind some of the times when unions were
restricted from machine gunning scab laborers, blowing them up
with cannons, torturing them, with oars, by people shooting
back.

Recollect similar synthetic indignation concerning Margaret
Thatcher's "union breaking".