|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
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". |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
(G*rd*n) wrote in message >...
> > ... > > (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. Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. WrJames made the point that "Business owners want the same rights as everyone else", to which you responded with "some of them want just a bit more rights than some other people ... If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their fellow citizens." This would seem to indicate that you think WrJames is wrong, and business owners are not all that much like others. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> > > ...
(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 ? (G*rd*n): >> Not at all. (zztop8970-): > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > ... It does, doesn't it? But as I look at this thread, I think we're in non-sequitur city. For instance, saying "I am a rock" would not really be a non-non-sequitur to a remark like "If you knew anything about rocks, you'd know that chrysolite is often found on Tuesdays." Or maybe it wouldn't.... Anyway, feel free to rewrite the thread and post several versions of it, if you like. I promise not to make fun of you, at least not until tomorrow morning. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> > > ...
(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 ? (G*rd*n): >> Not at all. (zztop8970-): > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > ... It does, doesn't it? But as I look at this thread, I think we're in non-sequitur city. For instance, saying "I am a rock" would not really be a non-non-sequitur to a remark like "If you knew anything about rocks, you'd know that chrysolite is often found on Tuesdays." Or maybe it wouldn't.... Anyway, feel free to rewrite the thread and post several versions of it, if you like. I promise not to make fun of you, at least not until tomorrow morning. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > > > > ... > > (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 ? > > (G*rd*n): > >> Not at all. > > (zztop8970-): > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > ... > > > It does, doesn't it? Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are they not? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > > > > ... > > (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 ? > > (G*rd*n): > >> Not at all. > > (zztop8970-): > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > ... > > > It does, doesn't it? Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are they not? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> > > > > ...
I. (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. II. : >>>>>>> I am a business owner. III. "G*rd*n" > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter. IV. "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 ? (G*rd*n): > > >> Not at all. (zztop8970-): > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > ... (G*rd*n): > > It does, doesn't it? "zztop8970" >: > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are > they not? Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior discussion) that he doesn't know something about business owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive construction) and that if he did he might have different opinions. In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of rocks. He may have meant to add, "and I know something about myself", but there is no evidence of this (either of the desire, or of the meaning of the possibly omitted additional statement). In (III.), eager to play along, I contributed another non- sequitur to the discussion -- that fact that guys who pick up cans out of the gutter are "business owners". Apparently this fluff-batting attracted your attention, for voilā, you pop up in (IV.) to ask what's going on. However, you're not getting with the program; you seem to be trying to home in on some subject or other. I wish you luck, but I don't think you're going to find much in a game of fluff tennis between me and wrjames. Maybe there's something further back up the thread? -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> > > > > ...
I. (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. II. : >>>>>>> I am a business owner. III. "G*rd*n" > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter. IV. "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 ? (G*rd*n): > > >> Not at all. (zztop8970-): > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > ... (G*rd*n): > > It does, doesn't it? "zztop8970" >: > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are > they not? Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior discussion) that he doesn't know something about business owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive construction) and that if he did he might have different opinions. In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of rocks. He may have meant to add, "and I know something about myself", but there is no evidence of this (either of the desire, or of the meaning of the possibly omitted additional statement). In (III.), eager to play along, I contributed another non- sequitur to the discussion -- that fact that guys who pick up cans out of the gutter are "business owners". Apparently this fluff-batting attracted your attention, for voilā, you pop up in (IV.) to ask what's going on. However, you're not getting with the program; you seem to be trying to home in on some subject or other. I wish you luck, but I don't think you're going to find much in a game of fluff tennis between me and wrjames. Maybe there's something further back up the thread? -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In California, wrongful discharge usually results in a lawsuit settlement of
$100,000 or more. M "Hawth Hill" > wrote in message ... > 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 > > |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In California, wrongful discharge usually results in a lawsuit settlement of
$100,000 or more. M "Hawth Hill" > wrote in message ... > 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 > > |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"JR" > wrote in message om... > "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 ] When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun. M |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"JR" > wrote in message om... > "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 ] When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun. M |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"zztop8970" > wrote in message m... > > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message > ... > > > > > ... > > > > (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 ? > > > > (G*rd*n): > > >> Not at all. > > > > (zztop8970-): > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > ... > > > > > > It does, doesn't it? > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are > they not? > Business owners are more greedy, cruel and dishonest than the average citizen. Business is a compulsive disorder. M |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"zztop8970" > wrote in message m... > > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message > ... > > > > > ... > > > > (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 ? > > > > (G*rd*n): > > >> Not at all. > > > > (zztop8970-): > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > ... > > > > > > It does, doesn't it? > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are > they not? > Business owners are more greedy, cruel and dishonest than the average citizen. Business is a compulsive disorder. M |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > ... > > I. > (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. > > II. > : > >>>>>>> I am a business owner. > > III. > "G*rd*n" > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter. > > IV. > "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 ? > > (G*rd*n): > > > >> Not at all. > > (zztop8970-): > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > > ... > > (G*rd*n): > > > It does, doesn't it? > > "zztop8970" >: > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are > > they not? > > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive > construction) and that if he did he might have different > opinions. > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business owning citizens. I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me, and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat , though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean Maxims.). I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from even more ludicrous suggestions in the past). > In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is > a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of > rocks. You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being stated explicitly. > He may have meant to add, "and I know something about > myself", but there is no evidence of this (either of the > desire, or of the meaning of the possibly omitted additional > statement). > > In (III.), eager to play along, I contributed another non- > sequitur to the discussion -- that fact that guys who pick > up cans out of the gutter are "business owners". > > Apparently this fluff-batting attracted your attention, for > voilā, you pop up in (IV.) to ask what's going on. > However, you're not getting with the program; you seem to be > trying to home in on some subject or other. I wish you > luck, but I don't think you're going to find much in a game > of fluff tennis between me and wrjames. Maybe there's > something further back up the thread? As should be painfully obviosu, I don;t give a rat's ass about the mind games you play with WrJames, but I am interested in an answer to the direct question I asked you - Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are they not? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > ... > > I. > (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. > > II. > : > >>>>>>> I am a business owner. > > III. > "G*rd*n" > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter. > > IV. > "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 ? > > (G*rd*n): > > > >> Not at all. > > (zztop8970-): > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > > ... > > (G*rd*n): > > > It does, doesn't it? > > "zztop8970" >: > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are > > they not? > > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive > construction) and that if he did he might have different > opinions. > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business owning citizens. I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me, and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat , though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean Maxims.). I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from even more ludicrous suggestions in the past). > In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is > a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of > rocks. You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being stated explicitly. > He may have meant to add, "and I know something about > myself", but there is no evidence of this (either of the > desire, or of the meaning of the possibly omitted additional > statement). > > In (III.), eager to play along, I contributed another non- > sequitur to the discussion -- that fact that guys who pick > up cans out of the gutter are "business owners". > > Apparently this fluff-batting attracted your attention, for > voilā, you pop up in (IV.) to ask what's going on. > However, you're not getting with the program; you seem to be > trying to home in on some subject or other. I wish you > luck, but I don't think you're going to find much in a game > of fluff tennis between me and wrjames. Maybe there's > something further back up the thread? As should be painfully obviosu, I don;t give a rat's ass about the mind games you play with WrJames, but I am interested in an answer to the direct question I asked you - Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are they not? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > I. > > (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. > > > > II. > > : > > >>>>>>> I am a business owner. > > > > III. > > "G*rd*n" > > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter. > > > > IV. > > "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 ? (G*rd*n): > > > > >> Not at all. (zztop8970-): > > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > > > ... > > (G*rd*n): > > > > It does, doesn't it? "zztop8970" >: > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or > are > > > they not? (G*rd*n): > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior > > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business > > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive > > construction) and that if he did he might have different > > opinions. "zztop8970" >: > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about > business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than > others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business > owning citizens. > > I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple > reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me, > and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat , > though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean > Maxims.). > I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from > other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the > notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from > even more ludicrous suggestions in the past). I.3 there ("that this is because they are not like non-business owning citizens") is incorrect. As I recall -- hazily -- I had gotten the idea that wrjames thought business owners were _unlike_ other citizens. Perhaps I thought he was portraying them as unusually virtuous, as opposed to labor union organizers, who in his view seem to be universally thuggish. _My_ immediate assumption is that one is likely to find thuggish types in almost any line of work, and that has certainly been my experience of business owners (whereas the few union officials I have met have been rather innocent-seeming bureaucrats, but who knows). Therefore, I thought if wrjames came around to my point of view he would be disappointed in the similarity of the business leaders to everyone else. Hence, I said, "If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their fellow citizens." See how it works? I think he's going to be disappointed not because they're _different_, but because they _aren't_ _different_ (in regard to thugging, anyway). (G*rd*n): > > In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is > > a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of > > rocks. "zztop8970" >: > You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is > with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it > is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being > stated explicitly. I wouldn't make that assumption. If people automatically knew what they were, then Socrates would not have advised them to know themselves (because it would have been superfluous). Nor would Robert Burns have written "O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us / To see oursels as others see us" which is surely an important component of self-knowledge. Moreover, even if wrjames does know what he is as an individual, his sample is exceedingly small for the drawing of statistically valid conclusions for the whole population of business owners. Even your friend Grice would probably agree (or am I being too much of an optimist?) > ... "zztop8970" >: > As should be painfully obviosu, I don;t give a rat's ass about the mind > games you play with WrJames, but I am interested in an answer to the direct > question I asked you - Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like > other citizens, or are they not? I have answered the second question to the best of my ability. As for the first, well, that depends on what "a point" is. You actually seem to be passionately interested in the mind games I pay with wrjames, so it may be that discussing them in minute detail is deeply gratifying to you. And I'm taking breaks from work on a hot afternoon to bat fluff back and forth over Usenet -- it distracts me from the heat. So we both have points, but they're different points. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > I. > > (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. > > > > II. > > : > > >>>>>>> I am a business owner. > > > > III. > > "G*rd*n" > > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter. > > > > IV. > > "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 ? (G*rd*n): > > > > >> Not at all. (zztop8970-): > > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur. > > > > > ... > > (G*rd*n): > > > > It does, doesn't it? "zztop8970" >: > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or > are > > > they not? (G*rd*n): > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior > > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business > > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive > > construction) and that if he did he might have different > > opinions. "zztop8970" >: > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about > business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than > others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business > owning citizens. > > I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple > reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me, > and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat , > though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean > Maxims.). > I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from > other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the > notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from > even more ludicrous suggestions in the past). I.3 there ("that this is because they are not like non-business owning citizens") is incorrect. As I recall -- hazily -- I had gotten the idea that wrjames thought business owners were _unlike_ other citizens. Perhaps I thought he was portraying them as unusually virtuous, as opposed to labor union organizers, who in his view seem to be universally thuggish. _My_ immediate assumption is that one is likely to find thuggish types in almost any line of work, and that has certainly been my experience of business owners (whereas the few union officials I have met have been rather innocent-seeming bureaucrats, but who knows). Therefore, I thought if wrjames came around to my point of view he would be disappointed in the similarity of the business leaders to everyone else. Hence, I said, "If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their fellow citizens." See how it works? I think he's going to be disappointed not because they're _different_, but because they _aren't_ _different_ (in regard to thugging, anyway). (G*rd*n): > > In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is > > a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of > > rocks. "zztop8970" >: > You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is > with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it > is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being > stated explicitly. I wouldn't make that assumption. If people automatically knew what they were, then Socrates would not have advised them to know themselves (because it would have been superfluous). Nor would Robert Burns have written "O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us / To see oursels as others see us" which is surely an important component of self-knowledge. Moreover, even if wrjames does know what he is as an individual, his sample is exceedingly small for the drawing of statistically valid conclusions for the whole population of business owners. Even your friend Grice would probably agree (or am I being too much of an optimist?) > ... "zztop8970" >: > As should be painfully obviosu, I don;t give a rat's ass about the mind > games you play with WrJames, but I am interested in an answer to the direct > question I asked you - Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like > other citizens, or are they not? I have answered the second question to the best of my ability. As for the first, well, that depends on what "a point" is. You actually seem to be passionately interested in the mind games I pay with wrjames, so it may be that discussing them in minute detail is deeply gratifying to you. And I'm taking breaks from work on a hot afternoon to bat fluff back and forth over Usenet -- it distracts me from the heat. So we both have points, but they're different points. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:46 PM: > 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. Sorry, William. There are several statutes that were passed in the U.S. concerning the general subject of "anti-trust." Check out the Sherman Antitrust Act. Check out the Clayton Act. If you read the history of them you'll see that they were vigorously enforced against people who were accused of "colluding to restrain free trade." It was generally conceded at the time that such laws had been aimed at curtailing the rampant excesses of capitalism, in which certain people and certain corporations, were thought to have been engaged in activities and agreements to not only "restrain" free trade, but to absolutely end it. Pay the price demanded, or go without, from _ANY_ source. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries the U.S. government, and it's Attorney Generals, found such laws to be convenient weapons to use against even small groups (half a dozen men, or even less in a number of the reported cases) who dared to get together to discuss the possibility that, if they hung together, they might have a chance to better their wages, hours, or working conditions. You may not be willing to concede it, but the history books are replete with examples of people who were put in jail for having the temerity to even discuss such ideas with their neighbor. It's quite easy to read the "legislative history" of the statutes I've cited. After all, since the beginning of the nation, Congress has not only passed laws, but has also preserved the "legislative history" of each of it's important actions. There, in black and white, is the actual debate, word by word, spoken at the time by the men who debated the issues in Congress. Revealing what their intent was, and what it wasn't. So that we donšt have to guess at what the people who were passing laws meant when they did so. The legislative history of the Sherman and Clayton acts reveals no intent at all that they should be used against ordinary, humble workers. . . . But, they were, again and again and again. Donšt believe me. Well, go to it, and read the legislative histories of the statutes. And read the cases decided by the Supreme Court that refer to and cite those legislative histories. Ultimately, the abuse of those laws led to the enactment of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and ultimately the Wagner Act, forbidding such abuses, and giving working men and women the right to get together and discuss ways in which they might better themselves. Sounds pretty democratic to me. Just like Washington, Jefferson, et al, thought it up. And wrote it down in what we call the Constitution. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:46 PM: > 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. Sorry, William. There are several statutes that were passed in the U.S. concerning the general subject of "anti-trust." Check out the Sherman Antitrust Act. Check out the Clayton Act. If you read the history of them you'll see that they were vigorously enforced against people who were accused of "colluding to restrain free trade." It was generally conceded at the time that such laws had been aimed at curtailing the rampant excesses of capitalism, in which certain people and certain corporations, were thought to have been engaged in activities and agreements to not only "restrain" free trade, but to absolutely end it. Pay the price demanded, or go without, from _ANY_ source. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries the U.S. government, and it's Attorney Generals, found such laws to be convenient weapons to use against even small groups (half a dozen men, or even less in a number of the reported cases) who dared to get together to discuss the possibility that, if they hung together, they might have a chance to better their wages, hours, or working conditions. You may not be willing to concede it, but the history books are replete with examples of people who were put in jail for having the temerity to even discuss such ideas with their neighbor. It's quite easy to read the "legislative history" of the statutes I've cited. After all, since the beginning of the nation, Congress has not only passed laws, but has also preserved the "legislative history" of each of it's important actions. There, in black and white, is the actual debate, word by word, spoken at the time by the men who debated the issues in Congress. Revealing what their intent was, and what it wasn't. So that we donšt have to guess at what the people who were passing laws meant when they did so. The legislative history of the Sherman and Clayton acts reveals no intent at all that they should be used against ordinary, humble workers. . . . But, they were, again and again and again. Donšt believe me. Well, go to it, and read the legislative histories of the statutes. And read the cases decided by the Supreme Court that refer to and cite those legislative histories. Ultimately, the abuse of those laws led to the enactment of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and ultimately the Wagner Act, forbidding such abuses, and giving working men and women the right to get together and discuss ways in which they might better themselves. Sounds pretty democratic to me. Just like Washington, Jefferson, et al, thought it up. And wrote it down in what we call the Constitution. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM: >>> 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? William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith" upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white. > >> 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. That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because, if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades, routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts. If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by employers. > >> 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. The definition of "good faith" is indeed a deep subject. Suffice it now to say that it's been debated, discussed, and decided in hundreds, even thousands of cases decides by the Board, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. At the moment, I'm tired and am about to turn in, but I'll be more than happy to cite some of them to you another time, as well as the precise language showing the reasoning they employed to reach their decision as to what does or doesn't constitute "good faith." . . . You're WAY off the deep end here. . . . So, you ask, "by who's [sic] definition"? Well, in our democracy, by the definition of our courts. Over decades and decades. And in many, many courts. Most notably the Supreme one. . . . As I've already said, quite naturally both the feuding sides try to 'label' the nature of the strike with the term that suits their economic purpose; no harm in that. But, it's the Board (the body set up by statute to do so) and the Courts that ultimately decide which is correct. Sorry democracy displeases you so. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM: >>> 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? William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith" upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white. > >> 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. That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because, if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades, routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts. If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by employers. > >> 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. The definition of "good faith" is indeed a deep subject. Suffice it now to say that it's been debated, discussed, and decided in hundreds, even thousands of cases decides by the Board, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. At the moment, I'm tired and am about to turn in, but I'll be more than happy to cite some of them to you another time, as well as the precise language showing the reasoning they employed to reach their decision as to what does or doesn't constitute "good faith." . . . You're WAY off the deep end here. . . . So, you ask, "by who's [sic] definition"? Well, in our democracy, by the definition of our courts. Over decades and decades. And in many, many courts. Most notably the Supreme one. . . . As I've already said, quite naturally both the feuding sides try to 'label' the nature of the strike with the term that suits their economic purpose; no harm in that. But, it's the Board (the body set up by statute to do so) and the Courts that ultimately decide which is correct. Sorry democracy displeases you so. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:59 PM: > Labor unions are inherently evil. As I've already observed, that statement marks you as a closed minded person. One who doesn't give a hang for the democratic process that has led to the enactment of laws. Laws that have been enacted and enforced for decades and decades by both Republicans and Democrats alike. As such, there's no point in further discussion with you. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:59 PM: > Labor unions are inherently evil. As I've already observed, that statement marks you as a closed minded person. One who doesn't give a hang for the democratic process that has led to the enactment of laws. Laws that have been enacted and enforced for decades and decades by both Republicans and Democrats alike. As such, there's no point in further discussion with you. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:01 PM: > 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. Oh, my, William! You poor misunderstood fellow. Tell me where I need to have it explained that you _didn't_ say, "Strikes are primarialy [sic] acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line." Are you saying that you DIDN'T say that? If you didn't I'll apologize. In direct response I cited the Supreme Court's case that decided precisely the opposite. C'mon, now, William. No weasel words now. No waffling. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:01 PM: > 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. Oh, my, William! You poor misunderstood fellow. Tell me where I need to have it explained that you _didn't_ say, "Strikes are primarialy [sic] acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line." Are you saying that you DIDN'T say that? If you didn't I'll apologize. In direct response I cited the Supreme Court's case that decided precisely the opposite. C'mon, now, William. No weasel words now. No waffling. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:22 PM: >> 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? Read the Wagner Act. In its statement of purposes it states: > NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT > > Also cited NLRA or the Act; 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 > > [Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United States Code] > > FINDINGS AND POLICIES > > Section 1. [§ 151.] The denial by some employers of the right of employees to > organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of > collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or > unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or > obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of > the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; > (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flowof raw materials > or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or > the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution > of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt > the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. > > The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full > freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are > organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association > substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate > recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing > power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of > competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. > > Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to > organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, > or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain > recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices > fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of > differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring > equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. > > Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor > organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary > effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of > goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or > through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the > free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary > condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed > > It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes > of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to > mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by > encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by > protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, > self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, > for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or > other mutual aid or protection. It goes on to state that: > Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, > join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through > representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted > activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or > protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such > activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an > agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of > employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]. And, finally, getting to the exact question asked, it says: > Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an > unfair labor practice for an employer-- > > (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the > rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title]; > > (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his > employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this > title]. There ya go, William. Like it or not, that's the law. Has been for seventy years. Hate it all you want. Write your congressman. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:22 PM: >> 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? Read the Wagner Act. In its statement of purposes it states: > NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT > > Also cited NLRA or the Act; 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 > > [Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United States Code] > > FINDINGS AND POLICIES > > Section 1. [§ 151.] The denial by some employers of the right of employees to > organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of > collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or > unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or > obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of > the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; > (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flowof raw materials > or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or > the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution > of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt > the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. > > The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full > freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are > organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association > substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate > recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing > power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of > competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. > > Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to > organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, > or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain > recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices > fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of > differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring > equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. > > Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor > organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary > effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of > goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or > through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the > free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary > condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed > > It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes > of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to > mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by > encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by > protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, > self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, > for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or > other mutual aid or protection. It goes on to state that: > Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, > join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through > representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted > activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or > protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such > activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an > agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of > employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]. And, finally, getting to the exact question asked, it says: > Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an > unfair labor practice for an employer-- > > (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the > rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title]; > > (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his > employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this > title]. There ya go, William. Like it or not, that's the law. Has been for seventy years. Hate it all you want. Write your congressman. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:24 PM: > 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. Read your words quoted above. You said, "But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to participate in such things during your own time instead of his." Well, I simply responded and told you that you're absolutely wrong to engage in the assumption that any such right as you cite exists. The Board, the intermediate courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court all say so. And have said so for many, many years. Over and over and over and over. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:24 PM: > 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. Read your words quoted above. You said, "But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to participate in such things during your own time instead of his." Well, I simply responded and told you that you're absolutely wrong to engage in the assumption that any such right as you cite exists. The Board, the intermediate courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court all say so. And have said so for many, many years. Over and over and over and over. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Miguel O'Pastel at
wrote on 06/18/2004 8:37 PM: > In California, wrongful discharge usually results in a lawsuit settlement of > $100,000 or more. Citation? I'd concede that for a brief spate of time it was all the rage to file "wrongful discharge" cases. And a VERY few of them resulted in outrageous awards. That's absolutely died out now. Just like the spate of "palimony" cases died after hitting the headlines for awhile. The fact is that virtually all employment is "employment at will." And, by the way, I have no quarrel with that. Except in a few instances that I've cited. HH |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter