|
joether -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/5/2013 3:50:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
.
Pontificating horseshit is still pontificating horseshit. One should not lecture those who have knowledge as if you are in the same class. There aint a fucking thing that is in the air, and NLRB has no such rule and it is all asswipe, *very* *completely* asswipe.
Here's a direct quote from the NLRB "Otherwise, a union that receives a majority of the votes cast is certified as the employees' bargaining representative and entitled to be recognized by the employer as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the unit. Failure to bargain with the union at this point is an unfair labor practice."
Source of Information. When you quote stuff, its often implied to also note WHERE you got the information from.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Ie., intimidating employees into not voting is a vote for the union - just like I said.
Ie., intimidating employees into voting is a vote for the employer - just like you didn't say. The idea of a 'fair election' is one in which those voting are not intimidated or coarse to voting in a particular manner. Assuming that only unions try to intimidate employees down a particular course of action simply shows your bias on this whole discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Oh - and go read the new rules that up to 20% of the votes can be fraudulent...
Dims - so used to voting fraudulently in elections now insist on the same right to obtain union representation.
1. Where are the new rules that state this?
2. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is showing. Holy Cow! Just the sheer distrust and anger towards a group of people you do not even know should be enough of a clue for you to get some actual therapy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Or.......Go look up "micro-units" - where the unions are defining their work units arbitrarily small. Majority of the members don't want the union - redefine your membership class.
Yeah, if one minuses out the conservative bias in the article and sticks to the facts, it does seem like a good thing for Americans. Why are you so against something that is good for middle class America? SOURCE
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Unions have virtually unlimited amount of time to proselytize employees. Recent NLRB rules are decreasing the amount of time the employers have to respond.
The employer has the same time of access as the union if not more. The employer typically has better access to lawyers than unions do. Such a silly set of arguments.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
"5.The NLRB regularly reverses previous Board decisions.
Unlike courts of law, the Board does not treat previous decisions as precedent-setting. In fact, it reverses rulings of previous Boards with some regularity. Further, Board decisions are not subject to the debate, hearings, and media attention that accompany much federal legislation. NLRB decisions fly under most employers' radar.
6. U.S. labor law changes with each new or reversed Board decision.
Because Board decisions have the effect of law, the law changes with each reversal. In addition, a decision in one case changes the law for all covered workplaces. Unless employers realize this fact and track NLRB decisions closely, they easily and unwittingly may violate federal law.
7..
Some of Board Chair Liebman's desired changes include de-emphasizing employers' rights such as free speech, establishment of work rules, and access to employees; providing enhanced rights for temporary and contingent workers; enabling supervisors to join unions; broadening the definition of "protected activity;" allowing unions electronic access to employees (e.g., via employers' e-mail systems); and requiring employers to provide more extensive financial and operational information to unions."
And where does this all come from? Cite source, please. It sounds like some pathetic whacko rant that is typical of conservative talk radio shows.
|
|
|
|
