[Rhodes22-list] political philosophy- "moral equivalence" (There is no fundamental right or wrong?)

Wed Dec 17 10:17:16 EST 2008

Brad;

The NLRB enforces the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act). You can belong to
a union and still be an "at will" employee. But you're right, you and Herb
probably know more about this area of the law than I do.
I'm just a "simple country lawyer". I deal mostly with cows and chickens and 
such.

Ben C.

Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> At the risk of picking nits, how does the NLRB (National Labor
> Relations Board - what I think you meant) or the RLA (Railroad Labor
> Act - my work rules) apply to an "at will" employee?  Absent the tort
> option, I think Herb is on the right side of the law.
> 
> Brad
> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Herb;
>>
>> It's nice to know you live in Texas.  Man, do I hate those Cowboys!
>>
>> Anyway, it doesn't matter where YOU live. Where does Bill live? You
>> didn't
>> talk about firing anybody. In fact you agreed with me that if such firing
>> were to take place it would be something of which you would disapprove.
>>
>> Don't dismiss the NRLA as a remedy here. If a business says, no politics,
>> it
>> must be even-handed and prohibit politics for both sides. Any
>> discrimination
>> would be violative of Federal Law.
>>
>> Ben C.
>>
>>
>>
>> hparsons wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sorry Ben. Have I not mentioned that I don't live in New York? Or
>>> California, Lousiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, or even South
>>> Carolina.
>>>
>>> I live in Texas.
>>>
>>> And please, none of the "common law torts" stuff. That's not hard and
>>> fast, and you know as well as I do, that "infliction of emotional
>>> distress" and all the other stuff are simply shots in the dark, and can
>>> be attempted to apply to just about anything.
>>>
>>> Texas is an "at will" employment state.
>>>
>>> Besides, I know you still haven't fully accepted this
>>>
>>> It
>>> Was
>>> A
>>> Joke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>>> Herb;
>>>>
>>>> New York Labor Law sec. 201d protects political activity of employees
>>>> of
>>>> private employers as do similar statutes in New Jersey, California,
>>>> Louisiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and even South Carolina,
>>>> and
>>>> probably afew I haven't thought of.
>>>>
>>>> In South Carolina the law was used by an employee who refused to remove
>>>> a
>>>> confederate battle flag insignia from his lunch pail to win
>>>> reinstatement.
>>>> There were some jurisdictional issues on appeal in that case but the
>>>> law
>>>> stands as protection of even "politically incorrect" speech for private
>>>> employees.
>>>>
>>>> Aside from specific state statutes, the NLRA (National Labor Relations
>>>> Act)
>>>> (Federal Law) can be used to protect employees in cases where
>>>> termination
>>>> was due to discriminatory enforcement of "no political speech" rules in
>>>> the
>>>> workplace(as in McCain/Palin bumper stickers allowed-Obama/Biden
>>>> stickers
>>>> not allowed).
>>>>
>>>> And if that doesn't work the good old common law torts of Interference
>>>> with
>>>> prospective economic advantage, infliction of emotional distress, and
>>>> outrage provide the aggrieved employee with lots of ammunition.
>>>>
>>>> And that's just off the top of my head (after a Christmas party and
>>>> afew
>>>> drinks).
>>>>
>>>> Aren't you glad you live in this greatest country in the world?
>>>>
>>>> Ben C.
>>>>
>>>> PS- Can we talk about something else now?
>>>>
>>>> PPS- Have you checked the thinness of YOUR skin lately? Personal
>>>> attack?
>>>> Who's looking for excuses to feel insulted now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure you'll get a response. Cite the law that says differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Through all your "wailing and gnashing of teeth" you made an
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> admission. You said, it's an employers right to fire someone for the
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> of "not liking their politics".  I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the odds that you will reply to this post? Will I get the
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> word?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Ben, I will repeat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not evil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may be stupid
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may be a goofy thing to do (which was why it was a JOKE).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's not evil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe it was you (but very well could have been someone else),
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> asked if I would quit by job if they sold bumper stickers that made
>>>>>>> jokes about shooting Obama. I said I would. It's a bumper sticker
>>>>>>> sellers right to sell anything they want, and it's my right to not
>>>>>>> purchase from them if I'm a shopper, and not work for them if I'm a
>>>>>>> buyer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, it's an employer's right to fire someone for just about
>>>>>>> anything, including not liking their politics. Again, just some I'm
>>>>>>> clear, It would be stupid, and it would be goofy, and I don't think
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> person doing so would be successful in the long run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's not evil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for me calling your nonsense "shit", it is. You've chosen to make
>>>>>>> this a personal attack on both Bill, and now myself. You've totally
>>>>>>> mis-characterized what I wrote to fit your neat little (false)
>>>>>>> bundle,
>>>>>>> and yes, I find that offensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Futher, you accuse me of being "dishonest about the subject" when in
>>>>>>> fact I've remained consistent in what I've said (unlike you're
>>>>>>> "fuuqa
>>>>>>> bs"), and then after accusing me of such, say you're done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect you are.;  You've been revealed for what you are, pretty
>>>>>>> consistently, and I have no doubt you want no more of it. Go take
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> hypocrisy and attacks elsewhere if you wish, I'm sure the break will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> a welcome one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Come on now. I'm perfectly happy to have an argument with you, but
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> be dishonest about the subject and expect people to listen.  The
>>>>>>>> evil
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> were both talking about had nothing to do with laying people off in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> abstract. It had to do with the POINT of the JOKE which as you very
>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> know was laying people off BECAUSE THEY HAD OBAMA BUMPER STICKERS.
>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>> what made it funny to you and offensive to me. "They wanted change
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> gave it to them". Remember?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently I have somehow managed to hurt your feelings, because is
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> usually not your style to use vulgar expressions, except when you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> feeling attacked, so I must have provoked you in some way to cause
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> "do
>>>>>>>> you really believe the **** you write?" line. I do think we ought
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> such profanity on this list and would request that you not do so.
>>>>>>>> Remember,
>>>>>>>> you and I are not the only people who see this stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, my posts do reflect my beliefs, and for those who wonder
>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> waste my time with you, it is because your beliefs reflect those of
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> (thankfully small) number of people I have met and dealt with in my
>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>> short, understanding the likes of you helps me. Thanks for your
>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>> to my education on human nature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be well, Herb. Have a truly joyous Holiday Season. I think we're
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry Ben, you are under a misconception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There IS no "evil" in laying off workers. You may choose to call
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> "throwing workers out in the street', but the truth of the matter
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> is a person (or a group of people) choosing to no longer employ an
>>>>>>>>> individual, and that is their RIGHT. It's not an evil, it's not
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> wrong, unless they are doing something contrary to what they've
>>>>>>>>> promised.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they've signed a contract, they should honor it. If they've
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> promises, they should honor those. But workers leave (often
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> notice), simply because they find something  better, decide not to
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> anymore, whatever. Employers have that same right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the rest of your drivel, you completely mis read what I
>>>>>>>>> wrote.
>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest you go back and look at what I actually said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "... is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain ..." Is a clue, but
>>>>>>>>> frankly, I think you're clueless. You see what you want to see,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> anyone that doesn't see it is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what in the WORLD are you talking about "covering for each
>>>>>>>>> other".
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> said nothing in support of Ed, nor did I speak of Marxism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you REALLY believe the shit you write?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed and Herb;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Herb said,
>>>>>>>>>> "You know something Ben, that you totally miss - EVERYONE thinks
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> cause is worthy, and EVERYONE thinks those causes 180 degrees
>>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The difference between you, and others of your ilk, is the
>>>>>>>>>> arrogance
>>>>>>>>>> that says "Not only is my cause the worthy one, but anyone that
>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>> things differently is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain,
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> am so obviously right that anyone that differs that strongly from
>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> unAmerican and wrong."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed said,
>>>>>>>>>> "Your  thought of arrogance is correct.  Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> those who have loss touch with ordinary people.  Arrogance is
>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>> evident
>>>>>>>>>> in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>> education."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So let me get this straight. A strong opinion as to the
>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>> "rightness" of one's position on an issue (such as the evil of
>>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>>> workers into the street and out of their jobs, joking or not),
>>>>>>>>>> equates
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> "arrogance". That is exactly what you both have said . So since
>>>>>>>>>> EVERYONE
>>>>>>>>>> feels that way (that their cause is right and the other guy's is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong)
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> assume there must not be any absolute Right or Wrong according to
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical outlook. Therefor, in your view, all morality is
>>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> to the person making the judgment. Thus MY morality (fairness to
>>>>>>>>>> workers
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> disapproval of jokes celebrating the hurting of workers)
>>>>>>>>>> represents
>>>>>>>>>> arrogance to you Herb and you Ed. My recollection is that both of
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>> to hold Christian values. Does this mean that your strong
>>>>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>>>> on,
>>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>>> abortion or stem cell research are arrogant? If there is no
>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>> Right or Wrong how are we to make judgments? I would offer that
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>> are Right and some things are Wrong, and that there are Good guys
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Bad
>>>>>>>>>> guys, and the difficulty of confronting evil does not excuse us
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> duty to do so. So yes, I believe Bill's joke of several weeks ago
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of a depraved heart, and was not the least bit
>>>>>>>>>> funny.
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>> yes,I think the two of you ought to give more thought to what it
>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> an American and less to the marxists hiding under your beds. I
>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>> hold
>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> breath waiting for you to engage in any self examination however.
>>>>>>>>>> You're
>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>> busy covering for each other to think for yourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rummy,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody that comes on once every 3 or 4 months ought to
>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>> sure others can clearly i.d. who is making the comments.  I do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> your infallible memory.  However, I do remember various trolls
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Study these web sites:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/facts/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to remember that one aspect of Marxism is
>>>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> people.  Remember that Marxism seeks to create a 'Dictatorship
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Proletariat'.  An important aspect of control is control descent
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>> thought.  An element of dictatorship is for the dictator making
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> opinions the correct and only view.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A Marxist dictator will claim that he is speaking for the little
>>>>>>>>>>> guy.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is glossing over the fact that the little guy can speak
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> himself.
>>>>>>>>>>> He pretends the little guy incapable of self defense when in
>>>>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not true.  He believes only the Marxist knows the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your thought of arrogance is correct.  Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>>> in those who have loss touch with ordinary people.  Arrogance is
>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>> evident in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I recall pictures and news reports of a ceremony in the Roman
>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>>>>> Church in Rome where the Pope washes the feet of a group of
>>>>>>>>>>> Cardinals.
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of that ceremony?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In 1936 Major General J. F. C. Fuller wrote a booklet for the U.
>>>>>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>>>>>> Army
>>>>>>>>>>> entitled, Generalship:  Its diseases and Their Cure.  Therein he
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>> the arrogance of power and one of its cause as disassociation
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> reality.  This affliction is evident in the U. S. national media
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>> acolytes and some members of this forum.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Herb Parsons
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Thomas-Keane-identify-yourself-tp21025141p21054202.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Thomas-Keane-identify-yourself-tp21025141p21054548.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.