[Rhodes22-list] Employee Free Choice Act!?

Brad Haslett flybrad at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 12:37:53 EST 2008


Robert,

I've written about this before.  It is easy to get people to sign a
"right to act" card, you intimidate the shit out of them in front of
their peers. I've done it twice at a previous employer as a union
organizer (lost the first election in a court case after winning the
vote). Just because you get the requisite number of cards to hold a
vote, and even if you win the vote, doesn't mean you have the numbers
to see your way through to a decent contract. Even if you win a decent
contract, it doesn't mean Jack if you don't have the solidarity to
enforce it.  And, sometimes, economic reality reigns supreme.  I'm
proud to be a union member, proud of my union, but the "card check"
proposal is sheer thuggery. Every company that has a union on the
property did something to deserve it, and every union that has a
working contract did something to earn it.  This "card check" animal
is something completely different and is worthy of nothing but scorn.

Brad

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Robert Skinner
<Robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
> This legislation, so far as I have seen, is a travesty.
>
> It appears to make it more difficult for employees of a
> company to use a secret ballot when voting up or down
> on unionization.
>
> Lack of a secret ballot gives the union toughs clear
> targets, and invites intimidation.  "Free Choice", my
> nether regions!
>
> This, after the UAW stonewall?  Enough, already.
>
> /Robert of Maine
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Brad Haslett wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>> There's an aspect to the original joke that isn't funny - Employee
>> Free Choice Act. This is an idea that is so bad even Sen. McGovern is
>> campaigning against it.  The only reason it's being touted is because
>> the O'Blago team is deeply indebted to unions. I've worked under "at
>> will", RLA, and NLRA.  Everything is a compromise.  Anyone who thinks
>> "card check" is a panacea and a path to higher wages is smoking crack.
>> The best lawyer in town can't win the battle against economic reality.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> You haven't been paying attention.
>>>
>>> It wasn't Bill. It was an imaginary joke person.
>>>
>>> So, here's the deal. The joke company's boss laid off (or fired) the
>>> joke employees because of their joke politics.  You've dragged this on
>>> as far as I care to discuss it, but if you feel they need a joke lawyer,
>>> have at it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ben Cittadino 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
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Herb Parsons
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list