your liberal media
 

Ben Bradlee:

• Are you surprised the Washington Post [editorial page] has supported this fucking war for so long?
  
  Oh, we always do. We like wars. How long do you think we supported Vietnam?

interview via here

One share, one vote!
 

How do the Republicans feel about shareholder reform -- is a corporate vote analogous to casting a ballot in a public, state-conducted election, too?

One share, one vote!
 

Apropos of which, I meant to point to this:

• On Sept. 29 -- a date that will live in the Double Standard Hall of Fame -- the NLRB issued two rulings, the first (Dana Corp./Metaldyne) dealing with "card check." This is the process by which an employer can recognize a union when a majority of employees sign cards or petitions affiliating themselves with that union, bypassing the board election process, which an anti-union employer can drag out for years. The board ruled that once a union was certified through card check, the employer must post a notice telling employees that if 30 percent of them sign a petition saying they don't want a union, the 50 percent-plus-one of them that do are overruled and a board election must be held. The Bush appointees argued that card-check isn't a good measure of worker sentiment, since those employees who sign cards and petitions may be susceptible to "group pressure."
  
  On the same day, however, in a case (Wurtland Nursing) involving an employer's withdrawal of recognition from the union in its workplace, the board ruled that if a majority of workers signed cards or petitions asking for a vote to remove the union, the employer could decertify the union then and there without even holding that vote. Signed petitions from workers, in other words, are suspect when the workers want a union and proof positive when they don't.

Harold Meyerson

Don't hold your breath waiting for conservatives to complain about Wurtland Nursing.

One share, one vote!
 

couple quick questions. Aren't there panels at the NLRB, and don't they differ, and if so wouldn't anyone who has ever worked a day in the law know that the article you posted simply showed ignorance of the law? different panels in the same court often get to somewhat differing opinions, you know that, don't you? everyone else here does.

Plus, it soulds like there are pretty distinct issues being discussed in the two cases. Maybe violins will respond substantively, but maybe not.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

Right. Kinda like the distinction between a union election and a state's primary election. Except not quite as much.

One share, one vote!
 

I have no idea Bob. I'm not "Republicans." I was simply positing a theory as to what Slave meant by his comment.

Don't shoot the messenger.

aV

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

I forgot, we're supposed to take your blogger's opinions as fact instead of actually looking at the cases and issues.


Here's another "fact" from Ty's blog-of-the-day:

• The outburst was prompted by the board's September work product: 61 decisions that both weakened workers' rights and ran counter to the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, which proclaims that the policy of the United States is to protect "the exercise by workers of full freedom of association [and] self-organization." Absent such rights, the act states, the nation's economy would suffer from workers' diminished purchasing power and run greater risks of economic downturns. It's a very Keynesian act, the NLRA.

So the board's purpose is to "protect worker's right." Period.

go take a look at the NLRB's webpage and see what the actual purpose is (hint, blogo left some important words out) , then read the two cases, then if you want to argure about it, try to find someone who will still rise to this nonsense bait and switch style.

One share, one vote!
 

Mr. Meyerson conveniently compares two cases that really stand for two different propositions. In the Dana case, the Board was addressing the issue of employees petitioning to have an election to decertify a union after card-check recognition. Under past Board precedent, that was not possible. Simply stated, once the Union was recognized by the employer, employees were stuck with the decision for at least a year (if not longer - if a contract is ratified). The Board changed this mechanism. Now, a window period opens for a short period of time after voluntary recognition - if 30% of the employees file a petitin during the 45-day window, an election will be held.

In the Wurtland case, a majority of employees had presented the employer with a signed petition requesting that an election be held to decertify the union. Based upon this evidence of lack of majority support, the employer withdrew recognition. The ALJ found that this was a violation of the NLRA because the language of the employee petition stated that the employees "wished for a vote" and didn't specifically state that they wanted to get rid of the union. The Board reversed and held that under Levitz Furniture (the case setting forth the employer's burden to show objective evidence that the union has lost majority support prior to withdrawing recognition), the employer in Wurtland had provided objective evidence (through the employee petition) and that the language was not fatal.

The Wurtland case did not address the issue as to whether withdrawal of recognition should only occur through the Board's election process. The two cases don't address the same issue, namely whether Board elections should be the only way to either certify or decertify a union. Under Dana, an employer still has the ability to voluntarily recognize a union.

aV

One share, one vote!
 

Everyone else here knows that when a panel of a court issues a decision, it is the court's decision, not the panel's, and a conflict between differing panels of a court needs to be resolved, usually through by the court sitting en banc. Since you feign legal expertise, I'll let you explain how the NLRB is and is not like an Article III court. One difference: The NLRB has only a five-person board, making it unlikely -- to this non-labor-lawyer -- that this could have happened the way you describe.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

I wasn't arguing about labor elections -- I don't know enough about them. (I will concede that I am generally pro-union, based upon family history, but am not blind to union corruption. I also happen to think that business will fight unionization attempts by any means, fair or foul, but I am digressing.) Instead, I was attempting to point out that comparing the rules of conduct of a labor election to those of a state primary election is specious. And that Republican concern with the nicities of "one man one vote secret ballot everyone's vote counts" is sporadic at best.

And it's odd that you would criticize a bait and switch style. Any time anyone mentions global warming, you bring up Al Gore's house, or Random Rich Green Liberal's private jet.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

That was an op-ed published in the Washington Post, you moron.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

Hey, you're the one who posted Ben Bradlee basically admitting the paper had no credibility.

By the way, Bradlee's quotes about Carl Bernstein are much better than the Vietnam thing.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

If you look at the NLRB's site, you will see something different from what Meyerson cited. Then if you look at the last paragraph of section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act (also on the NLRB site) -- i.e., what Meyerson actually referred to, as opposed to the website you went to -- you will see this:

• 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.

Meyerson represented this fairly well.

One share, one vote!
 

I don't think Meyerson or I would disagree with anything you just said.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

Point taken, but I don't believe Harold Meyerson is on the Post's editorial board.

Yes. Delightful!

One share, one vote!
 

I'm a pretty pursuasive guy. Mr. Meyerson does not like this Board and its decisions. That's fine. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many businesses did not like the Board's decisions when the Clinton administration was putting rather liberal-minded people on the Board and changing Board precedent that was 30 or 40 years old as well.

As I've stated before, if there are problems with the election/negotiation process as set forth under the NLRA, then the best way to address those problems is by amending the Act, not by swinging back and forth using case law, and cetainly not by passing a bad law like EFCA.

aV

One share, one vote!
 

board support for a month the two decisions were from different groups?

One share, one vote!
 

Since the board was all about the mechanics of voting, I quoted Meyerson for the limited purpose of noting that under the NLRB's recent decisions, workers' views as expressed on petitions are given more or less weight depending on whether they are pro- or anti-union.

One share, one vote!
 

Well, that's not entirely accurate in regard to the facts of those two cases, but I can see how you and/or Meyerson could arrive at that conclusion.

aV

One share, one vote!
 

My point was that there would be some overlap, and I will bet you board support for a month that at least one board member was on both decisions.

The answer was plain to see, cause I saw the light.
 

sigh..........

One share, one vote!
 

What I know about the decision is limited to what Meyerson said, so if something in the two paragraphs I quoted (or the rest of the piece) is incorrect, do tell.

One share, one vote!
 

HANK CHINASKI
401-20

Bless the child of a working man.
 

http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncate...07/norma_l.jpg

eta: Same picture, better quality. Should have looked for the union label the first time!

One share, one vote!
 

The Kos Kids at Daily K and the DU Goons,
Little Boy Blue and The Man In The Moon.
When ya getting off Dad?
I dont know when, we'll watch TV then, son,
ya know we'll have a good time then.


if I was better at song parodies this would have been the whole song and posted by ole @50:(

One share, one vote!
 

I did. And you very kindly told me that you and Meyerson did not disagree with me. The two cases are simply not the same, nor was the same issue addressed in the cases.

As far as other specifics in regard to what is incorrect in the article, Meyerson states, "the board ruled that if a majority of workers signed cards or petitions asking for a vote to remove the union, the employer could decertify the union then and there without even holding that vote." This is factually incorrect. An employer does not have the right or ability under the Act to decertify a Union. Only the NLRB can decertify. The employer can withdraw recognition only if it has clear and convincing evidence that the Union no longer enjoys majority support of the bargaining unit. In addition, the employer does not "hold the vote." Again, only the NLRB can conduct a Board secret ballot election.

In the Wurtland case, if the Union presented evidence that the employees were coerced or threatened to sign the petition, then the employer would not have had the right to withdraw recognition. To my knowledge, the Union did not have that kind of evidence (or at least did not present it to the Board). Thus, we are left with the conclusion that these employees no longer wished to be represented by the union, and provided evidence of same to the employer.

aV

One share, one vote!
 

you're ignoring the facts that bush appointed some of these guys, and he ummm, lies and stuff.

Bless the child of a working man.
 

Bob, if the glories of organized labor are the first things that come to mind looking at that picture, you probably need Cialis.

Say what you will about her acting chops, Sally Field was a spicy meatball in her day.

And it looks like it was just a wee bit cold in the factory that day. At least on the right side.

One share, one vote!
 

If I understand you correctly, Meyerson erred in saying the employer "could decertify" the union instead of saying that the employer "was withdrawing recognition" of the union. This strikes me as a technical error that would not mislead those unfamiliar with labor law and would be understood as such by those who do, but maybe I'm missing something.

Here's my problem. The NLRB ruled that a petition with employee signatures is deemed evidence sufficient to establish "the conclusion that these employees no longer wished to be represented by the union," in your words. You suggest that there's a rebuttable presumption that such evidence is not coerced. At the same time, you believe that when workers submit the functional equivalent of this petition -- card check recognition under Neutrality Agreement organizing drives -- saying that they do want to unionize, that election is presumptively coerced, such that you "have a real problem with any attempts to eliminate a secret ballot election."

Notwithstanding that you can surely square it with current application of the labor laws, this makes no sense, unless it boils down to the fact that you are OK when workers vote anti-union and would rather than they don't unionize.

Bless the child of a working man.
 

transltion: Attiucus got me thinking.

Bless the child of a working man.
 

I have always wanted to fuck Sally Field.

Bless the child of a working man.
 

I saw Sally Field in the elevator of the LAX Admiral's Club recently. She looks like someone's grandma. It is sort of refreshing to see a Hollywood person of that age who has had absolutely no work done. I like her; I really, really like her.

I see my daddy walking through them factory gates in the rain.
 

It was the other way around -- our discussion of union elections brought to mind the picture, which Google image found for me pretty quickly.

And I can't take Cialis -- we only have one outdoor, claw-foot tub. I'll have to stick (heh) with Enzyte.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/images/enzyte1.jpg

He who fucks nuns....
 

http://dharmamonkey.com/wp/wp-conten.../flyingnun.jpg

Apparently, Sebby will later join the church.

He who fucks nuns....
 

If you have seen a young, cute nun and not felt; (a) disgusted that she'll be drying on the vine; and, (b) the urge to cure that problem, well, you're not human.

What could be hotter than tearing off all those vestments and rutting like a pair of animals and having her scream "What the fuck was I thinking!!!" during the act. As David Wooderson might say,"man, could it get any hotter?"

I see my daddy walking through them factory gates in the rain.
 

That tub thing is perfect. Thank you.

Bless the child of a working man.
 

Ewww. I don't want to fuck anyone's grandma.

For free.

One share, one vote!
 

An employer withdrawing recognition of a Union is not the same as decertification. It is not simply a technical error. It presumes that in both situations that the Union is gone. As the Board said in Levitz Furniture, an employer wthdraws recognition at its own peril. In a withdrawal situation, the Union can very well still be the representative (for a variety of reasons), and an unlawful withdrawal can have catastrophic results on the employer.

I'm not sure where I ever stated that I "believe" anything in regard to the Board, secret ballot elections or card-check recognition. There are more facts to the Dana case than Meyerson bothered to put into those two paragraphs. Quoting my response to my thoughts about EFCA is not the same as me saying that I believe that there should never be voluntary recognition. EFCA guts secret-ballot elections and does not institute a very meaningful alternative.

I'm not sure why you think that I am anti-Union or as to why you think that I am taking the position that secret ballot is the only way to get a union in to a bargaining unit but not the only way to get one out. If I left that impression than I apologize for not being more precise with my language. Meyerson's article is biased. I'm sure that he would be the first one to tell you that. All I was trying to do was to point out that he is not comparing apples to apples by citing to those two cases.

aV

Sebby got pegged by NFH's grandma
 

http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/images/products/GILF.jpg

Sebby got pegged by NFH's grandma
 

it's not that, sebby is hard into his child breeding years. Doing a grandma would be a wasted night, as to the ultimate extent of how far he has spread his seed.