Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
|
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.
