Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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.