Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
op-ed

sigh..........

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

HANK CHINASKI
401-20

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
HANK CHINASKI
401-20

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by andViolins
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

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
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

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

transltion: Attiucus got me thinking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
transltion: Attiucus got me thinking.

I have always wanted to fuck Sally Field.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have always wanted to fuck Sally Field.

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.

[Not Bob]

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

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.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have always wanted to fuck Sally Field.

Apparently, Sebby will later join the church.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone


Apparently, Sebby will later join the church.

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?"