Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.

That tub thing is perfect. Thank you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
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.

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

For free.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

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.

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

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ewww. I don't want to fuck anyone's grandma.

For free.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This sounds like real progress: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201568_pf.html

If this continues, I will have to retract all my statements about Hillary. If Iraq gets a lot more secure she will have a serious race on her hands.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

Jesus, man. I'm still in my roast beef years. I haven't hit beef jerky territory yet.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This means nothing - perhaps even less than nothing because it's Zogby - but her "inevitable win", according to you, is looking ever less so, primarily because of the kooks on the far-Left:



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The Republicans dirt is unknown. All of Hillarys dirt is out there and people are still going to vote for her. There is all sorts of negative stuff about the current crop of candidates that the average Joe is not aware of. Rudy has enough skeletons to form a marching band and for the average american they are still in the closet.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The shocking part of that listing of odds is how far Paul has moved up the chart. Demonstrably better chances than Thompson, Edwards or McCain? Really?

This company should hire me to do the odds.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The Bhuttos and their Party hid (in Geneva) over 20 million in Swiss francs gleaned from bribes, money launduring and drug dealing. I don't know how much 20 mill Swiss Francs gets you in Pakistani Rupees but my bet is: a lot. And enough for the central government to buy control of those provinces as well as Bin Laden's head on a big shish kabob.

Her husband was known as Mr. Twenty Percent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with you that the Bhuttos are corrupt, though I would have thought their take was more than SFr 20 m. But I certainly don't think that's enough for the central government to buy control of those provinces. Pakistan -- and the British before them -- would pay a lot more for the privilege.

I don't think you can buy the NW Provinces. They are a bunch of crazy Pathans and it isn't safe for any foreigner (and by foreigner I mean a person from any other state in Pakistan - Punjab, Sindh etc. to enter that area.) Somalia has better law enforcement.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ewww. I don't want to fuck anyone's grandma.

For free.

Good Lord. Do I have to start posting Ben Franklin quotes on every board in this place?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Republicans dirt is unknown. All of Hillarys dirt is out there and people are still going to vote for her. There is all sorts of negative stuff about the current crop of candidates that the average Joe is not aware of. Rudy has enough skeletons to form a marching band and for the average american they are still in the closet.

In that event, do you think that Rudy prevails in the primaries? Do the Republicans beat the shit out of him with the skeletons (which I'm surprised they haven't done yet), or do the Democrats get the pleasure?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In that event, do you think that Rudy prevails in the primaries? Do the Republicans beat the shit out of him with the skeletons (which I'm surprised they haven't done yet), or do the Democrats get the pleasure?

I think once the TV ads come out it is a free for all.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Good Lord. Do I have to start posting Ben Franklin quotes on every board in this place?

I think you need to find similar quotes from someone who didn't live in an era when the life expectancy for women was 40 years.