Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Not Bob
How do the Republicans feel about shareholder reform -- is a corporate vote analogous to casting a ballot in a public, state-conducted election, too?

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

[Hank Chinaski]

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

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.

[andViolins]

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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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.

[Not Bob]

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.

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty's blog-of-the-day

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That was an op-ed published in the Washington Post, you moron.

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.

[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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
Mr. Meyerson conveniently compares two cases that really stand for two different propositions. . . . 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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

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

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

Yes. Delightful!

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think Meyerson or I would disagree with anything you just said.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
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.

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.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
board support for a month the two decisions were from different groups?

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.