Freedom wins...big government loses...Boeing Bill passes

[Polk]

Damned straight he does! And it's in his employer's best interest to reward excellent employees. It's damned tough to hold onto your best talent when a union forces you to pay the least talented the same wage.
With a union, skill has less to do with your paycheck that the length of time you've managed to avoid getting fired.
For the most part, I've avoided union shops like the plague. I have a work ethic that makes me want to give my best on the job. I resent the shit out of people who have been on the job twice as long and do half the work.
A union wage fairly compensates the average worker. It overpays the underachievers and cheats excellence.

He doesn't. And his employer's best interest is to pay him the lowest possible wage.

Wrong, In an truly free market, Employers have to compete for Employees, and can not just pay hardly Nothing, If they want to retain workers and be able to hire more. Of course this only works when there are the same number, or More workers than Jobs.

Of course they can pay hardly nothing. Employers pay the clearing wage that matches their demand for labor with existing stock of labor. They're not handing out extra money "just because".

 

[JWBooth]

Well at least on this issue we can remain a free republic.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would undermine the government's case accusing Boeing Co. of retaliating against union workers.

The measure, approved on a 238-186 vote, would limit the National Labor Relations Board's enforcement power by prohibiting the agency from ordering any employer to shut down plants or relocate work, even after a company had violated labor laws.

Republicans and their allies in the business community have criticized the National Labor Relations Board for more than a year as the agency issued a spate of union-friendly decisions and rules.

Read more: House Passes Bill To Limit Labor Relations Board Authority | Fox News

Won't actually accomplish anything, but ....

Will not survive the Senate to make it to Obummers desk for him to veto.

 

[Polk]

2012 is coming. The way things are going, the Democrat party couldn't beat the Wooden Indian Party.

Soon Reid will be the Minority Leader and then he can sit on whatever he pleases.

Filibuster.

I forgot... liberals only hate the filibuster when Republicans threaten it.

So what we're getting at here is that you're a hypocrite.

 

[Polk]

glad you enjoyed it. Now, about that link I asked for proving that there is at least 1 state that bans unions???

Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

Why did you use two different dictionaries? Wait, I already know the answer. You were looking for one that gave you the definition of effectively you wanted. If we look at what the dictionary actually says...

ef·fec·tive 
[ih-fek-tiv]
adjective
1.
adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effectively

 

[Polk]

Please link to a single state law banning unions from said state.

I dare you.

I shouldn't have said most. Only 22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws.

How do right-to-work laws ban unions?

Hint: They don't.

Why do you hate that workers can decide for themselves what they want?

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

 

[Polk]

He sponsors a bill that will weaken the enforcement powers of a board that has national reach, all so he can get jobs for his state ... and you don't find that self-serving?

Who gives a crap? The NLRB shouldn't even exist. It's sole purpose is to violate the rights of employers.

I like when you guys admit the crazy shit we all know you believe. In this case, that workers are basically chattel.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies proved how unions are such a greet boon for workers. I suppose they are if they can get the government to shake down the taxpayers for them.

So it's the workers' fault that GM and Chrysler were ran by morons?

It's the union's fault that GM and Chrysler were forced by the government to agree to outrageous contract that no sane company would agree to voluntarily.

And don't tell me it was voluntary.

It was voluntary. No one forced GM and Chrysler to sign terrible deals and make shitty products.

 

[Polk]

He doesn't. And his employer's best interest is to pay him the lowest possible wage.

Karl Marx's economic theories were discredited long ago, but it appears they are alive and well in the labor movement

You guys seem to have this odd belief that businesses are charities.

 

[Polk]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

 

[bripat9643]

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

No, it doesn't say that. It only says the union thugs cannot stop you from working for any employer.

 

[naturegirl]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Sounds like the business wanted to bargin with the Unions and they refused. It had to do with work stoppage, not wages.

 

[bripat9643]

He doesn't. And his employer's best interest is to pay him the lowest possible wage.

Karl Marx's economic theories were discredited long ago, but it appears they are alive and well in the labor movement

You guys seem to have this odd belief that businesses are charities.

No, I don't. They aren't union property either. They are also not welfare agencies.

businesses are private property, and property owners also have rights, not just union thugs.

 

[bripat9643]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Nope, I don't see any admission the move was based on retaliation. However, it was based on the knowledge that union thugs would make it difficult for Boeing to make a profit.

That being said, the law is an outrage. Why should any business be forced to deal with any union it doesn't want to deal with?

 

[edjax1952]

In reviewing cases, the Circuit Courts evaluate the factual and legal basis for the Board’s Order and decide, after briefing or oral argument, whether to enter a judicial decree commanding obedience to the Order. The Court may also enter an Order on the grounds that the responding party failed to oppose or had no legal basis to oppose the Board’s action.
In recent years, Circuit Courts have decided about 65 cases a year involving the NLRB. The majority - nearly 80% - have been decided in the Board’s favor.
Securing monetary remedies and Protecting assets:
Board attorneys conduct civil and criminal contempt litigation in the U.S. Courts of Appeals to secure monetary remedies such as back pay and to obtain protective orders to ensure that assets will not be dissipated in an effort to avoid obligations.
Charts and data on remedies are available here.
Final Review by U.S. Supreme Court:
Any Circuit Court decision can be subject to final review by the U.S. Supreme Court, if the parties or the Board seek it. Before presenting a petition asking the high court to consider a case, or grant certiorari, the Board must first receive permission from the U.S. Solicitor General.

http://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/enforce-orders

So it is not the authority of the NLRB to close a business. That authority is reserved for the Circuit courts.

 

[Ernie S.]

You really overestimate the power of employees. Even people with talents as rare as superstar athletes don't have a large degree of negotiating power. You think some guy doing welding does?

Damned straight he does! And it's in his employer's best interest to reward excellent employees. It's damned tough to hold onto your best talent when a union forces you to pay the least talented the same wage.
With a union, skill has less to do with your paycheck that the length of time you've managed to avoid getting fired.
For the most part, I've avoided union shops like the plague. I have a work ethic that makes me want to give my best on the job. I resent the shit out of people who have beer on the job twice as long and do half the work.
A union wage fairly compensates the average worker. It overpays the underachievers and cheats excellence.

He doesn't. And his employer's best interest is to pay him the lowest possible wage.

Granted an employer pays a typical worker the least he can. Do you pay an extra grand for a car out of the goodness of your heart?
Corporations are not in business to pay salaries. They exist to turn profit.
An excellent employee is a valuable asset, but could be a huge liability if he went to work for your competition. It makes sense to keep him happy, just as it does to pay a low wage to poor employees. If they leave and find work with the competition, you are free of the liability and the competition is less efficient in the bargain.

 

[naturegirl]

Granted an employer pays a typical worker the least he can. Do you pay an extra grand for a car out of the goodness of your heart?
Corporations are not in business to pay salaries. They exist to turn profit.
An excellent employee is a valuable asset, but could be a huge liability if he went to work for your competition. It makes sense to keep him happy, just as it does to pay a low wage to poor employees. If they leave and find work with the competition, you are free of the liability and the competition is less efficient in the bargain.

Woot!! Woot!! +1000 for this post.

 

[Ernie S.]

glad you enjoyed it. Now, about that link I asked for proving that there is at least 1 state that bans unions???

Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

No, they don't effectively ban unions. They give workers the choice to join or not to join. I thought libs were pro choice. What's up with that?

 

[Full-Auto]

Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

No, they don't effectively ban unions. They give workers the choice to join or not to join. I thought libs were pro choice. What's up with that?

They are pro choice. you join the mob or get cement shoes.

 

[Ernie S.]

I shouldn't have said most. Only 22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws.

How do right-to-work laws ban unions?

Hint: They don't.

Why do you hate that workers can decide for themselves what they want?

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

No it just means that the union only gets to take money out of the pockets of it's members.

 

[Jarhead]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Exactly how is that breaking the law. The truth is, the unions used their advantage of numbers and ability to negatively affect the success of the company to get what they want. Not necessarily what they deserve mind you....but to get what they want. That was the unions choice and now the union hurt its members.

And an FYI...and this is fact...

Unions of today have had a negative affect on employee performance. Here is why...

Joe and Jim start the same day as machinists. They have a great union package...2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 2 floating holidays, 2 personal days, and, of course, the 8 national holidays.

In december, Joe appraoches Jim and says "I have not used any of my sick days yet so since I will lose them at the end of the year, I amn going to take them next week." Joe, on the other hand feels that sick days are not vacation days and since he is not sick, he will not use them...and yes, lose them at the end of the year.

January first rolls around and it is raise time for Jim and Joe. Per the union contract, they both get their 7% raise.....but the difference is, Joe got 5 more days off last year than Jim.

So tell me....now that Joe got nothing more than Jim even though Jim took off more days last year....what do you think Joe will do with his unused sick days next year?

You see...a union contract is good for the ones with the lowest acceptable work ethic...and as a result, those in a union trend to the work ethic of the least acceptable.

Furthermore...do you feel that Joe had an advantage of being a union memeber? His raise was based on him being an employee...not based on his dedication and work ethic.