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

[Ernie S.]

DontBeStupid, don't be stupid. No new punishments are needed. No punishments were taken away. What broken law are you talking about? The only action taken was to explicitly forbid the NLRB from having the (new and made up as they go along) authority to shut down a business or require it to relocate.

Do you remember recently that the Supreme Court had to instruct the NLRB that it could not require church schools to allow unions in to regulate their employees. The NLRB is stretching the boundries of their authority whenever they get the chance.

yes people like to do this..Its not a union only problem...

Damn son! give the turntable a smack I think your needle is stuck

on stupid!

 

[Ernie S.]

Why do union members have a greater right to work than non-union members?

Since Polk punted on this, anyone else want to give it a shot?

I didn't punt. It's a stupid question based on a false premise.

Translated: I got nothin'

 

[Polk]

Since Polk punted on this, anyone else want to give it a shot?

I didn't punt. It's a stupid question based on a false premise.

Translated: I got nothin'

What is there to have? He asked a question based on the premise that states without "right-to-work" laws have closed shops. Since that's not accurate (closed shops are already banned under federal law), what is there to answer?

 

[Avatar4321]

I agree with every bit of that. The problem is you don't realize it's a two-sided issue. Workers are looking to maximize their salaries because it serves their best interests.

How does it serve their best interests if the business goes out because of their greed any more than it would serve their best interests if the business went under because of the greed of their managers?

So you're saying we should assume the business owner is so irrational that he'll agree to a deal that puts himself out a business? That's a bizarre belief.

No. That's the problem. The business owners can't agree to the deals that put them out of business regardless how much the Unions demand it. Thus they stop worker and they are de facto out of business regardless.

The businesses are put in an out of business if you agree and out of business if you don't position unless they make efforts to move the company or get new workers somehow.

I know you guys like to pretend these laws actually protect workers, but in reality they screw them over.

 

[Polk]

Your problem is that you assume that because it's not the first-choice deal for the business, that it would destroy them. That's not even remotely accurate.

 

[Conservative]

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?

Workers have that choice even in the absence of "right-to-work" laws. What "right-to-work" laws do is give non-union employers the power to freeload off of the bargaining efforts of the unionized employees.

your problem is that your pissed the non-union employees are smart enough to negotiate a contract they are content with, while the union employees expect the union to do it for them.

 

[Conservative]

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.

Effectively | Define Effectively at Dictionary.com

you are such a fucking cry baby... I used the wrong dictionary? Please.. go cry someplace else you little pussbot.

Go troll somewhere else. You got caught lying and now you want to throw a fit about it.

you whine I did not use a dictionary YOU like, and I am throwing the fit?
get a pair, nadless wonder.

 

[Polk]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

 

[Polk]

you are such a fucking cry baby... I used the wrong dictionary? Please.. go cry someplace else you little pussbot.

Go troll somewhere else. You got caught lying and now you want to throw a fit about it.

you whine I did not use a dictionary YOU like, and I am throwing the fit?
get a pair, nadless wonder.

Yeah, you're throwing a fit because I dared to point out that you're were lying. Signs you're throwing a fit and I'm not? I've simply addressed the issues, while you melted down into a string of four letter words (and by four letter words, I mean words that are profane, since I'm sure you'll run back to point out "fucking" isn't four letters long).

 

[Conservative]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

It also gives them the right to negotiate their own contract, should they choose to.

I know waht I would be satisfied with... what I need... what would make me happy... a shit lot more than some union jagoff.

 

[Polk]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

It also gives them the right to negotiate their own contract, should they choose to.

I know waht I would be satisfied with... what I need... what would make me happy... a shit lot more than some union jagoff.

But that ends up being an irrelevant point, since almost all workers would get more under the union deal than they would get via individual negotiation. The result is that all workers prefer the union deal to individual deals, but if they can get the union deal without paying the costs for the union, why would they do so? The result is that the union collapses because no one joins it (no one has incentive to do so if they can get all the benefits of union membership without being a member). Think of it like a country club. If you could get all of the benefits of club membership for free, why would you ever join?

 

[Conservative]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

It also gives them the right to negotiate their own contract, should they choose to.

I know waht I would be satisfied with... what I need... what would make me happy... a shit lot more than some union jagoff.

But that ends up being an irrelevant point, since almost all workers would get more under the union deal than they would get via individual negotiation. The result is that all workers prefer the union deal to individual deals, but if they can get the union deal without paying the costs for the union, why would they do so? The result is that the union collapses because no one joins it (no one has incentive to do so if they can get all the benefits of union membership without being a member). Think of it like a country club. If you could get all of the benefits of club membership for free, why would you ever join?

those are ASSumptions. You have zero proof for those statements.

Your pro-union bias is out in full force I see.

unions collapsed in this country when the workers figured out that all the unions want is money... for themselves. If unions are so great, so benefit the poor, stupid, simpleton workers, WHY is union membership at an all time low?

 

[Dragon]

Well I am not a legal scholar but , if my assumptions are right, the unions are saying that Boeing does not have a right to close down it's branch in Washinton and open one in The Carolina's because the branch in Washington has Union labor. This is because of possible loss of income by that union labor. That looks pretty close to extortion to me.

You are mistaken. The allegation by the NLRB is that Boeing took this action in order to retaliate for a strike in 2008 by the union. As any such action is illegal, those who claim that Boeing broke no laws are potentially incorrect, pending a ruling on the NLRB's lawsuit. Here's an article on the subject: NLRB suit against Boeing asks return of state jobs | Local news, sports, weather, blogs, opinion, crime, obituaries, business, directory, marketplace, education, high school, family, shopping, arts, entertainment, movies, books, cooking, auto, real e

As for the claim that Democrats in blocking this law are hurting "job creation," I invite you folks to check out my thread here http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/185577-who-are-the-job-creators.html. Big business doesn't create jobs. Customers create jobs. One way that we help customers to do so, is to keep wages high so that people have more buying power. And one of the best ways to do that, is to encourage organization of labor into unions.

It is the Republicans who are hurting job creation, not the Democrats, and certainly not the unions.

 

[freedombecki]

My butt is still burned about Boeing whining about getting their butts beat for the new aerial tanker, and paying off pols to get a do-over.
Fuckem.

Dear Mr. Oddball, Boeing has an above-averaged salary workforce of over 160,000 Americans. That's a lot of mouths to feed, and you want to see all these jobs go under?

Please tell me I am misunderstanding what you are saying, would you, and what were you meaning in saying?

 

[daveman]

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.

Yes, it says exactly that. Read the damn laws. "Right-to-work" laws aren't necessary say "the union thugs cannot stop you from working", but assuming you mean outlawing the closed shop, there was already a law on the books that did exactly that.

What gives a union member more right to work than a non-union member?

 

[daveman]

Why do union members have a greater right to work than non-union members?

Since Polk punted on this, anyone else want to give it a shot?

I didn't punt. It's a stupid question based on a false premise.

Horseshit. You union drones are saying exactly that: Union members have more right to work than non-union members.

But you can't explain why.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it says exactly that. Read the damn laws. "Right-to-work" laws aren't necessary say "the union thugs cannot stop you from working", but assuming you mean outlawing the closed shop, there was already a law on the books that did exactly that.

Yes, right-to-work laws say exactly what I said they say. In states that lack them, union thugs can prevent you from taking a job with a union employer. They can't do that in right-to-work states.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're right. Business are private entities with rights. What you fail to realize is that workers also have rights. They're not just chattel to be thrown around at the employer's whim.

Yep, workers have rights, like the right to work for whomever they choose without getting permission from some union extortion racket.

 

[daveman]

I didn't punt. It's a stupid question based on a false premise.

Translated: I got nothin'

What is there to have? He asked a question based on the premise that states without "right-to-work" laws have closed shops. Since that's not accurate (closed shops are already banned under federal law), what is there to answer?

No, moron, I asked a question based on union drones' hatred for non-union workers.

 

[bripat9643]

He clearly states it's retaliation for strikes.

Wrong. He states the simple fact that union strikes cost Boeing billions of dollars and threaten it's ability to stay in business. That isn't "retaliation." That is stating the business reason for the move.