Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So the NLRB never acted on behalf of labor when Bush was president?
How would that prove it's not a government agency?
No one's trying to prove it's not a government agency. You're trying to prove that Obama is micro-managing it.
Again, if you bothered to actually read the facts of the case PERHAPS you might learn that there is nothing unreasonable about pursuing this case.
Anybody want to argue the merits of this case? I'd really like to know what they are.
So far all I've seen is variations of 'corporations are evil' yadda yadda yadda.
The rightwingers here refuse to look at the case. It's an easy lookup, they refuse to. Why?
Because they aren't interested in the case. They are interested in anti-union trolling.
And blaming Obama, of course, as though he's directing the whole thing. And people continue to wonder why he still gets so much support. It's because of morons who try to tie Obama, personally, to every little event that happens, or has happened, since January 2009. He caused the economy to go into free fall; he caused all the unemployment as a result; he bailed out the banks and GM. But wait! Banks good, now. Wall Street not Main Street more important now. He caused the BP oil spill, remember? Oh wait, no he didn't, he just didn't give a shit. But wait. Then he did give a shit but was told to just shut up and drill baby drill, and pay victims out of his own pocket, not force BP to pay up. He tried to close the gap in health care for Americans, to which the Stupid Brigade said "Over our dead bodies..." (Um, that was the point, folks.)
See how it goes?
Cite the case that declared it unconstitutional,
or are you just doing the guy-on-internet-thinks-it's-unconstitutional thing?
you are very good about asking others for their 'proof' yet don't provide much in return but be that as it may, wal-mart, whats the connection again?
You want proof that Walmart has been kept out of New York City for decades?
jeezus
Anybody want to argue the merits of this case? I'd really like to know what they are.
So far all I've seen is variations of 'corporations are evil' yadda yadda yadda.
The rightwingers here refuse to look at the case. It's an easy lookup, they refuse to. Why?
Because they aren't interested in the case. They are interested in anti-union trolling.
judging by the number of your posts that have little to do with the issue based solely on your predilection for constructing strawmen and displaying very little depth as to the actual topical issues, I find that hilarious.
Prove that American wages have kept up with inflation for the last 50 years,
if that's what you believe.
Even if they haven't, that doesn't equate to "the race to the bottom."
Colossal fail, once again. For that to be true, wages would have to be decreasing steadily while corporate profits increased steadily. That simply hasn't happened. However, taxation has made large inroads on everyone's take-home pay. Now every family needs two incomes just so they second one can pay all the taxes they owe.
What do you mean, it hasn't happened?
CEO pay soars while workers' pay stalls - USATODAY.com
median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Wages on the whole have been stagnant since the 1990's.
Economys Gains Fail to Reach Most Workers Paychecks
How would that prove it's not a government agency?
No one's trying to prove it's not a government agency. You're trying to prove that Obama is micro-managing it.
Again, if you bothered to actually read the facts of the case PERHAPS you might learn that there is nothing unreasonable about pursuing this case.
(Oops, not true where Bush was concerned. I forgot.)
The rightwingers here refuse to look at the case. It's an easy lookup, they refuse to. Why?
Because they aren't interested in the case. They are interested in anti-union trolling.
And blaming Obama, of course, as though he's directing the whole thing. And people continue to wonder why he still gets so much support. It's because of morons who try to tie Obama, personally, to every little event that happens, or has happened, since January 2009. He caused the economy to go into free fall; he caused all the unemployment as a result; he bailed out the banks and GM. But wait! Banks good, now. Wall Street not Main Street more important now. He caused the BP oil spill, remember? Oh wait, no he didn't, he just didn't give a shit. But wait. Then he did give a shit but was told to just shut up and drill baby drill, and pay victims out of his own pocket, not force BP to pay up. He tried to close the gap in health care for Americans, to which the Stupid Brigade said "Over our dead bodies..." (Um, that was the point, folks.)
See how it goes?
You are one of the most ignorant people on this board.
Of course you think I am. That's because I knock your bloviating blather into left field all the time.
Obama did a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB for a reason.
Mr. Becker is one of two recent National Labor Relations Board appointments by President Obama. The five-member NLRB supervises union elections, investigates labor practices and, most important, issues rulings that interpret the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Becker, who is currently the associate general counsel at Andy Stern's Service Employees International Union, is all for giving unions more power over companies in elections. Only he's not sure he needs to wait for Congress.
...
Mr. Becker has other ideas. In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, written when he was a UCLA professor, he explained that traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections. He wrote that employers should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about elections, and from challenging election results even amid evidence of union misconduct. He believes elections should be removed from work sites and held on "neutral grounds," or via mail ballots. Employers should also be barred from "placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots."
More extraordinary, Mr. Becker advocated a new "body of campaign rules" that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a "captive audience" ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.
Andy Stern's Go-To Guy - WSJ.com
Becker's nomination appeared to fail on February 8, 2010, after Republican Senators (led by John McCain) threatened to filibuster his nomination.[6][11] President Obama said he would consider making recess appointments to the NLRB due to the Senate's failure to move on any of the three nominations.[11] True to his word, Obama on March 27, 2010 recess appointed both Becker and Pearce to the NLRB.[12]
On June 22, 2010, the Senate in a voice vote unanimously confirmed Pearce to a full term, thus allowing him to serve until August 27, 2013, instead of only through the end of 2011, which was what his recess appointment would have allowed. Also on June 22, 2010, the Senate in a voice vote confirmed Republican nominee Brian Hayes of Massachusetts in a voice vote, allowing Hayes to serve in a term that will end December 16, 2012.
Anybody want to argue the merits of this case? I'd really like to know what they are.
So far all I've seen is variations of 'corporations are evil' yadda yadda yadda.
The rightwingers here refuse to look at the case. It's an easy lookup, they refuse to. Why?
Because they aren't interested in the case. They are interested in anti-union trolling.
FYI,
Boeing got 22 BILLION in government contracts in 2009.
They reside at the number 2 government contract teat.
is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?
is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?
What law was broken?
is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?
What law was broken?
is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?
What law was broken?
What law was broken?
That would be the National Labor Relations Act. Whether or not they did violate the act is something for the court to decide, but since the NLRB conducted an investigation based upon a complaint by the IAMAW it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.
is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?
What law was broken?
That would be the National Labor Relations Act. Whether or not they did violate the act is something for the court to decide, but since the NLRB conducted an investigation based upon a complaint by the IAMAW it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.
No law was broken.
But that's not the point. We have a 4th Branch of government now. It's made up of the permanent regulatory bureaucracy and it is able to subvert the rule of law in order to rig the system for its cronies.
What law was broken?
That would be the National Labor Relations Act. Whether or not they did violate the act is something for the court to decide, but since the NLRB conducted an investigation based upon a complaint by the IAMAW it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.
Does that act say that companies may NOT build where they want unless a UNION says they can?
