Tyrant Obama Admin: Files lawsuit to force Boeing to use union labor!!! WOW!!

[ogibillm]

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.

So every time some disgruntled union thugs complain to their toadies in the Obama regime, the government is obligated to sue?

i'm sorry, i originally neglected to say that based off their investigation they believed boeing had violated the law - and i believe that when a regulatory agency finds a company to be in violation of the law they have a responsibility to sue.

 

[Meister]

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 and concluded they did it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

 

[ogibillm]

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 and concluded they did it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

 

[Shooter]

Further? What 'Unfair act' did Boeing commit? NONE. They expanded where they wanted to. You just have some Union thugs sucking on sour grapes right about now.

Maybe Danny Glover can show up to complain about it and get arrested again.

 

[The T]

Further? What 'Unfair act' did Boeing commit? NONE. They expanded where they wanted to. You just have some Union thugs sucking on sour grapes right about now.

Maybe Danny Glover can show up to complain about it and get arrested again.

Maybe he can complain to his pal Hugo Chavez?

Hugo Chavez to Finance Danny Glover Movies

 

[Meister]

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 and concluded they did it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

What I will share is common sense....use it.

A "private company" moves to another state....it's done all the time. Companies that have contracts with the government move to other states....it's done all the time.

What is it with being a union business or not have to do with it? Use your common sense and be honest.

 

[boedicca]

All the NLRB is going to accomplish is Boeing moving to Canada.

 

[bripat9643]

i'm sorry, i originally neglected to say that based off their investigation they believed boeing had violated the law - and i believe that when a regulatory agency finds a company to be in violation of the law they have a responsibility to sue.

"investigation?" You must be joking. The idea that the facts of the case have anything to do with the merit of this case doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[The T]

All the NLRB is going to accomplish is Boeing moving to Canada.

And then they will whine that another company moved to another country, and still not understand why...

 

[bripat9643]

is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?

The government should not be a party to any civil lawsuit.

 

[The T]

It's like Liberals, and the Unions think they are owed something...

 

[Provocateur]

how mentally ill do you have to be to want to use scabs instead of union labor.

what barn did you grow up in?

wackos.

How did you form such a snobby outlook? Were you raised to feel superior? Be honest now...

 

[bodecea]

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 and concluded they did it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

They're not listening...have you noticed?

 

[ogibillm]

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

What I will share is common sense....use it.

A "private company" moves to another state....it's done all the time. Companies that have contracts with the government move to other states....it's done all the time.

What is it with being a union business or not have to do with it? Use your common sense and be honest.

in other words, no, you aren't familiar with the complaint, the law, or the results of the investigation. in place of that crucial information you've decided to fill in the gaps with what you like to call 'common sense' and i like to call bullshit based on ignorance.

you would be, therefore, the definition of a person talking out of their ass.

 

[Provocateur]

I haven't read the thread yet (passed Jillian's oh-so-insightful post), but I wonder if it has been brought up that immediately upon taking office, Obama signed three Executive Orders that were pro-union.

The first executive order requires employers with federal contracts above $100,000 in value to post a notice in the workplace informing their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including the right to join a union. This order also repeals Executive Order 13201, issued by President Bush in 2001, that required federal contractors and subcontractors to post so-called “Beck notices.” Such notices, named after the Supreme Court’s decision in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) informed employees covered under the NLRA that they could not be required to join a union or maintain union membership in order to retain their jobs and that employees who are subject to a union security clause and choose not to be union members may object to the purposes for which mandatory union dues are used.

The second order applies to federal contractors who provide services to government buildings. While there are several exemptions, under this new executive order, when a federal agency changes contractors, the new contractor will be required to offer jobs to the non-supervisory employees of its predecessor. This order is designed to try to ensure that when a unionized contractor is replaced, its successor will be obliged under existing labor laws to bargain with the original contractor’s labor union.

Finally, the third order prevents federal contractors from being reimbursed in federal funds for money spent to oppose (or support) union organizing efforts among their employees. The First Amendment prevents government from interfering with an employer’s right to voice its opinion on the merits of unionization. Similar measures have been enacted in some states, with respect to their state contractors, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that California ’s law to this effect was invalid because it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Although a federal executive order is different than state legislation, there may be legal challenges to this executive order’s constitutionality, including a possible violation of the First Amendment. Unless and until the order is successfully challenged, however, federal contractors who still wish to oppose union organizing campaigns will need to consider the effects of this order on their ability to continue doing so without jeopardizing their federal contracts.

President Obama Signs Three Pro-Union Executive Orders: New Rules on Hiring, Use of Government Funds, and Workplace Notices

 

[bripat9643]

Only if the employer agrees to that condition.

Wrong. The federal government forces corporations to "agree" to it. What do you think an organizing election is about?

So corporations have to obey laws??

Eureka, it's a breakthrough. It's a Helen Keller moment!!!!!!!

In Nazi Germany people also had to obey laws, like the one that said Jews had to report to the vans that would haul them off to Auschwitz.

 

[ogibillm]

is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?

The government should not be a party to any civil lawsuit.

a nice opinion, but the reality is the government enters into lawsuits all the time.

 

[The T]

Which part of the Wagner Act did they violate?

 

[Trajan]

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 and concluded they did it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

beating down unions and blasting the blind? Meister!!!Its Easter!

 

[bripat9643]

is the theory behind this thread that the government should not sue businesses for damages when they break the law?

The government should not be a party to any civil lawsuit.

a nice opinion, but the reality is the government enters into lawsuits all the time.

In 1860 a person like you would have said "the reality is that blacks are private property."

It's meaningless twaddle from someone who wouldn't know a tautology if you beat him over the head with it.