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

[NYcarbineer]

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. 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

So what?

 

[The T]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

Yes. This exactly what I found as well. And the evidence they cite is conversations between boeing execs and union leaders where the execs essentially threatened to take their business to another state. And they then proceeded to make good on the threat.

But I disagree 100% that what they did violates that statute, and furthermore, I question the wisdom and sanity of anyone that thinks otherwise.

I really don't care. I'd be happy if the government got out of Boeing's life. However, this is not what Repukes are proposing. Instead, they are advocating for more personal involvement and favoritism.

That would be OBAMA and the UNIONS doing this by launching the suit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

No, I want proof to substantiate your refutations, using wal-mart as your example here in this thread.

You don't think that refutes the statement 'businesses have the right to locate anywhere they want'?

What is wrong with you?

 

[boedicca]

Man oh man, NYC is dense.

 

[bripat9643]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

Yes. This exactly what I found as well. And the evidence they cite is conversations between boeing execs and union leaders where the execs essentially threatened to take their business to another state. And they then proceeded to make good on the threat.

But I disagree 100% that what they did violates that statute, and furthermore, I question the wisdom and sanity of anyone that thinks otherwise.

The law prevents companies from retaliating against individual employees. It doesn't not prevent a company from taking its business elsewhere. If that was against the law, then every company that setup shop in right-to-work states is guilty.

Precedent is not on the Administration's side on this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You've read the entire complaint and the law?

 

[The T]

Man oh man, NYC is dense.

Dense it too nice.

 

[bripat9643]

I really don't care. I'd be happy if the government got out of Boeing's life. However, this is not what Repukes are proposing. Instead, they are advocating for more personal involvement and favoritism. I really disagree with you voodoo supply-side economics.

You think that the taxpayers' money only should go to executives. I disagree that the executives should be the only people who capture the economic rents due to their relationship with the government.

We obviously have a severe disagreement here. You think that Boeing executives should only benefit from taxpayers' money and I strongly disagree.

You mean Boeing doesn't pay its employees?

Who would have thunk it?

Please explain how keeping their noses out of the whole business constitutes "personal involvement" or "favoritism."

 

[Antiderivative]

I really don't care. I'd be happy if the government got out of Boeing's life. However, this is not what Repukes are proposing. Instead, they are advocating for more personal involvement and favoritism. I really disagree with you voodoo supply-side economics.

You think that the taxpayers' money only should go to executives. I disagree that the executives should be the only people who capture the economic rents due to their relationship with the government.

We obviously have a severe disagreement here. You think that Boeing executives should only benefit from taxpayers' money and I strongly disagree.

You mean Boeing doesn't pay its employees?

Who would have thunk it?

Please explain how keeping their noses out of the whole business constitutes "personal involvement" or "favoritism."

Jesus fucking Christ. Only a fool would think that Boeing would be better off without the government.

However, you are one of the most delusional conservative trolls that I have ever come across.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Man oh man, NYC is dense.

Dense it too nice.

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

 

[The T]

I really don't care. I'd be happy if the government got out of Boeing's life. However, this is not what Repukes are proposing. Instead, they are advocating for more personal involvement and favoritism. I really disagree with you voodoo supply-side economics.

You think that the taxpayers' money only should go to executives. I disagree that the executives should be the only people who capture the economic rents due to their relationship with the government.

We obviously have a severe disagreement here. You think that Boeing executives should only benefit from taxpayers' money and I strongly disagree.

You mean Boeing doesn't pay its employees?

Who would have thunk it?

Please explain how keeping their noses out of the whole business constitutes "personal involvement" or "favoritism."

Jesus fucking Christ. Only a fool would think that Boeing would be better off without the government.

However, you are one of the most delusional conservative trolls that I have ever come across.

So with that? Which board kicked you off of it?

 

[The T]

Man oh man, NYC is dense.

Dense it too nice.

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

Show where they can't. (And YES) many have asked you, and you fail to answer.

 

[Antiderivative]

So with that? Which board kicked you off of it?

You need to be more coherent. I don't understand your reply.

 

[The T]

Obviously the DU, or Huffpoo.

*NEXT*

 

[Meister]

Man oh man, NYC is dense.

Dense it too nice.

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

If it's zoned for the business by the "local" governments....yes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dense it too nice.

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

Show where they can't. (And YES) many have asked you, and you fail to answer.

I guess you missed the 20 posts about Walmart not being allowed to open stores in New York City.

lol, learn to read.

Now, prove that Walmart has the RIGHT to locate ANYWHERE they want.

 

[bripat9643]

Jesus fucking Christ. Only a fool would think that Boeing would be better off without the government.

However, you are one of the most delusional conservative trolls that I have ever come across.

Is everything you post a non sequitur?

Thanks for the compliment on being a "conservative troll." Coming from a leftwing moron like you, that's high praise. The better your arguments are, the more turds like you dish out the nasty insults.

 

[boedicca]

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

Show where they can't. (And YES) many have asked you, and you fail to answer.

I guess you missed the 20 posts about Walmart not being allowed to open stores in New York City.

lol, learn to read.

Now, prove that Walmart has the RIGHT to locate ANYWHERE they want.

Uh. South Carolina is welcoming Boeing.

So why should the FEDS interfere with something the state and local governments support?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dense it too nice.

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

If it's zoned for the business by the "local" governments....yes.

Which means they CANNOT locate anywhere they want.

I expect coming soon will be the argument that 'anywhere' doesn't actually mean 'anywhere'.

People really should spend more time learning their language.

 

[The T]

You want to argue that businesses can locate anywhere they want?

Let's hear it.

Show where they can't. (And YES) many have asked you, and you fail to answer.

I guess you missed the 20 posts about Walmart not being allowed to open stores in New York City.

lol, learn to read.

Now, prove that Walmart has the RIGHT to locate ANYWHERE they want.

And that is a LOCAL Decision which LOCALS made.

North Charleston, South Carolina opened their arms to Boeing.

And this is wrong? How So?