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

[DontBeStupid]

So... I re-read this thread and unless I missed something, NO ONE has stated what the penalty would be for a company that breaks the law. Do any of you even know? Or are you honestly saying that no company will ever break the law, never, never, never?

What law are you referring to so that we can make a reference.

The law you all have been crying over this entire thread!

It is illegal for a company to retaliate against a union for past strikes. That is the law. If this bill passes, what then is the penalty to a business that does that?

Absolutely none of you know, yet you are cheering this bill.

 

[daveman]

DontBeStupid thinks Seattle union thugs are entitled to Boeing jobs.

"I know I saw it in the Constitution somewhere!!"

Where in the Constitution does it say the rights of a company trump the rights of citizens?

Where in the Constitution does it say the rights of union members trump the rights of union members?

 

[edjax1952]

Also ...

Anyone find that a bit self serving?

no

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?

I think we should weaken the enforcement power of about....lets see ....70-80% of the federal boards in place. The EPA, The IRS, the NLRB, would be a good start. I can come up with more if you like.

 

[edjax1952]

Also ...

Anyone find that a bit self serving?

no

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?

I think we should weaken the enforcement power of about....lets see ....70-80% of the federal boards in place. The EPA, The IRS, the NLRB, would be a good start. I can come up with more if you like.

 

[WillowTree]

So... I re-read this thread and unless I missed something, NO ONE has stated what the penalty would be for a company that breaks the law. Do any of you even know? Or are you honestly saying that no company will ever break the law, never, never, never?

What law are you referring to so that we can make a reference.

The law you all have been crying over this entire thread!

It is illegal for a company to retaliate against a union for past strikes. That is the law. If this bill passes, what then is the penalty to a business that does that?

Absolutely none of you know, yet you are cheering this bill.

it's going to be hard to prove intent jackass.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I dont care what the penalty is.......if there even is one

The law reigns in control and the adminstrative oversight of the freemarket.

Good enough here

 

[Moonglow]

a company should have the right to move or open it's plants anywhere it wants

 

[Conservative]

So... I re-read this thread and unless I missed something, NO ONE has stated what the penalty would be for a company that breaks the law. Do any of you even know? Or are you honestly saying that no company will ever break the law, never, never, never?

What law are you referring to so that we can make a reference.

The law you all have been crying over this entire thread!

It is illegal for a company to retaliate against a union for past strikes. That is the law. If this bill passes, what then is the penalty to a business that does that?

Absolutely none of you know, yet you are cheering this bill.

You are aware that this did not happen here, right?

That Boeing actually INCREASED the number of jobs at one factory... a UNION shop, and built another factory (a non-union shop) elsewhere, right?

You do understand the facts here, don't you?


of course you don't.

 

[daveman]

So... I re-read this thread and unless I missed something, NO ONE has stated what the penalty would be for a company that breaks the law. Do any of you even know? Or are you honestly saying that no company will ever break the law, never, never, never?

No. We're saying that Boeing hasn't broken the law.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What is the goal here? To strip employees of all bargaining?

If so, how is that good for ANY employee? Left or right?

 

[edjax1952]

What is the goal here? To strip employees of all bargaining?

If so, how is that good for ANY employee? Left or right?

The goal is to make it clear that:

No laws were broken in this senario
and to express that it is a good thing that the NLRB is reined in on its percieved totalitarian authority.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

 

[edjax1952]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

The new penalty for what? This decision by The House does not negate any laws. It states that the NLRB does not have the right to close down or demand relocation of a business even if a law is broken.

The penalty and force of law is still the same and the penalty for breaking a law is still the same. The only restriction is put on the NLRB in that it doesn't have the right to force a business to close or be relocated.

 

[edjax1952]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

The new penalty for what? This decision by The House does not negate any laws. It states that the NLRB does not have the right to close down or demand relocation of a business even if a law is broken.

The penalty and force of law is still the same and the penalty for breaking a law is still the same. The only restriction is put on the NLRB in that it doesn't have the right to force a business to close or be relocated.

I am trying to reach into your mind,
which is a very difficult task because it is closed shut very tight,

I think, maybe, that you are concerned that if the NLRB does not have the right to close a business or force it to relocate if a law is broken, who does have that right?

I personally think that is a very stiff fine for breaking a law (closing or forceing to relocate) and I do not know of anybody or board I would entrust that result to.

 

[Jarhead]

The employees did. They're free to decide to sign a contract in which they have no negotiating power. That's not free in any meaningful sense of the word.

uh...excuse me?

Even you said it...

" They're free to decide to sign a contract"

which means

they are also free to NOT sign it.

So what freedom was lost?

Being able to refuse to sign the contract doesn't mean the contract isn't coercive. If we're trapped in the desert and I have water, selling it to you on the condition that I get everything you own would still be coercive, even though you'd have the freedom to refuse it and die.

if we are going to use analogies, lets compare apples to apples.

If you had water and I had a choice of buying your water in return for everything I own or the choice to drink the warm and not so refreshing water that I also have available to me then I am making an educated decision when I make my final decision.

Your analogy is implying that the workers have no other choice. Perhpas their other choices are not as good as the epitome of a union job in the town they wish to live....but the bottom line is they have the choice to move and follow the comapny (albeit, not ideal), the choice to look for another job in the industry, the choice to look for another job in another industry and the choice to start their own business.

You seem to want to give no choice to the business owner and all of the choiuces to the worker.

Do business owners not deserve the freedom of choice?

The worker should have all the choices they want and the business owner none?

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

The new penalty for what? This decision by The House does not negate any laws. It states that the NLRB does not have the right to close down or demand relocation of a business even if a law is broken.

The penalty and force of law is still the same and the penalty for breaking a law is still the same. The only restriction is put on the NLRB in that it doesn't have the right to force a business to close or be relocated.

Then what's the penalty?

 

[Jarhead]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

The new penalty for what? This decision by The House does not negate any laws. It states that the NLRB does not have the right to close down or demand relocation of a business even if a law is broken.

The penalty and force of law is still the same and the penalty for breaking a law is still the same. The only restriction is put on the NLRB in that it doesn't have the right to force a business to close or be relocated.

Then what's the penalty?

it depends on the infraction.
Read up on HR laws...and OSHA laws.

 

[edjax1952]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

The new penalty for what? This decision by The House does not negate any laws. It states that the NLRB does not have the right to close down or demand relocation of a business even if a law is broken.

The penalty and force of law is still the same and the penalty for breaking a law is still the same. The only restriction is put on the NLRB in that it doesn't have the right to force a business to close or be relocated.

Then what's the penalty?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BOEING!!

Jesus, are you all that short sighted? All you care about is the Boeing ruling? You don't give a rat's ass about any long term implications?

You have ZERO idea what the new penalty would be, if any. You don't care. All you care about is Boeing and some 1100 jobs in South Carolina.

No wonder this country is going down hill.

The new penalty for what? This decision by The House does not negate any laws. It states that the NLRB does not have the right to close down or demand relocation of a business even if a law is broken.

The penalty and force of law is still the same and the penalty for breaking a law is still the same. The only restriction is put on the NLRB in that it doesn't have the right to force a business to close or be relocated.

I am trying to reach into your mind,
which is a very difficult task because it is closed shut very tight,

I think, maybe, that you are concerned that if the NLRB does not have the right to close a business or force it to relocate if a law is broken, who does have that right?

I personally think that is a very stiff fine for breaking a law (closing or forceing to relocate) and I do not know of anybody or board I would entrust that result to.

Who's on first?....Abbot and Costello

 

[ClosedCaption]

What is the goal here? To strip employees of all bargaining?

If so, how is that good for ANY employee? Left or right?

The goal is to make it clear that:

No laws were broken in this senario
and to express that it is a good thing that the NLRB is reined in on its percieved totalitarian authority.

How is stopping employees from bargaining a good thing overall? I just want to know.

 

[Jarhead]

What is the goal here? To strip employees of all bargaining?

If so, how is that good for ANY employee? Left or right?

Ecxcuse me.....employees bargain all the time.

"we would like to offer you the job at 40K"

"I would like 45K"

"Well, this position warrants only 40K and there are several other candidates that will take it at 40K"

"OK, I will turn it down then"

or

"We would like to offer you the job at 40K"

"I would like 45K"

"well, we interviewed a dozen candidates and you bring to the table a differential that will be beneficial to our long term goals. Whereas the job is only valued at 40K, we will giver you 45K becuase we want you part of our team"

Happens everyday. No union necessary.