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

[OODA_Loop]

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

Bargin away in the private sector....but don't use the arm of .gov to force your collectivist will on private business.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Bargin away in the private sector....but don't use the arm of .gov to force your collectivist will on private business.

Why wont anyone just answer this question?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Simple...

They are allowed to bargain anytime they want as individuals. They will get what they want if they have a differential.

But when bargaining in numbers, you are no longer bargaining on the value of an employee....

and if the value of a particular employee is no longer a factor, the desire to be a TOP employee is eliminated from the formula.

 

[daveman]

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?

Yeah, what a bastard, huh?

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

So fines then. Ok. So if this bill becomes a law, then a business could retaliate against a union strike by moving their company and paying a fine.

And you're happy with this.

Unreal.

 

[daveman]

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 put more people to work.

Democrats don't seem to like that idea.

 

[daveman]

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.

"You have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

Were you similarly outraged about Democrats who have no idea of the long-term implications of the legislation they pushed through?

I'm betting "no".

 

[OODA_Loop]

Then what's the penalty?

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

So fines then. Ok. So if this bill becomes a law, then a business could retaliate against a union strike by moving their company and paying a fine.

And you're happy with this.

Unreal.

No.

Should not be a fine.

 

[daveman]

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

Bargin away in the private sector....but don't use the arm of .gov to force your collectivist will on private business.

Why wont anyone just answer this question?

Maybe you should threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.

 

[daveman]

Then what's the penalty?

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

So fines then. Ok. So if this bill becomes a law, then a business could retaliate against a union strike by moving their company and paying a fine.

And you're happy with this.

Unreal.

What penalty do you want? Summary execution?

 

[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.

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

You have created a new topic with your question. No-one said stopping employees from bargaining was a good thing.

Now you insert a new topic and demand an answer to a question that is irrevelant to the discussion. You must be a Union Worker who is not happy with the thread. Great diversinary tactics. Good luck with your answer.

 

[Trajan]

based oin tbhis;

would ban the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to shut down plants or relocate work, even if a company violates labor laws.

Read more: House Passes Bill To Limit Labor Relations Board Authority | Fox News


I have to say they should be careful, the nlrb as bad as the Boeing issue is, was like it or not meant to be 'partisan' in that the board has to be made up of a certain members of non union and union proclivities. Just washing away any enforcement codes they have is not the answer imho either.

There are times where in union rules must be enforced, but, this is what comes from over reach where in a horrible and overly partisan issue like Boeing comes up.

 

[WillowTree]

Then what's the penalty?

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

So fines then. Ok. So if this bill becomes a law, then a business could retaliate against a union strike by moving their company and paying a fine.

And you're happy with this.

Unreal.

You want the people of SC to have these jobs or the people of China? And you bastards wonder why companies go overseas.. idiot.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

So fines then. Ok. So if this bill becomes a law, then a business could retaliate against a union strike by moving their company and paying a fine.

And you're happy with this.

Unreal.

You want the people of SC to have these jobs or the people of China? And you bastards wonder why companies go overseas.. idiot.

Don't be such a Drama Queen.

All I'm saying is there has to be SOME kind of penalty. A real penalty that will stop companies from retaliating against workers. Right now, that penalty is severe. The NLRB can shut down your plant. If that goes away, what suitable penalty will be there to deter companies? As I see it, there won't be one. There will be "fines" which will basically be a cost of doing business. Big deal.

 

[OODA_Loop]

SC Boeing workers dont feel retaliated against

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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?

It doesn't.
And WTF does the constitution have to do with this?
You are definitely a cheese head.

 

[DontBeStupid]

"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?

It doesn't.
And WTF does the constitution have to do with this?
You are definitely a cheese head.

Dave brings it up ... and you go after me.

Well that makes sense.

 

[daveman]

"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?

Yoo hoo! You forgot this one!

 

[edjax1952]

So fines then. Ok. So if this bill becomes a law, then a business could retaliate against a union strike by moving their company and paying a fine.

And you're happy with this.

Unreal.

You want the people of SC to have these jobs or the people of China? And you bastards wonder why companies go overseas.. idiot.

Don't be such a Drama Queen.

All I'm saying is there has to be SOME kind of penalty. A real penalty that will stop companies from retaliating against workers. Right now, that penalty is severe. The NLRB can shut down your plant. If that goes away, what suitable penalty will be there to deter companies? As I see it, there won't be one. There will be "fines" which will basically be a cost of doing business. Big deal.

In other words, when it is percieved by the NLRB (without benefit of court proceedings or outside input), as it is in this case, that a company has broken the law, this Federal agency should have the authority to close down the business. And you think this is OK?

Outragious. Now instead of being innocent until proven guilty, there must only be a perception by the government that you may have broken the law in order to exact instant judgement and execution of the law.

 

[daveman]

You want the people of SC to have these jobs or the people of China? And you bastards wonder why companies go overseas.. idiot.

Don't be such a Drama Queen.

All I'm saying is there has to be SOME kind of penalty. A real penalty that will stop companies from retaliating against workers. Right now, that penalty is severe. The NLRB can shut down your plant. If that goes away, what suitable penalty will be there to deter companies? As I see it, there won't be one. There will be "fines" which will basically be a cost of doing business. Big deal.

In other words, when it is percieved by the NLRB (without benefit of court proceedings or outside input), as it is in this case, that a company has broken the law, this Federal agency should have the authority to close down the business. And you think this is OK?

Outragious. Now instead of being innocent until proven guilty, there must only be a perception by the government that you may have broken the law in order to exact instant judgement and execution of the law.

Well, only if it's a union shop.