I love this bill

The bill will protect corporations who want to outsource jobs. It is a piece of shit right wing terrorist bill...

Can you not see that the NLRB is one of many bureaucracies that CAUSES corporations to outsource jobs, not from one state to another, but to another country! The NLRB has no ability to stop jobs from going overseas but they sure as hell contribute to that trend as the Boeing case shows.

More importantly, what makes you think the federal government should be able to tell a company where they can do business. Where the fuck is THAT in the Constitution?

Actually, it's more about retaliating against unions. That is in the Constitution under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Give it a read in your spare time.

The NLRB is not causing Boeing to head out of country. Boeing can still freely build their plant in Washington. What's the problem with that?
 
The bill will protect corporations who want to outsource jobs. It is a piece of shit right wing terrorist bill...

Can you not see that the NLRB is one of many bureaucracies that CAUSES corporations to outsource jobs, not from one state to another, but to another country! The NLRB has no ability to stop jobs from going overseas but they sure as hell contribute to that trend as the Boeing case shows.

More importantly, what makes you think the federal government should be able to tell a company where they can do business. Where the fuck is THAT in the Constitution?

Actually, it's more about retaliating against unions. That is in the Constitution under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Give it a read in your spare time.

The NLRB is not causing Boeing to head out of country. Boeing can still freely build their plant in Washington. What's the problem with that?
They don't have room. What do you have against them building in a right to work State?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #23
The bill will protect corporations who want to outsource jobs. It is a piece of shit right wing terrorist bill...

Can you not see that the NLRB is one of many bureaucracies that CAUSES corporations to outsource jobs, not from one state to another, but to another country! The NLRB has no ability to stop jobs from going overseas but they sure as hell contribute to that trend as the Boeing case shows.

More importantly, what makes you think the federal government should be able to tell a company where they can do business. Where the fuck is THAT in the Constitution?

Actually, it's more about retaliating against unions. That is in the Constitution under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Give it a read in your spare time.

The NLRB is not causing Boeing to head out of country. Boeing can still freely build their plant in Washington. What's the problem with that?

The problem with that its in order to remain competative, Boeing doesnt need all that government regulation and union garbage.

By preventing a business from moving to a state they prefer and hiring workers there they prefer, they are crushing them leaving them with few if any options other than leaving the country.

This bueaucracy is delibrating preventing boeing from creating jobs in the United States. And you think they should continue to do so.

You don't find that at all messed up?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #24
Can you not see that the NLRB is one of many bureaucracies that CAUSES corporations to outsource jobs, not from one state to another, but to another country! The NLRB has no ability to stop jobs from going overseas but they sure as hell contribute to that trend as the Boeing case shows.

More importantly, what makes you think the federal government should be able to tell a company where they can do business. Where the fuck is THAT in the Constitution?

Actually, it's more about retaliating against unions. That is in the Constitution under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Give it a read in your spare time.

The NLRB is not causing Boeing to head out of country. Boeing can still freely build their plant in Washington. What's the problem with that?
They don't have room. What do you have against them building in a right to work State?

Not only that, but who the hell is the Federal Government to tell a company where they can or cannot build their plant? This is the United States of America. We are a free nation. The politicians need to stop telling we the people how to run our businesses.
 
Can you not see that the NLRB is one of many bureaucracies that CAUSES corporations to outsource jobs, not from one state to another, but to another country! The NLRB has no ability to stop jobs from going overseas but they sure as hell contribute to that trend as the Boeing case shows.

More importantly, what makes you think the federal government should be able to tell a company where they can do business. Where the fuck is THAT in the Constitution?

Actually, it's more about retaliating against unions. That is in the Constitution under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Give it a read in your spare time.

The NLRB is not causing Boeing to head out of country. Boeing can still freely build their plant in Washington. What's the problem with that?
They don't have room. What do you have against them building in a right to work State?

I don't have a problem with it at all, in theory. In the case of Boeing, there is evidence to suggest they are doing it as a "fuck you" to the union in Washington. That's illegal. Say what you want, but that's the law. Boeing can't retaliate like that. Now, if Boeing isn't retaliating and this is just a sound business decision, then there is no case. They will show that and build in SC.

The GOP, though, is trying to allow ANY company to retaliate and move free of punishment. That's terrible long-term thinking. Or, it's kow towing to Boeing. Either way, it's not how you legislate.
 
The bill will protect corporations who want to outsource jobs. It is a piece of shit right wing terrorist bill...

Can you not see that the NLRB is one of many bureaucracies that CAUSES corporations to outsource jobs, not from one state to another, but to another country! The NLRB has no ability to stop jobs from going overseas but they sure as hell contribute to that trend as the Boeing case shows.

More importantly, what makes you think the federal government should be able to tell a company where they can do business. Where the fuck is THAT in the Constitution?

Actually, it's more about retaliating against unions. That is in the Constitution under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Give it a read in your spare time.

The NLRB is not causing Boeing to head out of country. Boeing can still freely build their plant in Washington. What's the problem with that?

Let's assume you're right and it's ALL about retaliating against unions and we really, really need the NLRB as it currently stands. How's that working out for you when companies simply bypass the whole bureaucratic mess and go overseas? Not so good.

Of course the right to assemble as a group, whatever you call it, is lawful. The federal government telling companies where they can compete is clearly NOT in the Constitution. Point to it in the enumerated powers if you think I'm wrong.

Given the shit the NLRB is putting Boeing through right now, what do you think the chances are that the next factory they, or another large corporation, want to build will be in another country? I'd say pretty damn good. The problem with building in Washington state is none of your fucking business! It's not your company - you, nor the government, have any right to tell a company where they can build. Again, show me in the Constitution where the federal government has the right to tell a company in which state they can do business. You ain't going to find it.
 
By preventing a business from moving to a state they prefer and hiring workers there they prefer, they are crushing them leaving them with few if any options other than leaving the country.

But that's not exactly what's going on with Boeing, is it? Like I said, if this is just a sound business move for Boeing, then of course they should be allowed to build where ever they want. But if it's a punishment to the union workers in Washington, then that's illegal. Boeing can't do that. If that's the case, Boeing has to be held responsible, right?

Wait, can we all agree on that? If a company breaks the law, they need to be held responsible, right?
 
The GOP, though, is trying to allow ANY company to retaliate and move free of punishment. That's terrible long-term thinking. Or, it's kow towing to Boeing. Either way, it's not how you legislate.

What's so terrible about limiting the power of an unconstitutional bureaucracy that through its efforts causes corporations to look overseas for expansion? Isn't it better to keep jobs in America? I think it is, even if that means heavy unionized states lose jobs to more business friendly states. Nothing wrong with competition. Besides, if unions are as great as you proclaim, they ought to have no problem convincing employers the extra cost is worth it, right?
 
By preventing a business from moving to a state they prefer and hiring workers there they prefer, they are crushing them leaving them with few if any options other than leaving the country.

But that's not exactly what's going on with Boeing, is it? Like I said, if this is just a sound business move for Boeing, then of course they should be allowed to build where ever they want. But if it's a punishment to the union workers in Washington, then that's illegal. Boeing can't do that. If that's the case, Boeing has to be held responsible, right?

Wait, can we all agree on that? If a company breaks the law, they need to be held responsible, right?

Not if the law is unconstitutional to begin with.
 
By preventing a business from moving to a state they prefer and hiring workers there they prefer, they are crushing them leaving them with few if any options other than leaving the country.

But that's not exactly what's going on with Boeing, is it? Like I said, if this is just a sound business move for Boeing, then of course they should be allowed to build where ever they want. But if it's a punishment to the union workers in Washington, then that's illegal. Boeing can't do that. If that's the case, Boeing has to be held responsible, right?

Wait, can we all agree on that? If a company breaks the law, they need to be held responsible, right?

Not if the law is unconstitutional to begin with.

Well, there we go. I guess we all no longer have to follow any rules we personally think are unconstitutional.

Thanks for the tip.
 
The measure, approved on a 238 to 186 vote, 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.

Sheer partisan idiocy: a bill that ‘authorizes’ the violation of Federal labor laws.

While the bill is not expected to get a vote in the Democratic-run Senate, Republicans are trying to keep up pressure on the agency over a move they claim interferes with legitimate business decisions.

Then what’s the point – the House should draft legislation that will result in real job creation and have the prospect of passing in the Senate.

Union leaders claim the bill would render toothless the board's ability to enforce labor laws when companies simply eliminate work to get rid of employees who are pro-union. Democrats said the measure would give companies a free pass to punish employees for exercising their rights to organize.

Indeed, yet another example of the GOP’s greater concern for corporate interests over those of middle and working class Americans.

The board's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, says Boeing went to South Carolina to punish union workers in Washington state for past strikes and wants the work moved to the West Coast.

Solomon has said the decision to file a complaint was not politically motivated, but was based strictly on evidence that Boeing violated the law. He said Boeing executives made a number of public statements indicating the new plant was built in South Carolina out of frustration over costly strikes by the Machinists union in Washington state, including a 58-day work stoppage in 2008.

"The decision had absolutely nothing to do with political considerations, and there were no consultations with the White House," Solomon said in a statement this week. "Regrettably, some have chosen to insert politics into what should be a straightforward legal procedure."

Resulting in the House wasting more time on partisan matters rather than addressing the needs of the people.

Full text of the above quoted:

Boeing, NLRB Case Faces House Vote
 
But that's not exactly what's going on with Boeing, is it? Like I said, if this is just a sound business move for Boeing, then of course they should be allowed to build where ever they want. But if it's a punishment to the union workers in Washington, then that's illegal. Boeing can't do that. If that's the case, Boeing has to be held responsible, right?

Wait, can we all agree on that? If a company breaks the law, they need to be held responsible, right?

Not if the law is unconstitutional to begin with.

Well, there we go. I guess we all no longer have to follow any rules we personally think are unconstitutional.

Thanks for the tip.

Correct. It's call nullification. Doesn't mean the central planners won't prosecute under unconstitutional laws, they do it all the time. Nevertheless, if I'm on the jury where someone is being prosecuted under a law not enumerated in the Constitution, I'm finding them not guilty. That's MY Constitutional right. The really sick thing about the NLRB is that those being prosecuted, like Boeing, have no right to a trial. They must prove their innocence to the very bureaucracy that is prosecuting them. That's pretty fucked up I'd say.
 
Not if the law is unconstitutional to begin with.

Well, there we go. I guess we all no longer have to follow any rules we personally think are unconstitutional.

Thanks for the tip.

Correct. It's call nullification. Doesn't mean the central planners won't prosecute under unconstitutional laws, they do it all the time. Nevertheless, if I'm on the jury where someone is being prosecuted under a law not enumerated in the Constitution, I'm finding them not guilty. That's MY Constitutional right. The really sick thing about the NLRB is that those being prosecuted, like Boeing, have no right to a trial. They must prove their innocence to the very bureaucracy that is prosecuting them. That's pretty fucked up I'd say.

It's only fucked up if you think a company is exactly the same as a person. Which in itself is a fucked up way to think.
 
Well, there we go. I guess we all no longer have to follow any rules we personally think are unconstitutional.

Thanks for the tip.

Correct. It's call nullification. Doesn't mean the central planners won't prosecute under unconstitutional laws, they do it all the time. Nevertheless, if I'm on the jury where someone is being prosecuted under a law not enumerated in the Constitution, I'm finding them not guilty. That's MY Constitutional right. The really sick thing about the NLRB is that those being prosecuted, like Boeing, have no right to a trial. They must prove their innocence to the very bureaucracy that is prosecuting them. That's pretty fucked up I'd say.

It's only fucked up if you think a company is exactly the same as a person. Which in itself is a fucked up way to think.

That has NOTHING to do with it. Nice dodge. Whatever, you just keep hoping for more of your central planners and their magic beans while you watch more and more jobs go overseas. That's a great plan.
 
Correct. It's call nullification. Doesn't mean the central planners won't prosecute under unconstitutional laws, they do it all the time. Nevertheless, if I'm on the jury where someone is being prosecuted under a law not enumerated in the Constitution, I'm finding them not guilty. That's MY Constitutional right. The really sick thing about the NLRB is that those being prosecuted, like Boeing, have no right to a trial. They must prove their innocence to the very bureaucracy that is prosecuting them. That's pretty fucked up I'd say.

It's only fucked up if you think a company is exactly the same as a person. Which in itself is a fucked up way to think.

That has NOTHING to do with it. Nice dodge.

Wow dude. You really need to do some reading.
 
While I will admit that there are politics at play here, I also like this bill. You don't need a backroom full of lawyers to understand it. And I would much rather see jobs move from one state to another than from the USA to Mexico............for example.......
 
It's only fucked up if you think a company is exactly the same as a person. Which in itself is a fucked up way to think.

That has NOTHING to do with it. Nice dodge.

Wow dude. You really need to do some reading.

Ok genius, explain exactly the difference between nullification involving an individual and taking that action when a group of people are being prosecuted, be they a partnership, a corporation, a union, etc. How is that germane to the conversation?
 
While I will admit that there are politics at play here, I also like this bill. You don't need a backroom full of lawyers to understand it. And I would much rather see jobs move from one state to another than from the USA to Mexico............for example.......

The problem with small bills is they tend to miss things. For example, what's the new punishment for a company that retaliates against a union strike?
 
It won't pass the Senate, democrats don't care about protecting jobs, if by some miracle it passed the Senate, the king Marxist will veto.....

I know. But I can't help but like the fact that there are Republicans submitting and passing bills that:

1) Decreases the power of the Federal Government
2) Are less than 2200 pages long
3) Can be understood by every one without lawyers
4) Does more to promote job creation and protection than anything Obama has recommended the past 3 years.

It's a good sign to see politicians doing what they should do.

this post should be gang rep'd! :clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
Repeal the 20th century!! Dittohead morons...

Read my signature- you're cheering the mega rich corporate elitists who've be ruining the non rich for 30+ years and love the idea of a banana republic...change the channel.

So you think government should be able to prevent jobs from being created and that this should be a desired public policy?

of course he does. everyone should just get things provided to them from the government.... once they've taken those things from someone else of course. Hell, it's got to come from someplace, right?
 

Forum List

Back
Top