I love this bill

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.

To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance

That sentence does more to spur job creation than Obama's jobs bill which Boehner has already shot down? That's funny. BTW, where are those jobs, Mr. Boehner? You've had the House since Jan. Time to stop talking about gays, guns and abortion and start doing what you promised America you would do - bring jobs back.
 
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?

I see you're still having difficulty pointing to where the federal government has the power to punish any entity for their interaction, or lack thereof, with unions. If you think that power exists, then could the feds require all companies to unionize? Why not?
 
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?

I see you're still having difficulty pointing to where the federal government has the power to punish any entity for their interaction, or lack thereof, with unions. If you think that power exists, then could the feds require all companies to unionize? Why not?

Oh, so you don't know what the new punishment is? You could have just said that, because, funny thing, no one here knows what it is. I've seen multiple threads on this issue now and none of you who are cheering for this bill have any idea what the punishment would be in the future, or what remedies the NLRB would have.

I assume that's because you don't care. Which is fine. Hell, this bill will never see the light of day anyway.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #46
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.

Authorizes the violation of federal laws? Hardly. The bill itself is Federal law. It becomes the presiding law and any laws contrary would be de facto repealed.
 
Keep laughing, dittohead jackazz. This is pure and simple union busting. The CEO was stupid enough to SAY so. Maybe under "corporations know best" Pubs...That's how we got IN this mess....Maybe Hyundai can use this new factory...

lying sack of puss. show me a quote where the Boeing CEO said 'We are union busting'.

I fucking dare you.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #49
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.

To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance

That sentence does more to spur job creation than Obama's jobs bill which Boehner has already shot down? That's funny. BTW, where are those jobs, Mr. Boehner? You've had the House since Jan. Time to stop talking about gays, guns and abortion and start doing what you promised America you would do - bring jobs back.

Yes it does do more than Obama's "jobs bill". The one that no Democrat will sponsor and thus cannot possibly be shot down by Boehner since no one has actually proposed it yet at this point. I could be wrong. I didn't check to see what happened today. Maybe they found someone to sponsor it. And if they did, they will debate and discuss it.
 
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?

I didn't know that Bills set punishments.............I do believe that would be back on the state. Though I could be wrong........But the Federal Government should not be preventing a company from building.
 
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. ]

I have posted several times here the long list of GOP sponsored jobs bills that got through the House, only to sit on Harry Reid's desk with no action taken.
 
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?

I didn't know that Bills set punishments.............I do believe that would be back on the state. Though I could be wrong........But the Federal Government should not be preventing a company from building.

Agreed, except when that building is retaliatory, which is illegal.
 
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?

I didn't know that Bills set punishments.............I do believe that would be back on the state. Though I could be wrong........But the Federal Government should not be preventing a company from building.

There is no 'new' punishment. This is an addendum... addition... to the existing laws... existing punishments remain.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2587eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr2587eh.pdf
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.
5 Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act
6 (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended by inserting before the period
7 at the end the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That the
8 Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek
9 an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any
10 work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind
11 any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or
12 other change regarding the location, entity, or employer
13 who shall be engaged in production or other business oper14
ations, or to require any employer to make an initial or
15 additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or lo16
cation’’.
 
That 2000 page healthcare bill alone could have caused global warming. It practically destroyed a whole forest of redwoods.

Reforming a health system is COMPLICATED. You'll get it when it's implemented- like Pelosi said. Pubs lied about THAT, too.

Central planners "reforming" the market for healthcare is IMPOSSIBLE. And we won't "get it" because the Supreme Court is going to find it unconstitutional if it isn't overturned first. Sucks to be you.
 
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?

I didn't know that Bills set punishments.............I do believe that would be back on the state. Though I could be wrong........But the Federal Government should not be preventing a company from building.

There is no 'new' punishment. This is an addendum... addition... to the existing laws... existing punishments remain.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2587eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr2587eh.pdf
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.
5 Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act
6 (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended by inserting before the period
7 at the end the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That the
8 Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek
9 an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any
10 work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind
11 any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or
12 other change regarding the location, entity, or employer
13 who shall be engaged in production or other business oper14
ations, or to require any employer to make an initial or
15 additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or lo16
cation’’.

Correct. In fact there is the opposite. Not a new punishment, but a lack of punishment. Or maybe even more to the point, a lack of stopping an entity from breaking the law.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #60
That 2000 page healthcare bill alone could have caused global warming. It practically destroyed a whole forest of redwoods.

Reforming a health system is COMPLICATED. You'll get it when it's implemented- like Pelosi said. Pubs lied about THAT, too.

So Republicans lied that Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it even though you just admitted that Pelosi said that?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top