How'd he win in the first place?

[Unabogie]

Why not have a secret vote 100% of the time Unaboogie? What's the problem with that, aside from discouraging union growth through intimidation and other pressure tactics?

First admit you were wrong, then I will answer your question. Otherwise it's just goal post shifting.

 

[TraneWreck]

Wow indeed. Since that's not what I said, we see that (once again) you are incapable of arguing without strawmen.



If you cannot refrain from constructing strawmen, then that is quite correct: no communication is possible when you continually misrepresent what I say.

Haha. Just be an adult. Admit that you were wrong.

It doesn't matter, under the act, whether the retaliation is specifically directed at a discreet group of workers because they, themselves, were involved in a union, or a threat is directed at the entire workforce if they choose to unionize. That is illegal activity.

The statute, again: "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7."

Such a threat, whether levvied against one or all employees, is a clear example of coercion.

You were wrong, the NLRB described it on their webpage, it's what the statutory scheme lays out.

 

[WildCat]

First admit you were wrong, then I will answer you question. Otherwise it's just goal post shifting.

We both know you won't answer the question, look at how TraneWreck has been dancing away from it for 5 pages now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Haha. Just be an adult. Admit that you were wrong.

It appears I was indeed wrong about what you meant when you described your scenario. Now, return the favor: admit that you have repeatedly micharacterized what I said. Can you too be an adult?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union sounds like fantasy to me.

I could be wrong. Is there objective evidence anywhere concerning such practices?

Do you know anything at all about the history of labor unions? Some of them can't even manage a scandal-free vote for their own leadership. Some are full-blown partners with organized crime.

In the OP butthurt union guys went to a state Senator's house to "talk to him".

I can't imagine why anyone would think unions would engage in such behavior!

Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?

 

[WildCat]

Does anyone have a rational reason why a secret vote shouldn't be held 100% of the time?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[WildCat]

Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?

There's no incentive for them to do so now, because such intimidation will backfire when the secret ballot vote is held. With card check that all changes, doesn't it?

 

[Unabogie]

We both know you won't answer the question, look at how TraneWreck has been dancing away from it for 5 pages now.

No, I'll be happy to answer your question once you admit you were wrong. Otherwise, you'll dance right back to this incorrect assertion in a few pages. Admit you were wrong, then I'll answer.

 

[TraneWreck]

Tell me what management is going to do about slashed tires and anonymous phone threats and social shunning.

Yes, if only there were a group of people in this country capable of dealing with acts of vandalism. Perhaps we should use tax dollars to pay for people to do such things.

So address the problem rather than opening the door for more worker harassment by unions.

The die-hard defense of card check leads me to believe that this has nothing to do with stopping employer harassment and everything to do with enabling union harassment.

But you literally understand nothing on this subject, thus whatever you believe is worthless. I'm more curious about what you can prove. So far that would be nothing.

 

[TraneWreck]

It appears I was indeed wrong about what you meant when you described your scenario. Now, return the favor: admit that you have repeatedly micharacterized what I said. Can you too be an adult?

How, exactly, have I done so?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?

There's no incentive for them to do so now, because such intimidation will backfire when the secret ballot vote is held. With card check that all changes, doesn't it?

You are not answering the question.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

 

[Unabogie]

Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?

Again, from personal experience this wasn't even close to reality. All the union did was hand out information. And actually joining the union was an amazing pleasure that reaped immediate benefits for all involved (except, of course, the shareholders who wanted to keep all that money for themselves).

 

[Ziggurat]

How, exactly, have I done so?

Most recently when you claimed that *I* claimed that the NLRB web page was wrong, when I said nothing of the sort. There are older examples which I noted at the time of you using straw men to represent my position.

 

[johnny karate]

I see the evidence for union intimidation of workers just keeps not coming in.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, from personal experience this wasn't even close to reality. All the union did was hand out information. And actually joining the union was an amazing pleasure that reaped immediate benefits for all involved (except, of course, the shareholders who wanted to keep all that money for themselves).

That's great for you. It also appears that you didn't need Card Check either.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

I have no evidence that the president imprisons opposition members of Congress.

And yet, I would oppose the removal of the following clause from the constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clearly I'm just paranoid, since the president doesn't arrest members of the opposition party.

 

[TraneWreck]

Most recently when you claimed that *I* claimed that the NLRB web page was wrong, when I said nothing of the sort. There are older examples which I noted at the time of you using straw men to represent my position.

I posted the NLRB's own summation of the NLRA on their own website, to which you said:

"Funny, but you don't link to the act."

What did you mean by that? It's not like you went on to quote a specific section of the act, you just gave the indication that somehow by linking the NLRB's summation of the act, I was being disingenuous or intentionally misleading.

I also find it comical that you linked to the act, then didn't read it. It's pretty clear, even for federal legislation. Though it should be pointed out, the NLRB summary is probably a BETTER source to understand the state of the law because the statute, even if updated recently, won't explain the state of case law and how it's been interpreted.

So your point is that the NLRB summary wasn't adequate, but there was no part of the statute that contradicted it, but I was supposed to look at the statute and not the NLRB summary because...

I don't have any idea what I'm apologizing for. That you can't be bothered to quote sources to make a point? It appears that you're trying to save face, here.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I have no evidence that the president imprisons opposition members of Congress.

And yet, I would oppose the removal of the following clause from the constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clearly I'm just paranoid, since the president doesn't arrest members of the opposition party.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

 

[Ziggurat]

I posted the NLRB's own summation of the NLRA on their own website, to which you said:

"Funny, but you don't link to the act."

What did you mean by that?

Well, let's see. In the post I responded to, you said,

Didn't even a small part of you think, "Maybe I should read the Nationa Labor Relations Act before I post this?"

You said I should read the act. You didn't say I should read about the act. But you didn't link to the act, you linked to a page about the act. Even though you suggested that I should read the act, and not simply about the act. So my statement was pointing out an obvious incongruity in your post. That may not be particularly significant point, and I really wouldn't care if you simply ignored it, but what it sure as hell does NOT constitute is a claim that the NLRB link was wrong. That's a complete misrepresentation. I never said that, and I never implied it. And if you think I did, well, you need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

I don't have any idea what I'm apologizing for.

I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking you to acknowledge that you have repeatedly misrepresented my position. Whether or not you want to apologize for that misrepresentation is a different matter. If you feel that those were honest, good-faith mistakes, then a simple acknowledgment will suffice.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

It seems rational to assume that you have no idea what's actually being argued.