lawrocket 3 #1 January 10, 2008 THere was a case decided last week in the DC Circuit Corut of Appeals. See, federal law prohibits the hiring of illegal immigrants. But, thanks to federal laws on unions, employers are required to bargain with unions that represent illegal immigrants. In the case, an agriculural processing company had to bargain with a union DESPITE the fact that MOST of its members were illegal. Agri-Processor Co is a kosher meat manufacturer in Brooklyn. The workers voted to unionize and join the UFCW. The company complained to the NLRB that most of th emembership were illegal. It also discovered that most of its employees were illegal. Too bad. the NLRB ruled that illegal aliens were protected by the laws and were entitled to a vote to collectively bargain. So, we see an issue of conflicting policies - what has been called the "irreconcilable tension." EMployees have th eright to collectively bargain - a right which, under law, is protected. This is important, so said the NLRB, regardless of the status of the employee. The court agreed. Pass the Tylenol... Opinion here: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/06opinions/06-1329a.pdf by the way, I see the majority's logic. What I object to is the state of laws that is so freakign ridiculous. if ever there was a demonstrated need for immigration reform, it is this. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #2 January 10, 2008 Although I believe that people have the right to join unions, it is equally important to protect the rights of workers who choose not to join unions. Do you think a "scab" is going to get equal protection where the police themselves are unionized? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
