"NLRB could be shut down in new year" -- CNN

[quade 4]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/23/news/economy/nlrb/index.htm

Can't shut down things legally? Just be childish and refuse to even look at nominees until, through attrition, there isn't a quorum.

I guess sometimes inaction is action, but the Republican strategy of doing nothing useful really wears on me.

I still can't figure out why any blue collar worker in the US would vote Republican. Republicans do nothing but try to screw them over.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I still can't figure out why any blue collar worker in the US would vote Republican. Republicans do nothing but try to screw them over.

Ding ding ding! My wife is constantly saying exactly that to, and about, her blue-collar, factory-worker father.

(The answer, though, is because they also tend to be very socially conservative, plus the fact that FoxNews at al. has done an admirably effective job selling their product to that target cohort.)

[mnealtx 0]

And the NLRB, by blocking jobs in South Carolina, was doing something useful exactly *how*?

Quote

I still can't figure out why any blue collar worker in the US would vote Republican.

Because unions have, by and large, outlived their usefullness.

Quote

Republicans do nothing but try to screw them over.

Yup, those Bush tax cuts letting them keep more money in their pocket was really pounding it to them with sand mixed in, wasn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

So eliminate the NLRB, if that's what the people want.

This is a backdoor route, because such support does not exist. It's time to set a deadline on nomination approvals - vote yeah or nay in 90 (180?) days or less. There's no justification for not doing their job as required by the Constitution.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So eliminate the NLRB, if that's what the people want.

This is a backdoor route, because such support does not exist. It's time to set a deadline on nomination approvals - vote yeah or nay in 90 (180?) days or less. There's no justification for not doing their job as required by the Constitution.

I don't disagree with that, in principle.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

You bring an interesting twist to this topic

Take a loot at the profile of the last person Obama nominated

Trying to keep the President from screwing over the country is very opposite of doing nothing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DougH 270]

I think blue collar working class still vote republican because they have foresight.

They understand that eventually all the social engineering by the democrats are going to negatively impact their bottom line and quality of life. The middle class is the loser in the long run. They don't get shit out of these programs, and they have way less to spare in their paychecks.

Why do the rich care about higher takes, they have enough disposable income to absorb taxes increases with no change to quality of life. That isnt the case for a family of four making 75k with two working parents.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I think blue collar working class still vote republican because they have foresight.

They understand that eventually all the social engineering by the democrats are going to negatively impact their bottom line and quality of life. The middle class is the loser in the long run. They don't get shit out of these programs, and they have way less to spare in their paychecks.

Why do the rich care about higher takes, they have enough disposable income to absorb taxes increases with no change to quality of life. That isnt the case for a family of four making 75k with two working parents.

Yes

The NRLB is just like the EPA, Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education

These are examples of Departments that have been invaded by liberals with a goal of pushing agendas outside their original purview and are removing freedoms and gaining non-representative power

They need to be shut down and then rebuilt with limited power checked by the people and congress.

And you are correct
They dont hurt the rich

The middle class is who gets slammed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

I still can't figure out why any blue collar worker in the US would vote Republican.

I was not a blue collar worker but, I think it is because we do not have a strong third party, such as the Libertarian Party. Since President Reagan, I have not seen much difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both lie, only in different words and phrases.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[grimmie 186]

Republicans want to kill collective bargaining, establish no mimimum wage, kill benefits and turn the USA into the haves and have nots.

Republicans are the party of really bad ideas, the Democrats are the party of no ideas.

[DougH 270]

None of those things are relevant at my workplace, the NLRB would do nothing for me aside from screwing things up.

No one is yanking my benefits. I dont need to band together to extort things from my company, I earn them by being valuable in my field.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

No one is yanking my benefits. I dont need to band together to extort things from my company, I earn them by being valuable in my field.

+1

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[quade 4]

Quote

None of those things are relevant at my workplace . . .

A popular misconception by people is if they don't belong to a union they don't enjoy the benefits fought for by unions and the NLRB.

This is absolutely false. Without unions and the NLRB many of the benefits people take for granted like a 40 hour work week or minimum wage simply would not exist. This extends beyond the blue collar worker too and into the majority of lower management (who have sometimes have been given the "title" of management in an attempt to circumvent such things).

I can see why if a person is a level of greedy fuck owner they might think the NLRB is some kind of boogie-man trying to tell them how to run their business, but that's not actually the case. The NLRB exists to mediate between labor and management; to prevent a complete exploitation of one by the other, this includes overseeing elections of union officials. I honestly don't see how management can complain about how the unions are run if the NLRB is de facto forced out of existence.

My opinion is labor AND management working together are for more powerful than being at odds with one another. I will never understand some company's ideas that it should always be an adversarial relationship.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A popular misconception by people is if they don't belong to a union they don't enjoy the benefits fought for by unions and the NLRB.

An even more popular misconception by union folks is that nobody knows the history of the advances the unions made in working conditions.

Still doesn't make unions relevant in today's workplace...except to the unions, of course.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Regardless of the past
Unions are much different today and have a different purpose

That purpose is to provide money to the Democratic Party

The NLRB has one purpose too

To protect the Democrats money source

Has nothing to do with the worker

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case where the union found a way to skirt the law to force union member's to pay into a political slush fund

The union even tried to give the money back so the case would be dropped

Going to be a big hit for unions and a big win for worker and this country

Pick your own site to learn more

http://www.google.com/search?q=Supreme%20court%20union%20political%20fund&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

or you can read this

Quote

Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials' political activism.

Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions' special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union's political fund.

Under the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment must be notified of which part of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining and be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for members-only events and union boss political activism.

In 2007, a federal district court ruled that the CSEA was required to provide a notice to nonunion employees about the assessment, allow them to opt-out of paying into the union political fund, provide a refund of monies spent on union-boss politics, and pay interest from the dates of the deductions to nonmembers who chose to opt out.

After CSEA union lawyers appealed the case, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed that decision in December 2010. On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court announced it would review the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

"Allowing the Ninth Circuit's ruling to stand would further undermine state employees' First Amendment rights and encourage union bosses to extract more forced dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment," stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is unconscionable for a court to force employees who want nothing to do with the union or its so-called ‘representation’ to subsidize union political activities."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

The NLRB has one purpose too

To protect the Democrats money source

Nonsense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The NLRB has one purpose too

To protect the Democrats money source

Nonsense.

Labor contributions, 2012 campaign to date: 20.3 million
Total from PACs: 17.3 million (87%)
Soft money: 2.6 million (13%)

Of PAC money:
15.3 million (87%) to Democrats
2.25 million (13%) to Republicans

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The NLRB has one purpose too

To protect the Democrats money source

Nonsense.

Labor contributions, 2012 campaign to date: 20.3 million
Total from PACs: 17.3 million (87%)
Soft money: 2.6 million (13%)

Of PAC money:
15.3 million (87%) to Democrats
2.25 million (13%) to Republicans

Please see third line of my original post. That said, who the unions support has nothing to do with why the NLRB exists.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Please see third line of my original post.

Please see second phrase of my original reply. Funny how you go on about Republican opposition to NLRB appointments but the Democrat resistance to Bush's appointees never gets mentioned.

Quote

That said, who the unions support has nothing to do with why the NLRB exists.

NLRB protects the unions. The unions give some whopping donations to Democrats.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

NLRB protects the unions.

No; it doesn't. It's a mediator and if you want to say it always finds in favor of the unions then you're woefully wrong.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

NLRB protects the unions.

No; it doesn't. It's a mediator and if you want to say it always finds in favor of the unions then you're woefully wrong.

Not claiming it *always* finds in favor of the unions, no.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

NLRB protects the unions.

No; it doesn't. It's a mediator and if you want to say it always finds in favor of the unions then you're woefully wrong.

Maybe they were at one time, but they stopped being a mediator under this administration. Google the Boeing case.

It is yet another blatant example of Government over reach and once again, Eric Holder turning a blind eye to his liberal cohorts running a muck outside the law.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[quade 4]

Quote

Maybe they were at one time, but they stopped being a mediator under this administration. Google the Boeing case.

If they had sided with Boeing, would I legitimately be able to say they were in the pocket of big business?

Come on. Just because a party loses a case doesn't mean the judges, arbiters or mediators of it have been bought off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Maybe they were at one time, but they stopped being a mediator under this administration. Google the Boeing case.

If they had sided with Boeing, would I legitimately be able to say they were in the pocket of big business?

Come on. Just because a party loses a case doesn't mean the judges, arbiters or mediators of it have been bought off.

Which brings us right back to your OP and my stated reason WHY the GOP is doing what they are doing

Google the person that Obama has nominated

Then come back here if you dare

The NLRB is a union protector for the Democrats

Obama wants the strengthen that UN-holy alliance.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe they were at one time, but they stopped being a mediator under this administration. Google the Boeing case.

If they had sided with Boeing, would I legitimately be able to say they were in the pocket of big business?

Come on. Just because a party loses a case doesn't mean the judges, arbiters or mediators of it have been bought off.

You clearly don't know the in's and out's of the Boeing case. They are no longer arbiters or mediators. They are now clearly advocates for unions.

And to piggy back on what Rushmc was saying, they are moving more in that direction every day.

Democrats have to ensure that they get their union money for the elections.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything