[Rhodes22-list] Employee Free Choice Act!?

Wed Dec 17 11:58:16 EST 2008

This legislation, so far as I have seen, is a travesty.

It appears to make it more difficult for employees of a
company to use a secret ballot when voting up or down
on unionization.

Lack of a secret ballot gives the union toughs clear
targets, and invites intimidation.  "Free Choice", my
nether regions!

This, after the UAW stonewall?  Enough, already.

/Robert of Maine
----------------------------------------------------
Brad Haslett wrote:
> Herb,
> 
> There's an aspect to the original joke that isn't funny - Employee
> Free Choice Act. This is an idea that is so bad even Sen. McGovern is
> campaigning against it.  The only reason it's being touted is because
> the O'Blago team is deeply indebted to unions. I've worked under "at
> will", RLA, and NLRA.  Everything is a compromise.  Anyone who thinks
> "card check" is a panacea and a path to higher wages is smoking crack.
> The best lawyer in town can't win the battle against economic reality.
> 
> Brad
> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>> Ben,
>>
>> You haven't been paying attention.
>>
>> It wasn't Bill. It was an imaginary joke person.
>>
>> So, here's the deal. The joke company's boss laid off (or fired) the
>> joke employees because of their joke politics.  You've dragged this on
>> as far as I care to discuss it, but if you feel they need a joke lawyer,
>> have at it.
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>> Herb;
>>>
>>> It's nice to know you live in Texas.  Man, do I hate those Cowboys!
>>>
>>> Anyway, it doesn't matter where YOU live. Where does Bill live? You didn't
>>> talk about firing anybody. In fact you agreed with me that if such firing
>>> were to take place it would be something of which you would disapprove.
>>>
>>> Don't dismiss the NRLA as a remedy here. If a business says, no politics, it
>>> must be even-handed and prohibit politics for both sides. Any discrimination
>>> would be violative of Federal Law.
>>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry Ben. Have I not mentioned that I don't live in New York? Or
>>>> California, Lousiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, or even South
>>>> Carolina.
>>>>
>>>> I live in Texas.
>>>>
>>>> And please, none of the "common law torts" stuff. That's not hard and
>>>> fast, and you know as well as I do, that "infliction of emotional
>>>> distress" and all the other stuff are simply shots in the dark, and can
>>>> be attempted to apply to just about anything.
>>>>
>>>> Texas is an "at will" employment state.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, I know you still haven't fully accepted this
>>>>
>>>> It
>>>> Was
>>>> A
>>>> Joke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>
>>>>> New York Labor Law sec. 201d protects political activity of employees of
>>>>> private employers as do similar statutes in New Jersey, California,
>>>>> Louisiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and even South Carolina,
>>>>> and
>>>>> probably afew I haven't thought of.
>>>>>
>>>>> In South Carolina the law was used by an employee who refused to remove a
>>>>> confederate battle flag insignia from his lunch pail to win
>>>>> reinstatement.
>>>>> There were some jurisdictional issues on appeal in that case but the law
>>>>> stands as protection of even "politically incorrect" speech for private
>>>>> employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aside from specific state statutes, the NLRA (National Labor Relations
>>>>> Act)
>>>>> (Federal Law) can be used to protect employees in cases where termination
>>>>> was due to discriminatory enforcement of "no political speech" rules in
>>>>> the
>>>>> workplace(as in McCain/Palin bumper stickers allowed-Obama/Biden stickers
>>>>> not allowed).
>>>>>
>>>>> And if that doesn't work the good old common law torts of Interference
>>>>> with
>>>>> prospective economic advantage, infliction of emotional distress, and
>>>>> outrage provide the aggrieved employee with lots of ammunition.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's just off the top of my head (after a Christmas party and afew
>>>>> drinks).
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't you glad you live in this greatest country in the world?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS- Can we talk about something else now?
>>>>>
>>>>> PPS- Have you checked the thinness of YOUR skin lately? Personal attack?
>>>>> Who's looking for excuses to feel insulted now?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure you'll get a response. Cite the law that says differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Through all your "wailing and gnashing of teeth" you made an important
>>>>>>> admission. You said, it's an employers right to fire someone for the
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> of "not liking their politics".  I disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the odds that you will reply to this post? Will I get the last
>>>>>>> word?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Ben, I will repeat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not evil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may be stupid
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may be a goofy thing to do (which was why it was a JOKE).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's not evil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe it was you (but very well could have been someone else), who
>>>>>>>> asked if I would quit by job if they sold bumper stickers that made
>>>>>>>> jokes about shooting Obama. I said I would. It's a bumper sticker
>>>>>>>> sellers right to sell anything they want, and it's my right to not
>>>>>>>> purchase from them if I'm a shopper, and not work for them if I'm a
>>>>>>>> buyer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Similarly, it's an employer's right to fire someone for just about
>>>>>>>> anything, including not liking their politics. Again, just some I'm
>>>>>>>> clear, It would be stupid, and it would be goofy, and I don't think a
>>>>>>>> person doing so would be successful in the long run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's not evil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for me calling your nonsense "shit", it is. You've chosen to make
>>>>>>>> this a personal attack on both Bill, and now myself. You've totally
>>>>>>>> mis-characterized what I wrote to fit your neat little (false) bundle,
>>>>>>>> and yes, I find that offensive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Futher, you accuse me of being "dishonest about the subject" when in
>>>>>>>> fact I've remained consistent in what I've said (unlike you're "fuuqa
>>>>>>>> bs"), and then after accusing me of such, say you're done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect you are.;  You've been revealed for what you are, pretty
>>>>>>>> consistently, and I have no doubt you want no more of it. Go take your
>>>>>>>> hypocrisy and attacks elsewhere if you wish, I'm sure the break will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> a welcome one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Come on now. I'm perfectly happy to have an argument with you, but
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> be dishonest about the subject and expect people to listen.  The evil
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> were both talking about had nothing to do with laying people off in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> abstract. It had to do with the POINT of the JOKE which as you very
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> know was laying people off BECAUSE THEY HAD OBAMA BUMPER STICKERS.
>>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>>> what made it funny to you and offensive to me. "They wanted change
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> gave it to them". Remember?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently I have somehow managed to hurt your feelings, because is
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> usually not your style to use vulgar expressions, except when you are
>>>>>>>>> feeling attacked, so I must have provoked you in some way to cause
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> "do
>>>>>>>>> you really believe the **** you write?" line. I do think we ought not
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> such profanity on this list and would request that you not do so.
>>>>>>>>> Remember,
>>>>>>>>> you and I are not the only people who see this stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, my posts do reflect my beliefs, and for those who wonder why
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> waste my time with you, it is because your beliefs reflect those of a
>>>>>>>>> (thankfully small) number of people I have met and dealt with in my
>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> short, understanding the likes of you helps me. Thanks for your
>>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>> to my education on human nature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Be well, Herb. Have a truly joyous Holiday Season. I think we're done
>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Ben, you are under a misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There IS no "evil" in laying off workers. You may choose to call it
>>>>>>>>>> "throwing workers out in the street', but the truth of the matter is
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is a person (or a group of people) choosing to no longer employ an
>>>>>>>>>> individual, and that is their RIGHT. It's not an evil, it's not even
>>>>>>>>>> wrong, unless they are doing something contrary to what they've
>>>>>>>>>> promised.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If they've signed a contract, they should honor it. If they've made
>>>>>>>>>> promises, they should honor those. But workers leave (often without
>>>>>>>>>> notice), simply because they find something  better, decide not to
>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> anymore, whatever. Employers have that same right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the rest of your drivel, you completely mis read what I
>>>>>>>>>> wrote.
>>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest you go back and look at what I actually said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "... is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain ..." Is a clue, but
>>>>>>>>>> frankly, I think you're clueless. You see what you want to see, and
>>>>>>>>>> anyone that doesn't see it is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what in the WORLD are you talking about "covering for each
>>>>>>>>>> other".
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in support of Ed, nor did I speak of Marxism.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you REALLY believe the shit you write?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and Herb;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Herb said,
>>>>>>>>>>> "You know something Ben, that you totally miss - EVERYONE thinks
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> cause is worthy, and EVERYONE thinks those causes 180 degrees
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The difference between you, and others of your ilk, is the
>>>>>>>>>>> arrogance
>>>>>>>>>>> that says "Not only is my cause the worthy one, but anyone that
>>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>> things differently is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain,
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> am so obviously right that anyone that differs that strongly from
>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> unAmerican and wrong."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed said,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Your  thought of arrogance is correct.  Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> those who have loss touch with ordinary people.  Arrogance is often
>>>>>>>>>>> evident
>>>>>>>>>>> in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>>> education."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So let me get this straight. A strong opinion as to the fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>> "rightness" of one's position on an issue (such as the evil of
>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>>>> workers into the street and out of their jobs, joking or not),
>>>>>>>>>>> equates
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> "arrogance". That is exactly what you both have said . So since
>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYONE
>>>>>>>>>>> feels that way (that their cause is right and the other guy's is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong)
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> assume there must not be any absolute Right or Wrong according to
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical outlook. Therefor, in your view, all morality is
>>>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> to the person making the judgment. Thus MY morality (fairness to
>>>>>>>>>>> workers
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> disapproval of jokes celebrating the hurting of workers) represents
>>>>>>>>>>> arrogance to you Herb and you Ed. My recollection is that both of
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>> to hold Christian values. Does this mean that your strong opinions
>>>>>>>>>>> on,
>>>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>>>> abortion or stem cell research are arrogant? If there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>> Right or Wrong how are we to make judgments? I would offer that
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>> are Right and some things are Wrong, and that there are Good guys
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Bad
>>>>>>>>>>> guys, and the difficulty of confronting evil does not excuse us
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> duty to do so. So yes, I believe Bill's joke of several weeks ago
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of a depraved heart, and was not the least bit funny.
>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>> yes,I think the two of you ought to give more thought to what it
>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> an American and less to the marxists hiding under your beds. I
>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>> hold
>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> breath waiting for you to engage in any self examination however.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're
>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>> busy covering for each other to think for yourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rummy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody that comes on once every 3 or 4 months ought to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure others can clearly i.d. who is making the comments.  I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> your infallible memory.  However, I do remember various trolls in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Study these web sites:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/facts/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to remember that one aspect of Marxism is control
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> people.  Remember that Marxism seeks to create a 'Dictatorship of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proletariat'.  An important aspect of control is control descent
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought.  An element of dictatorship is for the dictator making
>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions the correct and only view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Marxist dictator will claim that he is speaking for the little
>>>>>>>>>>>> guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is glossing over the fact that the little guy can speak for
>>>>>>>>>>>> himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He pretends the little guy incapable of self defense when in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not true.  He believes only the Marxist knows the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your thought of arrogance is correct.  Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>>>> in those who have loss touch with ordinary people.  Arrogance is
>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>> evident in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall pictures and news reports of a ceremony in the Roman
>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>>>>>> Church in Rome where the Pope washes the feet of a group of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cardinals.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of that ceremony?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1936 Major General J. F. C. Fuller wrote a booklet for the U.
>>>>>>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Army
>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled, Generalship:  Its diseases and Their Cure.  Therein he
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrogance of power and one of its cause as disassociation from
>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.  This affliction is evident in the U. S. national media
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>> acolytes and some members of this forum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Herb Parsons
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> 