Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-31-2011, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 6,302,789 times
Reputation: 1633

Advertisements

NLRB agrees to new rules that will harm workers, job creation « Hot Air

Three decisions all made along party lines. The three Democrats for, and the lone Republican againast.

Quote:
In a case known as Specialty Healthcare, the board decided that the union could seek to organize a group that consists only of nursing assistants, a blow to the employer, which wanted to include other nonprofessional employees in the unit. Employer groups had been concerned the board would use the health-care industry case to endorse the formation of so-called mini-bargaining units in a range of workplaces, which they said would allow unions to target small groups of workers the unions know would support unionization. …
In another case known as Lamons Gasket Co., the board decided that employees opposed to a union would no longer have the right to immediately challenge the recognition of a “card-check” election—in which employees sign cards to show their interest in joining. Unions prefer the card-check method over secret-ballot elections.
In the third case, known as UGL-Unicco Service Co., the board decided that after the sale of a unionized company, the new owner, the employees or a rival union can’t immediately challenge the incumbent union’s right to represent the workers. Instead, there must be a “reasonable period” of time for collective bargaining to have “a fair chance to succeed,” the board’s Democrats decided.
Why should a National Labor Relations Board even exist and why should it have any say in how companies run their businesses? It’s not like there are any indentured servants these days that are FORCED to work for a company or at a job they hate. Anyone is free to quit and seem employment elsewhere. Hiring and firing should be between an individual and the companies he seeks employment with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2011, 01:11 PM
 
58,973 posts, read 27,267,735 times
Reputation: 14265
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
NLRB agrees to new rules that will harm workers, job creation « Hot Air

Three decisions all made along party lines. The three Democrats for, and the lone Republican againast.



Why should a National Labor Relations Board even exist and why should it have any say in how companies run their businesses? It’s not like there are any indentured servants these days that are FORCED to work for a company or at a job they hate. Anyone is free to quit and seem employment elsewhere. Hiring and firing should be between an individual and the companies he seeks employment with.
Because the Board is filled with former union attorneys
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top