Archive

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

  • ernest_t_bass

    Wow. Just, wow. That is sickening.
  • Writerbuckeye
    I'm not going anywhere, and my rear end has not been touched in this discussion -- least of all by you.

    Look at the WSJ article linked and tell me again how the NLRB is going to be looking out for the best interests of workers.

    When I was a reporter, I covered several NLRB hearings on employees who had been dismissed from government jobs. IN EVERY CASE, the NLRB found in favor of the employee and gave them their job back, with back pay. It was a rigged system from the get-go in favor of public employees, and nothing I ever saw proved different.

    That article takes it even one step further, with the NLRB being used as a hammer by our dear leader to try and keep his union cronies happy.
  • BRF
    Bigdogg;769626 wrote:Writer is getting a major spanking. Just go away you are embarrassing yourself on this topic.

    BRF is laughing!

    BTW, Writerbuckeye, BRF is not a big fan of our "dear leader" either.

    But Bigdogg's signature line in this instance is SO appropriate.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Enjoy your laugh, meaningless as it is.
  • BRF
    You forgot to say....IMO!
  • Glory Days
    Writerbuckeye;770134 wrote:I'm not going anywhere, and my rear end has not been touched in this discussion -- least of all by you.

    Anti union thug!
  • Manhattan Buckeye

    I nearly posted this in response to one of Boatshoes' hopeless naive posts. The NLRB is all about cronyism and satisfying its master - today that means the Obama administration and its union support which it will certainly need in 2012 since the rest of the U.S. (Bin Laden bounce notwithstanding) has realized that economically the U.S. is a disaster and the administration has been digging the hole even further.

    The Boeing situation is indicative of the anti-business policies of this administration. Boeing is one of the largest, if not the largest, exporting business domiciled in the U.S., its main competitor (Airbus) is foreign which is all too happy to see Boeing struggle. The Dreamliner has had difficulty getting off the ground (pun intended) and Boeing is doing what it can to remain competitive, and still KEEP JOBS IN THE U.S., but the administration doesn't like it because its not the type of jobs they want. Idiocy is the only word for it.
  • believer
    Manhattan Buckeye;770575 wrote:I nearly posted this in response to one of Boatshoes' hopeless naive posts. The NLRB is all about cronyism and satisfying its master - today that means the Obama administration and its union support which it will certainly need in 2012 since the rest of the U.S. (Bin Laden bounce notwithstanding) has realized that economically the U.S. is a disaster and the administration has been digging the hole even further.
    Very true. The Feds - regardless of who's in power - will almost certainly side with Big Labor. The NLRB is a joke.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Manhattan Buckeye;770575 wrote:The Dreamliner has had difficulty getting off the ground (pun intended) and Boeing is doing what it can to remain competitive, and still KEEP JOBS IN THE U.S., but the administration doesn't like it because its not the type of jobs they want. Idiocy is the only word for it.
    Yeah, this pretty much sums it up.
  • Bigdogg
    Writerbuckeye;770134 wrote:When I was a reporter, I covered several NLRB hearings on employees who had been dismissed from government jobs. IN EVERY CASE, the NLRB found in favor of the employee and gave them their job back, with back pay. It was a rigged system from the get-go in favor of public employees, and nothing I ever saw proved different.

    So you admit you have limited knowledge of NLRB. No surprise there. You act like NLRB is a slam dunk against management every time and this is just not so. You seem to generalize your limited experiences and claim it to be fact on just about every topic you post. Why don't you show some valid research and maybe you would be taken more seriously on here.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Bigdogg;771001 wrote:So you admit you have limited knowledge of NLRB. No surprise there. You act like NLRB is a slam dunk against management every time and this is just not so. You seem to generalize your limited experiences and claim it to be fact on just about every topic you post. Why don't you show some valid research and maybe you would be taken more seriously on here.

    I know enough to agree with Manhattan. Unlike you, I've actually been to several hearings and watched the sham system in action.
  • WebFire
    Bigdogg;771001 wrote:So you admit you have limited knowledge of NLRB. No surprise there. You act like NLRB is a slam dunk against management every time and this is just not so. You seem to generalize your limited experiences and claim it to be fact on just about every topic you post. Why don't you show some valid research and maybe you would be taken more seriously on here.

    Can we see your research as well?
  • Bigdogg
    WebFire;771103 wrote:Can we see your research as well?

    Research on what? you and Writer's limited IQ?
  • believer
    Bigdogg;771301 wrote:Research on what? you and Writer's limited IQ?
    Leftist Playbook:

    Rule #31...When all else fails resort to personal attacks.
  • ernest_t_bass
    believer;771533 wrote:Leftist Playbook:

    Rule #31...When all else fails resort to personal attacks.

    With all due respect, while I don't condone them, personal attacks have been flung from both sides.
  • WebFire
    Bigdogg;771301 wrote:Research on what? you and Writer's limited IQ?

    That's what I figured.
  • WebFire
    ernest_t_bass;771570 wrote:With all due respect, while I don't condone them, personal attacks have been flung from both sides.
    Yes, we can just change it to:

    Human Playbook:

    Rule #31...When all else fails resort to personal attacks.
  • BRF
    ernest_t_bass;771570 wrote:With all due respect, while I don't condone them, personal attacks have been flung from both sides.

    You beat me to it!
  • LJ
    ernest_t_bass;771570 wrote:With all due respect, while I don't condone them, personal attacks have been flung from both sides.

    It's been hard to keep up with this thread at times. I try to keep the attacks to a minimum.
  • believer
    WebFire;771580 wrote:Yes, we can just change it to:

    Human Playbook:

    Rule #31...When all else fails resort to personal attacks.
    Fair enough
  • Bigdogg
    WebFire;771580 wrote:Yes, we can just change it to:

    Human Playbook:

    Rule #31...When all else fails resort to personal attacks.
    Lets review. Writer makes a claim that while working as a reporter (most likely his school newspaper) he attends a couple of NLRB hearing where the board finds for the employee. He then concludes that the NLRB always finds against management. I call writer's BS. You ask ME to provide research in support of Writer's warped sense of reality. I make a smart ass comment about your request and I am resorting to personal attacks;)

    Your damm right I did!!

    [video=youtube;hopNAI8Pefg][/video]
  • Writerbuckeye
    You know what, doggie:

    You can kiss my ink-stained...for all I care about what you think -- on anything.

    What I wrote was the truth, and it's obviously well known that the NLRB is nothing but a butt boy group for organized labor. What they're trying to do with Boeing is nothing short of criminal.

    But being the partisan hack you are, I'm sure you'll fall right in line with the Obama-bot talking points and claim you're actually saving American jobs (ha ha, always loved that line when Obama used it with the porkulus bill) all the while you're backing groups that are busy destroying the US economy.

    When I sit through several hearings that show, in my view, a heavy weight of evidence that an employee (several, in fact) has been justifiably fired, but this "independent" board miraculously finds in favor of the employees each and every time -- even a high school newspaper reporter would know something is not kosher.

    You don't want to believe me? I could give a crap since you've proven to be one of the most partisan hacks on here who typically "backs up" his "facts" by linking obscure web sites because even with the media in the pocket for all his heroes, he can't find any that have published the lie you need at that particular point in time.

    Great flick, by the way. One of the few Cruise movies worth sitting through.
  • QuakerOats
    Writerbuckeye;772026 wrote:What I wrote was the truth, and it's obviously well known that the NLRB is nothing but a butt boy group for organized labor. What they're trying to do with Boeing is nothing short of criminal.

    But being the partisan hack you are, I'm sure you'll fall right in line with the Obama-bot talking points and claim you're actually saving American jobs (ha ha, always loved that line when Obama used it with the porkulus bill) all the while you're backing groups that are busy destroying the US economy.

    Exactly. Marxism and capitalism don't mix.
  • Bigdogg
    Writerbuckeye;772026 wrote:You know what, doggie:

    You can kiss my ink-stained...for all I care about what you think -- on anything.

    What I wrote was the truth, and it's obviously well known that the NLRB is nothing but a butt boy group for organized labor. What they're trying to do with Boeing is nothing short of criminal.

    But being the partisan hack you are, I'm sure you'll fall right in line with the Obama-bot talking points and claim you're actually saving American jobs (ha ha, always loved that line when Obama used it with the porkulus bill) all the while you're backing groups that are busy destroying the US economy.

    When I sit through several hearings that show, in my view, a heavy weight of evidence that an employee (several, in fact) has been justifiably fired, but this "independent" board miraculously finds in favor of the employees each and every time -- even a high school newspaper reporter would know something is not kosher.

    You don't want to believe me? I could give a crap since you've proven to be one of the most partisan hacks on here who typically "backs up" his "facts" by linking obscure web sites because even with the media in the pocket for all his heroes, he can't find any that have published the lie you need at that particular point in time.

    Great flick, by the way. One of the few Cruise movies worth sitting through.

    First off thank you very much. Second I know nothing about the NLRB. All I ask is for you to provide some valid research to support what you are saying. Either you can or you can not, it is as simple as that.
  • Writerbuckeye
    All the research you need is the dispute with Boeing right now.

    What reason -- other than being the butt boy for organized labor -- could the NLRB possibly have for trying to prevent thousands of good-paying jobs from one area for no other reason than it isn't a union-friendly state?

    For that matter: what BUSINESS is it of the NLRB to even get involved in where this plant is to be located, other than acting on behalf of an administration that has done everything it can to try and build up unions and union membership?

    Funny how you claim to know nothing about them NOW -- but railed against my supposed ignorance earlier, even though I AT LEAST have had the experience of watching several hearings take place; and saw decisions made that clearly went against the evidence presented at the time (yes this is my professional opinion as a journalist, but I had been covering court and other types of hearings for years).

    When you can show me you have at least as much experience interacting with this organization at ANY level, then maybe I'll think your view is anything different than partisanship.

    I've given you two clear cut reasons why I believe they are union lackeys...now it's your turn to show me evidence to the contrary (something other than their own propaganda, I hope.)

    EDIT: Here's an editorial from a Washington (state) newspaper against the NLRB's actions, saying it jeopardizes future union jobs in its area. It also questions how an organization has the right to tell a company where it can or cannot operate a business. Pretty well written and on point, in my view.

    http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110501/OPINION01/705019963