Post by the sandman on Nov 23, 2011 11:22:42 GMT -5
From the news today:
What we basically have here is that the NLRB (which is supposed to have 5 members, but only has 3 because the Republican dominated Senate has refused to allow the President to appoint anyone to the empty seats) is looking to pass some rules that will prevent bully tactics by businesses looking to prevent unionization.
So this asshole threatens to resign, thus preventing the NLRB from having a quorum and hamstringing them entirely. (Which is, what I am sure, what the Republicans want anyway.) He doesn't like what the NLRB is doing, so rather than work within the system like he's supposed to, he thinks it's a better idea to just use a rules exploit to shut down the entire NLRB. His reasoning? That by not allowing businesses to strongarm their workers (with such tactics as tying up voting for years or even decades by challenging every single worker's eligibility to participate) this threatens the "free choice" of workers.
How in the name of Thor's Thunderous Left Testicle is preventing someone from being denied the ability to choose protecting their freedom of choice? It's doublethink of Orwellian scope.
Sometimes I truly wonder why Republican lawmakers have not been dragged into the street and beaten to within an inch of their lives by outraged Americans.
(Although in the interest of full disclosure, it must be noted that under Bush, Dems blocked nominees for the NLRB as well, preventing a quorum. My main point in this comment was the incredible doublethink behind the statements.)
The REAL motivation here? SC Senator Lindsey Grahm, of course.
Basically Grahm Cracker is pissed that Boeing might have to relocate their production line out of his state if it turns out they placed it there as a retaliatory measure against unions in Washington. So to prevent legal action from taking place, he thinks that the NLRB should just be nullified. Because, you know, it would be a REAL good idea not to have any government oversight of labor relations, right?
Those goddamn greedy grad teaching assistants with their big fat paychecks and insane entitlement programs. Screw 'em, right? Oh, wait, those people are damn close to slave labor for the universities, teaching college level classes for professors and universities frequently for salaries less than minimum wage. They don't need a union, right? Universities always treat their workers well, right? Sigh.
Welcome to modern politics. Where if you don't like what's happening at your job, you just refuse to do your job. What do you think would happen if you tried that at YOUR job....?
The National Labor Relations Board, the subject of particularly intense partisan sniping this year, could soon be completely paralyzed.
he labor board’s sole Republican member, Brian E. Hayes, has threatened to resign to deny the N.L.R.B. the three-person quorum it needs to make any decisions, according to board officials. Mr. Hayes has made his threat expressly to block the Democratic-dominated board from adopting new rules to speed up unionization elections, which the board’s other current members, both Democrats, intend to pass Nov. 30.
...
Unions, backed by Democrats, have long sought the proposed election rules, which they say would limit the ability of employers to use certain tactics — like challenging who is eligible to vote — to slow the election process.
Corporations, supported largely by Republicans, have denounced the proposed changes, which they say will deny businesses enough time to make their case against unionization.
...
“The Obama N.L.R.B. is determined to impose a flawed rule that will cripple American workers’ free choice,” said John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. “It is disturbingly clear that the board’s only concern is advancing an extreme agenda, regardless of the damage it causes our workplaces.”
he labor board’s sole Republican member, Brian E. Hayes, has threatened to resign to deny the N.L.R.B. the three-person quorum it needs to make any decisions, according to board officials. Mr. Hayes has made his threat expressly to block the Democratic-dominated board from adopting new rules to speed up unionization elections, which the board’s other current members, both Democrats, intend to pass Nov. 30.
...
Unions, backed by Democrats, have long sought the proposed election rules, which they say would limit the ability of employers to use certain tactics — like challenging who is eligible to vote — to slow the election process.
Corporations, supported largely by Republicans, have denounced the proposed changes, which they say will deny businesses enough time to make their case against unionization.
...
“The Obama N.L.R.B. is determined to impose a flawed rule that will cripple American workers’ free choice,” said John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. “It is disturbingly clear that the board’s only concern is advancing an extreme agenda, regardless of the damage it causes our workplaces.”
What we basically have here is that the NLRB (which is supposed to have 5 members, but only has 3 because the Republican dominated Senate has refused to allow the President to appoint anyone to the empty seats) is looking to pass some rules that will prevent bully tactics by businesses looking to prevent unionization.
So this asshole threatens to resign, thus preventing the NLRB from having a quorum and hamstringing them entirely. (Which is, what I am sure, what the Republicans want anyway.) He doesn't like what the NLRB is doing, so rather than work within the system like he's supposed to, he thinks it's a better idea to just use a rules exploit to shut down the entire NLRB. His reasoning? That by not allowing businesses to strongarm their workers (with such tactics as tying up voting for years or even decades by challenging every single worker's eligibility to participate) this threatens the "free choice" of workers.
How in the name of Thor's Thunderous Left Testicle is preventing someone from being denied the ability to choose protecting their freedom of choice? It's doublethink of Orwellian scope.
Sometimes I truly wonder why Republican lawmakers have not been dragged into the street and beaten to within an inch of their lives by outraged Americans.
(Although in the interest of full disclosure, it must be noted that under Bush, Dems blocked nominees for the NLRB as well, preventing a quorum. My main point in this comment was the incredible doublethink behind the statements.)
The REAL motivation here? SC Senator Lindsey Grahm, of course.
This year, the partisanship leapt exponentially after the board’s acting general counsel filed a complaint against Boeing last April, asserting that the manufacturer had illegally retaliated against union members in the Puget Sound area by building an aircraft production line in South Carolina instead of Washington State. The complaint asked that Boeing’s production line be transferred to Washington.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was so angry that he said he would most likely block any future Obama nomination to the N.L.R.B., a view echoed by many Republicans.
“I’m going to create a high bar for any future nominees,” Mr. Graham said last August. “Given its recent activity, inoperable is progress.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was so angry that he said he would most likely block any future Obama nomination to the N.L.R.B., a view echoed by many Republicans.
“I’m going to create a high bar for any future nominees,” Mr. Graham said last August. “Given its recent activity, inoperable is progress.”
Basically Grahm Cracker is pissed that Boeing might have to relocate their production line out of his state if it turns out they placed it there as a retaliatory measure against unions in Washington. So to prevent legal action from taking place, he thinks that the NLRB should just be nullified. Because, you know, it would be a REAL good idea not to have any government oversight of labor relations, right?
Indeed, if the board is denied a quorum, it will not be able to make an official ruling that could order Boeing to close its South Carolina production line. Similarly, without a quorum, the board could not rule on a long-awaited case on whether graduate teaching assistants at private universities have the right to unionize.
Those goddamn greedy grad teaching assistants with their big fat paychecks and insane entitlement programs. Screw 'em, right? Oh, wait, those people are damn close to slave labor for the universities, teaching college level classes for professors and universities frequently for salaries less than minimum wage. They don't need a union, right? Universities always treat their workers well, right? Sigh.
Mr. Hayes also said that it would “contravene long-standing” board rules for a two-person majority to adopt such a sweeping decision. “They cannot, in my view, simply be cast aside in pursuit of a singular policy agenda without doing irreparable harm to the board’s legitimacy,” he wrote.
Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, sent Mr. Hayes an unusually stern response on Monday, accusing him of making “false or misleading allegations” and criticizing him for going public with an internal matter.
Mr. Pearce wrote that he and Mr. Becker had sought to discuss details of the proposed election rule and the public comments with Mr. Hayes, but Mr. Hayes had declined to participate.
“You indicated that, if the board proceeded with consideration of the matter, you would consider resigning your position,” Mr. Pearce wrote.
“I deeply regret that you continue to decline to participate in a meaningful way in this deliberative body,” Mr. Pearce concluded. “I urge you to return to your work here on the board” regarding the proposed rules.
Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, sent Mr. Hayes an unusually stern response on Monday, accusing him of making “false or misleading allegations” and criticizing him for going public with an internal matter.
Mr. Pearce wrote that he and Mr. Becker had sought to discuss details of the proposed election rule and the public comments with Mr. Hayes, but Mr. Hayes had declined to participate.
“You indicated that, if the board proceeded with consideration of the matter, you would consider resigning your position,” Mr. Pearce wrote.
“I deeply regret that you continue to decline to participate in a meaningful way in this deliberative body,” Mr. Pearce concluded. “I urge you to return to your work here on the board” regarding the proposed rules.
Welcome to modern politics. Where if you don't like what's happening at your job, you just refuse to do your job. What do you think would happen if you tried that at YOUR job....?
