WSJ: Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win

[Tsa`ah]

Oye ... as if Wal-Mart needs to hand out ammunition. This is pretty much a corporate run campaign for McCain ... and may in fact break a few laws.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html

[Khariz]

Good for Wal-Mart! I respect their attempts to keep this country a capitilist nation, the law notwithstanding.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'd care if this were about a decent department store. There are 1234567890 better corporate superstores than Wal-Mart. I don't care how many laws they break, I'm still not shopping in that piece of shit.

[ClydeR]

The actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

Interesting. If corporate health costs rise, then more and more corporations will whine for the government to pay their employees' health insurance for them, like Canada and Europe do. That's what will happen if the Democrats win in November.

[Tsa`ah]

Interesting. If corporate health costs rise, then more and more corporations will whine for the government to pay their employees' health insurance for them, like Canada and Europe do. That's what will happen if the Democrats win in November.

Walmart really doesn't provide their non-managerial staff any "health insurance" to speak of.

What they do is pay so little that they're able to place the cost of healthcare into the laps of other taxpayers.

[crb]

I believe the one law they're really against is the law against secret ballots.

So... Tsa'ah could you please explain to me how forcing people to vote publicly is a good thing? How is it that secret ballots hurt workers?

Really, I'm from a union town, my father in law is an autoworker who has worked at both union and nonunion plants, he prefers nonunion and hates this law.

The thing is, now, when a vote for unionization fails, the union organizers do not know who voted against it. This law (that Obama cosponsored and that Walmart is against) removes the privacy protection laws so that union organizers can know who voted against making a union.

Now... Tsa'ah why would a union organizer like to know who voted against forming a union? Maybe... for intimidation purposes? Make a couple threatening phone calls, key a few cars, maybe you get your union on a revote?

Even with secret ballots, as per my in-law's experiences, people get pretty crazy around union votes, and you support removing this essential worker protection?

What valid reason could there possibly be to remove privacy protection from union ballots?

[Ashliana]

I love how people are essentially brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is the best thing ever, and yet turn around and dismiss the end-results of capitalism: Supergiant corporations or MONOPOLIES.

Many people constantly spew the garbage that government regulation is what hurts the economy, which is bullshit. Unregulated markets result in enormous, unresponsive, beaurocratic, shitty corporations like Wal-Mart, Comcast and the currently failing banks.

[crb]

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/08/01/at-least-wal-mart-employees-can-cast-presidential-ballots-in-secret/

[Khariz]

I love how people are essentially brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is the best thing ever, and yet turn around and dismiss the end-results of capitalism: Supergiant corporations or MONOPOLIES.



I happen to love both. If other companies can't step up to the plate and offer better goods and services for less, OH FUCKING WELL. There's going to be people willing to pay more for a better product, thus stores that compete with wal-mart by offering such.

Hate Comcast? Get together with an assload of people in your area willing to pay a better company to move and in SHOW THEM THE MONEY. There is nothing wrong with capitalism besides everyone in this country being chicken shits.

[crb]

I love how people are essentially brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is the best thing ever, and yet turn around and dismiss the end-results of capitalism: Supergiant corporations or MONOPOLIES.

Many people constantly spew the garbage that government regulation is what hurts the economy, which is bullshit. Unregulated markets result in enormous, unresponsive, beaurocratic, shitty corporations like Wal-Mart, Comcast and the currently failing banks.
We have laws against monopolies, other than labor monopolies (unions), and geographically necessitated ones.

Walmart is not a shitty corporation. Latte liberals like to decry Walmart, but poor people love shopping there. Having cheap places to buy household goods allows poorer people to stretch their dollars.

Bottomline, markets work, if people are offended by walmart they won't shop there. My wife's uncle is like that, he refuses to shop there on principle. But you know what? Most people, the same poor people that walmart supposedly exploits, do still shop there, and would rather be able to shop there than be forced to go shop at a place like Whole Foods.

I also find it laughable you think large and bureaucratic corporations are bad, but support such features of the government.

Also... the banks are failing right? It is economic darwinism, and that is how things improve, how you get innovation. Competition.

In the end, if Walmart offends too many people who stop shopping at walmart, walmart will go under and cease to exist, but as long as poor people the world over continue to thank walmart by shopping there, they'll do fine.

Now I'm sure, the arrogant liberal inside some people will make them want to say "If we just took walmart away, we could force the poor people to shop elsewhere, it will be for their own good!" but... in the end, making decisions for other people because you assume they're too stupid to think for themselves isn't good policy.

[Ashliana]

The telecommunication companies are basically government-endorsed monopolies. How many people do you think have the free market choice that you're claiming they exercise? In many places, unresponsive monpolies like Comcast are the ONLY option.

[Khariz]

"It is economic darwinism, and that is how things improve, how you get innovation. Competition."

Exactly!

[crb]

http://vodpod.com/watch/36572-penn-teller-wal-mart

[crb]

The telecommunication companies are basically government-endorsed monopolies. How many people do you think have the free market choice that you're claiming they exercise? In many places, unresponsive monpolies like Comcast are the ONLY option.
those are geographic monopolies. Because of the cost of infrastructure (running the cables) they're more or less required. Though thankfully, choices are possible. See DirectTV.

And now, thanks to deregulation, you can now get your phone from the cable company and your TV from the phone company, isn't capitalism sweet. Verizon just has to roll out FIOS in my area and I'll be all set and can ditch comcast. Only a matter of time now, yay deregulation!

[Parkbandit]

The telecommunication companies are basically government-endorsed monopolies. How many people do you think have the free market choice that you're claiming they exercise? In many places, unresponsive monpolies like Comcast are the ONLY option.

Incorrect. There are always other options, including satellite service.

[Ashliana]

We have laws against monopolies, other than labor monopolies (unions), and geographically necessitated ones.

Walmart is not a shitty corporation. Latte liberals like to decry Walmart, but poor people love shopping there. Having cheap places to buy household goods allows poorer people to stretch their dollars.

Latte liberals. I like that. Yes, we do have some regulation against monpolies--and regulation of any kind is regularly denounced as being "responsible" for economic woes, despite our current economic woes being caused by a massive lack OF it.


Bottomline, markets work, if people are offended by walmart they won't shop there. My wife's uncle is like that, he refuses to shop there on principle. But you know what? Most people, the same poor people that walmart supposedly exploits, do still shop there, and would rather be able to shop there than be forced to go shop at a place like Whole Foods.

I also find it laughable you think large and bureaucratic corporations are bad, but support such features of the government.

Again, you're making the baseless (and flat-out wrong) assumption that everyone has a choice. Since Wal-Mart's tumor-like growth across the world, they've pushed those independent shops I used to shop in out of business, because they can afford to undersell their competitors because they hire illegals non-stop--actual, honest businesses can't compete.


Also... the banks are failing right? It is economic darwinism, and that is how things improve, how you get innovation. Competition.

The banks are failing because they're rigged for corporate profit with socialized risk. The government backs up the banks, when the banks make recklessly risky loans? That's bullshit. Bailouts are not the answer. Like you said--economic darwism--it should mean that the companies go under. Not become property of the state.


In the end, if Walmart offends too many people who stop shopping at walmart, walmart will go under and cease to exist, but as long as poor people the world over continue to thank walmart by shopping there, they'll do fine.

Now I'm sure, the arrogant liberal inside some people will make them want to say "If we just took walmart away, we could force the poor people to shop elsewhere, it will be for their own good!" but... in the end, making decisions for other people because you assume they're too stupid to think for themselves isn't good policy.

Again, choices. Given Wal-Mart's shady business practices and essentially slave labor, they've driven the alternatives you're claiming people have right out of business. I'm lucky that I live in an urban-enough area to actually HAVE those choices, and can buy produce directly from local farmers (not everyone is in a geologically convenient enough place to do so), or from more responsible vendors like Trader Joe's.

[Ashliana]

Incorrect. There are always other options, including satellite service.

Incorrect. There are not always feasible alternatives. Satellite service is usually more expensive, has much higher latency (i.e., worthless for numerous latency-sensitive applications), and is not globally available. Other choices may always exist--such as driving three towns over to get food from places other than Wal-Mart--but they are not always feasible.

[Tsa`ah]

I believe the one law they're really against is the law against secret ballots.

Where exactly did you read that ... or maybe you know some big shots at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't want their employees to have a choice ... this has nothing to do with card check or Employee Free Choice Act ... and I think you're more than a little misinformed.


So... Tsa'ah could you please explain to me how forcing people to vote publicly is a good thing? How is it that secret ballots hurt workers?

Education time since you're so insistent of hijacking the topic at hand.

"Card-check" policy provisions would remove an employer's option to call for a secret ballot vote during union certification efforts and allow certification when a majority of employees in a workplace have signed union membership cards. (http://www.politicker.com/taxonomy/term/17783)

Under current law, once a majority of workers submit cards requesting union certification, an election is held in which workers vote by secret ballot on whether to ratify unionization. The pending bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, does not require the secret ballot vote unless at least 30 percent of workers call for it.

The Obama campaign says the card-check bill will not necessarily deny workers the right to a private ballot.

"This is simply a debate over process. But it is up to the workers, and they should be free to choose their process," said campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro. "If they wish to vote by secret ballot instead of a card-check process, they can. The law does not strip them of that right." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/obama-supports-union-organizing/)

You seem to be ignoring the issue here.


Really, I'm from a union town, my father in law is an autoworker who has worked at both union and nonunion plants, he prefers nonunion and hates this law.

So from the sidebar conversation you're trying to initiate instead of the actual issue is the view of one person ... brilliant.


The thing is, now, when a vote for unionization fails, the union organizers do not know who voted against it. This law (that Obama cosponsored and that Walmart is against) removes the privacy protection laws so that union organizers can know who voted against making a union.

Now... Tsa'ah why would a union organizer like to know who voted against forming a union? Maybe... for intimidation purposes? Make a couple threatening phone calls, key a few cars, maybe you get your union on a revote?

Even with secret ballots, as per my in-law's experiences, people get pretty crazy around union votes, and you support removing this essential worker protection?

What valid reason could there possibly be to remove privacy protection from union ballots?

Dear god .... please read the fucking legislation instead of the GOP version of "legislation for dummies".

Maybe now you can comment on the topic?

[crb]

Again, you're making the baseless (and flat-out wrong) assumption that everyone has a choice. Since Wal-Mart's tumor-like growth across the world, they've pushed those independent shops I used to shop in out of business, because they can afford to undersell their competitors because they hire illegals non-stop--actual, honest businesses can't compete.


Right... so there is only 1 choice for all locations and that is Walmart?

We also have laws against using illegal immigrants, by the way. Seems like your main complaint is lack of enforcement of existing laws? Or what?



The banks are failing because they're rigged for corporate profit with socialized risk. The government backs up the banks, when the banks make recklessly risky loans? That's bullshit. Bailouts are not the answer. Like you said--economic darwism--it should mean that the companies go under. Not become property of the state.

Um, no, that is the case with 2, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, both of which need to be fully privatized, it is wrong for them to exist in the state that they are. Companies that have capitulated, Bear Sterns, Indymac, etc, that is your economic darwinism.



Again, choices. Given Wal-Mart's shady business practices and essentially slave labor, they've driven the alternatives you're claiming people have right out of business. I'm lucky that I live in an urban-enough area to actually HAVE those choices, and can buy produce directly from local farmers (not everyone is in a geologically convenient enough place to do so), or from more responsible vendors like Trader Joe's.

People can choose not to shop there, or work there. If that is their only choice, then they probably don't want you forcing them to lose that choice do they? That is why I made the point of saying latte liberals. People who think that "if only the poor people (you know those clinging to guns and religion) would listen to us, they would be better off."

Walmart is big because it is successful. People like shopping there, end of story. If you want to run a public campaign denouncing them, go ahead, you'll have company, maybe they'll change or fail or something. But it seems to me you'd rather use the hammer of government force to stop them, which is wrong, in a free society anyways.

[crb]

Incorrect. There are not always feasible alternatives. Satellite service is usually more expensive, has much higher latency (i.e., worthless for numerous latency-sensitive applications), and is not globally available. Other choices may always exist--such as driving three towns over to get food from places other than Wal-Mart--but they are not always feasible.
apples to apples satellite is cheaper.

If you're talking just basic cable, for which there is no satellite equivalent, stick an antenna on the roof, or you know, read a book.

[crb]

Where exactly did you read that ... or maybe you know some big shots at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't want their employees to have a choice ... this has nothing to do with card check or Employee Free Choice Act ... and I think you're more than a little misinformed.


Where did I read that? Hmm... Here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-employee-free-choice-act-080801-ht,0,7675893.story

Unless you suck at reading comprehension its pretty obvious that they're saying that they're against the Employee Free Choice Act (such a benign name).






Education time since you're so insistent of hijacking the topic at hand.

"Card-check" policy provisions would remove an employer's option to call for a secret ballot vote during union certification efforts and allow certification when a majority of employees in a workplace have signed union membership cards. (http://www.politicker.com/taxonomy/term/17783)

Under current law, once a majority of workers submit cards requesting union certification, an election is held in which workers vote by secret ballot on whether to ratify unionization. The pending bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, does not require the secret ballot vote unless at least 30 percent of workers call for it.

The Obama campaign says the card-check bill will not necessarily deny workers the right to a private ballot.

"This is simply a debate over process. But it is up to the workers, and they should be free to choose their process," said campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro. "If they wish to vote by secret ballot instead of a card-check process, they can. The law does not strip them of that right." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/obama-supports-union-organizing/)

You seem to be ignoring the issue here.



So from the sidebar conversation you're trying to initiate instead of the actual issue is the view of one person ... brilliant.



Dear god .... please read the fucking legislation instead of the GOP version of "legislation for dummies".

Maybe now you can comment on the topic?

You didn't answer my question? Why is removing privacy protection a good thing? Why are secret ballots bad?

You're saying if enough people turn in their public cards in a public way there is no need for a secret ballot because it is impossible that any of those people could have been intimidated or coerced?

Why don't we vote in public for presidential elections? Put it on TV. "There goes Bob Smith of 123 Applewood Lane, oh look, he pulled the red lever, make note to go TP his house all you Daily Kos readers."

Seriously, why not just keep ballots secret? What possible harm is there is letting workers have the privacy to ensure they aren't persecuted for their vote?

[Tsa`ah]

Ok ... seems someone has snacked on a few too many paint chips. Of course that's how Wal-Mart sees it. Let me again post something factual ... and I'll bold the important words for you.


"Card-check" policy provisions would remove an employer's option to call for a secret ballot vote during union certification efforts and allow certification when a majority of employees in a workplace have signed union membership cards.

This means the employer can't call for a vote ... any kind of vote, in fact the entire voting process is tossed out of the window when a majority of employees sign their union cards. That's the card check. It prevents employers from interfering with the process. If a Wal-mart store in Chicago has 200 employees and 150 of them sign union cards during the certification process ... it's DONE.


Under current law, once a majority of workers submit cards requesting union certification, an election is held in which workers vote by secret ballot on whether to ratify unionization.

This is the current law. It allows the employer time to call for a vote and intimidate employees into voting against a unionized work place.


The pending bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, does not require the secret ballot vote unless at least 30 percent of workers call for it.

So here you go ... a minority can call for, and receive a secret vote ... otherwise a vote isn't even required. It gives the employees the right to discuss it, not the employer.

Now on to the actual topic?

While Wal-Mart officials claim they're not telling employees who to vote for, they worded it that way in these meetings, it's a very suggestive way of coercion.

Where is the line drawn?

[Ashliana]

Right... so there is only 1 choice for all locations and that is Walmart?

We also have laws against using illegal immigrants, by the way. Seems like your main complaint is lack of enforcement of existing laws? Or what?



Um, no, that is the case with 2, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, both of which need to be fully privatized, it is wrong for them to exist in the state that they are. Companies that have capitulated, Bear Sterns, Indymac, etc, that is your economic darwinism.

Yes, my complaint is the lack of enforcement of existing laws. A law has no point if it isn't enforced. The suggestion that there is "always" a choice--a feasible alternative--to corporate monopolies is fallacious.

Fannie and Freddie, two of the most enormous, were bailed out. They made idiotically risky loans and deserved to disappear. Bear Sterns was also bailed out before being bought by JPMorgan.


People can choose not to shop there, or work there. If that is their only choice, then they probably don't want you forcing them to lose that choice do they? That is why I made the point of saying latte liberals. People who think that "if only the poor people (you know those clinging to guns and religion) would listen to us, they would be better off."

Walmart is big because it is successful. People like shopping there, end of story. If you want to run a public campaign denouncing them, go ahead, you'll have company, maybe they'll change or fail or something. But it seems to me you'd rather use the hammer of government force to stop them, which is wrong, in a free society anyways.

Again, they can choose not to shop or work there, and they can choose to starve to death. You conveniently ignored the part that already responds to this--choosing not to work or shop there doesn't matter if Wal-Mart's shady practices force legitimate alternatives out of the market. I never suggested I'd use "the hammer of government"--I merely commented that people hypocritically seem to LOVE capitalism, but hate the result of pure capitalism--companies like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Comcast.


apples to apples satellite is cheaper.

If you're talking just basic cable, for which there is no satellite equivalent, stick an antenna on the roof, or you know, read a book.

I did a comparison about a year ago; Satellite was far more expensive in both my area and my sister's. It was also much slower.

[Khariz]

You might note that people are talking about TELEVISION not INTERNET. Except for you, apparently, Ashliana.

[Ashliana]

I brought it up in the first place. I'm not talking about television.

[Gan]

Regulation is necessary in a capitalist economic model because of man being a fallable creature.

But as with all things good, regulation is best with moderation.

[crb]

Ok ... seems someone has snacked on a few too many paint chips. Of course that's how Wal-Mart sees it. Let me again post something factual ... and I'll bold the important words for you.



This means the employer can't call for a vote ... any kind of vote, in fact the entire voting process is tossed out of the window when a majority of employees sign their union cards. That's the card check. It prevents employers from interfering with the process. If a Wal-mart store in Chicago has 200 employees and 150 of them sign union cards during the certification process ... it's DONE.



This is the current law. It allows the employer time to call for a vote and intimidate employees into voting against a unionized work place.



So here you go ... a minority can call for, and receive a secret vote ... otherwise a vote isn't even required. It gives the employees the right to discuss it, not the employer.

Now on to the actual topic?

While Wal-Mart officials claim they're not telling employees who to vote for, they worded it that way in these meetings, it's a very suggestive way of coercion.

Where is the line drawn?
You still haven't answered my very legitimate question Tsa'ah, why are secret ballots bad? Why take privacy away?

I get it, if workers all publicly sign and submit their cards an employer can no longer call for a secret ballot. I understand the legislation. I just don't fucking agree with it.

I've asked you, is this the fourth time now, why are secret ballots bad? Who do they hurt?

Now... currently 51% of workers can submit the cards and then the employer can call for a secret ballot right? Then, if the same 51% vote for unionization in the secret ballot the union is formed. This law wants to change that so that if 51% of workers submit their cards, the employer cannot call for the secret ballot.

So, you must admit that some people who turn in cards don't vote yes in secret ballots, right? Will you concede that? Because otherwise what is your motivation? In the end this law will only change situations where people who turn in public cards vote no when afforded privacy.

So, if you concede that point, then you're conceding that workers are being pressured when asked to do public things, else why change their vote when in private?

So again... why are private ballots bad? Why is it so important that workers not have privacy?

You're what? 14? 15? You've had sex ed right? I remember when I was 14, in sex ed health class. The teacher asked if anyone had sexual questions. No one raised their hands. They didn't want to ask their question publicly. So the teacher had a box for people to put questions into anonymous and then he could pull from the box and answer the question. I assume most sex ed classes have something similar, so surely you've experienced it, or something like it? The concept of anonymity letting people express their thoughts freely.

Why is this a bad thing? If a union is truly about protecting workers (ya right) wouldn't they be in favor of letting workers make such important decisions anonymously and in private without fear of reprisal?

You keep telling me I don't understand the legislation, believe me, I do, I simply ask you to explain to me how a secret ballot hurts workers.

[Drew]

People like Ashliana make me wish that you had to have a course in basic economics (not taught by your hippie professor at San Diego State) to vote.

[Khariz]

People like Ashliana make me wish that you had to have a course in basic economics (not taught by your hippie professor at San Diego State) to vote.

Indeed.

[Ashliana]

You're absolutely right. Having no economic choices because of insanely large corporations practicing shady business practices, and government-endorsed monopolies are exactly the kind of economic environment that capitalist theory proscribes. Sheer genius.

[Khariz]

You're absolutely right. Having no economic choices because of insanely large corporations practicing shady business practices, and government-endorsed monopolies are exactly the kind of economic environment that capitalist theory proscribes. Sheer genius.

Way to go proving you have no economic education. Yeah...capitalism sure does espouse government-endorsed systems!

[Tsa`ah]

You still haven't answered my very legitimate question Tsa'ah, why are secret ballots bad? Why take privacy away?

I did, your head is just too far up your ass to understand it. The entire voting process is nixed when the majority of employees sign their union cards during the certification process. A minority can call for a ballot (secret) ... an employer can't.

What the fuck is so wrong with you that you can't comprehend this. Ballots are not bad ... the employer just has no say in the process.


I get it, if workers all publicly sign and submit their cards an employer can no longer call for a secret ballot. I understand the legislation. I just don't fucking agree with it.

Who says it has to be done publicly? Unless the employer sends someone to watch who enters and leaves the union office, it's not public to the employer until the shop stewart shows up. The union doesn't show up and hand out the cards and stand over each employee until they sign.


I've asked you, is this the fourth time now, why are secret ballots bad? Who do they hurt?

Oye ... THEY'RE NOT ... THE EMPLOYER CAN'T CALL FOR A VOTE OF ANY TYPE ... A SECRET BALLOT WILL BE CAST WHEN CALLED FOR BY A MINORITY OF EMPLOYEES. That's 3 employees in 10, 30 in 100, 300 in 1000. A minority is not a hard thing to achieve. Please fucking read ... all the answers to your question were contained in my FIRST RESPONSE.


Now... currently 51% of workers can submit the cards and then the employer can call for a secret ballot right? Then, if the same 51% vote for unionization in the secret ballot the union is formed. This law wants to change that so that if 51% of workers submit their cards, the employer cannot call for the secret ballot.

Right ... thank god ... it's sinking in.


So, you must admit that some people who turn in cards don't vote yes in secret ballots, right? Will you concede that? Because otherwise what is your motivation? In the end this law will only change situations where people who turn in public cards vote no when afforded privacy.

Please go back and re-read. No one's privacy is at risk ... this is not an intimidation tool to be used by the unions. This removes the intimidation tools utilized by employers.


So, if you concede that point, then you're conceding that workers are being pressured when asked to do public things, else why change their vote when in private?

There's no vote if a majority sign the card ... which normally doesn't take place in a huge public setting. The card is the vote if you want to look at it that way. This isn't gathering people into a room and saying in front of the employer and the union "by show of hands".


So again... why are private ballots bad? Why is it so important that workers not have privacy?

..... while it's obvious you can read, it's painfully obvious you can't comprehend.


You're what? 14? 15? You've had sex ed right? I remember when I was 14, in sex ed health class. The teacher asked if anyone had sexual questions. No one raised their hands. They didn't want to ask their question publicly. So the teacher had a box for people to put questions into anonymous and then he could pull from the box and answer the question. I assume most sex ed classes have something similar, so surely you've experienced it, or something like it? The concept of anonymity letting people express their thoughts freely.

I don't know what's funnier ... your "notion" that I'm a sexually active teenager between the age of 14 or 15 or your attempt to make this appear that it's a public vote.


Why is this a bad thing? If a union is truly about protecting workers (ya right) wouldn't they be in favor of letting workers make such important decisions anonymously and in private without fear of reprisal?

Yep ... which is why the unions and legislators support the act ... to remove fear of reprisal and intimidation tactics used by employers.


You keep telling me I don't understand the legislation, believe me, I do, I simply ask you to explain to me how a secret ballot hurts workers.

Ever hear that water fatally impairs your driving? ... everyone that has ever been in a car wreck has ingested water. Also .... sex kills. Nearly every corpse in the ground had sex while living.

Wouldn't you agree that those are rather absurd statements? Just like your question in light of the information provided.

Leave the spin jobs to the pros ... you suck at it.

[Ashliana]

Way to go proving you have no economic education. Yeah...capitalism sure does espouse government-endorsed systems!

That's the point. :clap: Thank you for proving that your ability to read is on-par with a toaster's. Telecommunications companies ARE, and the two new banks that the government essentially bought, ARE government-backed. Makes absolutely no sense--and neither do the conditions that created them--a lack of regulation.

[Parkbandit]

Incorrect. There are not always feasible alternatives. Satellite service is usually more expensive, has much higher latency (i.e., worthless for numerous latency-sensitive applications), and is not globally available. Other choices may always exist--such as driving three towns over to get food from places other than Wal-Mart--but they are not always feasible.


Did you just read what you wrote there? That SATELLITE service isn't GLOBALLY available?

It made me laugh. Mostly at you though. :(

[Khariz]

That's the point. :clap: Thank you for proving that your ability to read is on-par with a toaster's. Telecommunications companies ARE, and the two new banks that the government essentially bought, ARE government-backed. Makes absolutely no sense--and neither do the conditions that created them--a lack of regulation.

Are you seriously that fucking stupid? GOVERNMNET REGULATED ANYTHING is not "Capitalism". Capitalists want the government to be as HANDS OFF as possible. By you continuing to claim that government regulation and government backing are PART of capitalism, you just show how fucking stupid you are, and how much of a clue you LACK.

The Government regulates things because we ARE NOT a 100% Capitalist society. Voters like YOU vote assholes into office that use things like the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to hijack state's rights, and take control of things like telecommunications (hello FCC), and other things.

In a TRUE, unfettered capitalist society, there would always be the next company with a better, cheaper product right around the corner. Because the government has its hand in the cookie jar of who can enter and compete in so many industries, they ruin the chance for true competition to occur.

In the world you live in, with your blinders on, you actually think that the government regulations are what keeps the system in check. Ironically, it's the other way around. The government regulations are the cause of the problem.

[Ashliana]

Did you just read what you wrote there? That SATELLITE service isn't GLOBALLY available?

It made me laugh. Mostly at you though. :(

Satellite internet isn't available everywhere. Honestly, are you even thinking? That would require complete coverage--a completely global network of satellites (or several smaller networks) of satellites capable of beaming down internet service anywhere. It does not exist. There are plenty of places without coverage. Some places geologically make it unfeasable, even if satellites provide coverage above.

Your idiotic assertion made me laugh. At you.


Are you seriously that fucking stupid? GOVERNMNET REGULATED ANYTHING is not "Capitalism". Capitalists want the government to be as HANDS OFF as possible. By you continuing to claim that government regulation and government backing are PART of capitalism, you just show how fucking stupid you are, and how much of a clue you LACK.

The Government regulates things because we ARE NOT a 100% Capitalist society. Voters like YOU vote assholes into office that use things like the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to hijack state's rights, and take control of things like telecommunications (hello FCC), and other things.

In a TRUE, unfettered capitalist society, there would always be the next company with a better, cheaper product right around the corner. Because the government has its hand in the cookie jar of who can enter and compete in so many industries, they ruin the chance for true competition to occur.

In the world you live in, with your blinders on, you actually think that the government regulations are what keeps the system in check. Ironically, it's the other way around. The government regulations are the cause of the problem.

Wow. Your fucking idiotic assumption that I'm contesting what you're saying has caused you to go on an unnecessary diatribe. My entire point was that people don't like the end result of unfettered capitalism, yet constantly speak its praises.

Government regulation and accountability are NOT part of capitalism. They're necessary to prevent the ultimate capitalist nightmare--Wal-Marts everywhere with no choices at all. You are an unqualified dumbass, Khariz. Money equals power, and unfettered capitalism results in the super-monopolies and eternally wealthy--the super-families of the past century as a prime example. It's exactly government regulation--NOT a part of traditional capitalist theory--that keeps that "better product right around the corner," because if there WAS no regulation, you'd see greater amounts of money shoving those independent sources of innovation right out the window--and that STILL happens today.

[Khariz]

Wow. Your fucking idiotic assumption that I'm contesting what you're saying has caused you to go on an unnecessary diatribe. My entire point was that people don't like the end result of unfettered capitalism, yet constantly speak its praises.

Government regulation and accountability are NOT part of capitalism. They're necessary to prevent the ultimate capitalist nightmare--Wal-Marts everywhere with no choices at all. You are an unqualified dumbass, Khariz. Money equals power, and unfettered capitalism results in the super-monopolies and eternally wealthy--the super-families of the past century as a prime example. It's exactly government regulation--NOT a part of traditional capitalist theory--that keeps that "better product right around the corner," because if there WAS no regulation, you'd see greater amounts of money shoving those independent sources of innovation right out the window--and that STILL happens today.

See what I mean? You are accusing Capitalism of needing government regulations. You have it backwards. Government regulations CAUSE capitalism to fail. Regulations and taxation are what keep Wal-mart on top. De-regulate industry and stop taxing the shit out of businesses, and suddenly people can compete with Wal-mart in MANY more ways.

To sum it up: You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

[Ashliana]

Wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong. You are full of shit. The end-result of capitalism is the massive accumulation of wealth by the most successful. Those most successful sources are interested NOT in further competition, but in maintaining wealth by whatever means possible--since there's no oversight or regulation--and that means stamping out the competition underhandedly.

To sum it up: You're not looking at the big picture, or even remotely down the road. MONOPOLIES lie at the end of the pure, unfettered capitalist road. Not an equal, constantly evolving, super-competitive paradise.

[Khariz]

Wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong. You are full of shit. The end-result of capitalism is the massive accumulation of wealth by the most successful. Those most successful sources are interested NOT in further competition, but in maintaining wealth by whatever means possible--since there's no oversight or regulation--and that means stamping out the competition underhandedly.

To sum it up: You're not looking at the big picture, or even remotely down the road.

Go on living in the "greed is bad" world. When Obama is elected and eases this nation down the road to Marxism, I'll be the one laughing at you.

[Ashliana]

Wee! And once again, you fail to address the point. The desire for wealth isn't necessarily bad. But what happens when you get people that are consumed with getting as much as they possibly can, and there's NO oversight and NO regulation to stop them from stamping out competition? Monopolies. I'm sorry that you're completely ignorant of history--this isn't some hypothetical--but that's your problem.

[Khariz]

Wee! And once again, you fail to address the point. The desire for wealth isn't necessarily bad. But what happens when you get people that are consumed with getting as much as they possibly can, and there's NO oversight and NO regulation to stop them from stamping out competition? Monopolies. I'm sorry that you're completely ignorant of history--this isn't some hypothetical--but that's your problem.

What you fail to understand is that there is nothing "wrong" with monopolies. As long as the company is providing the best service available, I don't care! It's people whining about "unfairness" and crushing businesses like Ma Bell with government-backed might that ruins industries :)

You live in a backwards world to me...I can't change that.

[Apathy]

I hate the church of Walmart for many reasons.

But unlike most churches, they actually pay taxes.

They have an opinion? They can say it.

[Drew]

The worst monopolies always come from government regulation. The gilded age with the railroad and oil barons were propped up by corrupt government that stifled legitimate competition. Telcos are the same story, try and add new phone lines today, see what entity stops you.

[Khariz]

The worst monopolies always come from government regulation. The gilded age with the railroad and oil barons were propped up by corrupt government that stifled legitimate competition. Telcos are the same story, try and add new phone lines today, see what entity stops you.

My point exactly.

[Tsa`ah]

My point exactly.

In none of your responses did you even infer that point ... in fact I'd say Drew's post kind of makes your responses look ... foolish.

Though it's not even the damn topic.

[Khariz]

In none of your responses did you even infer that point ... in fact I'd say Drew's post kind of makes your responses look ... foolish.

Though it's not even the damn topic.

Okay, my point was only his FINAL sentence. I should have edited the quote better.

[crb]

I did, your head is just too far up your ass to understand it. The entire voting process is nixed when the majority of employees sign their union cards during the certification process. A minority can call for a ballot (secret) ... an employer can't.

What the fuck is so wrong with you that you can't comprehend this. Ballots are not bad ... the employer just has no say in the process.



Who says it has to be done publicly? Unless the employer sends someone to watch who enters and leaves the union office, it's not public to the employer until the shop stewart shows up. The union doesn't show up and hand out the cards and stand over each employee until they sign.



Oye ... THEY'RE NOT ... THE EMPLOYER CAN'T CALL FOR A VOTE OF ANY TYPE ... A SECRET BALLOT WILL BE CAST WHEN CALLED FOR BY A MINORITY OF EMPLOYEES. That's 3 employees in 10, 30 in 100, 300 in 1000. A minority is not a hard thing to achieve. Please fucking read ... all the answers to your question were contained in my FIRST RESPONSE.



Right ... thank god ... it's sinking in.



Please go back and re-read. No one's privacy is at risk ... this is not an intimidation tool to be used by the unions. This removes the intimidation tools utilized by employers.



There's no vote if a majority sign the card ... which normally doesn't take place in a huge public setting. The card is the vote if you want to look at it that way. This isn't gathering people into a room and saying in front of the employer and the union "by show of hands".



..... while it's obvious you can read, it's painfully obvious you can't comprehend.



I don't know what's funnier ... your "notion" that I'm a sexually active teenager between the age of 14 or 15 or your attempt to make this appear that it's a public vote.



Yep ... which is why the unions and legislators support the act ... to remove fear of reprisal and intimidation tactics used by employers.



Ever hear that water fatally impairs your driving? ... everyone that has ever been in a car wreck has ingested water. Also .... sex kills. Nearly every corpse in the ground had sex while living.

Wouldn't you agree that those are rather absurd statements? Just like your question in light of the information provided.

Leave the spin jobs to the pros ... you suck at it.
My god you're a retard.

It isn't privacy from the union you dipshit. It isn't privacy from the employer. It is about peer pressure. Did my sex education analogy go over your head? Are you 12 and haven't had it yet? Shit I thought I picked something even a 14 year old would understand.

It is about privacy from other workers, from your buddies, your friends. "Hey Bill, turn in your card yet?" That kind of stuff. Bill says yes, even if he doesn't want the union, which is why when he can vote in secret, he votes no.

You still haven't offered one good reason why secret ballots and privacy are bad. You're saying "well they can still do it anyways if they publicly ask for it" or "this is to stop employer intimidation" (what? How does a secret ballot enable employer intimidation?)? But you haven't answered the question.

Is this now the 6th time I've asked?

Don't go on a diatribe about other things, please be direct and to the point. How does a secret ballot hurt the workers?

(ps... unions care about unions, not workers. The survival and success of the union and the union leaders comes first, workers second, company survival third.)

[crb]

... okay just htought of a good analogy.... like with petitions to put proposals on state elections. You don't just do the petition and call it good. You do the petition, then you have a vote, where people go into a booth, in privacy, and make their decision.

Why is this basic process so offensive to union supporters? What is wrong with requiring a private vote? Who does it hurt?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think the Democrats are pissed they just lost the redneck vote!

[Parkbandit]

Satellite internet isn't available everywhere. Honestly, are you even thinking? That would require complete coverage--a completely global network of satellites (or several smaller networks) of satellites capable of beaming down internet service anywhere. It does not exist. There are plenty of places without coverage. Some places geologically make it unfeasable, even if satellites provide coverage above.

Your idiotic assertion made me laugh. At you.



I was mostly making fun of your terminology, not the facts you are trying to present.

But seriously, satellite cable and internet is available in all 48 continuous states. Are you trying to make an argument that it's not available on some desert island in the middle of the Pacific ocean.. so that somehow means the cable companies all have monopolies?

In the USA, there are a number of different alternatives. If you live in an area that doesn't have those different alternatives, you've made the choice to live there.. knowing that sometimes you simply don't have a choice.

By the way, I think you are very special.

[Ashliana]

No, no. I'm sure you're satisfied that everyone has all the broadband choices they need--and no more competition than what we already have is necessary in the slightest bit. Comcast isn't an enormously hated company, isn't often the only feasible choice; Wal-Mart is well-respected for the lucrative opportunities they bring, and everything is well in the world. You can go back to your comfort zone now.

[crb]

I don't even get what Ashliana is arguing, she hates comcast so capitalism sucks?

Ash, do you even know why geographic monopolies exist?

What is your solution to the infrastructure problem? Government mandate all companies roll out infrastructure to all areas, those who cannot afford to do so, throw their executives in jail?

My parents... they don't even have comcast. You wanna talk screwed, they live in a rural farm town, out in the woods, 24k dialup.

I'm stuck with comcast here, which I don't like, or slower DSL, which is worse, until a phone company does a fiber rollout. I'd love them to do the rollout eventually, and they will, but it takes time. Likewise, if I want my local channels in HD I have to use comcast, DirectTV doesn't carry locals in our market in HD. I could not care... but... come on? I love HD, I make the choice.

In anycase, I have a lot more choices than my parents.

Oh ya, their town has a Walmart too, and without it many people would have to drive 60 miles for basic necessities. Talk about a gas tax on the poor, they actually live in the second poorest county in Michigan, and without walmart there people would literally have an hour drive down the freeway to shop.

Google book search turned up this book as covering geographic monopolies:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nzabhiv9T2sC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=geographic+monopoly&source=web&ots=77AU-Yntzu&sig=hig3rFqIqQHYublZ5L-xHcb4KsI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Maybe you can find a copy?

[Ashliana]

Why am I not surprised that you're incapable of telling? The point was that, people in the US are essentially brainwashed to worship capitalism without even considering the drawbacks. Then you get dumbasses, like in here, insisting that regulation--even minor regulation--is responsible for all the woes in the world, rather than the reckless business practices resulting from LACK of regulation, as we've seen with Fannie, Freddie and Bear--and people constantly complain of the essential monopolies of the day: Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Comcast, etc. But capitalism isn't to blame, despite at the end of the capitalist road is what? Monopolies and supercorporations that have both the ability and intent to stamp out all competition. That's why regulation is necessary to begin with--because "all-out capitalism" is a recipe for the wealth ending up in a handful of people's hands, and essential slavery for the rest.

The monopolies, or essential monopolies, that exist today are not merely "geographic" monopolies. Comcast was merely an example--money talks with S&L governments. Enormous swaths of government-mandated monopolies.

Your parent's town existed long before Wal-Mart did, in all likelihood; especially in small, rural towns, the opening of a Wal-Mart often means the destruction of much, if not the majority of local businesses. It happened in my grandparent's town. Wal-Mart makes such a profit in other areas, they were able to undercut the prices of all the local businesses and still maintain the total gain.

But no, I'm totally wrong, nothing's wrong--at all--with the way any of these companies conduct business, everything is completely peachy. Think whatever you like. But one thing's for sure--Wal-Mart is right: they do have something to fear from Obama. D:

[Khariz]

But no, I'm totally wrong, nothing's wrong--at all--with the way any of these companies conduct business, everything is completely peachy. Think whatever you like. But one thing's for sure--Wal-Mart is right: they do have something to fear from Obama. D:

That's basically the only thing you've posted today that's true. And it was tongue in cheek. Lame.

[Parkbandit]

No, no. I'm sure you're satisfied that everyone has all the broadband choices they need--and no more competition than what we already have is necessary in the slightest bit. Comcast isn't an enormously hated company, isn't often the only feasible choice; Wal-Mart is well-respected for the lucrative opportunities they bring, and everything is well in the world. You can go back to your comfort zone now.


Never said I was satisfied with my choices.. but I know in the Tampabay area, I have 4 choices for high speed Internet (5 in about a week when FiOS finishes up in our neighborhood), probably a dozen for cable and the same for phone. If you live in the fucking back woods of Kentucky, you won't have the same choices I do.. but you made the choice to live there. Shit, my parents didn't even have cable high speed Internet available to them 2 years ago.. they had to go with some satellite service and before that dial up. I've told them that they should move away from that hick haven, but they won't and realize that they will not have as many choices as I do for certain services. It's the CHOICE THEY MADE.

I still think you are so, so, special though and I'm happy I was instrumental in bringing you back to the PC.

<3

[crb]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822 = Ashliana

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151045

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103890/?autoplay=false

[Drew]

Off topic CRB, but all your locals most likely broadcast in HD over the air (HDOTA) unless you live in the most Podunk of markets. All you need is an antenna. In the states I have DirecTV and get HD local over the air. Also getting your HD over the air gives the best picture quality because OTA HD uses the least compression, cable and satellite have much higher compression. So anyway, if local HD is all that is keeping you using the evil empire (Comcast) you can consider switching, and even if you don't you should still get your local HD over the air for top picture quality.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822 = Ashliana


:rofl:

Sounds like a bunch of them on this board actually.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI) = Ashliana

What the hell is this?

[crb]

Off topic CRB, but all your locals most likely broadcast in HD over the air (HDOTA) unless you live in the most Podunk of markets. All you need is an antenna. In the states I have DirecTV and get HD local over the air. Also getting your HD over the air gives the best picture quality because OTA HD uses the least compression, cable and satellite have much higher compression. So anyway, if local HD is all that is keeping you using the evil empire (Comcast) you can consider switching, and even if you don't you should still get your local HD over the air for top picture quality.
I've tried, my local stations are cheap bastards and the signal strength is too weak, can't get a good signal. I'm hoping after they turn off their analog signals next feb maybe they'll boost their digital HD ones and I can get an antenna.

[Tsa`ah]

My god you're a retard.

It isn't privacy from the union you dipshit. It isn't privacy from the employer. It is about peer pressure. Did my sex education analogy go over your head? Are you 12 and haven't had it yet? Shit I thought I picked something even a 14 year old would understand.

It is about privacy from other workers, from your buddies, your friends. "Hey Bill, turn in your card yet?" That kind of stuff. Bill says yes, even if he doesn't want the union, which is why when he can vote in secret, he votes no.

You still haven't offered one good reason why secret ballots and privacy are bad. You're saying "well they can still do it anyways if they publicly ask for it" or "this is to stop employer intimidation" (what? How does a secret ballot enable employer intimidation?)? But you haven't answered the question.

Is this now the 6th time I've asked?

Don't go on a diatribe about other things, please be direct and to the point. How does a secret ballot hurt the workers?

(ps... unions care about unions, not workers. The survival and success of the union and the union leaders comes first, workers second, company survival third.)

It's obvious that your head is nothing but a snot factory.

One last time:

Current process
- Majority of employees petition a union for membership (aka signing their card)

- Employer calls for a vote (secret ballot)

Proposed process
- Majority of employees petition a union for membership (aka signing their card)

- Process is done unless a minority of employees call for a vote (secret ballot)

Did you catch that, did it sink in? The two new acts change one thing, and one thing only .... shift the call for a vote from the employer to the employee. Privacy isn't taken away at any point.

Is this clear enough for you? Only one part of the process changed.

[crb]

Oh my god, how retarded are you?

Let me repeat:



You still haven't offered one good reason why secret ballots and privacy are bad. You're saying "well they can still do it anyways if they publicly ask for it" or "this is to stop employer intimidation" (what? How does a secret ballot enable employer intimidation?)? But you haven't answered the question.

Is this now the 6th time I've asked?

Don't go on a diatribe about other things, please be direct and to the point. How does a secret ballot hurt the workers?

You don't even understand the legislation, but that is beside the point. This is now the 7th time I've asked you why secret ballots are bad.

Why are secret ballots bad?

Let me be clear, I'm not asking you to explain the legislation to me, which you don't understand by the way, I suggest you read it again (namely, if a majority sign their card, there is no option for a secret ballot).

I'm not asking you to explain it to me.

I want you to say how secret ballots were hurting workers that they have to be limited. I want you to say how having even almost mandatory secret ballots were a problem. I want you to say how having voting privacy is ever a bad thing.

This, is what I ask of you. The count is 7.

[Tsa`ah]

So you're pissed off because this legislation didn't make the entire process a secret ballot?

There's nothing wrong with a secret ballot ... WHEN THE EMPLOYEES CALL FOR IT.

Stop reading Wal-Mart's and the Heritage Foundations spin on this legislation and READ THE LEGISLATION.

Gratz on rising to the top spot on the PC's most retarded list.

[crb]

So, you refuse to answer the question?

You can't find any reason to post why it is even necessary to make it harder to have a secret ballot, or how a secret ballot hurts workers?

8.

[Tsa`ah]

So, you refuse to answer the question?

You can't find any reason to post why it is even necessary to make it harder to have a secret ballot, or how a secret ballot hurts workers?

8.

Because you're asking me to validate a question lacking relevance .... in an attempt to qualify the spin.

Please continue to amuse me with your inability to comprehend.

[Parkbandit]

I miss Daniel :(

[875000]

It's obvious that your head is nothing but a snot factory.

One last time:

Current process
- Majority of employees petition a union for membership (aka signing their card)

- Employer calls for a vote (secret ballot)

Proposed process
- Majority of employees petition a union for membership (aka signing their card)

- Process is done unless a minority of employees call for a vote (secret ballot)

Under current law, when employees sign a petition, they are just indicating they want an election not to take place -- not that they are necessarily in favor of it.

Once a sufficient threshhold has been reached with regards to a petition and the signitures are validated, the election is going to occur. The employeer just has the option of recognizing the union without the election or having an election to see if the workforce will have a recognize collective bargaining unit.

Voting for unionization -- in other words, the election -- is also overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), our friend the government.

The big problem with a card check procedure is that it opens workers up to harassment and intimidation to support the unionization drive. People have to publically state their preference, marking them.

Supporters in Congress even tacitly acknowledge this. Dennis Kucinich has gone on record as stating that it is important for union organizers to know who is not in favor of a union so they know "where to focus their education efforts" or other such nonsense. The bill proposed in 2007 further restricted employer actions while wratcheting up penalties for them, while purposely turning a blind eye toward organizer offenses.

Honestly, the proposal is nonesense. If union organizers manage to threaten and intimidate enough employees into signing cards, they get their union. If they still cannot manage to do this, they then get to have an election in which they have have even more time to threaten and harass employees into supporting their union, while enjoying additional governmental protection.

And don't even get me started on union connections to organized crime and how that will play into this.

[crb]

don't bother 875000, he didn't drink the koolaid, he's fucking swimming in it.

He doesn't even apparently think its relevant to ask why the main thing the law aims to stop needs to be stopped.

In the end this could end up hurting the unions if they get it to pass. Right now with secret ballots intimidation is hard because you don't know who to target, if that changes... I would expect you'll see alot more of it. If any of those things catch on with the main stream media, public opinion on unions will go in the toliet even more.

I live in lansing michigan, right, this is a GM town, fairly liberal, lots of union workers. When the UAW had a strike here last fall (when the economy had already started to sour) the local news station had an opinion poll up and it was amazing how many people were against the union. It wasn't even close. I'm sure out in san francisco people have a high opinion of unions, but they wouldn't know a blue collar worker if one fell out of the sky into their latte, but if opinion polls in a union town like where I live come out so much against them, they gotta realize they shouldn't do anything to make that worse.

In the end though they're desperate, right to work laws are being passed in more and more states (states when then get new factories and new jobs, imagine that), and union membership is way way down over the past few decades. They're desperate for anything to help them get new members/dues.

[Stanley Burrell]

I live in lansing michigan, right, this is a GM town, fairly liberal, lots of union workers. When the UAW had a strike here last fall (when the economy had already started to sour) the local news station had an opinion poll up and it was amazing how many people were against the union. It wasn't even close. I'm sure out in san francisco people have a high opinion of unions, but they wouldn't know a blue collar worker if one fell out of the sky into their latte, but if opinion polls in a union town like where I live come out so much against them, they gotta realize they shouldn't do anything to make that worse.

I'm sure that you're not only a homophobe, but a complete moron. I mean, like, not the kind of petty back-and-forth moron people on an Internet forum have with each other when their viewpoints conflict.

No sir, you are not the typical moron. You are a very unique human being.

[Apathy]

I miss Daniel :(

I'll mindlessly argue with you for no reason at all, why the hell not.

What are we talking about?

[Faent]

... government-endorsed monopolies are exactly the kind of economic environment that capitalist theory proscribes. -Ashliana

So I've been picking on the conservatives, but now it's time to pick on the silly hippies. Ashliana, if the government is involved, you don't have a free market. And hence you don't have what almost all capitalists want. The fact of the matter is that government regulation is almost always bad. The majority of the experts agree, and this means you're probably very wrong.

Furthermore, the kind of bloated government required for government regulation in the first place is just the kind of government that will wind up making monopolies very easy to set up. This is because the people you want to beg to master you and enforce your liberal beliefs on the rest of the world are just as greedy and powerhungry as the members of the corporations you despise.

[Khariz]

So I've been picking on the conservatives, but now it's time to pick on the silly hippies. Ashliana, if the government is involved, you don't have a free market. And hence you don't have what almost all capitalists want. The fact of the matter is that government regulation is almost always bad. The majority of the experts agree, and this means you're probably very wrong.

Furthermore, the kind of bloated government required for government regulation in the first place is just the kind of government that will wind up making monopolies very easy to set up. This is because the people you want to beg to master you and enforce your liberal beliefs on the rest of the world are just as greedy and powerhungry as the members of the corporations you despise.

Now THIS was what I was talking about. Ashliana is just a dumb cunt without a clue.

[Faent]

That's why regulation is necessary to begin with--because "all-out capitalism" is a recipe for the wealth ending up in a handful of people's hands, and essential slavery for the rest. -Ashliana

Honestly. How naive can you be? So you want to set up another, more massive corporation, and give it an almost unlimitless supply of money, and then hope that corporation makes your world happy and bright? Do you pretend that, because your favorite corporation is called "the government", it's different from all other corportations? If this is what you think, then you're just ignorant of the historical facts. Scroll up and read Drew's post. Then get an education.

[Clove]

Walmart really doesn't provide their non-managerial staff any "health insurance" to speak of.

What they do is pay so little that they're able to place the cost of healthcare into the laps of other taxpayers.Well... they do help their employees file for public assistance. That counts doesn't it? :D

[Ashliana]

So I've been picking on the conservatives, but now it's time to pick on the silly hippies. Ashliana, if the government is involved, you don't have a free market. And hence you don't have what almost all capitalists want. The fact of the matter is that government regulation is almost always bad. The majority of the experts agree, and this means you're probably very wrong.

Furthermore, the kind of bloated government required for government regulation in the first place is just the kind of government that will wind up making monopolies very easy to set up. This is because the people you want to beg to master you and enforce your liberal beliefs on the rest of the world are just as greedy and powerhungry as the members of the corporations you despise.

You're absolutely right. In the wise words of Carl Carlson of The Simpsons,


Rich white guys always want what's best for everyone!

Self-interest is the only interest of a participants capitalistic system. A lack of regulation whatsoever ends up with zero choices. Feel free to keep deluding yourself--you're already doing a wonderful job.


Now THIS was what I was talking about. Ashliana is just a dumb cunt without a clue.

Pity you're beyond saving, in any sense.


Honestly. How naive can you be? So you want to set up another, more massive corporation, and give it an almost unlimitless supply of money, and then hope that corporation makes your world happy and bright? Do you pretend that, because your favorite corporation is called "the government", it's different from all other corportations? If this is what you think, then you're just ignorant of the historical facts. Scroll up and read Drew's post. Then get an education.

Except I never suggested anything of the kind? It's much easier for you to respond to bullshit, fabricated arguments than what I've actually said. When you finally manage to pry your head out of your ass, and take a look around--we can revisit the subject. Minimal government is a laudable goal--but zero regulation on people that have their own, and very much not the general population's interests at heart, is not the paradise you're idiotically making it out to be. You're entitled to your own a completely fucktard opinions. But capitalism without regulation is a recipe for disaster. I can only thank "God" that people as deluded and mindless as you are in the minority.

[Khariz]

When you get a clue (and trust me, I'm not very optomistic for you), feel free to come back and try again.

[Ashliana]

Wee! Repeating the same thing I just said to you sure is clever of you, Khariz. Nothing substantive to say? Didn't think so.

[Khariz]

Wee! Repeating the same thing I just said to you sure is clever of you, Khariz. Nothing substantive to say? Didn't think so.

You haven't said anything. All you've done is highlight that you don't understand economics or capitalism, yet again. Nothing to talk about.

[Ashliana]

And all you've done is prove that you're incapable of anything more than sticking your fingers in your ears, going "Nuh uh!" A common tactic of neocons these days. :clap:

[Khariz]

And all you've done is prove that you're incapable of anything more than sticking your fingers in your ears, going "Nuh uh!" A common tactic of neocons these days. :clap:

I'm not a neocon, hun. Not even close. You obviously don't know the first thing about me. Don't let the McCain avatar fool you.

You can't have a discussion/argument with someone who doesn't think the baseline of the syllogism is the same as you. We can't have a discussion with one another because we can't agree on the way life works, even in general.

You think the world is a banana, and I think it's an apple. This isn't "agreeing to disagree", it's not even being in the same universe. Since we can't force each other on to the "same page", we really have nothing to talk about.

[Ashliana]

I couldn't agree more. In your view, anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or ignorant, when in fact--you're the one full of shit, and too closeminded to consider otherwise. Please have fun in your contented universe.

[Khariz]

I couldn't agree more. In your universe, anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or ignorant, when in fact--you're the one full of shit, and content to remain in it. Please have fun in "your" universe.

Thanks, I'll try. :love:

[Parkbandit]

Ok ... seems someone has snacked on a few too many paint chips. Of course that's how Wal-Mart sees it. Let me again post something factual ... and I'll bold the important words for you.



This means the employer can't call for a vote ... any kind of vote, in fact the entire voting process is tossed out of the window when a majority of employees sign their union cards. That's the card check. It prevents employers from interfering with the process. If a Wal-mart store in Chicago has 200 employees and 150 of them sign union cards during the certification process ... it's DONE.



This is the current law. It allows the employer time to call for a vote and intimidate employees into voting against a unionized work place.



So here you go ... a minority can call for, and receive a secret vote ... otherwise a vote isn't even required. It gives the employees the right to discuss it, not the employer.

Now on to the actual topic?

While Wal-Mart officials claim they're not telling employees who to vote for, they worded it that way in these meetings, it's a very suggestive way of coercion.

Where is the line drawn?

So wait.. are you for or against unions?

[RichardCranium]

I couldn't agree more. In your view, anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or ignorant, when in fact--you're the one full of shit, and too closeminded to consider otherwise. Please have fun in your contented universe.

Irony.

[875000]

So wait.. are you for or against unions?

He appears to be against free speech. At least when others say something that he disagrees with.

[Parkbandit]

He appears to be against free speech. At least when others say something that he disagrees with.


I just find him hilarious.

He's for 'sharing the wealth', except when it comes to his hotel. I'm willing to bet his hotel staff isn't unionized and he would do everything in his power to keep it that way.

[Tsa`ah]

So wait.. are you for or against unions?

Alzheimer's kicking in already?

I'm very anti-union to an extent. That is to say I believe certain industries/corporations/businesses are in need of a bitch slapping from time to time, hence the utility function of a union. Once agreements are met I believe the union should dissolve yet withhold the right to form again without hindrance should it become necessary.

I have a big problem with unions when it comes to promotions via seniority, union dues and the entire union hierarchy which is in place only as a measure of self perpetuation. Newer unions tend to adopt the "union" mentality after a year or two ... that is they recognize that so long as they punch in and out on time ... there's little that can be done to terminate employment.


He appears to be against free speech. At least when others say something that he disagrees with.

That's pretty damned funny ... and at the same time pretty damned moronic of you.


I just find him hilarious.

He's for 'sharing the wealth', except when it comes to his hotel.

Really? Do you have any clue how much I forked out in payroll last year, let alone this year ... not including benefits that no other hotel in the area will provide.


I'm willing to bet his hotel staff isn't unionized and he would do everything in his power to keep it that way.

You bet your ass. I've kept unions away at a previous job and I've kept the notion of a union away from my current business ... by providing the pay and benefits above and beyond what my employees expect from the industry(s).

[Kembal]

Two points:

1. Card check elections - They're not the best solution, but the current process allows for severe employer intimidation, including captive audience sessions that the union is not allowed to contest, firing of organizing employees via any method possible ("oh, you forgot your safety goggles and are just going to get them from your car? you're fired!"...I'm not making that up either, that literally happened a few years ago at some plant in Mississippi. And similar things definitely happen at other places as well.), and lots of misinformation to be spread. (that last point happens on both sides, union and employer)

Neither of the current processes are democratic enough. Employers have no interest in losing their current advantages though, and unions would rather have the playing field tilted toward them. The takeaway is this, though: the current process of the secret ballot election, with its long timeframes and major loopholes for the employer, is a mockery of a democratic election.

2. Unfettered capitalism can and does sometime lead to monopoly - Ashliana's got it right...when corporations become monopolies, they're not interested in having competitors challenge them...they'd rather stomp them out. The industry we're in has one player that controls 50-60% of the market, and then two of us that pretty much have the rest. It used to be that the dominiant player had 80-90%. If it weren't for government regulations that a) prevented them from selling below cost for an extended period of time and b) stopped them from ignoring worker and environmental safety entirely, they would have likely taken out both of the other players, including us. And speaking for ourselves, we've brought tons of innovation to the market while keeping the price reasonable for our products. Which, in turn, has resulted in lower taxes for a lot of places, because we sell in the water infrastructure market.

There's other areas too that goverenment regulation is beneficial as opposed to a free market...insurance markets are one, for sure. Not all of them involve monopoly, but they do involve either a) keeping prices down, b) providing access to everyone, or both.

[Khariz]

2. Unfettered capitalism can and does sometime lead to monopoly - Ashliana's got it right...when corporations become monopolies, they're not interested in having competitors challenge them...they'd rather stomp them out. The industry we're in has one player that controls 50-60% of the market, and then two of us that pretty much have the rest. It used to be that the dominiant player had 80-90%. If it weren't for government regulations that a) prevented them from selling below cost for an extended period of time and b) stopped them from ignoring worker and environmental safety entirely, they would have likely taken out both of the other players, including us. And speaking for ourselves, we've brought tons of innovation to the market while keeping the price reasonable for our products. Which, in turn, has resulted in lower taxes for a lot of places, because we sell in the water infrastructure market.

There's other areas too that goverenment regulation is beneficial as opposed to a free market...insurance markets are one, for sure. Not all of them involve monopoly, but they do involve either a) keeping prices down, b) providing access to everyone, or both.

This assumes a lot. First, it assumes that there is something wrong with monopolies. I think their fine as long as they come about in a genuine free market system, and not as a RESULT of government regulations. If a company is the best, and by being the best can push out all of their competitors, then tough shit. Someone will come along who can compete with them...or they won't. I'm all in favor of Economic Darwinism.

As to "keeping prices down": Prices keep themselves down in a capitalist marketplace because of competition. If their is only one provider of goods because nobody else can do it better or cheaper, then more power to that one organization to charge what it wants to for it's services. Again, someone else will come along if they can do it better or cheaper.

As to "Providing access to everyone": Not everyone SHOULD have access. Life isn't fair, and the playing field doesn't need to be equilized. Those who can PAY should have access. Those who can't will have to go without. Everyone doesn't need access. You know what Government regulation of insurance does? It increased Adverse Selection. It allows the pieces of shit that insurance companies wouldn't even consider insuring (if they didn't have to), to have insurance, screw up the risk pool, and cost everyone else more.

The less government regulation the better.

[Faent]

Self-interest is the only interest of a participants capitalistic system. -Ashliana

ROFL. I see. So no participant in a capitalist system could ever care for their spouse or child more than themselves. Please, try to use your head.

Furthermore, no one could endorse a capitalist system (who thought that capitalism might make things harder for themselves) because they believed it would maximize utility? Um, that's an empirical claim about human psychology, but it's fairly obviously idiotic. Again, start using your head for once in your life.

You've provided zero evidence for your assertions that markets need to be regulated more. You've run your little potty mouth about slavery, but you haven't provided any reason to believe that capitalism leads to slavery. Please, try to pull your liberal head out of the sand. Your brain is filling up with rocks.

I suspect you're having a difficult time expressing yourself. This is made more comical by your amusing ability to curse so extensively while saying nothing interesting. For example, it's not at all clear what you are babbling about when you babble about "regulation". What kind of regulation? By whom? For what purpose? Enforceable how? And benefiting whom? Capitalists are almost always against government regulation of free markets (as has been pointed out to you already). This is, of course, not the same as saying that there can be no permissible mechanisms of market regulation. (I know of no capitalist who deny that there can be such permissible mechanisms.) So you're really just blowing steam now. But it's cute watching your little head heat up and steam come out of your ears!

[crb]

There is nothing wrong with self interest anyways. By caring for yourself, you relieve society of the need to care for you. Additionally, from a business standpoint, self interest is often the same thing as progress for society at large.

Case in point, it is in a drug company's self interest to invent a cure for cancer.

Government is necessary is that we need laws to keep us safe and to take care of things like fraud, we need enforceable contracts and agreements. Beyond those things though, we don't need much.

I kinda chuckle though at the railing against monopolies going on here by people who fully support one of the most abusive monopolies of all, and the only ones that are even legal, labor monopolies.

[875000]

Two points:

1. Card check elections - They're not the best solution, but the current process allows for severe employer intimidation, including captive audience sessions that the union is not allowed to contest, firing of organizing employees via any method possible ("oh, you forgot your safety goggles and are just going to get them from your car? you're fired!"...I'm not making that up either, that literally happened a few years ago at some plant in Mississippi. And similar things definitely happen at other places as well.), and lots of misinformation to be spread. (that last point happens on both sides, union and employer)

Neither of the current processes are democratic enough. Employers have no interest in losing their current advantages though, and unions would rather have the playing field tilted toward them. The takeaway is this, though: the current process of the secret ballot election, with its long timeframes and major loopholes for the employer, is a mockery of a democratic election.

Except your examples are either complete and unadulterated bullshit propogated by propoponents of card check elections, or instances where the law is not being enforced.

Once two or more employees start a unionization drive, they become protected employees under the NLRA. They can't be fired (per Court decisions on Sections 7 and 8 of the act).

And, unions (and employers) can bloody well contest any type of behavior leading up to the election with the NLRB, and they frequently do. Also part of the NLRA and NLRB rulings.

Leaving all of this to a simple card check though basically gives Unions free rein while hampering employers from presenting their side of the story. No thanks.

[crb]

I love the characterization of a private secret ballot somehow being an intimidation tool for employers.

[Ashliana]

ROFL. I see. So no participant in a capitalist system could ever care for their spouse or child more than themselves. Please, try to use your head.

Furthermore, no one could endorse a capitalist system (who thought that capitalism might make things harder for themselves) because they believed it would maximize utility? Um, that's an empirical claim about human psychology, but it's fairly obviously idiotic. Again, start using your head for once in your life.

You've provided zero evidence for your assertions that markets need to be regulated more. You've run your little potty mouth about slavery, but you haven't provided any reason to believe that capitalism leads to slavery. Please, try to pull your liberal head out of the sand. Your brain is filling up with rocks.

I suspect you're having a difficult time expressing yourself. This is made more comical by your amusing ability to curse so extensively while saying nothing interesting. For example, it's not at all clear what you are babbling about when you babble about "regulation". What kind of regulation? By whom? For what purpose? Enforceable how? And benefiting whom? Capitalists are almost always against government regulation of free markets (as has been pointed out to you already). This is, of course, not the same as saying that there can be no permissible mechanisms of market regulation. (I know of no capitalist who deny that there can be such permissible mechanisms.) So you're really just blowing steam now. But it's cute watching your little head heat up and steam come out of your ears!

It's really cute seeing you come out, writing three paragraphs with no other content than saying "NO, U!" I didn't say no one could care more about another individual than themselves in a personal sense. Stretching much?

Not surprising, though--since it's the only thing you have. Invented arguments to respond to. Additionally, you've assumed I'm a "liberal" because I don't agree with you. That's nice? Khariz advocated against regulation or oversight in any form--which I strenously disagree with. He mistakenly believes that monopolies aren't a bad thing, don't lead to a lack of choices, but instead lead to the paradise that "the liberals" are keeping us from, when in fact--it's policies of under-regulation that have led to our contemporary economic misfortunes.

The irony of you telling anyone to "use their head" when your argument is made up of shit you invented to respond to, and a general lack of common sense or concept of reality, is not lost.

[Khariz]

when in fact--it's policies of under-regulation that have led to our contemporary economic misfortunes.



Quoted to giggle at.

[Kembal]

Except your examples are either complete and unadulterated bullshit propogated by propoponents of card check elections, or instances where the law is not being enforced.

Bingo, the law is not being enforced. Or more accurately, getting enforcement of the law takes longer than the timeframe for the election.

And I only provided one anecdotal example on the firing. Captive audience for the employer is very much a known problem...there's numerous papers on the subject.


Once two or more employees start a unionization drive, they become protected employees under the NLRA. They can't be fired (per Court decisions on Sections 7 and 8 of the act).

They can't be fired for organizing. They, however, can be fired for any other type of violation of the company's rules and procedures, no matter how minor.


And, unions (and employers) can bloody well contest any type of behavior leading up to the election with the NLRB, and they frequently do. Also part of the NLRA and NLRB rulings.

Again, the timeframe for enforcement stretches out even longer than the timeframe for the election. Which means the organizing employee gets fired for a bullshit reason, files a complaint, and waits to have his/her job restored while the election goes ahead and takes place. (and sometimes doesn't get their job restored either)

I researched the ethics driving unionization elections in college (and saw a union election happen on my campus, because the graduate students tried to organize. they lost.) I came to the conclusion that neither side acts ethically, but that employers have been given advantages under current law that allow them to behave even worse.


Leaving all of this to a simple card check though basically gives Unions free rein while hampering employers from presenting their side of the story. No thanks.

I think I wrote already that card check isn't a good system either. The problem, like I said, is that no one is willing to make the compromises for an actual good system to result.

[Kembal]

I love the characterization of a private secret ballot somehow being an intimidation tool for employers.

You know, if you had actually done any research, you'd know that the issue is not the ballot itself. It's what the corporations and the unions are allowed to do in the name of campaigning between the initiation of a unionization drive and the actual election day.

I'll explain the captive audience problem, since I don't think everyone knows it:

Corporations are allowed to call all the workers in a location that's a target for unionization into mandatory meetings and repeatedly tell workers that they should not unionize for whatever reasons. (some false, some true, whatever.) Unions, on the other hand, are allowed only optional meetings with the workers. (and they're limited in how many they can do per week, whereas employers are given unlimited ability to do so)

Now, my argument would be not that the union should also have the power of mandatory meetings. It should be that the employers cannot call mandatory meetings for the purpose of campaigning against the union, and that there should be on-site enforcement of such things, instead of a complaint being filed and then waiting for it to be resolved until after the election.

Put a level playing field in, and this nonsense about card check elections will go away.

[Kembal]

There is nothing wrong with self interest anyways. By caring for yourself, you relieve society of the need to care for you. Additionally, from a business standpoint, self interest is often the same thing as progress for society at large.

Case in point, it is in a drug company's self interest to invent a cure for cancer.

Morally, I'm sure most employees at a drug company would want to invent a cure for a cancer, and I assume they're working hard at it.

But would it actually be in a drug company's self-interest, as opposed to just inventing treatments that suppress the cancer, but don't make it actually go away, necessitating continual treatment?

Think about it. The cure is a one-time payment to the company. A continual treatment regimen is a continual series of payments. Unless the profit of the one time payment of the cure is greater than the profit of the series of payments for the cancer treatment regimen, the continual treatement regimen is worth more to the drug company than the cure.

Now, I'm not arguing that drug companies are actually making that calculation. (and of course, there's some intangible goodwill for being the first to cure cancer) But my point is that you cannot blandly assert that corporate self-interest is the same thing as progress for society at large.

I'll give another example, from my industry. Recently, someone came out with a coating for water pipes that's superior to all the other coatings out there. Specifically, this lining can be used on water pipes as opposed to only sewer pipes, and a scratch on it doesn't ruin the lining for the entire pipe. It's also more environmentally friendly, and by using this lining, you can extend the life of the pipe by 30-40 years. Now, there's a similar lining that's been adopted by everyone, even though it can only be used on sewer lines. You'd think everyone would switch over to the new lining...didn't happen. We were the only company to switch, but because the developer of the inferior lining had the resources to persuade everyone else not to switch (our customers and our competitors), we had to switch back to the inferior lining, usable only on sewer.

And so thus, everyone's water lines will degrade 30-40 years before they need to, which means more pipe sold by everyone in the future. Now that's societal progress.

[crb]

Morally, I'm sure most employees at a drug company would want to invent a cure for a cancer, and I assume they're working hard at it.

But would it actually be in a drug company's self-interest, as opposed to just inventing treatments that suppress the cancer, but don't make it actually go away, necessitating continual treatment?

Think about it. The cure is a one-time payment to the company. A continual treatment regimen is a continual series of payments. Unless the profit of the one time payment of the cure is greater than the profit of the series of payments for the cancer treatment regimen, the continual treatement regimen is worth more to the drug company than the cure.

Now, I'm not arguing that drug companies are actually making that calculation. (and of course, there's some intangible goodwill for being the first to cure cancer) But my point is that you cannot blandly assert that corporate self-interest is the same thing as progress for society at large.

I'll give another example, from my industry. Recently, someone came out with a coating for water pipes that's superior to all the other coatings out there. Specifically, this lining can be used on water pipes as opposed to only sewer pipes, and a scratch on it doesn't ruin the lining for the entire pipe. It's also more environmentally friendly, and by using this lining, you can extend the life of the pipe by 30-40 years. Now, there's a similar lining that's been adopted by everyone, even though it can only be used on sewer lines. You'd think everyone would switch over to the new lining...didn't happen. We were the only company to switch, but because the developer of the inferior lining had the resources to persuade everyone else not to switch (our customers and our competitors), we had to switch back to the inferior lining, usable only on sewer.

And so thus, everyone's water lines will degrade 30-40 years before they need to, which means more pipe sold by everyone in the future. Now that's societal progress.
Your analogy only works if there is just 1 drug company, or say you're in a communist country where the government is your 1 drug company.

Thankfully, we have laws against monopolies, and so if that ever happened, it'd be broken up.

See, with more than one drug company, and patents lasting 14 years, and being public from when you file. A drug company that finds a cure and then instead of marketing it, they water it down so you need repeated injections, is going to end up kind of fucked in the long run. For one, their research would have to be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA, and falsifying that is illegal, and no one is going to raise an eyebrow? Then of course, a competitor will piggyback on their research, come out with a cure, and take all their business away.

The thing is... there isn't one disease and one drug company. There any many companies and many diseases. Sly manuevers like you suggest not only wouldn't make business sense in a real world with competitive companies, but also they'd probably require laws to be broken in the process, which nullifies the analogy as any business or industry could become abusive if they break laws.

Besides, Gardasil, vaccine, cheap. Chemotherapy, expensive. Didn't stop gardasil.

Now your pipe example, the better product wasn't a better product. It was a better technology, as per your opinion, but product is the whole shebang, the marketing, the presentation, etc. The company producing the better technology wasn't as good of a company. This happens all the time. The better company wins, gets big, buys the technology from the smaller company (or tries to steal it and gets sued and loses and then has to buy it, see Echostar v. Tivo). In the end, if the technology is better, people get it (or a third technology that is even better still) just not from the original source. The loser isn't society, it is the owners of the original company who needed to take a few more business classes.

Besides, if it really was a better product you'd still use it, but because of cost or compatibility reasons, you can't, so it isn't better for you to use, is it? In the end, the best technology isn't always best for society. I don't know pipes, so this is just a general statement, but its true. There are some advanced technologies that cost or compatability or infrastructure or public taste will keep from ever being successful products, in effect, society takes a vote, and society says no, at least, right now.

[875000]

And I only provided one anecdotal example on the firing. Captive audience for the employer is very much a known problem...there's numerous papers on the subject.

Yeah. I probably read a bunch of them too.

Here's the thing -- the NLRB and case law has limited what employers are allowed to say in these meetings, as well as when and where they are allowed to conduct them. If you look closely at the Wal-Mart articles, that is the main issue they are grappling with -- did Wal-Mart violate the restrictions on what they are allowed to say during these meetings?

The flip side is that Union representatives are allowed to call people at home. Show up at their doorsteps. And pretty much have free rein outside of a work environment. They even get to circulate information within a work environment under certain cases.

If an employer so much as calls a person elgible to be in the collective bargaining unit, however, the law is broken.




They can't be fired for organizing. They, however, can be fired for any other type of violation of the company's rules and procedures, no matter how minor.

Familiarize yourself with Edward G. Budd Manufacturing versus the NLRB, then.

Going by memory, the person was drunk on the job, had sex with a woman there, and illegally clocked people out. The moment he was able to establish he was part of an organizing drive, he got a one year pass.

That case is the standard, by the way.

The only class of people who do not enjoy that class of protection during a unionization drive are supervisors.



I researched the ethics driving unionization elections in college (and saw a union election happen on my campus, because the graduate students tried to organize. they lost.) I came to the conclusion that neither side acts ethically, but that employers have been given advantages under current law that allow them to behave even worse.

Having been exposed to both in academia and later real world jobs, I beg to disagree. Both sides do act unethically -- with there being extreme outliers on both sides. However, the charge that the system is disproportiantely slanted in favor of employers tends to be a typical union argument. Both sides enjoy protections under the law. In my opinion things tend to be more slanted in the union's favor. Particularly because union organizers tend to have backers paying for their efforts, while employers are spending their own money. Card checks are not going to improve that bias.

[Tsa`ah]

Familiarize yourself with Edward G. Budd Manufacturing versus the NLRB, then.

Going by memory, the person was drunk on the job, had sex with a woman there, and illegally clocked people out. The moment he was able to establish he was part of an organizing drive, he got a one year pass.

That case is the standard, by the way.

It may be standard, but I doubt the rulings are always in the favor of the terminated employees.

[Kembal]

Your analogy only works if there is just 1 drug company, or say you're in a communist country where the government is your 1 drug company.

Thankfully, we have laws against monopolies, and so if that ever happened, it'd be broken up.

See, with more than one drug company, and patents lasting 14 years, and being public from when you file. A drug company that finds a cure and then instead of marketing it, they water it down so you need repeated injections, is going to end up kind of fucked in the long run. For one, their research would have to be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA, and falsifying that is illegal, and no one is going to raise an eyebrow? Then of course, a competitor will piggyback on their research, come out with a cure, and take all their business away.

The thing is... there isn't one disease and one drug company. There any many companies and many diseases. Sly manuevers like you suggest not only wouldn't make business sense in a real world with competitive companies, but also they'd probably require laws to be broken in the process, which nullifies the analogy as any business or industry could become abusive if they break laws.

Besides, Gardasil, vaccine, cheap. Chemotherapy, expensive. Didn't stop gardasil.

Er, didn't you just prove that some government regulation is good as opposed to an unfettered free market then?

[Kembal]

Yeah. I probably read a bunch of them too.

Here's the thing -- the NLRB and case law has limited what employers are allowed to say in these meetings, as well as when and where they are allowed to conduct them. If you look closely at the Wal-Mart articles, that is the main issue they are grappling with -- did Wal-Mart violate the restrictions on what they are allowed to say during these meetings?

The flip side is that Union representatives are allowed to call people at home. Show up at their doorsteps. And pretty much have free rein outside of a work environment. They even get to circulate information within a work environment under certain cases.

If an employer so much as calls a person elgible to be in the collective bargaining unit, however, the law is broken.

Key point: The employee can always slam the door shut or hang up the phone on the union organizers.


Familiarize yourself with Edward G. Budd Manufacturing versus the NLRB, then.

Going by memory, the person was drunk on the job, had sex with a woman there, and illegally clocked people out. The moment he was able to establish he was part of an organizing drive, he got a one year pass.

That case is the standard, by the way.

The only class of people who do not enjoy that class of protection during a unionization drive are supervisors.

Since I've not seen that case (I looked at unionization drives as part of a labor relations class and an ethics class, so I didn't look at them in terms of case law so much), did the guy get fired, and then his job restored later? How much later? If the job was restored later, was it before or after the election?


Having been exposed to both in academia and later real world jobs, I beg to disagree. Both sides do act unethically -- with there being extreme outliers on both sides. However, the charge that the system is disproportiantely slanted in favor of employers tends to be a typical union argument. Both sides enjoy protections under the law. In my opinion things tend to be more slanted in the union's favor. Particularly because union organizers tend to have backers paying for their efforts, while employers are spending their own money. Card checks are not going to improve that bias.

Card checks won't be good either, I agree. But the current process just lets unethical campaigning go on from both sides, and I think that's to the detriment of the worker.

[Khariz]

Here


Before HICKS, MARTIN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.


*574 MILLER, Circuit Judge.

On June 3, 1947, relying on the authority of Packard Motor Car Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 330 U.S. 485, 67 S.Ct. 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040, this Court ruled that foremen of the respondent, Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company, were employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and decreed enforcement of a cease and desist order of the National Labor Relations Board protecting such employees in their rights under the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Co., 6 Cir., 162 F.2d 461. Thereafter on June 23, 1947, Congress enacted the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Public Law 101, 80th Cong., 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., effective August 22, 1947, amending provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. In view of the change in the law with respect to supervisory employees made by this Amendment, respondent petitioned for certiorari. The Foreman's Association of America petitioned for leave to intervene. By order of December 15, 1947, the Supreme Court granted the petition to intervene, granted certiorari to a limited extent and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of the effect of the Labor Management Relations Act on the question to which the grant of certiorari was limited. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 332 U.S. 840, 68 S.Ct. 262. The case is now before us on this remand.


In view of the questions raised by the parties, it becomes necessary to consider the wording of the Board's order and also the wording of the Supreme Court's Per Curiam and order of remand. The Board's order directed that the respondent-


‘1. Cease and desist from:


‘(a) Discouraging membership in the Foreman's Association of America, by discharging, laying off or refusing to transfer to production jobs any of its supervisory employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment;


‘(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its supervisory employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, assist or bargain collectively through Foreman's Association of America, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.’


Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the order directed the respondent to reinstate Oscar Owens to his former position without prejudice to his seniority and without loss of pay. Paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) directed the respondent to post appropriate notices and to notify the regional director of its compliance with the affirmative provisions of the order. The Per Curiam and order of the Supreme Court is in part as follows:


‘The petition for writ of certiorari is granted limited to the question of the validity of that part of the order of the National Labor Relations Board which directs the petitioner to cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Foreman's Association of America. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated in that respect and the cause is remanded to that Court for consideration of the effect of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, (61 Stat. 136,) 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., on the question to which the grant of certiorari is limited.’


[1] [2] It is contended by the Foreman's Association that under the foregoing order of remand we are limited to a consideration of the effect of the Labor Management Relations Act upon Paragraph 1(a) only of the Board's order, and that Paragraph 1(b) and all of Paragraph 2 of the order remain in full force and effect. Both the respondent and the Board contend that the order of remand brings into consideration not only Paragraph 1(a) of the Board's order but also Paragraph 1(b) and that part of Paragraph 2 of the order dealing with the posting of appropriate notices. We agree with the respondent and the Board. Although a strict literal reading of the order of remand refers merely to that part of the order ‘which directs the petitioner to cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Foreman's Association of America,’ which is the wording contained in Paragraph*575 1(a) of the order, yet it seems plain to us that the same issue is involved in Paragraph 1(b) of the order; that that part of Paragraph 2 of the order dealing with the posting of appropriate notices is for the purpose of implementing the cease and desist paragraphs of the order; and that a compliance with the true purpose of the mandate requires us to consider all of these provisions rather than merely limiting our consideration to Paragraph 1(a). The proper construction of a court's decree is not to be obtained by seizing upon isolated parts of the decree; rather it is to be determined by an examination of the issues made and intended to be submitted and what the decree was really designed to accomplish. Its scope is to be determined by what preceded it and what it was intended to execute. Mayor and Alderman of City of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U.S. 259, 273, 34 S.Ct. 95, 58 L.Ed. 209; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City and Ft. D.R. Co., 222 U.S. 237, 247, 32 S.Ct. 86, 56 L.Ed. 180. The reason for vacating that portion of this court's decree which enforced Paragraph 1(a) applies equally to the cease and desist provision of Paragraph 1(b).


[3] We think it is equally clear that Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the order dealing with the reinstatement of Oscar Owens are not before us for reconsideration. The respondent has fully complied with those provisions of the order. They deal with the past rather than with the future. The general savings statute, 1 U.S.C.A. § 29, provides that the repeal of a statute will not release any liability incurred under such statute unless the repealing act shall so expressly provide. The respondent's obligation to Owens under the Board's order was a liability under the National Labor Relations Act before the Amendment of 1947. The amendment contains no provision for relieving an employer from any liability arising out of any unfair labor practice committed prior to the passage of that Act.


Section 2(3) of the Act as amended provides: ‘The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, * * * but shall not include any individual employed * * * as a supervisor * * * .' Section 2(11) provides: ‘The term ‘supervisor’ means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.' 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(3, 11). The Foreman's Association contends that the so-called foremen involved in this proceeding are not supervisors as defined by the foregoing section of the Act and are accordingly employees who are entitled to the protection of the Act.


The intermediate report of the trial examiner, adopted by the Board, found as follows:


‘The testimony established the fact that the foremen at the plant are supervisory employees who occupy an intermediate position between top management and the rank and file employees. They are in charge of production in their respective departments where they carry out production schedules which have been arranged and blueprinted for them and from which they can only depart in minor matters or in emergencies. All hiring is done through the Employment Office which passes on their requests for help. Foremen can recommend discharges; but those recommendations only become effective after they have been passed upon by the Personnel Department. Foremen have the right and duty of attempting to settle grievances in the first instance, but they are bound by established rules and regulations and the contract between respondent and the Union representing its rank and file employees. Employees who wish to do so have the right to resort to the established grievance procedure and appeal decisions of foremen. In short, foremen are bound by directions from their own supervisors, but in their own departments, as supervisors, they exercise a good deal of discretion in carrying out their orders.’


[4] We are of the opinion that such duties bring respondent's foremen within the statutory definition of supervisor.


*576 [5] The chief argument of the Foreman's Association to the contrary is that the foregoing definition of supervisor should be construed as reading that a supervisor means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire and transfer, and suspend, and lay off, and recall, and promote, and discharge, and assign, and reward other employees as one of the alternatives. The statute does not contain any of the conjunctives contended for. Such a construction would require a supervisor to have all of the powers referred to rather than merely one of them. We see no merit in this contention. In addition to adding something to the statute which is plainly not present, it ignores the use of the word ‘or’ in the phrase ‘or discipline other employees,’ which immediately follows the enumeration of the preceding qualifications. If Congress had intended the words to be construed in the conjunctive instead of the disjunctive it could easily have used the word ‘and’ and reached that result. Its failure to do so, together with the use of the word ‘or’ leads us to construe the statute in the disjunctive. Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207, 218, 219, 25 S.Ct. 429, 49 L.Ed. 726.


The Foreman's Association also makes the following objection to the ruling. At the time of the hearing before the trial examiner the classification of supervisors at respondent's plant was as follows: 1 general manager, 7 superintendents, 8 assistant superintendents, 38 general foremen, 78 foremen and 5 assistant foremen. However, the Foreman's Association contends that the 78 employees classified as foremen were in reality assistant foremen following an early ruling of the Board that foremen were not employees under the Act, and that assistant foremen did not have the necessary authority to make them a part of the respondent's supervisory force. The record shows that foremen have always been on a salaried basis while assistant foremen are obtained from the ranks, are paid on an hourly basis, and receive the same pay as the rank and file of hourly-rated employees. But it seems clear that the only real difference between an assistant foreman and a foreman was the manner in which they were paid. The term assistant foreman was applied to a temporary appointment as foreman, with the same authority as a foreman, required for a short or indefinite time because of a temporary increase in the production cycle. The intermediate report refers to the employees involved in this proceeding as foremen and makes no distinction between foremen and assistant foremen.


[6] [7] The respondent contends that since supervisors are not employees under the Labor Management Relations Act, the Foreman's Association is not a ‘labor organization’ with which the National Labor Relations Act deals in §§ 7 and 8 thereof. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 157, 158. The term ‘labor organization’ is defined in both § 2(5) of the original Act and as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(5) as ‘any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.’ Although the definition requires that employees participate in the organization in order to make it a labor organization, it does not require that the organization be composed exclusively of employees. The fact that persons other than employees are members of a labor organization does not prevent a labor organization, which is otherwise qualified, from continuing to so function. N.L.R.B. v. American Furnace Co., 7 Cir., 158 F.2d 376, 378; N.L.R.B. v. Jas. H. Matthews and Co., 3 Cir., 156 F.2d 706. This view is recognized by the provision of the amendment providing that ‘nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, * * * ’ even though the employer need not recognize them as employees for purposes of collective bargaining. 29 U.S.C.A. § 164(a). The constitution of the Foreman's Association shows that it admits to membership persons who are not supervisors but who are employees within the meaning of the amended Act. We are of the opinion that on the present *577 record the Foreman's Association qualifies as a labor organization under the provisions of the Act.


[8] We also reject the respondent's contention that the mandate of the Supreme Court does not require or permit us to pass upon the constitutionality of the Labor Management Relations Act. The constitutionality of the Act was put in issue in general terms by the motion of the Foreman's Association before the Supreme Court to intervene. Certiorari was granted with respect to the ‘validity’ of that part of the order which directed the respondent to cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Association. We are of the opinion that a consideration of the validity of the order, because of the enactment of the Act, necessarily involves the question of whether the Act is constitutional and valid. Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210, 224, 9 S.Ct. 503, 32 L.Ed. 908; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U.S. 1, 6, 40 S.Ct. 255, 64 L.Ed. 421; Schaff v. J. C. Famechon Co., 258 U.S. 76, 81, 42 S.Ct. 289, 66 L.Ed. 472.


[9] [10] [11] [12] The Foreman's Association contends that §§ 2(3, 11) and 14(a) of the amended Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 152(3, 11) and 164(a), are unconstitutional as attempting to authorize employers to abridge the fundamental rights secured to supervisory employees by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This contention is based upon the assumption that the guarantees of freedom of speech, and of the press, and right of assembly, contained in the First Amendment include the right of employees to be affirmatively protected in their organizational activity against employer interference; that such protection afforded by the National Labor Relations Act is a constitutional right; and that Congress has no right to withdraw this protection by the provisions of the amended Act. We do not agree with this contention. The right of employees to form labor organizations and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing with employers has long been recognized. N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, 33, 34, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. This right is protected by the Constitution against governmental infringement, as are the fundamental rights of other individuals. But prior to the National Labor Relations Act no federal law prevented employers from discharging employees for exercising these rights or from refusing to recognize or bargain with labor organizations. The National Labor Relations Act created rights against employers which did not exist before. N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra. Such rights, however, were not private rights vested in the employees but were public rights protected by the power placed by the Act in the National Labor Relations Board. Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 60 S.Ct. 561, 84 L.Ed. 738; National Licorice Co. v. N.L.R.B., 309 U.S. 350, 362, 363, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799; Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177, 192, 193, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271, 133 A.L.R. 1217. There is nothing in the amended Act which restricts freedom of speech on the part of supervisory employees. Section 14(a) of the amended Act specifically reserves to them the right to join a labor organization. The rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are not interfered with. The amended Act merely changes the statutory method of enforcing those rights. What Congress gave by the original Act in the way of enforcement provisions was pursuant to the policy determined by Congress at that time, which it was privileged to change by a later exercise of such power when and if it seemed advisable to it that such policy be changed. The argument to the contrary would deny to Congress the right to repeal the Act in its entirety after it was once placed in the statutes in 1935. Such legislation does not create vested rights with respect to transactions in the future.


[13] [14] The Foreman's Association further contends that §§ 2(3, 11) and 14(a) of the amended Act are based upon arbitrary classification with resulting discrimination against supervisory employees and so violate the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is *578 well recognized that discriminatory legislation may be so arbitrary as to violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531, 47 S.Ct. 710, 71 L.Ed. 1184, 52 A.L.R. 1081; Minski v. United States, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 614, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1722 (ruling affirmed, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519). It is equally well recognized that Congress has broad discretion in making statutory classifications, that such a classification is not invalid if it bears a reasonable relation to the purposes of the legislation, that legislative classification is presumed to rest on a rational basis if there is any conceivable state of facts which would support it, and that the courts will not inquire into the necessity of such classification if it is not patently irrational and unjustifiable. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 422, 4 L.Ed. 579; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Company, 301 U.S. 495, 509, 513, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 109 A.L.R. 1327; Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 584, 585, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279, 109 A.L.R. 1293; Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 646, 672, 57 S.Ct. 904, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 109 A.L.R. 1319. There are numerous instances of valid legislation which has classified and exempted certain types of employees from the provisions of the legislation being enacted. The National Labor Relations Act as originally enacted in 1935 exempted agricultural labor, domestic employment, and any individual employed by his parent or spouse. 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(3). It gave rights to employees which it withheld from employers. See N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, supra, 301 U.S. at page 46, 57 S.Ct. page 628, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. The Fair Labor Standards Act exempted from its minimum wage and maximum hour provisions numerous types of employees, including any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional or local retailing capacity, or in the capacity of outside salesman, or as a seaman, or employed in agriculture, or employed in connection with publication of certain newspapers. 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a). In the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act the term ‘employee’ does not include a master or member of a crew of any vessel, nor any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under 18 tons net. 33 U.S.C.A. § 902(3). In the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, agricultural labor, domestic servants, casual labor, and governmental and state employees are exempted. 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Code, § 1426(b). In the Social Security Act, Congress exempted from its provisions agricultural, charitable, domestic and educational employees, and employees of employers employing less than 8 persons. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 409, 1107. In enacting the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Congress gave careful consideration to the proposal to exclude supervisory personnel from the definition of employees. Report (No. 245) of the House Committee on Education and Labor on H.R. 3020; Report (No. 105) of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 1126; Cong. Rec. April 15, 1947, page 3533; April 23, 1947, page 3952; April 28, 1947, page 4260; May 1, 1947, page 4490; May 12, 1947, page 5146; June 6, 1947, page 6660. As pointed out by Justice Douglas in his dissenting opinion in Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 330 U.S.at page 496, 67 S.Ct.page 795, 91 L.Ed. 1040; ‘Trade unionhistory shows that foremen were the arms and legs of management in executing labor policies. In industrial conflicts they were allied with management.’ We are of the opinion that the action of Congress in deciding as a matter of policy that in the enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act supervisory employees must be treated as either a part of management or as a part of the employees, and in treating them as a part of management, was based upon substantial and real considerations, and was not an arbitrary or unjustifiable classification.


[15] The chief objection of the Foreman's Association to such a classification is that it deprives the supervisory employees of the protection given by the Act to other employees. But the Act also fails to give this protection to others who constitute a part of management. Whether it is desirable or undesirable, as a matter of policy,*579 for foremen to organize and be classified as employees, is for Congress, not the Court, to determine. Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 330 U.S.at pages 490, 493, 67 S.Ct.at pages 792, 793, 91 L.Ed. 1040.


[16] [17] [18] We do not agree with the further contention that the supervisory employees have been deprived of a property right in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or that the Amendment is akin to a bill of attainder, designed to punish, as in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252. We have already pointed out that the rights created by the original act are public rights, not private rights. There is no vested right in individuals to have the rules of law remain unchanged for their benefit. Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Company, 249 U.S. 152, 163, 39 S.Ct. 227, 63 L.Ed. 527; New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 198, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667, L.R.A. 1917D, 1, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 629. A proceeding by the Board is in the public interest, and is remedial and preventative, rather then punitive in its nature. N.L.R.B. v. Thompson Products, Inc., 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 363, 367. The Amendment is not directed against any named individuals or easily ascertainable members of a group. It expresses a policy, applicable to all within a general classification, not found to be either arbitrary or invalid; it is remedial public legislation rather than punitive to the individual. Congress was not interested in the activities of supervisors as individuals.


[19] The Foreman's Association contends that Sections 102 and 103 of the Amendment violate Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution in that it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Section 102 deals chiefly with saving for a limited time the validity of closed shop agreements made prior to the effective date of the Amendment, which are banned by the Amendment. It is not restricted to supervisors. It does not protect supervisors who are taken from the coverage of the Act. We do not agree with the contention that it delegates to the employer the right to extend protection to certain supervisors selected by it through the expedient of making a closed shop agreement effective for a limited time after the effective date of the Act. Section 103 deals with existing certifications of representatives and collective bargaining contracts. Such questions are not involved in this case, making it unnecessary and inappropriate to pass on the constitutionality of the section. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 9-12, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 91 L.Ed. 1877.


[20] [21] We find no merit in the further contentions that the Amendment is unconstitutional by reason of the vagueness of its provisions, particularly in the definition of the term ‘supervisor,’ and that the unconstitutionality of other sections, with which the sections under consideration are inseparable, renders the entire Amendment unconstitutional. In our opinion, the provisions we have hereinabove considered are not vague or indefinite; they clearly indicate the purpose of Congress, as shown by the opposition to the Act at the time of its consideration by Congress. Other provisions of the Amendment are not before us for a determination of their constitutionality. United States v. Petrillo, supra. The Amendment contains a separability provision, which in any event, would seem to authorize a ruling on the provisions under consideration herein separately from the other provisions referred to. Sec. 503, Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 144.


[22] We believe it is clear that Congress intended by the enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act that employers be free in the future to discharge supervisors for joining a union, and to interfere with their union activities. The cease and desist provisions of the Board's order would enjoin the respondent from engaging in conduct in the future which is now lawful. They should, accordingly, be set aside. Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 162 F.2d 864, 866, N.L.R.B. v. Wyandotte Transportation Co., 6 Cir., 166 F.2d 434; L. A. Young Spring and Wire Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 82 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 163 F.2d 905. *580 The provision of the order requiring the posing of notices merely implements the cease and desist portions of the order and should likewise be eliminated. The other provisions of the order are not affected. Accordingly, an order will be entered modifying the judgment of this Court entered on June 3, 1947 and setting aside Paragraphs 1(a), 1(b) and 2(c) of the Board's order of January 30, 1946, leaving in force and effect the other provisions of the order of which we have heretofore decreed enforcement.

C.A.6 1948.
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.
169 F.2d 571, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2414, 15 Lab.Cas. P 64,703

[crb]

Er, didn't you just prove that some government regulation is good as opposed to an unfettered free market then?
One has to define regulation and laws.

I never said all regulation/laws are bad, capitalism != anarchy.

Capitalism == unfettered competition. We need laws to make sure we have competition, a true capitalist hates monopolies (other than geographically necessary ones), hates collusion, hates price fixing, hates unions (as a price fixing monopoly). Of course, you have to use the real definition of a monopoly (aka, not walmart). Your local phone company, prior to deregulation, was a true monopoly (though a geographic necessary one). Really, there aren't really many/any true monopolies left in this country.

Then the main purpose of the government is keeping us safe, or it should be. That means a series of laws to protect us from things like fraud, poisoning, etc. No capitalist is going to complain about USDA food inspection.

Beyond that though too much government regulation is really anti-competitive, bought and paid, or it restricts freedom. Based on junk science or some liberal social ideal a regulation can be restrictive, unfair, and corrupt. For instance lets pretend someone invents or invests in a widget or a service. Then lets pretend someone goes on a public campaign to advocate the necessity of that service of widget, they could get the public behind them, maybe make a movie, go on talk shows etc. Then can then lobby congress to enact laws requiring the use of this widget or service. The end goal being to use the force of law to require everyone to be their customer. This happens all the time, usually from junk science. Going all the way back to the banning of marijuana to favor the tobacco farmers. Something is made illegal at the behest of someone selling a solution or an alternate product.

Excessive regulations result in undo hardship to small business. They raise the barrier of entry to many industries (bought and paid for by the big established players mind you - yes, big corporations often lobby FOR more regulation) thus reducing competition. They result in lost business productivity when businesses must spend extra resources making sure they're merely compliant with various complex arbitrary regulations.

So, as far as business goes, a government should.

1. Always encourage competition.
2. Enforce contracts, keep public safe (from harm, but also, from fraud & theft)
3. Stay out of the way.