Danger in "stacking" National Labor Relations Board

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    In a move clearly aimed at Walmart who have plans to open 6 stores in DC, providing lower cost goods to local residents and 1600-1800 new jobs, badly needed in some of these areas, the below story explains a bill voted on by their city council yesterday. This has "big labor" all over it and these morons on city council fell for it (at least 8 of them did anyway). I would not be surprised if Walmart says F you, and pulls the plug.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...96f-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html?hpid=z2

    When government tries to force one company to pay a minimum wage 50% higher than the law states, we have a problem. Or I should say, "they have a problem."

    Allowing Ozero to stack his NLRB would result in similar votes. These people just do not get it.
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    21,133
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +842 / 73 / -10
    What does the NLRB have to do with Wal Mart? 0 Wal Mart stores are unionized, and until there are there wont be any Wal Mart labor disputes where they would have juristiction.

    Second, since the NLRB runs on appointments, it is always "stacked" in favor of who is in power. When GWB Bush was president, he "stacked" it with pro-management types and former union busters. Is it fair? I don't know, but to the victor go the spoils in our political system.
  3. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    Connect the dots. If you have a "pro" union NLRB, it is almost impossible to come before NLRB and win a case. Look what Boeing had to go through in SC. And I'm sure George Bush was not blatantly sticking "union busters" on NLRB as Obama does the opposite with every appointment, paying the unions back for their money. His justice dept is filled with partisan hacks. His EPA is filled with the same. His NLRB, the same. Never in our lifetime has a President been so obvious in his promotion of "us against THEM."
  4. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +395 / 107 / -38
    Republicans fill all levels of government with union busters when they get the chance.

    Get a clue.
  5. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,671
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +499 / 8 / -2
    Walmart I think already told them to foff.
  6. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    I've got a clue. It would seem those on the far left, do not. I was always taught that the honors, awards, pay, accolades will always go to players on the teams who win the most. True in sports. True in business. When you aggressively fight the "team", creating a weaker team, as a player (employee) you will inevitably be traded (released) and will not have the cache or command the compensation of a player who has been part of a winning team.

    For some reason unions and this administration don't get that. It is not us against them as Obama has promoted. It is labor and management working together to build stronger and more profitable businesses which benefit all.

    I'm sure you don't get that either as you have been brainwashed that management is bad.
  7. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +395 / 107 / -38
    The problem is that for decades the QBs and RBs have been taking the OLs and DLs pay for themselves and telling them to suck it because they aren't as important.
  8. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +327 / 20 / -7
    But not true in politics when you are on the losing team/party? Obama shouldn't get to make the appointments he wants to executive agencies despite the fact that he won the last two elections to the Presidency and despite the fact that currently 54 Democrats won their last election to the Senate compared to 46 Republicans?
  9. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    You really don't have a clue do you? Last time I checked, left tackle was the second highest paying position in the NFL on average. QB's are naturally #1 as they handle the ball every offensive play. They get more credit than they deserve and more blame. Probably the same can be said for the COO/President of many firms.
  10. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    His job as President is to represent ALL THE PEOPLE as he said he would do in his inaugural speech in January 2009. Go back and look at that speech now. It's a frickin joke. He made it that way. When he appoints someone who represents 11.3% of the work force and then appoints another and then another and then another and then another, the deck is stacked.

    Hence the thread title.

    He can try but the opposing party should try to block this type of divisive executive action. Same with judges. Less than 20% of the public consider themselves liberal. Just because he's a flaming liberal, should he appoint the same to federal courts? I don't think the 51.7% who voted for him all want lefty, libbie, activist federal judges, do you?
  11. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    21,133
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +842 / 73 / -10
    Of course, the QB and LT might be locked out by their employer and need the NLRB to step in. :)
  12. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +327 / 20 / -7
    I think that 51.7% of the people voted to be represented by him in the executive branch of the government, left, right, or center. Within a Representative form of government, that means that we have decided to give him the power to nominate the people that he feels are best for those roles, within the constraints of Senate oversight, which our people have also chosen to be majority Democratic.

    As to the first part of your post, does this mean you wanted Bush to nominate more Democrats than Republicans in his first term, as he received fewer votes than the Democratic nominee? Or would you have preferred he nominate a very slightly fewer Republicans as he barely won the electoral vote? Afterall, he was elected to represent all of the people, and some of those people were Democrats.
  13. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    To answer your question, I would say that none of us would expect George Bush to appoint or nominate divisive candidates so singularly focused that they would not consider another's point of view. So yes. Problem with Obama is he is so far left a product of socialist, communist and extremist mentoring, that he cannot help himself.
  14. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +327 / 20 / -7
    I think many on the left felt that Bush did exactly that. The difference is, that you like the ones that are divisive on your "side."
  15. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    Fred, who are the Liberty university grads that were "appointed" by Bush 43. I do know they had an inordinate # of Regent Law School people working in the administration.

    On corporate profits, my experience is that companies that earn more have greater opportunities for their employees, like promotions, bonuses, profit sharing, generous 401-K matching, better benefits etc. And when one works for a "winning team" should they be recruited by another firm, it is very likely their new comp reflects their experience as part of that winning team.
  16. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +395 / 107 / -38
    Most of his judicial nominees, for starters.
  17. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    Can you name some that are Liberty grads as you posted? Or one? Anyone? Anyone? Fred? Buehler?

    Do you mean Roger Gregory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Gregory
  18. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +395 / 107 / -38
    A rudimentary Google search showed that GWB appointed 150 Liberty grads to roles in his administration.
  19. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    14,662
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +343 / 24 / -8
    As someone who has represented management in a union vote, I found out that the NRLB is already stacked for the union. Quite obvious really.
  20. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,407
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +674 / 25 / -6
    Where is this link Fred? What did you use for search link? I could not find this information anywhere. Maybe I'm not using the correct terms.

    I did find this article but if you read the article it says:

    "While Liberty has not yet matched Regent’s record of getting some 150 of its graduates hired by the Bush administration, that is not stopping it from setting even loftier goals"

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/liberty-university-home-future-scotus-nominee

    For some reason, I cannot find any mention of large #s of Liberty grads being hired by the Bush administration. Wonder why not?

Share This Page