I disagree. A "secret election" is completely fair because no one will know
about it. That's why it's secret. Perhaps a secret ballot as part of a
normal election would be more effective.
*nods*
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I agree that a secret election alone will no
> Scott wrote:
> cases, in the world according to Gruss, the minority can and should be told,
> if you don't like it, go elsewhere.
>
Absolutely! That's called liberty, Scott. Freedom of choice.
Revel in it!
---
The answer to your "question" is this: companies - whether public or
private - c
Your refusal to answer the question pretty much tells me what I need to
know.
Once again, I was referring to the specific instance I was invovled in where
a union came in and even though som eemployees were against the union, they
were required to pay the union dues. So, there were policies in p
> Scott wrote:
>
> You have still not answered my question.
It has no relevance. You're all wrapped up in fairsy-fairsy. Life
ain't fair dude, and you don't have the right to work anywhere you
want for any contract you want.
The question is purely about the employment contract between the
empl
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I agree that a secret election alone will not guarentee a fair election, but
> it is a step in the right direction and affords a better chance of a fair
> election.
Honestly, I have some doubts on this matter. I wonder sometimes if we
do ou
I agree that a secret election alone will not guarentee a fair election, but
it is a step in the right direction and affords a better chance of a fair
election.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> The elections today are shams, secret ballot or no. Would it be a fair
> ele
You have still not answered my question. If a majority of employees voted
that its OK to tell racist/sexist jokes, than it should be OM for them to do
so, right? and if anyone doesn't like it or is offended by it, they can be
told to go look for work elsewhere, right? To me this is no different
Suit yourself. I worked for a company that was nearly destroyed by
corruption and lies by the CEO and his cabal. That kind of crap pisses
me off just as much as it does you, but putting a bunch of union
bosses in charge of workers is no better.
On 3/27/09, Judah Mc wrote:
> If you come to me
> wi
The elections today are shams, secret ballot or no. Would it be a fair
election if only Democrats were allowed to advertise on TV? What if we
mailed a list of all registered Republicans out and told everyone that
the company would fire its workforce and ship everything overseas if
you talked to th
> RoMunn wrote:
> which is why secret ballots matter, because without secret ballots,
> elections are a sham.
>
K, well, good thing nobody is trying to get rid them.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and d
On 3/27/09, Gruss G wrote:>
> The union can't do shit unless the EMPLOYEES democratically agree n'est pas
which is why secret ballots matter, because without secret ballots,
elections are a sham.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 softwar
> Larry you are severely brainwashed so it was easy for them. It's sad
> really.
Yeppers that's right. A bunch of burly guys wearing ski masks and hats with
Press Cards in them came up and kidnapped me. After a week of brainwashing and
torture (hey too much Barney the Dinosaur will do any one
Not enough to put up with the those two :P
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> Sam, you're hitting that bong pretty hard mate.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic releas
> Scott wrote:
>
> Wow...Gruss is being dense today. The policies did not exist when a lot of
> these people (including myself) started working there AD these policies were
> not changed by the company for which we worked, they were changed by an
> outside group.
Now now Scott, don't be a Sam.
>
> That's a delusion the press made you believe.
Sam, you're hitting that bong pretty hard mate.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.
Wow...Gruss is being dense today. The policies did not exist when a lot of
these people (including myself) started working there AD these policies were
not changed by the company for which we worked, they were changed by an
outside group. If it was the company who cahnged the rules or the rules
> Scott wrote:
>
> And in some cases, like the ome I am intimately familiar with, people who do
> not want to join that club were forced to join and pay the dues. That is
> what I have an issue with.
>
They weren't forced to do anything. They were given a choice:
1.) At this company, these are
> Judah wrote:
> that part of the contract and all the issues surrounding are not "just
> a freaking contract".
>
I'm not getting how that's the case here Judah.
For example, I have a friend who hired a recruiter because he wanted a
specific type of job and he agreed to pay them 10% of his negot
> Chuck wrote:
> But the law was written after the fact, because the gov't had no legal
> recourse. That's why it's scary. It's scary because they'd hit a legal
> wall and had to circumvent it. Gov't shouldn't be circumventing legal
> walls. That's... y'know... bad.
>
So first off, I'm not di
And in some cases, like the ome I am intimately familiar with, people who do
not want to join that club were forced to join and pay the dues. That is
what I have an issue with.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > Judah wrote:
> > Anyway, I think there are good arguments abo
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> This is about contacts guys, contracts. You either agree to the terms
> of the contract or you go elsewhere.
>
> You wanna call a contact a "closed shop"? Fine. It's just a freaking
> contract.
A contract is the end result of the process.
> Sam wrote:
>
> Scott, Just agree and tell him he's a genius.
>
Hey Sam ... you dropped your self-esteem ... it's right there on the floor.
Picking it up is the first step towards self-respect.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > Chuck wrote:
> > this business of the 90% tax came about. Because there was no legal way
> to
> > stop them from collecting the money. So the government got creative and
> > targeted these people who did nothing wrong legally (again, in
> Judah wrote:
> Anyway, I think there are good arguments about the role of labor
> organization and its interactions with the corporate power structure.
> But EFCA isn't about that. EFCA is about the process in which unions
> are formed. If EFCA is defeated, unions will still exist and they will
> Chuck wrote:
> this business of the 90% tax came about. Because there was no legal way to
> stop them from collecting the money. So the government got creative and
> targeted these people who did nothing wrong legally (again, in the specific
> case of collecting their bonus).
>
I agree with e
Scott, Just agree and tell him he's a genius.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>> OK...you are a smart guy, you have to be able to see that its possible that
>> an organization can be Constitutionally viable yet something they want to do
>> not be. I'll giv
> Scott wrote:
> OK...you are a smart guy, you have to be able to see that its possible that
> an organization can be Constitutionally viable yet something they want to do
> not be. I'll give you a perfect example.
>
Hey thanks! But I think we're now saying the exact same thing:
Either it's Co
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
> wrote:
> > Sure, there's always corruption in unionshell, what exists that
> > doesn't have corruption?
>
> I wouldn't say that.
>
> > But my first hand knowledge of this
> > particular unio
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> OK, you would agree then that making everyone pay dues (even though some
> would have their money go to charity) is a tax? Because when I asked Larry
> that, he said 'no'.
I would say it is a tax, yes. There are some technical differences
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
> Sure, there's always corruption in unionshell, what exists that
> doesn't have corruption?
I wouldn't say that.
> But my first hand knowledge of this
> particular union is that it did more good than harm.
Some do, it's nice to hav
+1000
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> You're like an idiot arguing with himself whether the sun is yellow
> when the question is about whether the sun rises in the east.
>
> On 3/27/09, Gruss G wrote:
>>
>
>> All I'm saying is that either unions are a fact of life or they
OK, you would agree then that making everyone pay dues (even though some
would have their money go to charity) is a tax? Because when I asked Larry
that, he said 'no'.
While we are at it, why not just tax everyone a 'union tax' and make them
send that money to charity.
Judah, I always appreciat
Maybe they need to model it after what Texas does. I worked for UPS
for 10 years, 7 of which I was covered under the union, but never
belonged to it. I was never pressured to join. I was given a form at
the time of hiring where I checked yes or no if I wanted to join.
That was the only
OK...you are a smart guy, you have to be able to see that its possible that
an organization can be Constitutionally viable yet something they want to do
not be. I'll give you a perfect example.
The Catholic Church is a Constitutionally viable organization, however, they
want to outlaw abortion,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> * Then Charlie implied that Obama was somehow doing this as well by
> erroneously accusing him of supporting taxing the AIG bonuses which he
> doesn't.
>
Just a point of clarification. I didn't imply that Obama was "doing this as
well". You
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> I have nothing against charities. I do however have a thing against being
> told I have to donate to charity. Kind of inches in to that freedom thing
> we have come to love here in America.
> A rand solution is not equitable as you are still
You're like an idiot arguing with himself whether the sun is yellow
when the question is about whether the sun rises in the east.
On 3/27/09, Gruss G wrote:
>
> All I'm saying is that either unions are a fact of life or they're
> unconstitutional in which case we can try to get rid of them.
>
~
> Scott wrote:
>
> I am not claiming I have a right to work anywhere I want. But then again,
> you seem to want to make it so unoins con be set up anywhere they want.
Uh, what??
All I'm saying is that either unions are a fact of life or they're
unconstitutional in which case we can try to get r
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> >So your solution is to basically tax people, even those who did not want a
> >union to begin with?
>
> So those who do not want to be in the union get to enjoy the benefits it
> provides without paying for it? Like wage and benefits negoti
I am not claiming I have a right to work anywhere I want. But then again,
you seem to want to make it so unoins con be set up anywhere they want.
Seems kind of...lopsided...no?
I don;t think I need to have 'proof' unions are unconstitutional, and I do
not think that is the pont Robert was tryin
> Stroz wrote:
>
> So, if we pass a law that takes away the rights of a few people your
> solution is for those people to move?
>
Dude. You don't have the right to work anywhere you want, and you're
not getting the principle.
The only question is this:
Are unions unconstitutional or not?
Acco
Larry you are severely brainwashed so it was easy for them. It's sad really.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> BWA-HA-HA-HA!
>
> That is so ridiculous. What did they do strap me down to a chair and
> waterboard me, ordering me to believe? How about pull the aversive
> co
>The cold there is something I will never forget. It was as bad or worse
>than cold lake was, and you know that's saying something Larry.
I don't know about your equipment then, but that friend of mine still in the
Cdn Forces said a lot of the Princess Patricias (PPCLI 3rd Bn) purchased extra
>
> > What support. Bush managed to piss off the vast majority of the US
> allies. if his policies were continued I seriously doubt whether any
> real allies would be left. Look how much the US had to pay the most of
> the members of Coalition of the Willing in order to get them to send
> eve
I have been forced in my life 3 times to either join a union, or quit my
job.
Twice I quit. Once I needed the job to the point I had to accept the
blackmail.
I paid 17 bucks a pay period to the union.
I received minimum wage, with no health benefits, and no vacation time.
Boy, glad they were e
>So your solution is to basically tax people, even those who did not want a
>union to begin with?
So those who do not want to be in the union get to enjoy the benefits it
provides without paying for it? Like wage and benefits negotiators, etc.
Isn't that the welfare you keep harping about?
W
So your solution is to basically tax people, even those who did not want a
union to begin with?
My biggest issue with unions is that they tend to promote an adversarial
system where they try to pit labor against management. I am not saying it is
only from the union side, but from my experience it
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>>Shinseki was wrong in 2003 and is still wrong.
>>Patreous is the most respected and his surge worked in spite of
>>Shinseki's poor vision and planning.
>
>
> Really, how many soldiers did he recommend? and how many were sent in the
> surge? T
So, if we pass a law that takes away the rights of a few people your
solution is for those people to move?
Let's use that logic in another issue. Most people I know are against
gay marriage. So, we should all vote and if we ban gay marriage and
gay people do not like it, they can 'quit' and move
Thanks. Yeah, I know that I did not earn it the traditional way, being
in a firefight, but having an exploding teapot thrown at me works. This
war is all but over in Iraq. The fun factor is over. But still we have
done a lot of good my first half of the deployment. Hopefully things
here in Mos
und much
lately, but I do have a good source on updated S2 on Afghanistan if/when you
get closer.
-Original Message-
From: Larry Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:26 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Overseas Contingency Operation
>That depends. Rega
>> The most respected military man in the public mind
>> at the moment is Shinseki, because he bucked and lost for it. And he is busy
>
>Shinseki was wrong in 2003 and is still wrong.
>Patreous is the most respected and his surge worked in spite of
>Shinseki's poor vision and planning.
Really, h
>That depends. Regarding my CIB I was just awarded, it is the global war
>on terrorism, because next year when I am in Afghanistan I will not get
>a star on it denoting my participating in another war since both wars
>are under the GWOT umbrella. But here in Iraq, it is just the war.
>
You kno
>Perhaps the better solution is to make it easy to form a union but to
>have open shops? You get into a potential mess there, however, with
>management favoring non-union employees and trying to force the union
>out. I don't know. It's a complex topic. Anyway, I just want the
>debate to center aro
And if you can't get a yes vote on union organizing in a fair election, you
quit, right? Because it's a free country.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> > Scott wrote:
> >
> > If I work at a non-union company for 14 years and then a union gets voted
> in
> > and its a closed shop,
> Scott wrote:
>
> If I work at a non-union company for 14 years and then a union gets voted in
> and its a closed shop, I now have to pay the union and I have to follow
> their rules, whether I agree with them or not.
Then you quit. Remember that option?
If you think unions are unconstitutiona
> RoMunn wrote:
> Where are these facts you speak of? I see none of them in your post.
>
That's because I'm not the one who said card check was
unconstitutional - you did.
So now you're going to lay out the facts on how Card Check is unconsitutional.
Go!
~~~
If I work at a non-union company for 14 years and then a union gets voted in
and its a closed shop, I now have to pay the union and I have to follow
their rules, whether I agree with them or not. I have to listen to what the
union says and do as the union tells me. I now have less rights and les
Where are these facts you speak of? I see none of them in your post.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > that was before you became a socialist thug.
> >
>
> So, reading between the lines, I'm thinking this means you're not
> going lay your theory on how this bi
> RoMunn wrote:
> that was before you became a socialist thug.
>
So, reading between the lines, I'm thinking this means you're not
going lay your theory on how this bill is unconstitutional.
I'm guessing that's because it's actually not.
Something you neglected to consider before your eyes glim
> Stroz wrote:
> When what the special interest group wants violates someone else's rights,
> it most certainly can be unconstitutional.
Dude, you don't have a right to work at company X.
Are you really making the argument that this bill is unconstitutional?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> Before you do that, though, remember that I managed union employees
> from 3 different unions for 10 years and I got people in, got people
> out, and helped bust a union.
>
that was before you became a socialist thug.
~~
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Judah wrote:
>
> By the same token the current law allowing companies to force an
> election allows them time to bully workers into voting "no".
No, it allows both sides to campaign, which is how elections work.
> They
> routinely coerce employees, they fire
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > Stroz wrote:
> > Once again, because a special interest group want ssomething Congress
> should
> > just do it?
> >
>
> You're missing the point Scottie which is
>
> 1.) The democratic process of special interest groups wanting stuff is
>
None of these are legal. An employer is not allowed to try and disuade its
employees from discussing/joining a union, nor make threats nor fire the
organizers (at least not in New Jersey where my experience wiht unions stems
from)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> By th
> RoMunn wrote:
> Card check takes away the rights of people who are NOT union members.
> Specifically, it takes away their right to decide for themselves, without
> undue influence from others
Ok, let's hear the scenarios and how they take away rights.
Before you do that, though, remember that
By the same token the current law allowing companies to force an
election allows them time to bully workers into voting "no". They
routinely coerce employees, they fire organizers, they threaten and
cajole. Businesses are allowed to compel employees to come to meetings
where anti-union speakers tr
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> The continued ridiculous nature of your argument remains this: "I,
> Robert, not a union member, know what's best for union members"
>
Your inability to restate my arguments accurately is getting tired, to say
the least.
Card check takes away
> Stroz wrote:
> Once again, because a special interest group want ssomething Congress should
> just do it?
>
You're missing the point Scottie which is
1.) The democratic process of special interest groups wanting stuff is
not unconstitutional as Robert said it was,
2.) If you oppose the specia
Out of curiosity, what in your mind qualifies something as a special
interest group? Are there any legitimate groups that lobby Congress
that aren't special interest? Are all groups that lobby Congress
special interests?
Judah
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Unions do no
> RoMunn wrote:
> Unions are perfectly within their rights to ask for card check. And I am
> perfectly within my rights to suggest that card check is a terrible idea
> that will undermine, rather than strengthen, the rights of individual
> workers.
The continued ridiculous nature of your argument
Unions do not speak for every worker, hell they don't even really speak for
each of their members.
Once again, because a special interest group want ssomething Congress should
just do it?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> >
> > And somehow in all that bla
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> >
> > And somehow in all that blather, you failed to address the actual
> question
> > of secret balloting.
>
> Unions say they want card check. They say it's their number one priority.
>
> If you have counter-party reason why
Now: secret ballot if employer asks (I think)
With new Bill: Secret ballot only if 30% sign their name on a
petition. Not sure how the unions are on the left coast but on the
right coast you don't let the union know you went against them.
I got a call when I was 16 working at Nathans because I as
I'm not trying to be a big union fanboy here. I just pointed out that
Robert didn't have his facts correct on this particular bill. Whether
or not you think it is wise to have more unionized workplaces is a
fine debate.
As for your situation, I agree it is a tough one. But how else is a
union eve
> RoMunn wrote:
>
> And somehow in all that blather, you failed to address the actual question
> of secret balloting.
Unions say they want card check. They say it's their number one priority.
If you have counter-party reason why they shouldn't have what they
want, then state it.
Otherwise, shu
The place I used to work became a closed shop, so even though a lot of
employees voted against the union, they were FORCED to join the union. Which
means they had to abide by the union's rules AND were forced to pay union
dues, hence some of their rights (and money) were taken from them.
This is
I haven't decided if I'm in favor of the card check law or not but you
are totally wrong here.
Just because a union exists at a workplace does not necessarily mean
that you have to join it. In some instances, called Open Shops, people
can join a union or not. In what they call an Agency Shop all
No, card check violates the rights of individual workers who may not wish to
join the union. I am protecting the little guy, remember?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Gruss Gwrote:
>
> (3.) According to Robert, if unions want more options to organize it
> violates their Constitutional right
>
And somehow in all that blather, you failed to address the actual question
of secret balloting. You must not think it's that important. And stop with
the idiotic "employees can still opt for a secret ballot" BS. For all
practical purposes, if card check passes, union organizers will trick and
inti
Scott Stroz wrote:
> Basically, a union can do or say anythingto its perspective members, but we
> were very limited in what we could do or say, even if it was to refute
> claioms being made by the union.
I don't know what you want. You have experienced some of the worst of
unionization. I wil
The place I used to work voted in a union by a slim margin. However, those
who voted against it still had to join and still had to do what the union
said. So, in those cases, the union took away rights rom some.
When the union first started getting involved, I was still there as a
manager. I wa
Scott Stroz wrote:
> I speak from experience. My father was in a union his whole life...and it
> sucked. All they cared about was that he paid his dues.
>
So you speak from bad experiences and I speak from good experiences.
>
> You are painting with just as much of a broad brush, you are ju
> Scott wrote:
> In my experience, the laws are definitely skewed towards the union. When a
> union makes an atempt to get into a company, there is very little that the
> company can legally say or do about it.
>
Not true Scott. I can think of 10 tried and true techniques off the
top of my head
In my experience, the laws are definitely skewed towards the union. When a
union makes an atempt to get into a company, there is very little that the
company can legally say or do about it.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> >hahahahahahaha
> >
> >that's a good one. it's
> JJ wrote:
> I will once again profess I think unions are the most evil construct
> currently in existence in the US.
>
What my union friends tell me is that while all of the criticisms
heard here are true, they feel unions are 100% responsible for the
quality of life the average American enjoys
>The union can openly harass employees to sign on to unionize. Once the
>union has the majority they become union unless 30% of the employees
>sign a petition for a secret ballot. That's the kicker, you need 30%
>to stand up to the union goons. They know where you live...
>
And right now the com
>hahahahahahaha
>
>that's a good one. it's like saying we'll now have a choice - secret
>balloting, or having our nuts stepped on by large men in overalls. nice one.
Except that is not the case. If anything for many places, where there is a
union vote many workers are open to intimidation and t
Obama renews promise on NAFTA, 'card check'
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-renews-promise-on-nafta-card-check-2008-09-01.html
ST. PAUL - Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is using Labor Day to court
union members and reiterate his promises to amend a controversial
trade pact and sign a labor-
The union can openly harass employees to sign on to unionize. Once the
union has the majority they become union unless 30% of the employees
sign a petition for a secret ballot. That's the kicker, you need 30%
to stand up to the union goons. They know where you live...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:0
I will once again profess I think unions are the most evil construct
currently in existence in the US.
I have never seen a union that did more good than harm.
I would rather have dinner with that nutjob from the Catholic League AND
octomom than anyone in union leadership.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 a
Stroz wrote:
>
> I speak from experience. My father was in a union his whole life...and it
> sucked. All they cared about was that he paid his dues.
>
Yeah, but that's no different than law. If your Dad didn't like it,
there's a process he can use to change it. At the end of the the
question
maybe it depends on the union? I have never belonged to one personally
-- historically I have worked either for myself or for fairly small
businesses -- but I think they have gained important protections for
workers in many ways. I like having weekends, for example.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:38 A
I speak from experience. My father was in a union his whole life...and it
sucked. All they cared about was that he paid his dues.
I watched as a company I spent 14 years at get decimated after the employees
voted in a union. I also hear a lot of people who voted for the union now
complain that
haven't really studied the issue and IANAL. I'm not a constitutional
scholar either. However, I've heard plausible arguments the last few
days that this is a bill of attainder, and retroactive taxation does
not pass the smell test.
That said, you guys can have all the fun you want blaming the
pre
eft inside the United States. Canada is
> not suddenly going to send thousands of troops to Iraq because we started
> calling it an overseas contingency operation.
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that if we called it OCO
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>> Unions don't care about anything else except having more members and taking
>> in more dues to make the guys at the top richer. All while preaching they
>> are making things better for the American worker. Its bullshit, they are no
>> diffe
Probably? ;)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> to be fair: That was not the White House, that was Congress. Actually,
> that wasn't even Congress, that was the House of Representatives. I
> have not had time to really pay attention, but unless I missed
> something, the Senate is
> Scott wrote:
> Just because a special interest group is clamoring for something, does not
> mean that Congress should be accommodating.
>
So present a reason why this bill wrong that doesn't lie or pretend to
be protecting workers. They want more freedom to organize, is there a
good reason to
> RoMunn wrote:
> I see that you are having a hard time understanding the nature of democracy.
> The unions can advocate any position they like, and so can I. That's called
> freedom of speech.
Stop being so intellectually dishonest.
(1.) You said: "doing away with secret balloting". That's fal
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
