• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut Town Ordered to Pay for Union Workers’ Coffee

Gill said:
Excuse me, but I'm not the one that made the claim that it WAS in the contract with no proof offered. You see, the way it works is that if you make a claim that was not mentioned in the OP's news link, it's up to the person making the claim to prove it, NOT the one challenging the original claim.

Now, what were you saying about ASSumptions ????
Click to expand...

You don't know what "having said that" means, do you? In other words, I admit that I don't have unequivical proof either, and I may seem hypocritical, but I feel that I'm right because, logically speaking, it doesn't make sense for a town to be ordered out of the blue to provide free coffee. Common sense tells you that if the union is getting free coffee, it must have been agreed to at some point.

However, I will gladly own up to it if I'm proven wrong.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
You don't know what "having said that" means, do you? In other words, I admit that I don't have unequivical proof either, and I may seem hypocritical, but I feel that I'm right because, logically speaking, it doesn't make sense for a town to be ordered out of the blue to provide free coffee. Common sense tells you that if the union is getting free coffee, it must have been agreed to at some point.

However, I will gladly own up to it if I'm proven wrong.
Click to expand...

The Board ruling clearly states that the coffee was reinstated ONLY because of the alledged retaliation by the city and had nothing to do with a contractual obligation. They stated that the free coffee and milk was a long-standing tradition.

Case closed.

Another example of a union getting a labor friendly state board to rule in its favor. I wonder how much money the union donates to members of the board each year??

See what happens when you assume ???

http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/4490.pdf
 
Gill said:
The Board ruling clearly states that the coffee was reinstated ONLY because of the alledged retaliation by the city and had nothing to do with a contractual obligation. They stated that the free coffee and milk was a long-standing tradition.

Case closed.

Another example of a union getting a labor friendly state board to rule in its favor. I wonder how much money the union donates to members of the board each year??

See what happens when you assume ???

http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/4490.pdf
Click to expand...

You're right. The case is closed because the board ruled in the union's favor. But you have so far failed to prove that the coffee was not in a contract.
 
Gill said:
Another example of a union getting a labor friendly state board to rule in its favor.
Click to expand...
The MERA thingy and the related precedents are kind of explicit when they set out the criteria and evidence necessary to show that something is retaliatory. It's spelled out in some detail in the CTDoL link.
The fault should actually be placed at the feet of the people who elected the legislature who wrote the law, not the committee who is charged with enforcing the law, imvho. YMMV.
Gill said:
I wonder how much money the union donates to members of the board each year??
Click to expand...
Get back to us on that one. How much money does that union donate to Connecticut Department of Labor?
 
Last edited:
Sgt Meowenstein said:
You're right. The case is closed because the board ruled in the union's favor. But you have so far failed to prove that the coffee was not in a contract.
Click to expand...

And you have failed to prove that it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom