Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 107

Thread: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

  1. #81
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,451

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Never claimed the ULP was filed for wages and benefits, so my premise isn't faulty. Your premise of my premise is faulty. Read the post immediately preceding yours.



    1) Never heard anything about canceling health benefits. What's that about?

    2) It's extremely easy to allege unfair (e.g., surface or regressive) bargaining. A ULP is a procedural complaint. The timing of most ULP strikes is extremely suggestive that the ULPs are not real or sincere. They're a substitute excuse for going on what's in every way an economic strike by nature. Negotiations go on and on, offer, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, on and on this goes, until finally, one side rejects and submits their "last, best and final offer," which the other side rejects and submits their last, best and final offer, which the other side rejects, and then finally, after all that has happened and negotiations are deadlocked and the union isn't happy with the last best offer, only then are a parade of procedural complaint about unfair bargaining marched out. Highly unlikely.

    The ULP allegations that only finally come out after deadlocked negotiations as a basis for going on strike serves on single disingenuous bad faith purpose, which is to send the following message to the employer: "Don't even think about permanent replacements, we've peppered you with 25 different unfair labor practice claims so that gives us all sorts of grounds to fight you on it should you attempt to hire a permanent replacement. Are the ULPs all petty and baseless? Sure, but the NLRB doesn't know that, and they'll look at each and every one, and all we need is for them to agree on one of our ULP allegations and you'll owe the job plus back-pay to the replaced workers and will have wasted so much time and money by then that it won't be remotely worth it to you."

    This tactic is an absolute no brainer for unions, in fact unions have a strategic imperative to file spurious ULP claims in bad faith, because there's virtually no risk or penalty for doing so, only upside. The original intent of our regulations differentiating economic strikes from ULP ones is rendered moot by our procedural failures and refusal to enforce it. As a result, we don't just allow unions to file bad faith and spurious ULP claims, we give them a strategic imperative to do so. This guarantees that if unions don't get what they want, they'll pepper the employer with false allegations. It's really hard for an employer that is being attacked with made-up bad faith allegations to respect the organization that is engaging in that tactic. This perpetually frustrates negotiations and ensures unions will be despised by employers, which undermines the entire fundamental intent of the NLRA and associated labor laws, which is to promote harmonious relations between labor and management.
    Alright, it's obvious that you got caught and you don't want to own up.

    1) You know zero about labor, strikes, strategies or the NLRB.

    2) Unions strike for a variety of reasons, these days it happens when contracts are due to be renewed. Unfair labor practices are reviewed and approved by the unions lawyers and then again by the NLRB before they are filed to ensure that they are legal and competent.

    3) The NLRB has plenty of courtrooms and law judges to try cases; so they don't have too much to handle, but it can take up to two years to reach to get a decision. But if a union wins, back pay plus 10% interest is awarded.

    4) I've been following along in the thread and reviewing your replies (screeds) and you are spreading wild disinformation because that's your job, or you are simply uneducated and just blathering because you have nothing else to do.

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,619

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    1) You know zero about labor, strikes, strategies or the NLRB.
    Over the last several years I've repeatedly been told that I either know absolutely nothing about unions/collective bargaining/strikes/etc., or I'm told that I am believed to be an anti-union lawyer who is an expert at busting unions. Neither is the case, but I find it funny that pro-union ideologues are accusing me of being a professional anti-union expert at the same time others are alleging I know literally nothing about any of this.

    2) Unions strike for a variety of reasons, these days it happens when contracts are due to be renewed.
    Which virtually always boils down to disagreement over wages and benefits. So why don't they ever conduct an economic strike? Because they don't want any possibility of being permanently replaced. So they pretend it's all about some procedural unfair bargaining tactic. This is blindingly obvious, and other than some passive balking, no one can seriously dispute it, because it's blindingly obvious. Why do you want to preserve a system that guarantees a proliferation of spurious allegations of violating the NLRA and associated state labor laws?

    Unfair labor practices are reviewed and approved by the unions lawyers
    LOL, as if that adds legitimacy? Union lawyers are often masterminding and drafting the ULP allegations in the first place.

    and then again by the NLRB before they are filed to ensure that they are legal and competent.
    You would need to cite what regulation requires ULP allegations to be reviewed and approved for legitimacy by the NLRB. My experience has been the exact opposite and I've never found or read any rule to that effect. Unions do not need the NLRB to review and approve for legitimacy any ULP claims being used as a pretense for striking. The ULP allegation can be a few sentences long. "The employer bargained in bad faith. The employer bargained regressively. The employer engaged in surface bargaining." That's all that is needed. That's hardly anything requiring review and approval. If these were to proceed further, the union would eventually have to support their allegations, but the ULP allegations that are used as a pretense for striking are basically never carried through to a decision, because that was never the intent. It was used as a pretense, not as a real complaint.

    3) The NLRB has plenty of courtrooms and law judges to try cases; so they don't have too much to handle, but it can take up to two years to reach to get a decision. But if a union wins, back pay plus 10% interest is awarded.
    How often does a bad faith bargaining ULP case go through months or years of trial before the NLRB and then result in the union "winning" and then the employer paying back-pay plus interest to ULP strikers? Like what percentage of the 30,000 or so ULP allegations sent to the ULP actually conclude that way?
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-10-19 at 12:26 PM.

  3. #83
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,451

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Over the last several years I've repeatedly been told that I either know absolutely nothing about unions/collective bargaining/strikes/etc., or I'm told that I am believed to be an anti-union lawyer who is an expert at busting unions. Neither is the case, but I find it funny that pro-union ideologues are accusing me of being a professional anti-union expert at the same time others are alleging I know literally nothing about any of this.



    Which virtually always boils down to disagreement over wages and benefits. So why don't they ever conduct an economic strike? Because they don't want any possibility of being permanently replaced. So they pretend it's all about some procedural unfair bargaining tactic. This is blindingly obvious, and other than some passive balking, no one can seriously dispute it, because it's blindingly obvious. Why do you want to preserve a system that guarantees a proliferation of spurious allegations of violating the NLRA and associated state labor laws?



    LOL, as if that adds legitimacy? Union lawyers are often masterminding and drafting the ULP allegations in the first place.



    You would need to cite what regulation requires ULP allegations to be reviewed and approved for legitimacy by the NLRB. My experience has been the exact opposite and I've never found or read any rule to that effect. Unions do not need the NLRB to review and approve for legitimacy any ULP claims being used as a pretense for striking. The ULP allegation can be a few sentences long. "The employer bargained in bad faith. The employer bargained regressively. The employer engaged in surface bargaining." That's all that is needed. That's hardly anything requiring review and approval. If these were to proceed further, the union would eventually have to support their allegations, but the ULP allegations that are used as a pretense for striking are basically never carried through to a decision, because that was never the intent. It was used as a pretense, not as a real complaint.



    How often does a bad faith bargaining ULP case go through months or years of trial before the NLRB and then result in the union "winning" and then the employer paying back-pay plus interest to ULP strikers? Like what percentage of the 30,000 or so ULP allegations sent to the ULP actually conclude that way?
    1) So I’m not the only one who finds so much fault in your thinking: you should have listened to all those people. You do not demonstrate the intellect that an attorney would need, therefore you leave only one reasonable explanation: you’re an anti-union disinformation spreader trying to take advantage of people’s ignorance in order to confuse and control discourse.

    2) Strikes never boil down to monetary issues alone. Both nurses and teachers have been on strike around the country over staffing and other care / working conditions, as is the UAW striking GM over temporary workers as well. Striking workers can be permanently replaced if a striking work force is just starved out. If or some reason an unfair labor practice goes against a bargaining unit, say in an election; something along that line, they can be replaced as well. For the most part an unfair labor practice during a strike will not see union members replaced.

    More on continuing page

  4. #84
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,451

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Over the last several years I've repeatedly been told that I either know absolutely nothing about unions/collective bargaining/strikes/etc., or I'm told that I am believed to be an anti-union lawyer who is an expert at busting unions. Neither is the case, but I find it funny that pro-union ideologues are accusing me of being a professional anti-union expert at the same time others are alleging I know literally nothing about any of this.



    Which virtually always boils down to disagreement over wages and benefits. So why don't they ever conduct an economic strike? Because they don't want any possibility of being permanently replaced. So they pretend it's all about some procedural unfair bargaining tactic. This is blindingly obvious, and other than some passive balking, no one can seriously dispute it, because it's blindingly obvious. Why do you want to preserve a system that guarantees a proliferation of spurious allegations of violating the NLRA and associated state labor laws?



    Edited for word count requirement



    You would need to cite what regulation requires ULP allegations to be reviewed and approved for legitimacy by the NLRB. My experience has been the exact opposite and I've never found or read any rule to that effect. Unions do not need the NLRB to review and approve for legitimacy any ULP claims being used as a pretense for striking. The ULP allegation can be a few sentences long. "The employer bargained in bad faith. The employer bargained regressively. The employer engaged in surface bargaining." That's all that is needed. That's hardly anything requiring review and approval. If these were to proceed further, the union would eventually have to support their allegations, but the ULP allegations that are used as a pretense for striking are basically never carried through to a decision, because that was never the intent. It was used as a pretense, not as a real complaint.



    How often does a bad faith bargaining ULP case go through months or years of trial before the NLRB and then result in the union "winning" and then the employer paying back-pay plus interest to ULP strikers? Like what percentage of the 30,000 or so ULP allegations sent to the ULP actually conclude that way?
    3) As for your claim that the NLRB doesn’t require it’s own review on charges, here’s the rules n that form the board itself:
    Investigate Charges | NLRB | Public Website

    Each charge is investigated by Board agents who gather evidence and may take affidavits from parties and witnesses. Their findings are evaluated by the Regional Director, and in certain novel or significant cases, reviewed by NLRB attorneys at the Division of Advice in Washington DC. Typically, a decision is made about the merits of a charge within 7 to 14 weeks, although certain cases can take much longer. During this period, the majority of charges are settled by the parties, withdrawn by the charging party, or dismissed by the Regional Director. Click here for charts and data.

    When the NLRB investigation finds sufficient evidence to support the charge, every effort is made to facilitate a settlement between the parties. If no settlement is reached in a meritorious case, the agency issues a complaint. Common allegations against employers in complaints include threats, interrogations and unlawful disciplinary actions against employees for their union activity; promises of benefits to discourage unionization; and, in the context of collective bargaining relationships, refusals to provide information, refusals to bargain, and withdrawals of recognition. Common allegations against unions include failure to represent an employee and failure to bargain in good faith.

    The issuance of a complaint leads to a hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (unless there is a settlement). After issuing a complaint, the NLRB becomes a representative for the charging party throughout settlement discussions and the Board process. Board attorneys help gather and prepare materials, and keep the parties apprised of case developments.
    So you are just patently wrong. It is the case load, like any court that can take up to two years. As for percentages on conclusions of back pay, for 2018 it was about 40%: it’s in a link in the quoted section. Union lawyers do not argue the cases; NLRB lawyers prosecute the cases and they are heard by an administrative law judge. You can ask me how I know all that…

    The fact is you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your far right ideology is drawn from prejudice and ignorance and drips from every word you write. If you are going to try and spread anti-union propaganda and woefully ignorant disinformation, you can at the very least try and make sound it like it has some sort of reality and intelligence attached to it.
    Last edited by jet57; 10-12-19 at 08:34 PM.

  5. #85
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    11-06-19 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    29,510

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Virtually every bit of information about the UAW strike mentions a demand for wage increases. The strike is immediately following negotiations that stalled because of monetary terms. This makes their strike an economic strike. Everything about what they're demanding, and the timing of their strike, says this is an economic strike.



    But the union pretends it's not an economic strike, i.e. they allege that they are not striking for higher wages, benefits, or other things being asked for in collective bargaining. They simply allege that an unfair labor practice was committed and that that's why they're on strike. This is a bald-faced lie, but nothing is done about it, because our country's labor laws are not enforced when it comes to union behavior.



    A law needs to be passed that says that, when a union conducts a ULP strike, collective bargaining negotiations must pause until a labor board determines whether or not the employer in fact committed an unfair labor practice and provides direction/recommendation to the parties for resuming negotiations. Otherwise, unions will continue to be permitted to violate labor laws and regulations pertaining to strikes, by simply lying their asses off about the basis of their strike.
    Auto worker wages are below where they were in 1990. They ought to strike to get their wages back, and then complain to the government for allowing companies to offshore their jobs.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "To exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine." - Pope Leo XIII

  6. #86
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,451

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Auto worker wages are below where they were in 1990. They ought to strike to get their wages back, and then complain to the government for allowing companies to offshore their jobs.
    The government has been a willing participant all along, thatís how it happened!

  7. #87
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,451

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Over the last several years I've repeatedly been told that I either know absolutely nothing about unions/collective bargaining/strikes/etc., or I'm told that I am believed to be an anti-union lawyer who is an expert at busting unions. Neither is the case, but I find it funny that pro-union ideologues are accusing me of being a professional anti-union expert at the same time others are alleging I know literally nothing about any of this.



    Which virtually always boils down to disagreement over wages and benefits. So why don't they ever conduct an economic strike? Because they don't want any possibility of being permanently replaced. So they pretend it's all about some procedural unfair bargaining tactic. This is blindingly obvious, and other than some passive balking, no one can seriously dispute it, because it's blindingly obvious. Why do you want to preserve a system that guarantees a proliferation of spurious allegations of violating the NLRA and associated state labor laws?



    LOL, as if that adds legitimacy? Union lawyers are often masterminding and drafting the ULP allegations in the first place.



    You would need to cite what regulation requires ULP allegations to be reviewed and approved for legitimacy by the NLRB. My experience has been the exact opposite and I've never found or read any rule to that effect. Unions do not need the NLRB to review and approve for legitimacy any ULP claims being used as a pretense for striking. The ULP allegation can be a few sentences long. "The employer bargained in bad faith. The employer bargained regressively. The employer engaged in surface bargaining." That's all that is needed. That's hardly anything requiring review and approval. If these were to proceed further, the union would eventually have to support their allegations, but the ULP allegations that are used as a pretense for striking are basically never carried through to a decision, because that was never the intent. It was used as a pretense, not as a real complaint.



    How often does a bad faith bargaining ULP case go through months or years of trial before the NLRB and then result in the union "winning" and then the employer paying back-pay plus interest to ULP strikers? Like what percentage of the 30,000 or so ULP allegations sent to the ULP actually conclude that way?
    The UAW and GM have reached an agreement. Part of say that temp workers can make seniority...

    I knew youíd wanna know that.

  8. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,619

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Auto worker wages are below where they were in 1990. They ought to strike to get their wages back
    They'll be on strike for a long time then. On that note, simply walking off the job and refusing to work there is basically being on strike permanently.

    and then complain to the government for allowing companies to offshore their jobs.
    (Cut to 2016 presidential election)

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,619

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    The UAW and GM have reached an agreement. Part of say that temp workers can make seniority...

    I knew you’d wanna know that.
    If GM voluntarily conceded to letting temp workers accumulate seniority, then that sounds like this was a permissive subject of bargaining. GM did not do it before, did not have to do it, and initially did not agree to it. None of those things constitutes an unfair labor practice. Not agreeing to every union demand in general is also not an unfair labor practice.

  10. #90
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,451

    Re: UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    If GM voluntarily conceded to letting temp workers accumulate seniority, then that sounds like this was a permissive subject of bargaining. GM did not do it before, did not have to do it, and initially did not agree to it. None of those things constitutes an unfair labor practice. Not agreeing to every union demand in general is also not an unfair labor practice.
    You have no idea what charge has been filed and Iíve shown that you donít know what youíre talking about.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •