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

Cordelier said:

Kind of like how Corporations act like they actually care about their workers? Give me a freaking break... if it wasn't for Government regulations and labor protections, we'd still be in the 19th Century. Corporations wouldn't pay one cent beyond the bare minimum they had to... not for wages, not for health and safety, not for environmental protection - you know that as much as I do.

Click to expand...

If we rely strictly on the goodness of the corporation, we're stupid. Pro-union!!

Neomalthusian said:

"Contesting" it is the default. What other option is there?

Click to expand...

Why gosh, I don't know, how about "not reflexively contesting ULP claims even when they're valid?" Maybe, just maybe, so many ULP claims are filed, and the NLRB rejects so few, because they have a legitimate basis. What a concept? :roll:

Say "yeah, we admit it, we committed a ULP?" And then what? The union automatically gets the contract terms it wanted? No, they just head back to bargain some more.

Click to expand...

Are you for reals?

That's not how it works. Unions don't win a strike because they claim there were labor rights violations. I'd add the implication that employers never fabricate negotiating points is downright ludicrous.

Very exclusive of you to refer way back to an example of violence initiated against unions/workers. You were the one trying to engage in both-siderism, so follow your own advice and admit the historical examples of union-initiated violence.

Click to expand...

lol... Yes, because there is a long history of unions hiring thugs to attack management. Oh, wait....

More importantly, you missed my point, which is that your hyperbolic ad hoc claims and antipathy towards unions are transparent. Proclaiming that "all unions are liars, all their claims are made in bad faith, and ULP claims just poison the well!" is just ad hoc garbage. I mean, really, if it's that bad, then where are the GM press releases decrying the awful mischaracterizations of the GM-UAW dispute? Oh, they aren't? Never mind.

I didn't ask you to spend all day listing them all, just welcomed you to share examples of employers blatantly lying to avoid being subject to a labor regulation they don't particularly like.

Click to expand...

:roll:

OK then, here's a list of typical abuses by employers:
• bargaining in bad faith
• changes in terms and conditions of employment without bargaining with the union
surface bargaining
• direct negotiations with employees
• bypassing the union
• discharge or discipline of employees because of union activity
• threats or promises designed to undermine the union

You say you want some more? Here's some more!
• Interfering with an employee's right to organize, join, or assist a union
• Setting up sham unions
• Discriminating against union workers
• Retaliating employees who file charges or provide testimony to the NLRB
• Making hot cargo agreements

By the way, I'm definitely not saying that management is always vile, or that unions are squeaky clean. I'm just pointing out that it is utterly ludicrous to act like every employer is the "good guy" who is being choked on the ropes by those Awful Bad Evil Lying unions.

Tensions between labor and management are maintained and maximized by procedures that give one side (or both, if you insist) a consequence-free carte blanche to levy false accusations against the other as a way to evade following the rules or their intent.

Click to expand...

lol

No dude, that's not how it works. ULP claims don't magically give unions so much leverage that merely citing them means they win -- if that's the case, then why hasn't the UAW won already?

No, the only real impact is that it prevents management from using a fairly specific retaliation tactic. That's kinda why no one really seems to care. Except you, and that's only because you think it gives you a club to use on the unions.

They can't "fire" striking workers regardless of the type of strike. Permanent replacement is not "firing," labor laws make that clear.

Click to expand...

LOL

Please. Even the NLRB finally bothered to tighten the rules when it comes to "permanent replacements" in 2016, because they know that is a tactic employers can use to retaliate against strikers.

But other than that, that's what I'm saying -- the only reason unions are making up ULP allegations all of a sudden at the tail end of deadlocked negotiations is to for a work-around to a regulation they don't like, not because they have any genuine desire to establish that a ULP was in fact committed.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you were sitting in on the extensive negotiations between GM management and the UAW? Good to know. :roll:

Visbek said:

Why gosh, I don't know, how about "not reflexively contesting ULP claims even when they're valid?" Maybe, just maybe, so many ULP claims are filed, and the NLRB rejects so few, because they have a legitimate basis. What a concept? :roll:

Are you for reals?

That's not how it works. Unions don't win a strike because they claim there were labor rights violations. I'd add the implication that employers never fabricate negotiating points is downright ludicrous.

lol... Yes, because there is a long history of unions hiring thugs to attack management. Oh, wait....

More importantly, you missed my point, which is that your hyperbolic ad hoc claims and antipathy towards unions are transparent. Proclaiming that "all unions are liars, all their claims are made in bad faith, and ULP claims just poison the well!" is just ad hoc garbage. I mean, really, if it's that bad, then where are the GM press releases decrying the awful mischaracterizations of the GM-UAW dispute? Oh, they aren't? Never mind.

:roll:

OK then, here's a list of typical abuses by employers:
• bargaining in bad faith
• changes in terms and conditions of employment without bargaining with the union
surface bargaining
• direct negotiations with employees
• bypassing the union
• discharge or discipline of employees because of union activity
• threats or promises designed to undermine the union

You say you want some more? Here's some more!
• Interfering with an employee's right to organize, join, or assist a union
• Setting up sham unions
• Discriminating against union workers
• Retaliating employees who file charges or provide testimony to the NLRB
• Making hot cargo agreements

By the way, I'm definitely not saying that management is always vile, or that unions are squeaky clean. I'm just pointing out that it is utterly ludicrous to act like every employer is the "good guy" who is being choked on the ropes by those Awful Bad Evil Lying unions.

lol

No dude, that's not how it works. ULP claims don't magically give unions so much leverage that merely citing them means they win -- if that's the case, then why hasn't the UAW won already?

No, the only real impact is that it prevents management from using a fairly specific retaliation tactic. That's kinda why no one really seems to care. Except you, and that's only because you think it gives you a club to use on the unions.

LOL

Please. Even the NLRB finally bothered to tighten the rules when it comes to "permanent replacements" in 2016, because they know that is a tactic employers can use to retaliate against strikers.

Oh, so you were sitting in on the extensive negotiations between GM management and the UAW? Good to know. :roll:

Click to expand...

All of this pretentious laughter and sarcasm to passively defend procedures we know encourage peppering employers with false and spurious ULP allegations. The NLRB has no ability to adjudicate as many ULP claims as there are, and there’d be no good reason to try, since so many of them are utter bull**** tactical gambits that will be dropped by the union before they have a chance to be heard.

We know pretending strikes are ULP-based precludes permanent replacement (however low that risk). The actual risk of permanent replacement is even lower since about 5 years ago when the NRLB instated the “proof of pure motives” standard you mentioned at the end of your post, which frankly is so ridiculous of a standard that virtually no employer will ever attempt it. But unions continue to pretend economic strikes are ULP based, ya know, just in case.

We should have changed labor law to just forbid permanent replacements across the board. I wouldn’t love that idea personally, but at least it’d stop encouraging the guns-blazing onslaught of complete bull**** ULP allegations from unions the night before they go on de facto economic strike. Then unions could finally be honest for once and just officially go on economic strike the way they want to, rather than have to keep lying about it.

Neomalthusian said:

All of this pretentious laughter and sarcasm to passively defend procedures we know encourage peppering employers with false and spurious ULP allegations.

Click to expand...

Or, it's just a result of your transparent hostility towards unions, resulting in a thoroughly one-sided set of accusations.

The NLRB has no ability to adjudicate as many ULP claims as there are, and there’d be no good reason to try, since so many of them are utter bull**** tactical gambits that will be dropped by the union before they have a chance to be heard.

Click to expand...

"No ability?" What fresh nonsense is this?

We know pretending strikes are ULP-based precludes permanent replacement (however low that risk)... etc etc

Click to expand...

We also see that not once have you criticized any bad behavior by employers in this entire thread.

We should have changed labor law to just forbid permanent replacements across the board. I wouldn’t love that idea personally, but at least it’d stop encouraging the guns-blazing onslaught of complete bull**** ULP allegations from unions the night before they go on de facto economic strike.

Click to expand...

Whatever, dude. I don't know why you've chosen such a tiny hill to die on, but I don't really care. I don't think anyone else does, either. That includes GM.

Enjoy the rest of the UAW strike, 'cause it does not look like it will end any time soon.

Grand Mal said:

So fringin' what? They don't owe you any explanations. If their contract is expired and they vote to strike they have the right whether you like it or not. Who's gonna decide whether there's unfair labour practice or not, you?

Click to expand...

Businesses are always straight talkers, they never engage in any kind of spin or corporate speak.....

Neomalthusian said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jet57 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Neomalthusian said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Neomalthusian said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Neomalthusian said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

phattonez said:

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.

Click to expand...

The government has been a willing participant all along, that’s how it happened!

Neomalthusian said:

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?

Click to expand...

The UAW and GM have reached an agreement. Part of say that temp workers can make seniority...

I knew you’d wanna know that.

phattonez said:

Auto worker wages are below where they were in 1990. They ought to strike to get their wages back

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

(Cut to 2016 presidential election)

jet57 said:

The UAW and GM have reached an agreement. Part of say that temp workers can make seniority...

I knew you’d wanna know that.

Click to expand...

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.

Neomalthusian said:

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.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what charge has been filed and I’ve shown that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

jet57 said:

You have no idea what charge has been filed

Click to expand...

Nor do 99% of the people who went on strike over it, nor do they care, because why would they? The ULP allegation used as the basis of the strike is purely tactical, not honest.

I’ve shown that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Click to expand...

No you haven't. We should just change the regulations one way or another. Either eliminate the incentive to file spurious ULPs by forbidding permanent replacement of economic strikers, or require NLRB adjudication of ULP allegations prior to letting them go on ULP strike. You'd prefer the former, I'd prefer the latter, but either one would be way better than actively encouraging bull**** ULP allegations, which is what we do now.

Neomalthusian said:

Nor do 99% of the people who went on strike over it, nor do they care, because why would they? The ULP allegation used as the basis of the strike is purely tactical, not honest.



No you haven't. We should just change the regulations one way or another. Either eliminate the incentive to file spurious ULPs by forbidding permanent replacement of economic strikers, or require NLRB adjudication of ULP allegations prior to letting them go on ULP strike. You'd prefer the former, I'd prefer the latter, but either one would be way better than actively encouraging bull**** ULP allegations, which is what we do now.

Click to expand...

(chuckle)

Try your BS on someone else dude.

Neomalthusian said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why do you hate labor unions?

were you born rich or are you woefully uniformed?

these are my questions of you after reading your post.

jet57 said:

(chuckle)

Try your BS on someone else dude.

Click to expand...

russian plants turning on labor is what it seems like to me

noonereal said:

Why do you hate labor unions?

were you born rich or are you woefully uniformed?

these are my questions of you after reading your post.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem and diversion tactics are all I ever get on this topic.

jet57 said:

(chuckle)

Try your BS on someone else dude.

Click to expand...

What unfair labor practice was resolved now that the strike is over?

Drawdown said:

What unfair labor practice was resolved now that the strike is over?

Click to expand...

Not sure. It may have been a failure to negotiate fairly, but since they settled that charge would be withdrawn.

Neomalthusian said:

Ad hominem and diversion tactics are all I ever get on this topic.

Click to expand...

No what you get on this topic is fact that shows how ridiculous your views and comments really are.

jet57 said:

Not sure. It may have been a failure to negotiate fairly, but since they settled that charge would be withdrawn.

Click to expand...

Refusal to give in to other side seems so given in any strike that I don't see how that could be considered an unfair labor practice if the law makes a distinction in reasons for the strike carrying different rights.

Grand Mal said:

So fringin' what? They don't owe you any explanations. If their contract is expired and they vote to strike they have the right whether you like it or not. Who's gonna decide whether there's unfair labour practice or not, you?

Click to expand...

Do not lie the guy on the right looks like he never missed a meal in his life, let alone gone hungry from any union contract negotiations.