Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Left and unions get a smackdown.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Left and unions get a smackdown.

    The Supreme Court ruling 5 -4 with justice Gorsuch making the difference just ruled against an Obama Labor Relations Board ruling that stood contract law on its head.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/arbitra...cm_OBV1_092216

    This was the NLRB ruling explained:

    In 2012 the Obama National Labor Relations Board ruled that arbitration clauses in contracts that ban class actions violate Section 7 of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. The novel ruling conflicted with even the board’s own general counsel’s opinion in 2010 that the validity of arbitration agreements “does not involve consideration of the policies of the National Labor Relations Act.”
    Allowing this to stand would have negated literally thousands of labor contracts when it came to arbitration. It heavily favored unions and left employers little leeway to go to individual arbitration with employees where a labor union existed.

    Good thing Obama wasn't the one that appointed the last Justice. At least Gorsuch isn't making up law based on personal opinion and desire like Ginsburg...


  • #2
    The issue of arbitration is not just Bout unions. Such clauses exist even in jobs where there are no unions. The fact that you celebrate a decision which supports a method of restricting the use of juries and peers in resolving disputes between employees and employers, and you see it as victory against the unions and the 'left' shows a lot about your political beliefs. Basically, the employees are the 'left' and the employers are the 'right'. And of course, the WSJ presents analysis of the decision without bias because it is not part of the establishment...

    A different article with views that are not discussed in the OP is this

    https://www.economist.com/democracy-...ion-agreements
    Last edited by pamak; 26 May 18, 03:29.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not true at all. Arbitration is often, if not always, the first resort between an employee and the company they work for. This is in the best interests of both as it is intended to try and work out a problem without the expense of a lawsuit. If arbitration doesn't work, the employee can still go to court for resolution after arbitration.
      What unions wanted was the ability to sue employers in class action lawsuits without arbitration. This leads to expensive court actions, and both sides know that. Unions liked this situation because they could usually get an employer to offer a settlement, usually with the union gaining something, in lieu of going to trial. Basically, what the Obama rule did was allow unions to continue to shakedown employers for settlements often over nonsense by claiming a class action (all employees) versus the few employees involved working things out with their employer locally.
      This is the sort of crap that caused the auto industry to flee closed shop, union states like Michigan. It benefits no one in the long run.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Not true at all. Arbitration is often, if not always, the first resort between an employee and the company they work for. This is in the best interests of both as it is intended to try and work out a problem without the expense of a lawsuit. If arbitration doesn't work, the employee can still go to court for resolution after arbitration.
        What unions wanted was the ability to sue employers in class action lawsuits without arbitration. This leads to expensive court actions, and both sides know that. Unions liked this situation because they could usually get an employer to offer a settlement, usually with the union gaining something, in lieu of going to trial. Basically, what the Obama rule did was allow unions to continue to shakedown employers for settlements often over nonsense by claiming a class action (all employees) versus the few employees involved working things out with their employer locally.
        This is the sort of crap that caused the auto industry to flee closed shop, union states like Michigan. It benefits no one in the long run.
        Agreed!
        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Not true at all. Arbitration is often, if not always, the first resort between an employee and the company they work for. This is in the best interests of both as it is intended to try and work out a problem without the expense of a lawsuit. If arbitration doesn't work, the employee can still go to court for resolution after arbitration.
          What unions wanted was the ability to sue employers in class action lawsuits without arbitration. This leads to expensive court actions, and both sides know that. Unions liked this situation because they could usually get an employer to offer a settlement, usually with the union gaining something, in lieu of going to trial. Basically, what the Obama rule did was allow unions to continue to shakedown employers for settlements often over nonsense by claiming a class action (all employees) versus the few employees involved working things out with their employer locally.
          This is the sort of crap that caused the auto industry to flee closed shop, union states like Michigan. It benefits no one in the long run.
          Your response tells me that we live in a different planet. Arbitration clauses in contracts restrict access to courts. They are also affecting non union workers mostly since unions by default pull resources together and act in a way similar to that of a class lawsuit. For example, unlike individuals, unions can better afford litigation. Finally, unlike jury decisions, Arbitration Decisions overwhelmingly support employers.
          Last edited by pamak; 26 May 18, 18:04.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            Your response tells me that we live in a different planet. Arbitration clauses in contracts restrict access to courts. They are also affecting non union workers mostly since unions by default pull resources together and act in a way similar to that of a class lawsuit.So unlike individuals, unions can better afford litigation. Finally, unlike jury decisions, Arbitration Decisions overwhelmingly support employers.
            They restrict access as a first resort. They require the employee to go to arbitration first. The objective of that is to avoid the cost of a trial. Union or non-union, that is the objective. Resolution of the problem at the lowest cost and without resorting to lawsuits.
            Unions don't want that because it negates their using class action lawsuits brought by a few members but he union claiming all members being effected, and then using that legal cost against the company to get a settlement.
            I worked somewhere for decades where the union (of which I was not a member, and was virtually a persona non grata), did this sort of crap repeatedly. Yea, the settlement checks were fat, but the results were also that employment conditions got more onerous. The union was myopic and idiotic. They didn't want to work with management. They had an us versus them mentality. That's probably why only about a third of the eligible employees joined... that and the $40 a payday that they charged.

            I'm glad I wasn't stupid enough to be part of that. I saved about $24,000 in dues that would have done NOTHING for me. I also didn't have some of that money illegally syphoned off by one of the longtime local presidents that was stealing from the union till.

            Arbitration may overwhelmingly support employers. I don't have data on that. But, that's likely because the employee was in the wrong. Using class action lawsuits to get employers to settle regardless of who's correct on an issue but to save costs is equally onerous.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              They restrict access as a first resort. They require the employee to go to arbitration first. The objective of that is to avoid the cost of a trial. Union or non-union, that is the objective. Resolution of the problem at the lowest cost and without resorting to lawsuits.
              Unions don't want that because it negates their using class action lawsuits brought by a few members but he union claiming all members being effected, and then using that legal cost against the company to get a settlement.
              I worked somewhere for decades where the union (of which I was not a member, and was virtually a persona non grata), did this sort of crap repeatedly. Yea, the settlement checks were fat, but the results were also that employment conditions got more onerous. The union was myopic and idiotic. They didn't want to work with management. They had an us versus them mentality. That's probably why only about a third of the eligible employees joined... that and the $40 a payday that they charged.

              I'm glad I wasn't stupid enough to be part of that. I saved about $24,000 in dues that would have done NOTHING for me. I also didn't have some of that money illegally syphoned off by one of the longtime local presidents that was stealing from the union till.

              Arbitration may overwhelmingly support employers. I don't have data on that. But, that's likely because the employee was in the wrong. Using class action lawsuits to get employers to settle regardless of who's correct on an issue but to save costs is equally onerous.
              They restrict litigation as a first and as a last resort. They did the same thing with the consumers, and now with this decision do the same thing with the employees, including non unionized employees. Also, It is funny how the people who complain about the establishment do not trust a jury of peers to deliver a fair decision if the employees are right or wrong , but they trust the arbitration structure of the establishment...

              Comment


              • #8
                Since most Union members are in the basket of deplorables it must have been the trial lawyers and globalist behind the Obama non administration.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  Since most Union members are in the basket of deplorables it must have been the trial lawyers and globalist behind the Obama non administration.
                  The union leadership is usually Democrats and Democrat leaning. The most ardent unionists are usually employees that hate management and are marginal workers who are likely to get disciplined for messing up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    Also, It is funny how the people who complain about the establishment do not trust a jury of peers to deliver a fair decision if the employees are right or wrong , but they trust the arbitration structure of the establishment...
                    Have you taken a good look at your "peers" lately?

                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      hmm so basically to have a job you have to agree to arbritration ok good. So no matter how badly the company screws you over you end up in arbritration which is about a win win scenario

                      How can this be a good thing for blue collar workers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is good news!
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          This is good news!
                          naw just means the poor will stay poor because they have no standing to redress wrong

                          This was one of the few things Obama got right

                          So as a police officer you should no longer have union rep at disciplinary hearing or have lawyers provided by the union. is what this is saying

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by craven View Post

                            naw just means the poor will stay poor because they have no standing to redress wrong

                            This was one of the few things Obama got right

                            So as a police officer you should no longer have union rep at disciplinary hearing or have lawyers provided by the union. is what this is saying
                            Bobo didn't get anything right.

                            Police unions are illegal in Texas.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              well take those away from the rest of your fellow LE also

                              but naw your letting ODS take hold of ya to much. He got the whole loop hole of salary correct and this issue correct. I mean for low paying jobs your being forced to give away rights and allow your self to be abused. In a typical employment cycle it not option to take another job because jobs are scarce.



                              Interesting how did they manage making unions illegal

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X