Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Left and unions get a smackdown.

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

  • #16
    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
    The problem with what Obama was doing was with unions using class action lawsuits. As I previously stated, what unions were doing and the Obama rule allowed, was for them to file a lawsuit that impacted a few of their members but was claimed that all their members were being impacted. That's the essence of a class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuits are usually expensive and drawn out affairs.
    Many companies, particularly larger employers with deep pockets, would simply choose the cheaper route of settling with the union rather than fight a lawsuit they probably could and would win at much higher cost. The unions know that. That's why they'd go the lawsuit route right off.
    What the abolition of that rule means is unions can't go straight to lawsuits, particularly class action ones, where there is an arbitration agreement in place. That means unions can't shakedown employers using their members as pawns. It also reduces substantially the potential take the union can get from an employer because arbitration is cheaper and often binding. That means unions have less to donate to Democrats.

    This wasn't about helping or hurting employees. It was about politics as usual and big entities using 'the little people' to get a fat paycheck.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      The problem with what Obama was doing was with unions using class action lawsuits. As I previously stated, what unions were doing and the Obama rule allowed, was for them to file a lawsuit that impacted a few of their members but was claimed that all their members were being impacted. That's the essence of a class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuits are usually expensive and drawn out affairs.
      Many companies, particularly larger employers with deep pockets, would simply choose the cheaper route of settling with the union rather than fight a lawsuit they probably could and would win at much higher cost. The unions know that. That's why they'd go the lawsuit route right off.
      What the abolition of that rule means is unions can't go straight to lawsuits, particularly class action ones, where there is an arbitration agreement in place. That means unions can't shakedown employers using their members as pawns. It also reduces substantially the potential take the union can get from an employer because arbitration is cheaper and often binding. That means unions have less to donate to Democrats.

      This wasn't about helping or hurting employees. It was about politics as usual and big entities using 'the little people' to get a fat paycheck.
      No what it means is you have no rights you must accept whatever the company gives you because that what the companies policy says.

      From a common sense point of view why do all companies even ones without unions force employees to agree to arbritration as a condition of hire


      This is not about unions it about being forced to sign rights away to be employed.

      This has reprecussions involving sexual harassment work place violence because you cant go to court over these issues. Incase you were not paying attention this was all fought out during the Fox sexual harassment affair. Fox was demanding arbritration

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        The problem with what Obama was doing was with unions using class action lawsuits. As I previously stated, what unions were doing and the Obama rule allowed, was for them to file a lawsuit that impacted a few of their members but was claimed that all their members were being impacted. That's the essence of a class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuits are usually expensive and drawn out affairs.
        Many companies, particularly larger employers with deep pockets, would simply choose the cheaper route of settling with the union rather than fight a lawsuit they probably could and would win at much higher cost. The unions know that. That's why they'd go the lawsuit route right off.
        What the abolition of that rule means is unions can't go straight to lawsuits, particularly class action ones, where there is an arbitration agreement in place. That means unions can't shakedown employers using their members as pawns. It also reduces substantially the potential take the union can get from an employer because arbitration is cheaper and often binding. That means unions have less to donate to Democrats.

        This wasn't about helping or hurting employees. It was about politics as usual and big entities using 'the little people' to get a fat paycheck.
        The problem in the above logic is that it does not make sense to support the elimination of any rights in the workplace or anywhere else simply because some people abuse them. And again, you underestimate the capacity of a jury of peers to recognize such abuses. You also ignore the numerous cases of corporate abuses. It seems like there is only labor union abuses in this world which justifies any additional measures we take to reduce their power...
        In short, this is the position of the establishment...
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

          Bobo didn't get anything right.

          Police unions are illegal in Texas.
          For those who may fall into the trap of believing that Texas police officers are just like every other non-union worker, I will remind you that salary negotiations for police officers are not negotiated at the individual level.
          For example

          https://www.galolawfirm.com/blog/201...tiations.shtml

          One Texas city is finally making progress in salary negotiations for their police department. The San Angelo Police Department has spent nine long months negotiating salaries to bring their officers up to their set benchmarks. Thursday, the San Angelo Coalition of Police signed off on an agreement at City Hall that would raise the pay of their police officers to 95 percent of average salaries of police officers in cities used for a benchmark.
          In other words, even though the Texas police officers do not have unions, they DO recognize the benefit of joining resources during their negotiations with their employers and DO get the benefits of collective bargaining.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by craven View Post

            No what it means is you have no rights you must accept whatever the company gives you because that what the companies policy says.

            From a common sense point of view why do all companies even ones without unions force employees to agree to arbritration as a condition of hire


            This is not about unions it about being forced to sign rights away to be employed.

            This has reprecussions involving sexual harassment work place violence because you cant go to court over these issues. Incase you were not paying attention this was all fought out during the Fox sexual harassment affair. Fox was demanding arbritration
            You are wrong.

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...tion-decision/

            Under the 5-4 ruling, employers can limit workers’ ability to band together in court to pursue redress for labor violations. The practice, known as forced arbitration, means workers can be contractually obligated to solve disputes out of court and individually, rather than in a class-action suit in front of a jury.
            https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...f-12932175.php

            http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...521-story.html

            As I stated, and every article on the subject states, it negates class action lawsuits by employees under contracts that have arbitration clauses. Individual employees are still free to go to court and sue if the arbitration process fails. This is reasonable and based on federal law and regulations going all the way back to the New Deal. It was Obama that wanted to change the rules regardless of decades of precedent in place.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              The problem in the above logic is that it does not make sense to support the elimination of any rights in the workplace or anywhere else simply because some people abuse them. And again, you underestimate the capacity of a jury of peers to recognize such abuses. You also ignore the numerous cases of corporate abuses. It seems like there is only labor union abuses in this world which justifies any additional measures we take to reduce their power...
              In short, this is the position of the establishment...
              Workplace rights haven't been negated because of it. The ruling simply puts in place that arbitration has to be tried and occur before an employee can sue. For class action lawsuits, a number of employees would have to have tried arbitration and then sued as a group. It simply makes class action lawsuits more difficult to bring and puts the onus on individual rather than group action.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by craven View Post
                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
                Very few states allow police unions. Personally. I don't believe any government employee should be a member of a union.

                This will make the USA much more business-friendly.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  Workplace rights haven't been negated because of it. The ruling simply puts in place that arbitration has to be tried and occur before an employee can sue. For class action lawsuits, a number of employees would have to have tried arbitration and then sued as a group. It simply makes class action lawsuits more difficult to bring and puts the onus on individual rather than group action.
                  You make things up!



                  https://www.employmentlawlandscape.c...on-agreements/

                  It was a good start to the week for employers. That is because on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems, and two other related cases, and held that class action waivers in employment agreements with arbitration clauses must be enforced as written.



                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    No what it means is you have no rights you must accept whatever the company gives you because that what the companies policy says.

                    From a common sense point of view why do all companies even ones without unions force employees to agree to arbritration as a condition of hire


                    This is not about unions it about being forced to sign rights away to be employed.

                    This has reprecussions involving sexual harassment work place violence because you cant go to court over these issues. Incase you were not paying attention this was all fought out during the Fox sexual harassment affair. Fox was demanding arbritration



                    The right to pursue a claim isn't denied by virtue of an arbitration clause.
                    It just means you must pursue your claim via arbitration.
                    The claims will be heard, but will be subject to a different set of rules.

                    The employee is free to refuse the offer of employment, that may not be a good choice, but it is still his choice.
                    Arbitration clauses do not have any effect on work place violence claims.
                    You can't force a criminal act like "work place violence" into arbitration, but you can force a claim for damages resulting from that or sexual harassment there.
                    You aren't being forced to sign away anything, you are only forced to make a choice.

                    All contracts involve a decision to accept what is offered. I may not want to pay 30k for a car, but that doesn't mean I am being denied a right to enter into a contract to buy one.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post




                      The right to pursue a claim isn't denied by virtue of an arbitration clause.
                      It just means you must pursue your claim via arbitration.
                      The claims will be heard, but will be subject to a different set of rules.

                      The employee is free to refuse the offer of employment, that may not be a good choice, but it is still his choice.
                      Arbitration clauses do not have any effect on work place violence claims.
                      You can't force a criminal act like "work place violence" into arbitration, but you can force a claim for damages resulting from that or sexual harassment there.
                      You aren't being forced to sign away anything, you are only forced to make a choice.

                      All contracts involve a decision to accept what is offered. I may not want to pay 30k for a car, but that doesn't mean I am being denied a right to enter into a contract to buy one.
                      The problem is that the establishment's rules force the employees to make a choice among disadvatageous (for the employee interests) options. One who is really against the establishment could easily support a different system in which the employer (basically corporations which are mainly affected by class action lawsuits) would be in a position of having to make choices among bad (for their interests) options. It is clear that there is a reason that the choice of litigation through class action is suppressed. Such choices give more leverage to workers, and this does not fit well to the interests of the elite and corporate America...
                      Last edited by pamak; 29 May 18, 19:08.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        The problem is that the establishment's rules force the employees to make a choice among disadvatageous (for the employee interests) options. One who is really against the establishment could easily support a different system in which the employer (basically corporations which are mainly affected by class action lawsuits) would be in a position of having to make choices among bad (for their interests) options. It is clear that there is a reason that the choice of litigation through class action is suppressed. Such choices give more leverage to workers, and this does not fit well to the interests of the elite and corporate America...

                        The evil corporation is trying to limit the costs of litigation. Arbitration is quicker and cheaper than standard courtroom litigation, the downside is that the awards are limited.
                        It is true that the employer has the superior bargaining position but that doesn't make the employment agreement inherently unfair. The employee can always refuse employment.

                        Class action lawsuits are enormously expensive and tend to only benefit the attorneys.
                        What rights are denied the employee by resolving disputes through arbitration rather than litigation?
                        I mean other than the ability to extort through the threat of class action litigation.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                          The evil corporation is trying to limit the costs of litigation. Arbitration is quicker and cheaper than standard courtroom litigation, the downside is that the awards are limited.
                          It is true that the employer has the superior bargaining position but that doesn't make the employment agreement inherently unfair. The employee can always refuse employment.

                          Class action lawsuits are enormously expensive and tend to only benefit the attorneys.
                          What rights are denied the employee by resolving disputes through arbitration rather than litigation?
                          I mean other than the ability to extort through the threat of class action litigation.
                          ...

                          Apparently, the corporations have less financial power than the evil workers and are at a disadvantage under the current system of expensive litigations.. You see why I am not convinced with this justification, right? I believe the issue is about creating more favorable choices about the corporations and less favorite choices about the workers. The real issue is that class action is often the only thing workers can financially afford in the legal field. This choice gave them the opportunity of trying to resolve the disputes they have with their employers by gathering their resources and asking a jury of peers or the judges of a court to issue a decision. Obviously such choice did not benefit the corporate structure, so it had to be taken away in favor of an arbitration procedure which limits investigation since it is private and the individual worker has limited resources to expose corporate corruption and abuse. Plus, it is much more intimidating to have a single individual worker go against a whole corporate structure. In essence, you set up a fight in which you pit workers individually against employers/investors acting collectively through the corporate structure.
                          Last edited by pamak; 29 May 18, 22:09.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Not really. It's more about lawyers and law firms willing to take the workers on contingency (eg., little money up front for a potential big payoff down the road) and sue the corporation who will now have to decide if they want to settle or go to trial in an expensive class action lawsuit. The lawyers for the workers will already know the corporation's history and if it is one that regularly settles to minimize costs, the lawyers get new vacation homes in the Bahamas... The workers get the crumbs left over, and the corporation writes it off as a loss. Then the corporation, if they're feeling vindictive, finds another reason to screw or fire the workers who brought the suit anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Not really. It's more about lawyers and law firms willing to take the workers on contingency (eg., little money up front for a potential big payoff down the road) and sue the corporation who will now have to decide if they want to settle or go to trial in an expensive class action lawsuit. The lawyers for the workers will already know the corporation's history and if it is one that regularly settles to minimize costs, the lawyers get new vacation homes in the Bahamas... The workers get the crumbs left over, and the corporation writes it off as a loss. Then the corporation, if they're feeling vindictive, finds another reason to screw or fire the workers who brought the suit anyway.
                              So, apparently lawyers should only get paid by corporations in order to make sure that they can only work for the interests of the corporate America....
                              And by the way, lawyers are not stupid to spend time fruitlessly in cases they will lose. If they take a case, it is because they sense they can win ...In other words, they see legal justification. And it is this legal justification and real possibility of victory in a courtroom which eventually bring a compromise.
                              Last edited by pamak; 29 May 18, 22:31.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                So, apparently lawyers should only get paid by corporations in order to make sure that they can only work for the interests of the corporate America....
                                And by the way, lawyers are not stupid to spend time fruitlessly in cases they will lose. If they take a case, it is because they sense they can win ...In other words, they see legal justification. And it is this legal justification and real possibility of defeat in a courtroom which eventually bring a compromise.
                                I agree that lawyers want cases with a high percentage chance of winning. That's what makes the "sue and settle" business so lucrative. Take this website for instance...

                                https://consumerist.com/2008/01/21/s...-fun-and-easy/

                                http://www.hustlermoneyblog.com/clas...t-settlements/

                                Sue and settle is the corporate norm. When a corporation does choose to fight back regardless of cost, the litigants and lawyers usually fold.

                                https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbl.../#8c7eeff5cfb8

                                https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...tle-phenomenon

                                Sue and settle isn't something occasional or a cottage industry.... It's a big dollar scam run by law firms who know quite well how to shakedown corporations. If it wasn't, the whole arbitration in employment contracts probably wouldn't exist. Those clauses would be unnecessary. But, because lawyers do regularly sue to get settlements and many even actively go recruiting clients (the ACA is a excellent example of using government regulations to sue corporations. There was one lawyer here in Phoenix that filed over 1,000 lawsuits over alleged ACA violations against corporations, mostly smaller ones, and was willing to settle for a few thousand dollars each. He got disbarred finally and all of his lawsuits were tossed out).

                                So, don't whine about how this is one-sided. It isn't.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X