Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Left and unions get a smackdown.

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

  • T. A. Gardner
    started a topic The Left and unions get a smackdown.

    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...


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    The union was the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). They didn't set pay scales, Congress does. I got paid off the General Schedule as a GS-11 step 10. Vacation, sick time, holidays, all that was set by Congress. All the union ever did was quibble over stupid stuff. So, you are wrong. The union was, for me, useless. They did put out a newsletter and near election time always advocated voting a Democrat ticket, another reason to reject participation.
    One of the local presidents stole nearly $30,000 in funds and she ended up not paying that back, didn't lose her job (apparently it was considered union business not that of the agency), but she did use some of it to buy herself a lifetime union membership... Reading the management-labor relations meetings that were held each month (a mandatory thing) was hilarious. She was easily the most hateful, stupid, troll you could possibly get for a union local president there was.
    Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    It gets even better -


    "One of the three orders signed on Friday limits the amount of official time federal employees can spend on union duties to no more than 25 percent. It also requires the federal government to start charging union members rent for using space in federal buildings, to stop paying employees for the cost of lobbying the federal government, and to more aggressively negotiate union contracts"
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...mployee-unions

    I'll bet that most people already thought that all of that would be the case, and in a sane Washington DC that wasn't neck-deep the slime of the swamp, it would have been.

    Now you know what they have really been complaining about.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    As an alternative, look at the bloated, overpaid, inefficient mess a union has made out of the Federal bureaucracy. There's a good reason why Congress is looking to just outsource services and duties.

    The business of America is big business, as a President once said (Coolidge, IIRC). If you want a working economy, you need to support businesses.

    Luxuries like the Forestry Service can only be paid for by the volume of taxes that major corporations generate.
    For those who think that the above post makes sense:

    Outsourcing exists everywhere including in the private sector, and it is not restricted only to outsourcing things abroad. Also, people who have benefited from government bureaucracy at any level- federal, state or local, such as military and LE personnel do not sound very convincing when they criticize government's bureaucracy. Finally, the reason people complain about the "establishment" is because the big business policies do not seem to work for them. Also, somebody needs to have a reality check regarding the trend we have in the last decades about the volume of taxes collected by the government.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    ...


    Scope of discovery is impacted by financial resources, but it is not "determined" in any legal sense.
    Previously you said arbitration limited discovery in a legal sense now you say it is limited by resources. Pick one or the other. See "dance" above.

    Cheers.
    Even though I addressed this part of your post in my previous longer answer, I wanted to address separately the above shorter quote from your post in order to give a shorter answer to show clearly to everybody here that it is you who actually "dances."

    So, this is what I said in post 41, and I have in bold the relative part of my post in which I clearly mentioned that the issue of limiting the scope of investigation in arbitrations is the result of the the lack of resources. Your claim that I initially said that arbitration limits discovery in legal sense is just false!

    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Arbitration is used as a way to force employees who do not have bargaining power to FORFEIT their right to join a class action or seek a trial. As for your claim that you can address the case of employers breaking of law through government intervention, it is misleading. Without the power of having enough resources to have a deep investigation and evidence to prove such violations, you cannot win. In the end it will be the word of an employee vs the word of the employer and in such cases the word of the employer wins. Arbitrations by their nature limit the power and scope of investigations. This, together with the fact that individual workers can be intimidated much more easily make arbitrations a perfect choice for those companies which want to abuse labor law!
    There is nothing in the above post which mentions that arbitration limits discovery in a legal sense. You make things up, again! The above quote says that arbitration limits discovery because by its nature uses limited resources.
    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 20:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    No your wrong as I stated as a condition of employment you have to go to arbritrations as a rule now days. So it basically means you giving all the power to the companies since they got the money and you as an individual do not ie we know that justice depends on the size of the wallet you have
    As an alternative, look at the bloated, overpaid, inefficient mess a union has made out of the Federal bureaucracy. There's a good reason why Congress is looking to just outsource services and duties.

    The business of America is big business, as a President once said (Coolidge, IIRC). If you want a working economy, you need to support businesses.

    Luxuries like the Forestry Service can only be paid for by the volume of taxes that major corporations generate.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    You are wrong.

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



    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.
    No your wrong as I stated as a condition of employment you have to go to arbritrations as a rule now days. So it basically means you giving all the power to the companies since they got the money and you as an individual do not ie we know that justice depends on the size of the wallet you have

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Sorry, I read your link.
    It had no substance and never addressed anything I asked you about.

    I asked you questions. Instead, of answering questions about why you made certain claims, you posted a link.
    When you understand your subject it is usually easy to explain your point. Since you don't understand your subject you tried to use a link and hoped it said something.
    I'm not worried about my credibility with you.
    If I am wrong, you can show me how I am wrong. Instead you dance.


    Scope of discovery is impacted by financial resources, but it is not "determined" in any legal sense.
    Previously you said arbitration limited discovery in a legal sense now you say it is limited by resources. Pick one or the other. See "dance" above.

    Cheers.
    You asked questions in your attempt to make me justify something that you already knew-- that arbitration clauses gives substantial advantages to the employer. And I answered your questions by citing information from two articles! I assumed that if you were really willing to read these articles, you would not need any farther explanation of what the sources say.


    In addition, I posted the letter with the signature of every State Attorney General which showed an additional example of how arbitration restricts the prosecution of sexual harassment. You can read their reasoning, right? For example,

    Additional concerns arise from the secrecy requirements of arbitration clauses, which disserve the public interest by keeping both the harassment complaints and any settlements confidential. This veil of secrecy may then prevent other persons similarly situated from learning of the harassment claims so that they, too, might pursue relief. Ending mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims would help to put a stop to the culture of silence that protects perpetrators at the cost of their victims.
    Do not ask me to spoon-feed you by explaining for the second time what my sources say!Their reasoning is very obvious! In your #42 post, you asked me to what I base the beliefs I expressed in my #41 post that arbitration limits investigation and makes it more difficult for the workers to prove their claims, and I gave you a few sources from experts whose opinion you could not dismiss.


    As for the scope of discovery, do not try to use mambo-jumbo legal BS semantics! My argument in post #41 was that in EVERY PRACTICAL SENSE, the scope of discovery is affected mostly by the available financial resources. So, an inexpensive arbitration based on the financial capacity of an individual cannot bring the scope of discovery you see in normal (and more expensive) litigation or in class action lawsuits. I should not need to explain this to you, but apparently I have to explain why 1+1=2. This is why I say that either you are not an expert or you are a partisan expert who mostly tries to obscure things in order to justify your support of expanding arbitration. By the way, the issue of the more restrictive scope of discovery in the arbitration case was also mentioned in one of the articles I cited to support my claims, and no, there was no argument there that the restriction of discovery is determined legally in arbitrations. You make things up! Here is the quote from the article...

    Lack of Discovery: Limited discovery can keep your costs down, but it can also make it more difficult to try the case effectively. Attorneys can achieve the best results for their clients when they have as much relevant information as they can possibly obtain. The best way to obtain this information is through the depositions of people with knowledge. Arbitrations can lead to the parties’ presenting the dispute to the arbitration panel without fully know ing the underlying facts in the case. The inability to analyze the information can sometimes work to the client’s detriment.
    Nothing in the above implies that this "lack of discovery" is determined legally by the arbitration agreement. Since you did not get it the first time, the argument is that the lack of discovery is an effect of the inexpensive nature of the arbitration.
    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 20:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You backtrack from your attempt to ask me to explain why arbitration gives an advantage to the employer. Apparently you knew that this advantage is substantial when you asked me to answer your 5 questions but counted on the fact that I could not justify my position.. Now after my explanations, you change your position to (paraphrase) "there is an employer advantage in arbitration but we have freedom of contract and CBAs for unions."

    Freedom of contract does not exist between parties with unequal power. And I have said from the beginning that this decision mostly affects non-union workers in the private corporate America! I also said very clearly in the beginning that under any situation the two parties will have certain choices. The issue is if we want these choices to be mostly beneficial to the corporations or not. If ones tries to argue that under the system of expanded arbitration a person is "free" to refuse to become an employee and risk being unemployed , one can similarly say that under the system of the more restrictive arbitration an employer is "free" to refuse to start a business. This is freedom too!

    And something else: You lose any credibility you want to project as an expert, when you remain silent to the claims we heard in this forum (see TAG's claims that arbitrations do not have any affect on access to litigation) while you try to question my claims (about the substantial advantages that employers enjoy in arbitration) which I showed are quite common knowledge.This shows that either you are not an expert, or that you are a partisan expert who is not really interested in setting the facts straight but prefers to obscure the subject in order to justify your position for supporting the expansion of arbitrations.

    Also, the scope of the discovery is determined by the cost of the procedure! Inexpensive procedures, such as arbitrations based on the financial resources of individuals cannot bring big investigations regardless of the language of the agreement. Again, you ignore basic logic in your attempt to support your position.

    Also, I gave you more than a single article. I gave 2 articles and a letter of the Acossiation of Attorney Generals with the signature of every State Attorney General which explains n the case of sexual harassment why arbitration is advantageous to employers and how it restricts investigation.. But as usual, you prefer to falsely claim that I provided a single article by a biased source!

    Finally, your above stance is one of reasons why I roll my eyes whenever I hear people like you talking about their opposition to the establishment. I cannot take such words seriously when such people somehow always choose to support the interests of corporate America.
    Sorry, I read your link.
    It had no substance and never addressed anything I asked you about.

    I asked you questions. Instead, of answering questions about why you made certain claims, you posted a link.
    When you understand your subject it is usually easy to explain your point. Since you don't understand your subject you tried to use a link and hoped it said something.
    I'm not worried about my credibility with you.
    If I am wrong, you can show me how I am wrong. Instead you dance.


    Scope of discovery is impacted by financial resources, but it is not "determined" in any legal sense.
    Previously you said arbitration limited discovery in a legal sense now you say it is limited by resources. Pick one or the other. See "dance" above.

    Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    The union was the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). They didn't set pay scales, Congress does. I got paid off the General Schedule as a GS-11 step 10. Vacation, sick time, holidays, all that was set by Congress. All the union ever did was quibble over stupid stuff. So, you are wrong. The union was, for me, useless. They did put out a newsletter and near election time always advocated voting a Democrat ticket, another reason to reject participation.
    One of the local presidents stole nearly $30,000 in funds and she ended up not paying that back, didn't lose her job (apparently it was considered union business not that of the agency), but she did use some of it to buy herself a lifetime union membership... Reading the management-labor relations meetings that were held each month (a mandatory thing) was hilarious. She was easily the most hateful, stupid, troll you could possibly get for a union local president there was.
    What type of reasoning is that?
    This is like trying to argue that teacher Unions do not bring wage benefits because such things are set by governmental state bodies...
    And you continue to make unsubstantiated personal evaluations when you say that "all the union even did was quibble over stupid stuff." I do not trust your evaluation regarding which labor issues are "stupid" , especially when in this thread you appear to have a very distorted view of reality when we talk about the labor issue of arbitration clauses .
    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 15:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Your personal experience tells me nothing! I simply do not trust your JUDGEMENT that you got nothing. You may very well have been a case of a free loader, and your political beliefs simply do not let you see the benefits you got. Or, you may have been a case of employees who usually want to get the favor of the administration by undermining the collective bargaining power of other fellow workers. Sure, such practice may be profitable for some, but I give priority to the big picture over your little personal one...
    The union was the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). They didn't set pay scales, Congress does. I got paid off the General Schedule as a GS-11 step 10. Vacation, sick time, holidays, all that was set by Congress. All the union ever did was quibble over stupid stuff. So, you are wrong. The union was, for me, useless. They did put out a newsletter and near election time always advocated voting a Democrat ticket, another reason to reject participation.
    One of the local presidents stole nearly $30,000 in funds and she ended up not paying that back, didn't lose her job (apparently it was considered union business not that of the agency), but she did use some of it to buy herself a lifetime union membership... Reading the management-labor relations meetings that were held each month (a mandatory thing) was hilarious. She was easily the most hateful, stupid, troll you could possibly get for a union local president there was.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    I repeatedly tell you the basis of my information. For instance:
    1) freedom of contract.
    2) CBAs with unions.


    Do you have any idea what I do for a living?

    I have agreed that the employer has an advantage, but your inability to understand what I mean when I talk about the "freedom of contract", prevents you from getting my point and why we must allow competent adults to agree enter into binding contracts for legal purposes.
    You don't understand arbitration, but are certain that it results in rights being taken away from employees (presumably ones represented by powerful unions). It doesn't but you cite to an article that says it "may limit discovery".
    Typically, arbitrations proceed under the rules of AAA. The parties can agree to any limitations they want, if they chose to do so.
    You seem to think arbitration means criminal acts will go unpunished, without understanding how ridiculous that claim is.
    You just know that arbitration is evil because someone said is. There are pros and cons to arbitration, and I have said so previously.

    Your single article provided a disconnected series of conclusions and was written by an attorney who no doubt has a financial interest in preventing parties from agreeing to arbitration clauses because that results in less legal work.
    The scope of discovery is determined by the language of the agreement, not the article you linked.
    Your apparent belief that the article answers my questions further confirms my belief you don't understand arbitration or litigation.


    You backtrack from your attempt to ask me to explain why arbitration gives an advantage to the employer. Apparently you knew that this advantage is substantial when you asked me to answer your 5 questions but counted on the fact that I could not justify my position.. Now after my explanations, you change your position to (paraphrase) "there is an employer advantage in arbitration but we have freedom of contract and CBAs for unions."

    Freedom of contract does not exist between parties with unequal power. And I have said from the beginning that this decision mostly affects non-union workers in the private corporate America! I also said very clearly in the beginning that under any situation the two parties will have certain choices. The issue is if we want these choices to be mostly beneficial to the corporations or not. If ones tries to argue that under the system of expanded arbitration a person is "free" to refuse to become an employee and risk being unemployed , one can similarly say that under the system of the more restrictive arbitration an employer is "free" to refuse to start a business. This is freedom too!

    And something else: You lose any credibility you want to project as an expert, when you remain silent to the claims we heard in this forum (see TAG's claims that arbitrations do not have any affect on access to litigation) while you try to question my claims (about the substantial advantages that employers enjoy in arbitration) which I showed are quite common knowledge.This shows that either you are not an expert, or that you are a partisan expert who is not really interested in setting the facts straight but prefers to obscure the subject in order to justify your position for supporting the expansion of arbitrations.

    Also, the scope of the discovery is determined by the cost of the procedure! Inexpensive procedures, such as arbitrations based on the financial resources of individuals cannot bring big investigations regardless of the language of the agreement. Again, you ignore basic logic in your attempt to support your position.

    Also, I gave you more than a single article. I gave 2 articles and a letter of the Acossiation of Attorney Generals with the signature of every State Attorney General which explains n the case of sexual harassment why arbitration is advantageous to employers and how it restricts investigation.. But as usual, you prefer to falsely claim that I provided a single article by a biased source!

    Finally, your above stance is one of reasons why I roll my eyes whenever I hear people like you talking about their opposition to the establishment. I cannot take such words seriously when such people somehow always choose to support the interests of corporate America.
    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 16:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I quote a blurb from an article?

    I simply used a single article to provide common knowledge about the cons of litigation. On the other hand, you quoted no source to explain why my responses to the 1,2,3,4,5 are unsubstantiated ..


    Yes, it is pointless to continue the conversation with you since you seem reluctant to provide sources that justify your claims.In the end, the only source of such justification is your personal desire of giving one more advantage to the establishment of corporate America without citing facts, law or logic.

    For the rest who want to read more articles about the problems of forfeiting class actions, here is another article...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/b...f-justice.html





    I repeatedly tell you the basis of my information. For instance:
    1) freedom of contract.
    2) CBAs with unions.


    Do you have any idea what I do for a living?

    I have agreed that the employer has an advantage, but your inability to understand what I mean when I talk about the "freedom of contract", prevents you from getting my point and why we must allow competent adults to agree enter into binding contracts for legal purposes.
    You don't understand arbitration, but are certain that it results in rights being taken away from employees (presumably ones represented by powerful unions). It doesn't but you cite to an article that says it "may limit discovery".
    Typically, arbitrations proceed under the rules of AAA. The parties can agree to any limitations they want, if they chose to do so.
    You seem to think arbitration means criminal acts will go unpunished, without understanding how ridiculous that claim is.
    You just know that arbitration is evil because someone said is. There are pros and cons to arbitration, and I have said so previously.

    Your single article provided a disconnected series of conclusions and was written by an attorney who no doubt has a financial interest in preventing parties from agreeing to arbitration clauses because that results in less legal work.
    The scope of discovery is determined by the language of the agreement, not the article you linked.
    Your apparent belief that the article answers my questions further confirms my belief you don't understand arbitration or litigation.



    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    And for the non fanatics in this thread, here is another "blurb" from a letter discussing the problems of arbitration...

    From the National Association of Attorneys General

    https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...rbitration.pdf






    RE:Mandatory Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Disputes

    Dear Congressional Leadership:

    As the duly-elected and appointed Attorneys General and chief legal officers of our respective States, District of Columbia, and territories, we ask for your support and leadership in enacting needed legislation to protect the victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Specifically, we seek to ensure thesevictims’ access to the courts, so that they may pursue justice and obtainappropriate relief free from the impediment of arbitration requirements.

    Access to the judicial system, whether federal or state, is a fundamental right of all Americans. That right should extend fully to persons who have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. Yet, many employers require their employees, as a condition of employment, to sign arbitration agreements mandating that sexual harassment claims be resolved through arbitration instead of judicial proceedings...
    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 13:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    Nuff said. You don't understand the process.
    But you think you do based on some snippets of information.

    You quote a blurb from an article and assume it supports what you want to believe.
    You don't understand arbitration or civil litigation or class action lawsuits, but you just know your opinions on them are correct.

    I asked the questions because I got the impression you didn't understand the process, or the concept of freedom of contract, and your answer confirmed my suspicion.
    That tells me it is pointless to counter your personal opinions with actual facts, law or logic.
    Cheers
    I quote a blurb from an article?

    I simply used a single article to provide common knowledge about the cons of litigation. On the other hand, you quoted no source to explain why my responses to the 1,2,3,4,5 are unsubstantiated ..


    Yes, it is pointless to continue the conversation with you since you seem reluctant to provide sources that justify your claims.In the end, the only source of such justification is your personal desire of giving one more advantage to the establishment of corporate America without citing facts, law or logic.

    For the rest who want to read more articles about the problems of forfeiting class actions, here is another article...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/b...f-justice.html




    Law enforcement officials, though, say they have lost an essential tool for uncovering patterns of corporate abuse. In a letter last year to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, attorneys general in 16 states warned that “unlawful business practices” could flourish with the proliferation of class-action bans.
    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 13:03.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X