Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (243)	9/1/2011 12:12:12 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"Never before in the history of this country has a business been told they couldn't open a new business in a right-to-work state. Boeing wasn't even trying to move out of Washington. Which one presumes the NLRB would also declare illegal." Do you have any understanding of what the NLRB is mandated by law to protect? It seems that you don't. A short review of the history of the legislation and the authority of the body would stand you in good stead. I won't give you that but I will tell you that in this case the NLRB has no interest in stopping a company from opening a shop in a right to work state or in preventing a company from closing a shop in another state. Their only interest is in preventing a company from taking either of those actions IN RETALIATION for the lawful actions of their unionized, or pending unionized, employees. It's kind of like an employer firing an employee who has no union or private employment contract: the employer can fire him for any reason, or no reason, even if the firing is capricious, and the law allows that. If, however, the employer fires him for certain proscribed reasons such as his religion, his race, his gender, etc. then the termination is unlawful and the employee is entitled to be reinstated with back pay and may be entitled to damages as well. Now that's not that hard to understand, is it? Ed

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (243)	9/1/2011 8:07:11 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

True enough on the appointments--they were his to make. Just like Scalia and Thomas were another President's to make. But those appointees vote and decide cases as they please to prevent political interference--or don't you support that concept? Second of all, as Ed has said, they are just doing what the NLRB was designed to do. If the country didn't want and independent agency to review corporate actions they wouldn't have created such an organization. Don't you think corporations have to be regulated? Third, no decision in the case has been rendered yet. Let's see what comes of this.