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: cnyndwllr who wrote (246)	9/1/2011 4:24:49 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

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. C'mon, Ed. How many angels are dancing on the head of that pin? There is no business decision that could not be interpreted as being in retaliation as long as the unionized employees are alive and breathing and doing something. Moving your business because union employees cost too much could be 'retaliation' since it's a pure crime of intent, not deed, as imagined by the NLRB. Care to explain what Boeing's sin was in planning to open a plant in South Carolina?