# New NLRB law to take effect on January 31, 2012



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Another good reason not to hire any Employees.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Another good reason not to hire any Employees.


Why?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Why?


So you don't have to comply with posting it.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> So you don't have to comply with posting it.


What's the big deal?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Why?


It should be the Employees responsibility to know what his rights are #1

I'm already required to post those silly posters and we don't need any more.

I would rather pay my Employees the money that the posters cost.

We need less Government not more.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Honestly folks this is just common sense. Everything else needs to be posted, minimum wage, anti-descrimination, age requirements, etc. Why not have the employees protected NLRA rights posted?

Actually, this is wayyyyyy over due.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Honestly folks this is just common sense. Everything else needs to be posted, minimum wage, anti-descrimination, age requirements, etc. Why not have the employees protected NLRA rights posted?
> 
> Actually, this is wayyyyyy over due.


This is my Granted Employee rights .

You come to work ,do the work, and get payed for the work.

NO poster needed.:thumbup:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

> *HARRY304E*
> It should be the Employees responsibility to know what his rights are #1


A, so, what exactly does that mean? Are you inclined to keep your employees in the dark?



> I'm already required to post those silly posters and we don't need any more.


Apparantly not.



> I would rather pay my Employees the money that the posters cost.


The poster is free you goddamn idiot. (I mean this lovingly :laughing: )



> We need less Government not more.


This has nothing to do with more or less government.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> This is my Granted Employee rights .
> 
> You come to work ,do the work, and get payed for the work.
> 
> NO poster needed.:thumbup:


I don't know why we're arguing, you don't have any employees.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Harry I think you are overstating this a bit. Not a big deal.


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Another good reason not to hire any Employees.


I will second that. :thumbup:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Harry I think you are overstating this a bit. Not a big deal.


Actaully I agree with you.
I think it could be a good thing. Get the discussion going and clear the air a bit in the work place.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

John said:


> I will second that. :thumbup:


You guys need to give an explanation.
What exactly is it are you so worried about.
Did you even read the poster?


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> This has nothing to do with more or less government.


 Yes it does. It's the feds doing their politically correct stuff again.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I see no problem with it. A company that's above-the-board has nothing to fear from an informed worker.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

John said:


> Yes it does. It's the feds doing their politically correct stuff again.


What's politically correct about employee rights?


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> You guys need to give an explanation.
> What exactly is it are you so worried about.
> Did you even read the poster?


What political movitive is behind this requirement. Was it already a law before the requirement to post the poster?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> A, so, what exactly does that mean? Are you inclined to keep your employees in the dark?
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.
> ...





> The poster is free you goddamn idiot. (I mean this lovingly:laughing:


It cost thousands of tax payers dollars to produce.



> A, so, what exactly does that mean? Are you inclined to keep your employees in the dark?


Nope not at all but i do expect them to know their rights and the current code book



> This has nothing to do with more or less government


Yes it does.

And my life is much less stressful now that i do not have any Employees and all the over burdensome Government paper work from both this state and the feds the list of paperwork just for one Employee is enough to make your head spin.


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

Informed employees, heh. As if our education system were so effective.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> Informed employees, heh. As if our education system were so effective.


Gee i wonder why it's not..:laughing:


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

Less government is better, not more.

Good example 2 days ago. I went to buy 4 cans of spray paint to prime and paint the rims for my snow tires. I was asked for an ID form the guy from isle 14. he said A new law went into effect for old guys because of the cancer causing effects of spray paint. 
I didn't buy the paint at that store. :no:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I think sweeping statements condemning all regulations are poorly thought out.

A law that requires an ID to purchase paint (?) is hardly the same thing as a law that requires workers to be informed of their rights to embrace or ignore unionization.

A poster is just a messenger. If someone doesn't like the idea of unionization, then a poster most likely isn't going to change their mind. I see no problems making people aware of their legal rights as workers, and it worries me that folks would actually be against that.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

John said:


> What political movitive is behind this requirement. Was it already a law before the requirement to post the poster?


The NLRA has been a law since 1935. But the requirement to post the information is new (I don't know if it was ever required before) but the same law requireing the posting of minimum wage, anti-descrimination, and age limitations have been around for ever. BUT I'm willing to bet, they were law long before they were required to be posted.

Why does these laws need to be posted in the workplace, because they're commonly violated. Sometimes it's willfull, sometimes it's not. Absolutely nothing wrong with people being informed of their rights, or having them for that matter.
After all, this is NOT Red China.


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

Big John said:


> I think sweeping statements condemning all regulations are poorly thought out.
> 
> A law that requires an ID to purchase paint (?) is hardly the same thing as a law that requires workers to be informed of their rights to embrace or ignore unionization.
> 
> ...


 I'm not against workers knowing their rights...but against the government enacting an obvious political maneuver. They do. do this around election time ya know.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

I think that the effect of posting the regs is likely minimal at best. IMO, those employees that are intelligent and motivated enough to take care of themselves will also _a)_ be aware of the regs _or b)_ have the resources to look them up themselves. Having them posted will only make it easier for those that already know to convince those that do not.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

> *HARRY304E*
> It cost thousands of tax payers dollars to produce.


I doubt it.
I would imagine it would save millions in litigation because of the actions of unscrupulous companies and union organizers a like.



> Nope not at all but i do expect them to know their rights and the current code book


But you're against keeping your labor force informed of their and your rights?
Now you're contradicting yourself.



> Yes it does.
> 
> And my life is much less stressful now that i do not have any Employees and all the over burdensome Government paper work from both this state and the feds the list of paperwork just for one Employee is enough to make your head spin.


Save it.
Stop blaming your failure at growing your business on other people. Take responsibility for your own actions.

You see Harry, that argument works two ways.


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> The NLRA has been a law since 1935. But the requirement to post the information is new (I don't know if it was ever required before) but the same law requireing the posting of minimum wage, anti-descrimination, and age limitations have been around for ever. BUT I'm willing to bet, they were law long before they were required to be posted.
> 
> Why does these laws need to be posted in the workplace, because they're commonly violated. Sometimes it's willfull, sometimes it's not. Absolutely nothing wrong with people being informed of their rights, or having them for that matter.
> After all, this is NOT Red China.


I will agree with everything you said except the"NOT Red China". The government is everywhere in your daily life...most of which you probbly don't know about.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

John said:


> I'm not against workers knowing their rights...but against the government enacting an obvious political maneuver. They do. do this around election time ya know.


Regaurdless of motivation, it's still about damn time.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

John said:


> I'm not against workers knowing their rights...but against the government enacting an obvious political maneuver. They do this around election time ya know.


 I won't argue that. Politicians have a long history of coming up with laws that are just transparent attempts to pander to their base. 

But in fairness: Regardless of your political affiliation, these rights apply to you. On that poster it specifically says you have the right *not to unionize *and lists your rights as a non-union employee, if that's the route you chose.

This _may_ be a political pander, but it's a poor one: A poster isn't going to automatically change someone's mind about organized labor, and it's certainly not going to change their political party.

Just as an example, I've worked at a couple of different companies that tried to say workers could not discuss wages amongst themselves. I didn't even know that was a protected right. I really don't see a downside in having this information on display so people can make educated decisions for themselves.

-John


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> It should be the Employees responsibility to know what his rights are #1
> 
> I'm already required to post those silly posters and we don't need any more.
> 
> ...


 Harry, not all employers are the most honest, and reasonable people we know. If they did not have this kind of stuff posted it makes SOME employers think they own the employees and take advantage of that....


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

John said:


> What political movitive is behind this requirement. Was it already a law before the requirement to post the poster?


Yes

With all the crap going on right now this is just a desperate ploy to retain the union vote in November of 2012


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

stuiec said:


> I think that the effect of posting the regs is likely minimal at best. IMO, those employees that are intelligent and motivated enough to take care of themselves will also _a)_ be aware of the regs _or b)_ have the resources to look them up themselves. Having them posted will only make it easier for those that already know to convince those that do not.


 So you agree? or disagree:blink:


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

Big John said:


> I won't argue that. Politicians have a long history of coming up with laws that are just transparent attempts to pander to their base.
> 
> But in fairness: Regardless of your political affiliation, these rights apply. On that poster it specifically says you have the right *not to unionize *and lists your rights as a non-union employee.
> 
> ...


I don't have a problem with unionizing, my problem is with politicians pandering to special interests for political gain.

End of rant.. Jepordy is on tv. :whistling2:


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

We put them on the bathroom stall doors so the employees have something to read while they drop the kids off at the pool. I have no problem with an employee knowing his rights. Our state already required we put similar posters up.


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

19kilosparky984 said:


> Yes
> 
> With all the crap going on right now this is just a desperate ploy to retain the union vote in November of 2012



Hmmm...... plot thickens.:whistling2:


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

John said:


> Less government is better, not more.
> 
> Good example 2 days ago. I went to buy 4 cans of spray paint to prime and paint the rims for my snow tires. I was asked for an ID form the guy from isle 14. he said A new law went into effect for old guys because of the cancer causing effects of spray paint.
> I didn't buy the paint at that store. :no:


 :001_huh: I thought it was crazy kids huffing:001_huh: Yes we could use less stupid laws like this for sure


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> I doubt it.
> 
> Save it.
> Stop blaming your failure at growing your business on other people. Take responsibility for your own actions.
> ...


No failure on my part i just take great pleasure ignoring them.

They get my money every April so they can waste it on all this unnecessary stuff.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

Wireman191 said:


> So you agree? or disagree:blink:


 
I'm all *for* the employee being informed of their rights and obligations. I'm also saying that the effect of posting the rules will likely be negligible.


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

I challenge EVERY SINGLE one of you to hit up the working laws for your area and see just how many violations you can see your employer has done. Im willing to bet 90% of you are like WTF?:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> We put them on the bathroom stall doors so the employees have something to read while they drop the kids off at the pool. I have no problem with an employee knowing his rights. Our state already required we put similar posters up.


:laughing::laughing:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

John said:


> I don't have a problem with unionizing, my problem is with politicians pandering to special interests for political gain....


 Since this has become such a political topic, can you ever see a time when such a poster came out where it might not be considered pandering?

I think we've let the politics overshadow the real value of having informed workers. Once again, the information on that poster applies to all sides.


19kilosparky984 said:


> With all the crap going on right now this is just a desperate ploy to retain the union vote in November of 2012


 Are you suddenly going to switch your vote because a poster about your rights was put up in your workplace? Nor will most other people. See my reply to _John._

-John


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Wireman191 said:


> Harry, not all employers are the most honest, and reasonable people we know. If they did not have this kind of stuff posted it makes SOME employers think they own the employees and take advantage of that....


No one has to work for them either we are all free men.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

Big John said:


> Since this has become such a political topic, can you ever see a time when such a poster came out where it might not be considered pandering?
> 
> I think we've let the politics overshadow the real value of having informed workers. Once again, the information on that poster applies to all sides.
> Are you suddenly going to switch your vote because a poster about your rights was put up in your workplace? Nor will most other people. See my reply to John.
> ...


Nope NEVER

BUT 

There are more and more people on the fence,with everything going on now I think the current administration is attempting to show support to unions any little way they can without actually doing anything.


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> No one has to work for them either we are all free men.


 True words of wisdom:wheelchair:


----------



## Demac (Apr 28, 2010)

Yea, the NLRB never has any ulterior motives...

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1463064

...its interesting watching this play out.


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

HARRY304E said:


> No one has to work for them either we are all free men.


We are all slaves to government and corporate rule.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> We are all slaves to government and corporate rule.


Yes if we keep letting them pass unnecessary laws your right.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> *Employee Rights Notice Posting*
> 
> https://www.nlrb.gov/poster
> 
> ...


That law is supposedly a law that the unions have to respect. Do you suppose that a 17X 11 inch poster informing the union population of a business that if they are not satisfied with their representation, they have the RIGHT to take another look around for better representation? DO YOU THINK?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> That law is supposedly a law that the unions have to respect. Do you suppose that a 17X 11 inch poster informing the union population of a business that if they are not satisfied with their representation, they have the RIGHT to take another look around for better representation? DO YOU THINK?


What?
Who's the union population?
The poster is only there to inform employees of their rights. Nothing more.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> What?
> Who's the union population?
> The poster is only there to inform employees of their rights. Nothing more.


Then why does it take till January 31 2011..:blink:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Then why does it take till January 31 2011..:blink:


Well, if you didn't spend all your time watching Fox News and actually read things that were important to us and our trade you would have known that the NLRB spend the last several months taking in public comment on the proposal. 

You would have also known that right wing member of the NLRA apposed the law which post poned it going into effect by another few months.

This also gives businesses time to study and comply with the law.

Oh, and the poster is FREE to print out right off the NLRA site. :thumbsup:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> What?
> Who's the union population?
> The poster is only there to inform employees of their rights. Nothing more.


The UNION population is the people who have joined the union. There are "Right to Work States"...right? Are you disagreeing with what I said? Is the NLRB only there for the union workers?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

You know which guys weren't all that down with the concept of formation of a new American government with new regulations and upkeep taxation and all that? The ones who left relative safety behind and walked over the top of the Appalachian Mountains into Indian territory and carved out a piece of it for themselves. Out there, no government. If the land stretched on forever with no Pacific shoreline, probably you would find people like Harry and myself out wandering around trying to keep away from the regulations sheep people. I don't hold it against Vic for being an employee who likes the idea of a bigger brother looking out for him. Just return the favor to the lone wolfs.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> The UNION population is the people who have joined the union. There are "Right to Work States"...right? Are you disagreeing with what I said?


What you said doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> You know which guys weren't all that down with the concept of formation of a new American government with new regulations and upkeep taxation and all that? The ones who left relative safety behind and walked over the top of the Appalachian Mountains into Indian territory and carved out a piece of it for themselves. Out there, no government. If the land stretched on forever with no Pacific shoreline, probably you would find people like Harry and myself out wandering around trying to keep away from the regulations sheep people. I don't hold it against Vic for being an employee who likes the idea of a bigger brother looking out for him. Just return the favor to the lone wolfs.


You're nuts.
That reads like a fairy tale.
And I almost spit out my drink reading this! Harry!!! Are you kidding???!!!
I bet he BBBBBBBAAAAAAAA"SSSSSSSS when he talks. :laughing:
Sheep my ass.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> You're nuts.
> That reads like a fairy tale.
> And I almost spit out my drink reading this! Harry!!! Are you kidding???!!!
> I bet he BBBBBBBAAAAAAAA"SSSSSSSS when he talks. :laughing:
> Sheep my ass.


You go ahead and call me nuts but I struck out for parts unknown (at least to my parents anyway, like for instance the year I lived on the beach in Puerto Rico) at 17. For me it was always about outlaw living and freedom. Right up to the time I met my wife that is..........:laughing:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> ...Probably you would find people like Harry and myself out wandering around trying to keep away from the regulations sheep people. I don't hold it against Vic for being an employee who likes the idea of a bigger brother looking out for him. Just return the favor to the lone wolfs.


 There ain't much a thing in the world stopping a man from making his own way in this country. If you chose to go off by yourself and be a lone wolf, the federal government is hardly going to stop you.

However, if in an attempt to provide for yourself you choose to work for a large company, it's probably best that you know that company does not own your soul and that you retain certain rights in the face of the company's motives. This poster explains that.

Again, I fail to see why that bothers people, unless you're unable to divorce the two concepts of "workers rights" and "politics."

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

All BS aside, I think the number one biggest piece of information on that poster is, the fact that employees have the RIGHT to discuss their wages amongst themselves. That's huge. Way bigger then being able to talk to a union organizer.

The very last "open shop" (gotta love that term) I worked for had it written in their company rules, right in print, employees were not to discuss their wages. :blink:
GAWD.......did he have an awful lawyer! :laughing:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> What you said doesn't make a lick of sense.


Do you not know that in a particular workplace some can join and others elect not to?


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

At this time, I want to repeat what I have said many times. I AM a strong union person. I want what those who have gone before us fought for...and that is basic rights of workers.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Do you not know that in a particular workplace some can join and others elect not to?


It's a majority vote. You need 30% to sign "authorization for representation" cards to move for a vote and you need 51% to win an election, in either direction.

AND employees can always have a decertification vote if they are not happy with there current representation OR if they feel they do not need any at all.

IF you are referring to RTW states and employees not needing to take part in paying union dues as part of employment, it's union busting and nothing more. They want the same wages and fringes afforded to union members which was won through collective bargaining but do not want to be privy to the same contract and rules as the membership.

The NLRA in it's pure form was perfect. Give the employees a voice and let them decide. Take it to a vote and the majority wins. Nothing more democratic then that.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Big John said:


> There ain't much a thing in the world stopping a man from making his own way in this country. If you chose to go off by yourself and be a lone wolf, the federal government is hardly going to stop you.
> 
> However, if in an attempt to provide for yourself you choose to work for a large company, it's probably best that you know that company does not own your soul and that you retain certain rights in the face of the company's motives. This poster explains that.
> 
> ...


Ahh it actually doesn't bother me in the slightest to post posters up for employee's. I had plenty of em up in the past. I just originally gave Vic a reason that maybe Harry had to not want to have to do it. By the way, a Federal Appeals Judge recently ruled that citizens do not have the right to consume any food they wish, for instance in that particular case, the right to own and milk their cows for consumption at the dinner table in their home. 
Call that one a fairy tale if you like, it was in all the papers and on all the news shows.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Ahh it actually doesn't bother me in the slightest to post posters up for employee's. I had plenty of em up in the past. I just originally gave Vic a reason that maybe Harry had to not want to have to do it. By the way, a Federal Appeals Judge recently ruled that citizens do not have the right to consume any food they wish,* for instance in that particular case, the right to own and milk their cows for consumption at the dinner table in their home.
> Call that one a fairy tale if you like, it was in all the papers and on all the news shows.*


Im not doubting it, not for a second. We all know that our government is capable of some really, really stupid things. I'm just of the opinion that they got this one right.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> The NLRA has been a law since 1935. But the requirement to post the information is new (I don't know if it was ever required before) but the same law requireing the posting of minimum wage, anti-descrimination, and age limitations have been around for ever. BUT I'm willing to bet, they were law long before they were required to be posted.
> 
> Why does these laws need to be posted in the workplace, because they're commonly violated. Sometimes it's willfull, sometimes it's not. Absolutely nothing wrong with people being informed of their rights, or having them for that matter.
> After all, this is NOT Red China.


I think that worker's rights are important to be posted in the work place. Should the fact that the workers have a right to change their union representation be posted, as well?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> What's the big deal?


Because no one reads them, they clutter the walls, they are typical government BS, shall I go on.

Just like the warning on cigarettes no one pays attention.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> I think that worker's rights are important to be posted in the work place. Should the fact that the workers have a right to change their union representation be posted, as well?


Yes, they should be. I can agree to that.
It does say the workers have the right to not participate in "protected activity" but I will agree, it should say they have the right to a decertification vote.

BUT to play deils advoctae, that is not the intent of the NLRA. The intent of the act is to inform the labor of it's RIGHt to form or join a union or bargaining unit.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Yes, they should be. I can agree to that.
> It does say the workers have the right to not participate in "protected activity" but I will agree, it should say they have the right to a decertification vote.
> 
> BUT to play deils advoctae, that is not the intent of the NLRA. The intent of the act is to inform the labor of it's RIGHt to form or join a union or bargaining unit.


Then we are on the same side.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Because no one reads them, they clutter the walls, they are typical government BS, shall I go on.
> 
> Just like the warning on cigarettes no one pays attention.


I don't agree with this at all.
People, even low paid ones are not as dumb as you all portray here.
A matter of fact I think WalMart is gonna blow a gasket over this.
I guess they shouldn't......sinse no one reads them anyways. :whistling2:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Yes, employee rights are important. I truly believe that as well. In the sixties it was common for women workers to have to put up with bosses patting their fannies and such crap. I'm all down with it. Just let me drink my cows milk when I want to and quit telling me I have to kneel down when somebody mentions Federal Government .


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> I don't agree with this at all.
> People, even low paid ones are not as dumb as you all portray here.
> A matter of fact I think WalMart is gonna blow a gasket over this.
> I guess they shouldn't......sinse no one reads them anyways. :whistling2:


We have Walmart here and have always have always had to display those posters. State requires all employers to do so. I never read them when I was an employee. :no:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

When I was an employee I read the posters on the walls of the lunchroom because the boss wouldn't allow any magazines in there.......................................................................


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> ...By the way, a Federal Appeals Judge recently ruled that citizens do not have the right to consume any food they wish, for instance in that particular case, the right to own and milk their cows for consumption at the dinner table in their home....


 I read about it, I disagree with the ruling, and I hope like hell it gets overturned.

The irony of that decision is that it actually takes power away from the individual (by virtue of saying you cannot milk your own cows) and instead gives that power exclusively to business (by virtue of saying they are the only acceptable source of dairy).

And yet the arguments on here seem to be against informing individuals of their right to organize in the face of business owners. 

-John


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I wish somebody who knows more about it than I do can also explain the new fed rules about how you have to reveal your votes when you vote yes or no to unionization of a company.


That sounds fair and balanced.....


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Big John said:


> I read about it, I disagree with the ruling, and I hope like hell it gets overturned.
> 
> The irony of that decision is that it actually takes power away from the individual (by virtue of saying you cannot milk your own cows) and instead gives that power exclusively to business (by virtue of saying they are the only acceptable source of dairy).
> 
> ...


Best part- That judge retired from the bench so he could go back to working for his former employer- Monsanto..........

Hand in hand they go , hand in hand.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> I don't agree with this at all.
> People, even low paid ones are not as dumb as you all portray here.
> A matter of fact I think WalMart is gonna blow a gasket over this.
> I guess they shouldn't......sinse no one reads them anyways. :whistling2:


If they are posted and no one reads them, it is no different than having the right to vote, but not voting. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> When I was an employee I read the posters on the walls of the lunchroom because the boss wouldn't allow any magazines in there.......................................................................


it was a *PAID* lunch than,..........................right?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

360max said:


> it was a *PAID* lunch than,..........................right?


I've worked for more than one outfit. Sometimes an electrician, sometimes management. Paid lunches it seems depend on blue or white collar at least in my experience.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Ahh it actually doesn't bother me in the slightest to post posters up for employee's. I had plenty of em up in the past. I just originally gave Vic a reason that maybe Harry had to not want to have to do it. By the way, a Federal Appeals Judge recently ruled that citizens do not have the right to consume any food they wish, for instance in that particular case, the right to own and milk their cows for consumption at the dinner table in their home.
> Call that one a fairy tale if you like, it was in all the papers and on all the news shows.


 I would be interested to see the case you are refering to if it actually exsists. I have read nothing that prohibits an individual from consuming raw milk.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> I would be interested to see the case you are refering to if it actually exsists. I have read nothing that prohibits an individual from consuming raw milk.



Man where you ? Anyway, this isn't the one, but right now its a big issue. http://www.ftcldf.org/aa/aa-26april2010.htm


This is the actual case in question: http://www.federaljack.com/?p=119137


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Man where you ? Anyway, this isn't the one, but right now its a big issue. http://www.ftcldf.org/aa/aa-26april2010.htm
> 
> 
> This is the actual case in question: http://www.federaljack.com/?p=119137


this is not an individual milking his cows for his own consumption.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Mr Rewire said:


> I would be interested to see the case you are refering to if it actually exsists. I have read nothing that prohibits an individual from consuming raw milk.


I agree. The law only prohibits the sale to others.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Well, if you didn't spend all your time watching Fox News and actually read things that were important to us and our trade you would have known that the NLRB spend the last several months taking in public comment on the proposal.
> 
> You would have also known that right wing member of the NLRA apposed the law which post poned it going into effect by another few months.
> 
> ...





> that the NLRB spend the last several months taking in public comment on the proposal.


And how much did that cost the tax payer?:blink:


> Oh, and the poster is FREE to print out right off the NLRA site. :thumbsup:


See question above,.



> if you didn't spend all your time watching Fox News


I would not know how much money is being wasted by the left.



> You would have also known that right wing member of the NLRA apposed the law


I'll bet he has a good reason for that..:thumbup:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> this is not an individual milking his cows for his own consumption.



You didn't read it all did you? quote: "However, the judge would not rule that the plaintiffs have any Constitutional rights to own a dairy cow, consume milk from their own cow, board a cow at the farm of another farmer, or produce and consume the foods of their choice."

He refused to rule, which in effect means the original charge of consuming milk from their own cow, not selling it, stands. It was an appeals case.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> I agree. The law only prohibits the sale to others.


 Here is the text of the ruling. There are two things that bother me about this case:

1) While I agree there should be regulation on the sale of unpasturized milk in order to protect the public health, this case also attempts to prohibit the not-for-profit distribution of unpasturized milk between consenting parties.

2) While attempting to get clarification on the ruling, Judge Fiedler actually went on record saying "Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice." 

Which is thoroughly asinine.

-John


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Big John said:


> Here is the text of the ruling. There are two things that bother me about this case:
> 
> 1) While I agree there should be regulation on the sale of unpasturized milk in order to protect the public health, this case also attempts to prohibit the not-for-profit distribution of unpasturized milk between consenting parties.
> 
> ...


I hate big government...but some governance is necessary. The bottom line is that if a "not for profit" group gives out contaminated milk, someone may be harmed. Historically, cottage industries don't police because they don't expect anything wrong will happen.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> I don't agree with this at all.
> People, even low paid ones are not as dumb as you all portray here.
> A matter of fact I think WalMart is gonna blow a gasket over this.
> I guess they shouldn't......sinse no one reads them anyways. :whistling2:


Very few to none read this crap.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Very few to none read this crap.


How do you know?
I'm a nobody, Average education at best, Come from less then a nourishing background, No talk of college when I was a kid, Never took my SAT's, Hell, I barely got out of high school, I'm lucky to earn the wage I do, Honestly, I am a half a generation removed from poor white trash, but yet, I read EVERYTHING.

BJ, I respect your opinions on a lot of things but where do you get off underestimating what people will and won't do?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> I hate big government...but some governance is necessary. The bottom line is that if a "not for profit" group gives out contaminated milk, someone may be harmed. Historically, cottage industries don't police because they don't expect anything wrong will happen.


 Say you have some friends and family over and you're making cookies. One of your guests wants to try the raw cookie dough because it's freakin' delicious. If we were to follow the logic of that ruling, it would be entirely possible for the government to step in and prohibit that because you're giving someone food with uncooked egg in it and that person could get salmonella poisoning.

This wasn't a case of public distribution, and it wasn't a case of distribution for profit. It was between people like you and I who'd made an agreement of their own free will to consume something naturally edible. It's not the right of any regulator body to say differently. 

-John


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Bulldog1 said:


> We have Walmart here and have always have always had to display those posters. State requires all employers to do so. I never read them when I was an employee. :no:


Me neither.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Big John said:


> Say you have some friends and family over and you're making cookies. One of your guests wants to try the raw cookie dough because it's freakin' delicious. If we were to follow the logic of that ruling, it would be entirely possible for the government to step in and prohibit that because you're giving someone food with uncooked egg in it and that person could get salmonella poisoning.
> 
> This wasn't a case of public distribution, and it wasn't a case of distribution for profit. It was between people like you and I who'd made an agreement of their own free will to consume something naturally edible. It's not the right of any regulator body to say differently.
> 
> -John


I am in agreement with you, but let's say, with the current environment as far as litigation is concerned, you give a cookie that you cooked to a friend and they died because of the cookie...they died. Who is to blame?


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> I am in agreement with you, but let's say, with the current environment as far as litigation is concerned, you give a cookie that you cooked to a friend and they died because of the cookie...they died. Who is to blame?


 The cookie:jester:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Wireman191 said:


> The cookie:jester:


You are following this discussion...that's cool.


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> You are following this discussion...that's cool.


 :laughing: It went from Employers having to post a poster on the wall to the regulation of milk products and family members dieing.:blink: Did I miss anything?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> I'm a nobody, Average education at best, Come from less then a nourishing background, No talk of college when I was a kid, Never took my SAT's, Hell, I barely got out of high school, I'm lucky to earn the wage I do, Honestly, I am a half a generation removed from poor white trash



:laughing::laughing:Talk about a cry baby..

Stop blaming others for your own failures..:laughing::laughing:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Wireman191 said:


> :laughing: It went from Employers having to post a poster on the wall to the regulation of milk products and family members dieing.:blink: Did I miss anything?


You did not miss anything. "Discourse" can mean many things.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> You did not miss anything. "Discourse" can mean many things.


 
yeah but, are we on discourse or datcourse?:whistling2:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> You didn't read it all did you? quote: "However, the judge would not rule that the plaintiffs have any Constitutional rights to own a dairy cow, consume milk from their own cow, board a cow at the farm of another farmer, or produce and consume the foods of their choice."
> 
> He refused to rule, which in effect means the original charge of consuming milk from their own cow, not selling it, stands. It was an appeals case.


Their was more to the judges statememnt that is being left out.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> ...You give a cookie that you cooked to a friend and they died because of the cookie...they died. Who is to blame?


 The virus that killed them. Seriously. Unless you have evidence of malice on the part of the person who gave you the cookie, or the unpasturized milk, or what have you, sometimes these things just happen and _nobody_ is to blame.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> :laughing::laughing:Talk about a cry baby..
> 
> Stop blaming others for your own failures..:laughing::laughing:


Actually I consider myself quite successful.
At least I can use a spell checker Harry.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> You are following this discussion...that's cool.


 enjoying some social intercourse


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Actually I consider myself quite successful.
> At least I can use a spell checker Harry.


Spell checkers flag 9 out of 10 Hawaiian street names..:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Spell checkers flag 9 out of 10 Hawaiian street names..:laughing:


:laughing::laughing::laughing::thumbup:


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

Wow The only employers that will have issues with this are the ones that are trying to stretch the rules. Now if you have been breaking certain rules for awhile and one of these posters hit the nail on the head and you may be getting in some hot water from it, Well maybe you should have followed the rules in the first place.:whistling2: My employer has no qualms what soever telling me what the hell I can and cant do...... But I know my boundary's and will call him on it. Everyone needs to get on L&Is web page and see what there rights are! Teach the crap in school!


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Big John said:


> The virus that killed them. Seriously. Unless you have evidence of malice on the part of the person who gave you the cookie, or the unpasturized milk, or what have you, sometimes these things just happen and _nobody_ is to blame.
> 
> -John


I agree with you , but it is no difference if you wire a friends hot tub...for free... and something wierd happens and they get electrocuted. Their insurance company will come to you.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Gee sorry I jacked this thread so bad. I'd gladly go sit in the corner and have my cookie and milk while studying the new federally mandated employee rights poster on the wall, but I might get a visit from the feds or an insurance company, or the spelling police, if I do.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Actually I consider myself quite successful.
> At least I can use a spell checker Harry.


Real men don't need spell Checker....:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Spell checkers flag 9 out of 10 Hawaiian street names..:laughing:


:thumbup::laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Gee sorry I jacked this thread so bad. I'd gladly go sit in the corner and have my cookie and milk while studying the new federally mandated employee rights poster on the wall, but I might get a visit from the feds or an insurance company, or the spelling police, if I do.


We are from the Government were here to help you...


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

I just knew this thread would be a winner. :thumbup:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> I wish somebody who knows more about it than I do can also explain the new fed rules about how you have to reveal your votes when you vote yes or no to unionization of a company.
> 
> 
> That sounds fair and balanced.....


Bump


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Bump


I would be happy to explain it if i knew what you were talking about?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> I wish somebody who knows more about it than I do can also explain the new fed rules about how you have to reveal your votes when you vote yes or no to unionization of a company.
> 
> 
> That sounds fair and balanced.....


The votes are anonymous.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> I just knew this thread would be a winner. :thumbup:



:sleep1::sleep1::sleep1::laughing::laughing:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

It was my understanding that the current admin was pushing or got thru a new law or executive order requiring the individual's private votes to be made public.

Maybe that one never flew, I don't know. I try to stay away from union/ non union stuff anyway.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> I wish somebody who knows more about it than I do can also explain the new fed rules about how you have to reveal your votes when you vote yes or no to unionization of a company.
> 
> 
> That sounds fair and balanced.....


You got a link to this?
I've been a part of this process. The only time a vote can be revealed is when a "challenged" vote has been cast. And only when those votes COULD effect the outcome are the identities of THOSE voters known. And then that is only to the NLRB officers.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> It was my understanding that the current admin was pushing or got thru a new law or executive order requiring the individual's private votes to be made public.
> 
> Maybe that one never flew, I don't know. I try to stay away from union/ non union stuff anyway.


Ugh.
Sounds like more Fox News propaganda. Don't worry, they effectively killed the Employee free choice act. And NO, that was never, ever in it. :no:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Oh man, now I gotta go goofle for another 1/2 hr again.....


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Oh man, now I gotta go goofle for another 1/2 hr again.....


Have fun.
What's Goofle? Is that like the Fox News version of Google?? :blink:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Ugh.
> Sounds like more Fox News propaganda. Don't worry, they effectively killed the Employee free choice act. And NO, that was never, ever in it. :no:





> Ugh.
> Sounds like more Fox News propaganda.


Yup it was much better when CNN and all the other Bed-Wetting networks were never questioned .:laughing:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Have fun.
> What's Goofle? Is that like the Fox News version of Google?? :blink:


No, I'm trying to lure Steeler back...... he's a fisherman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check


Ok, now I know. It didn't pass...... yet.......


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Yup it was much better when CNN and all the other networks were never questioned .:laughing:


They are all slanted Harry! God Damn you drive me insane! 
You really can't be this dumb......it's impossible. You are the master troll!!!
I bow down in your presence.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> No, I'm trying to lure Steeler back...... he's a fisherman.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
> 
> ...


yet


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> They are all slanted Harry! God Damn you drive me insane!
> You really can't be this dumb......it's impossible. You are the master troll!!!
> I bow down in your presence.


No,


I am a Master Electrician but a crappy Troll...:laughing::thumbup::laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> No, I'm trying to lure Steeler back...... he's a fisherman.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
> 
> ...


Card Check...I always liked that one. Like some boogy man is gonna come and demand to see your card! :laughing:

Here, I'll explain to you how the current system works AND what the EFCA wanted to change. I'll try my hardest to keep it short.

Under the NLRA a group of employees can choose to have a union represent them for collective bargaining. Now, the says that you need a majority of the employees to be in favor of this for the bargaining group to be recognized as such.

I'll skip a bunch of history and stuff and get to the actual process. 

For a union to apply with the NLRB for an election, they must have at least 30% of the employees sign "authorization for representation" cards. These cards give the union the right as YOUR bargaining agent AND allows the union to file for an election. (They must turn in the cards to the NLRB)

Now, to win the actual election you need 51% of the vote to be in your favor. Are you following me so far?

This would lead many union organizers to want at least 50% of the Authorization cards signed before moving to an election because who wants to have an election when only 30% could be on board?

Here's where it gets tricky, the average time period between the filing of the AoR cards and the actual election is 2 years. Well, a lot of things can happen in two years. Someone might be fired who just happened to support unions. Maybe a guy suddenly gets a promotion, or maybe management starts interrogating employees?

I'll skip a bunch more stuff.

What the EFCA wanted was to skip the waiting period all together. What the law aimed to do was stream line the process. If the law passed, this is what would have happened,

IF 51% of the employees signed authorization cards then there would be no need for the vote since a majority of the employees already stood in favor of representation. That's what the bill did. Seems to make sense doesn't it?
Why would Big Business be against that?????????????

You're a smart dude, use your imagination.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

On the other hand it could be used to make the lives of the no voters a bit less fulfilling. capiche?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Card Check...I always liked that one. Like some boogy man is gonna come and demand to see your card! :laughing:
> 
> Here, I'll explain to you how the current system works AND what the EFCA wanted to change. I'll try my hardest to keep it short.
> 
> ...




In Philadelphia the utility is called PECO. They're owned by Exxelon. It took them 20 years to get to the point of even having an election. Think about that, 20 years! That's no BS either. They finally got their election around 04' or 05' maybe it was 06', I forget, but they've been union ever since and they have their own IBEW local.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> On the other hand it could be used to make the lives of the no voters a bit less fulfilling. capiche?


It's a majority vote. A democratic process. It gets complicated but very rarely does 51% get you to the bargaining table. Even with a 90% vote, large companies can drag out the process for years.

And remember, just because someone didn't sign am Authorization card doesn't mean there on board, plus IF it does go to a vote it's still an anonymous vote!

The vote is physically a piece of paper that says yes or no, that's it.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> It's a majority vote. A democratic process. It gets complicated but very rarely does 51% get you to the bargaining table. Even with a 90% vote, large companies can drag out the process for years.
> 
> And remember, just because someone didn't sign am Authorization card doesn't mean there on board, plus IF it does go to a vote it's still an anonymous vote!
> 
> The vote is physically a piece of paper that says yes or no, that's it.


Well then I'm all for it. Tell you what, we'll give this one to Obama and take back the Health Care Act, hows that sound?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Well then I'm all for it. Tell you what, we'll give this one to Obama and take back the Health Care Act, hows that sound?


I like it.
To hell with that so-called affordable health care BS. 
I wanna paint Obama's face on my punching bag.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> I like it.
> To hell with that so-called affordable health care BS.
> I wanna paint Obama's face on my punching bag.


Brah, don't say that. He's a guy from Hawaii. They love to fistfight. He may come looking for a good Portagee scrap. :laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Brah, don't say that. He's a guy from Hawaii. They love to fistfight. He may come looking for a good Portagee scrap. :laughing:


:laughing:

Hawaiians like to brawl huh?
Sounds like a cool place.:laughing:


----------



## wingg nutts (Oct 23, 2011)

Slick, I take it you are a union man. :no:

Happy cows make more milk! :thumbup: NOT!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Brah, don't say that. He's a guy from Hawaii. They love to fistfight. He may come looking for a good Portagee scrap. :laughing:


I didnt know Kenya was part of he Hawaiian islands ..........


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

On a serious note, where do I put these posters? My guys operate out of vans. I home office and I won't put any posters in there as I am the only one who uses that office.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

Chris1971 said:


> On a serious note, where do I put these posters? My guys operate out of vans. I home office and I won't put any posters in there as I am the only one who uses that office.


 
But don't you dispatch them from somewhere?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris1971 said:


> On a serious note, where do I put these posters? My guys operate out of vans. I home office and I won't put any posters in there as I am the only one who uses that office.


According to the NLRB web site you need to post all required posters at the job site. I'm guessing inside the van, gang box, or trailer would suffice. Where ever all employees will have access to it would be acceptable. Check out the NLRB website. It has a FAQ link.

Posted from iPhone.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> According to the NLRB web site you need to post all required posters at the job site. I'm guessing inside the van, gang box, or trailer would suffice. Where ever all employees will have access to it would be acceptable. Check out the NLRB website. It has a FAQ link.
> 
> Posted from iPhone.


Thanks for the information.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Chris1971 said:


> On a serious note, where do I put these posters? My guys operate out of vans. I home office and I won't put any posters in there as I am the only one who uses that office.



Because our government is run by buffoons and HAVE NO CLUE about business, just take the fine, heaven knows you do not pay your fair share.

Then the idiots wonder why businesses move out of the country.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

.......You have the right to remain silent...........


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Because our government is run by buffoons and HAVE NO CLUE about business, just take the fine, heaven knows you do not pay your fair share.
> 
> Then the idiots wonder why businesses move out of the country.


:sleep1:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Chris1971 said:


> On a serious note, where do I put these posters? My guys operate out of vans. I home office and I won't put any posters in there as I am the only one who uses that office.


Just put them up in the customers house in each room your Employees work...:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Just put them up in the customers house in each room your Employees work...:laughing:


Joke all you want, you can get some real fines for not having all the required info where your employees can see them.

On big jobs we put them in the job trailer on smaller jobs we pretty much cover a large gang box with required posters and info.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Everyone uses the port potty. I'll puts them above the urinal.:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Joke all you want, you can get some real fines for not having all the required info where your employees can see them.
> 
> On big jobs we put them in the job trailer on smaller jobs we pretty much cover a large gang box with required posters and info.


Read post #2


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

In all seriousness, I'll post them in the van or a gang box. Thanks everyone for the info.:thumbsup:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Read post #2


Yeah, that is great Harry, you will never be rich running a one man shop and many people would like to be rich, or at least really comfortable.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Yeah, that is great Harry, you will never be rich running a one man shop and many people would like to be rich, or at least really comfortable.



I'm happy just to make a decent living. That's vey difficult as one man shop if you actually factor in all your real costs of doing business. Oh, I know, freedom, the man doesn't tell you what to do..blah blah blah.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Yeah, that is great Harry, you will never be rich running a one man shop and many people would like to be rich, or at least really comfortable.


I made my money when i had Employees.

And when the state and the feds stop changing the rules of the game on a daily basis i will put guys on and pay them well till then i choose to make less,

And i am not the only one that feels that way, that is why 25,000,000 people cannot find a job right now it is as simple as that.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Found this site. It might be helpful to comply with all the requirements for state and federal posters.

http://www.laborlawposters-online.com


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

BBQ said:


> Joke all you want, you can get some real fines for not having all the required info where your employees can see them.
> 
> On big jobs we put them in the job trailer on smaller jobs we pretty much cover a large gang box with required posters and info.


And how many men stop and read them?

Oh let me guess the slackers and hacks on their way to the unemployment office?


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

brian john said:


> And how many men stop and read them?
> 
> Oh let me guess the slackers and hacks on their way to the unemployment office?


Doesnt matter who reads them... it matters that they are up.:thumbsup:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> And how many men stop and read them?
> 
> Oh let me guess the slackers and hacks on their way to the unemployment office?


Yeah, because all the real hard workers march around blind folded acting like sheep listening blindly to what the management had to say.


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

I was just reading Massachusetts' labor posters. It only takes a few seconds for an employee to familiarize themselves with the sum up of the laws. It's not like they're gonna read it every day and submit an essay.


----------



## Wireman191 (Aug 28, 2011)

brian john said:


> Then the idiots wonder why businesses move out of the country.


 Because they do not have to enforce fair labor laws in foreign countries? :whistling2:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Yeah, because all the real hard workers march around blind folded acting like sheep listening blindly to what the management had to say.


 
No the real hard workers are working.

How many men read ALL the posters on a job site top to bottom and understand them?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> No the real hard workers are working.
> 
> How many men read ALL the posters on a job site top to bottom and understand them?


I dunno.
All of them.
None of them.
Some where in between?????

What is your point?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

brian john said:


> No the real hard workers are working.
> 
> How many men read ALL the posters on a job site top to bottom and understand them?


That is probably that last thing any one would want to spend their lunch time doing.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Another good reason not to hire any Employees.


 
And some businesses take this route or limit the number of employees, to avoid federal requirements.

The more restriction the government places on businesses the harder it is to do business. While this requirement is a simple mandate, when you take them all together along with "O's" ideas and companies will say why bother.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

You two old men act like it's a goddamn novel. Hell, I've read longer poems on the crap house wall. Geeeez, is this what I got to look forward to when I get old, endless bed wetting and complaining?????????????? You guys cry about EVERYTHING.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

brian john said:


> And some businesses take this route or limit the number of employees, to avoid federal requirements.
> 
> The more restriction the government places on businesses the harder it is to do business. While this requirement is a simple mandate, when you take them all together along with "O's" ideas and companies will say why bother.


The issue with large corporations is they are traded on the stock exchange and profits are why they are in business. If overseas is better for the bottom line then that is where they go. Small businesses are screwed. We can't leave.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

brian john said:


> ...How many men read ALL the posters on a job site top to bottom and understand them?


 What if only one does? And what if he only reads part of one, but still learns something? That's one more man who better understands his legal rights. 

Again, this is about something more important than the potential politics behind it.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> And some businesses take this route or limit the number of employees, to avoid federal requirements.
> 
> The more restriction the government places on businesses the harder it is to do business. While this requirement is a simple mandate, when you take them all together along with "O's" ideas and companies will say why bother.


Really? because of a poster?

All right Brian, what do you suggest? 
What's the shining example of fairness in the work place?
If our system is so awful, then who's system should we more be like? China's?
I here that A LOT on conservative radio, we should be more like China. Then they tell me that Capitalism is the greatest system on earth. :laughing:
Hypocrites.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Really? because of a poster?
> 
> All right Brian, what do you suggest?
> What's the shining example of fairness in the work place?
> ...





> I here that A LOT on conservative radio, we should be more like China. Then they tell me that Capitalism is the greatest system on earth. :laughing:
> Hypocrites


Really got that on tape because i never heard anything like that at all.


And tell us what system is better than Capitalism and where else has man made more advances in freedom and liberty then the only Capitalist
country the USA...:blink:


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> Really? because of a poster?
> 
> All right Brian, what do you suggest?
> What's the shining example of fairness in the work place?
> ...


True free market capitalism is the fairest and greatest system on earth, we have in this country capitalism/socialism. We are a capitalist system for profits but a socialist system for losses. I still think we currently have the best system that this world has to offer but I think we are sliiping, fast.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Big John said:


> The virus that killed them. Seriously. Unless you have evidence of malice on the part of the person who gave you the cookie, or the unpasturized milk, or what have you, sometimes these things just happen and _nobody_ is to blame.
> 
> -John


If you SOLD it to them...the game changes.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> If you SOLD it to them...the game changes.


 Agreed. But the parts we were talking about didn't involve sales.

-John


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Big John said:


> What if only one does? And what if he only reads part of one, but still learns something? That's one more man who better understands his legal rights.
> 
> Again, this is about something more important than the potential politics behind it.
> 
> -John


Tell that one to google it.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

brian john said:


> Tell that one to google it.


 Lame. 

From what I've heard you say it sounds like you run a solid shop and treat your guys well. You surely aren't naive enough to believe that everyone else does the same: There are a ton of places where the worker still comes last. Anything that can be put forth to improve that, I'm in favor of, regardless of my personal feelings on the source.

-John


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Another good reason not to hire any Employees.


Cause you might have to print something out and thumbtack it to the bulletin board?  :lol: :lol:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

brian john said:


> And how many men stop and read them?
> 
> Oh let me guess the slackers and hacks on their way to the unemployment office?


I doubt anyone reads them.

But we post them anyway.


----------



## MarkyMark (Jan 31, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Another good reason not to hire any Employees.


I would hope that having to print out one 11 x 17 poster would be pretty far down your list of reasons. :whistling2:


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

MarkyMark said:


> I would hope that having to print out one 11 x 17 poster would be pretty far down your list of reasons. :whistling2:


 I think a lot of it has to do with the expense of paying a guy to sit around and watch soap-operas all day.:whistling2:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

MarkyMark said:


> I would hope that having to print out one 11 x 17 poster would be pretty far down your list of reasons. :whistling2:


The NLRB should be De-funded and disbanded, it is a waste of the tax payers money and do not care about Employees except for their Union dues.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Jlarson said:


> Cause you might have to print something out and thumbtack it to the bulletin board?  :lol: :lol:


See post 174..:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> The NLRB should be De-funded and disbanded, it is a waste of the tax payers money and do not care about Employees except for their Union dues.


You're a ****ing idiot.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> You're a ****ing idiot.


Thank you...:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> You're a ****ing idiot.


 
You forgot soap opera fan.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

lefleuron said:


> You forgot soap opera fan.


:laughing:


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

I think the poster is way overdue. I personally know it going to be a big hit here in SC. Imagine the shock on these poor stupid bastards faces when they see this in writing. 
Until now, they thought this stuff was only in the movies and it was not for real. You see the closest anyone ever came to a union or even a poster from the NLRA was in the movie "Norma Rae". And most of them hated her too. The boss man especially. She was a devil, just like beer is the devils iced tea.
I can see this poster in the break room at ***** Fibers. A large textile recycling plant here. I can see all the old black ladies asking the boss man if they had to join a union. Most cannot read and that is why I mention them. They can easily be manipulated and have been for over 40 years. 

I can see the poor (actually poor as far as money) Republican base crying foul when they are illiterate. They cannot read it so the upper managers will explain the new poster that everyone is talking about, or is afraid to mention.
Or, they will sneak it in under some other 20 year old publications and make no mention of it.
They will explain it away like some have done here. That it is the work of the black devil (Obama).

I use this company as an example (I have worked there) for a reason.
When I worked there, there was a tale of a union once. The union was voted in, but within two years voted out. Voted out, because the company refused to give anyone a pay raise. Then, once they got rid of the union, the company started to give them raises again. The plant is still below average in wages and always will be.


----------

