Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Republican Candidates position on NLRB!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

luckytohaveajob

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Posts
1,114
The following article advocates the Repulblican Presidential Candidates need to reveal their positions against the National Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB has recently made a policy change stating a non vote is NOT a no vote. The ATA and Congress disagree and have acted to strip the NLRB of its powers through the courts and legislation.

Two years ago Boeing had a machinist strike in Washington. One of the actions Boeing took after resolving the strike was to build a second B787 assembly plant in South Carolina and make it NON-UNION.

The only good thing I can say about Obama is he has taken a hands off approach concerning the NLRB.

What will the republican candidates position be and why do unionized airline workers support republican candidates who are anti-labor?

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/SC-Gov-2012-GOP-hopefuls-need-to-challenge-unions-1367682.php
 
the decision to sue Boeing is a total joke if you bother to look into the facts. That decision will drive companies to locate factories overseas.
 
Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul are clearly against airline workers after last nights debate finished.

Ron Paul says union wages are artificially created by the government. Tim Pawlenty says a company should be able to move its jobs around to avoid union wages.
It is not about the union, it is about the worker's right to chose. It is called the right to work.

from wsj One of the under-appreciated fault lines in the U.S. economy is between the 22 "right-to-work" states and the rest of the country. The former have tended to do much better economically. Now some non-right-to-work states such as Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan are thinking about joining this club that allows workers to opt-out of union membership.

Contrary to much union rhetoric, right-to-work laws don't ban or bust unions. They simply grant individual workers the right to join or not to join, even once a workplace is organized by a union. Workers who decline to join the union can't be forced to have dues taken out of their paycheck and thus used to finance union political campaigns. Most right-to-work states are in the South and West, and only Oklahoma has adopted this freedom to choose in the last 20 years.

Right-to-work states outperform forced-union states in almost every measurable category of worker well-being. A new study in the Cato Journal by economist Richard Vedder finds that from 2000 to 2008 some 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union to right-to-work states.

The study also found that from 1977 through 2007 there was "a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth." Right-to-work states experienced a 23% faster rise in per capita income over that period. The two regions that have lost the most jobs in recent years, the once-industrial Northeast and Midwest, are mostly forced-union states.

Indiana is a case study in the negative effects of forced unionism. Governor Mitch Daniels recently explained why his state lost a bid for a new Colgate factory that would have employed hundreds: "We did absolutely everything we could do. . . . We made an offer we believe was competitive in every other respect, but they [Colgate] want to be in a right-to-work state."

Mr. Daniels adds that the lack of a right-to-work law "does hold us back economically. There is no doubt about it." He estimates that when competing with Southern states for businesses, "a very large number—perhaps as many as a quarter—of the deals we don't get a shot at are for just this reason."

This damage has motivated Indiana Republicans, who now control both legislature chambers, to announce that they want to pass a right-to-work law. Unions immediately went to Defcon 1, Democrats are up in arms, and Republicans could yet buckle under this union pressure. Even Mr. Daniels, who has stood up to union opposition in the past, seems hesitant. He told the Indianapolis Star that right to work "may be worth a look," but he added it "is not on my agenda." He's worried that the issue so antagonizes unions that it could derail the rest of his legislative agenda.

We hope Republicans don't flinch. Right-to-work laws make states more economically competitive, but the bigger issue is about individual rights. Workers should have the right to join a union but also the right not to. Indiana and other states with new Republican majorities have a rare opportunity to pass a major reform that will reduce union power, help to attract new jobs, and liberate workers from union coercion.
 
So Yipstick, in a unionized company that is based in a right to work state, if a member opts out of union membership and dues, what pay and benefits package do they receive?
 
To sum it up: Screw unions, shift jobs however they like, deny collective bargaining, VOTE GOP.
 
there is no denial of collective bargaining in Right to Work states. At least take the time to get educated on the facts before sharing your opinion
 
Vote GOP or Vot DEM there is 100% no difference anymore, Sure they try to sound different but if you look at what they actually say and then what they do NO DIFFERENCE.

We had a GOP Pres a GOP congress and a GOP senate what did that do for us????
real deficits under them 5.0 trillion
total spending under them 20.5 trillion
total inflation adjusted increase to the fed budget 12 % under clinton and 42% under bush
Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ
Obumbles has doubled his rediculous spending and continues.....HOW COULD YOU SPEND MORE THEN BUSH AND THE REPUBS...THEY DID AND ARE!

The GOps contract with America had over 500 members of congress supporting spending cuts! Once Bush took office however there were only TWO Ron Paul and Jim SensenBrenner (R wis) Where did they all go?

The Dems took over and now we have 500+ members saying the same thing and saying sorry about last time! BS look at the non cut of a 1.3 trillion budget....they could not find 38 Billion when the CBO said there were 200 Billion of duplicate programs! Then the 38 Billion was really smoke and mirrors and is really 500 Million cause the other stuff they cut was gonna be spent anyway! DEMS did this and THE GOP did this and they argued about it 3 Diff times!

they dont think we are stupid THYE KNOW WE ARE STUPID CAUSE WE allow them to get away with it! CAUSE OUR SIDE IS RIGHT! NEITHER SIDE IS RIGHT WE ARE BROKE! ARGHHHHH

Im ok now!

Gotta look at all the history folks, want spending cuts......Look hard at the tea party for no other reason as they at least have not become progressive Dems/Repubs yet!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top