Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour

[sentrido]

NLRB Green Lights Ban on Off-Duty Fraternizing Among Co-Workers

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers....http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/worker...s/eye7_2005.cfm

 

[sentrido]

It just occured to me that something like this could close down lou turks!

 

[diogenes]

Would any right-wing,'get-government-off-my-back' types try to reconcile this with a strict interpretation of the First Amendment?

You know, the one that reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And, read it in the context of WHY the BOR's was adopted - it's right there in the introductory sentence.

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"

Somehow, the NLRB's ruling does not constitute 'grounds of public confidence' for me.


I find it supremely ironic that the strict constructionists are the first to shred the Constitution. Protesting too much, me thinks.

Time to stop looking for leftists and communists under the bed.

The facists are taking up all the room.

 

[Bob Owens]

Would any right-wing,'get-government-off-my-back' types try to reconcile this with a strict interpretation of the First Amendment?

You know, the one that reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And, read it in the context of WHY the BOR's was adopted - it's right there in the introductory sentence.

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"

Somehow, the NLRB's ruling does not constitute 'grounds of public confidence' for me.
I find it supremely ironic that the strict constructionists are the first to shred the Constitution. Protesting too much, me thinks.

Time to stop looking for leftists and communists under the bed.

The facists are taking up all the room.

[post="285588"][/post]​

I'll tell you what they will say; "Read the law, it says 'Congress shall make no law'. It doesnt say anything about Employers making rules that take away your rights."

However;
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to...encourag[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and [to] protect...the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

—National Labor Relations Act


The ideology of property is giving rights to corporations over people.

With the usurption of power by corporations this it getting very common. Corporations are taking away the rights of people and even Governments-see WTO rulemaking that dictates to nations what consumer protection and labor protection laws they can enforce.

You are correct, the Common man sees what going on but, due to our programming (Communism =No freedom), mistakenly calls it Comminism, when in fact its much closer to Fascism.

One must remember that when the Constitution was written Corporations were very different. They could not own other corporations, could not sue and were usually chartered for a finite period for a specific purpose, once the purpose was met they were often dissolved. They certainly were not recognized as a "legal Person" as they are today. Surely if the Founding Fathers could have seen how Corporations would take over they would have have included language guaranteeing our rights. They did however leave the Constitution an amendable document, however since at least the late 1800s Corporations, with their money, have taken over the process.

They are not shredding the Constitution, they are simply making it irellevant.

 

[diogenes]

Article 1; Section 8 of the Constitution states

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

A literal interpretation of this says Congress shall regulate business.

To what purpose?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I expect promotion of the general welfare to break out any time now, as strict interpretation is all the rage.

 

[sentrido]

"And I am Diogenes the Cynic"

 

[diogenes]

Well, I ain't Alexander the Great!

You know your history well, 'Trido!

 

[Bob Owens]

diogenes,Aug 4 2005, 01:14 AM]
Article 1; Section 8 of the Constitution states

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Our Corporate owned politicians have ceded some of those powers to the WTO.

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


Yes, and W is doing that to fund his vendetta against Iraq.

One of the "concerns" that prompted us to engage in evicting Iraq from Kuwait was supposedly that we did not want to see Saddam control too much oil because then he could raise prices and hurt our economy. One of Bush's aids, I beleive it was Regan, told reporters that the reason we were going to war was for "American jobs".

So my interpretation was we were told that we kept Iraq out of Kuwait in order to keep oil prices low which would help save American jobs. But, then we pressured the UN to put sanctions on Iraq to limit the amount of oil they could export. Supposedly to prevent Iraq from rearming. This action would tighten the supply and drive up prices. Iraq however, so we are told, exported more oil than they were supposed to. Which would keep the price of oil low. In fact during the period between the two invasions of Iraq, oil remained very cheap and the economies that relied upon imported oil thrived. However since the invasion of Iraq, and the elimination of "Black market Iraqi oil" the price of oil has soared, more than doubling since the invasion.

Bush apologists and the oil industry blame the rise in prices to increased demand. They claim that increased demand from third world countries has caused prices to soar. The problem with that excuse is that these economies and the demand from them have been increasing at a steady rate, they did not all of a sudden spike upwards since the invasion of Iraq, like the price of oil has. If the price of oil was driven up because of increased demand then the price would have risen along with demand, not the spike that we have seen.

Another excuse is that we havent built refineries in years, and have closed many due to enviornmental laws. Thats bull. With the relaxation of anti-trust laws the oil industry has consolidated, Exxon-Mobil, Amoco-BP, the market is in the hands of fewr players which allows them to raise prices because of the lack of competition. As the industry consolidates the compnies shut down refineries because its more profitable to operate fewer refinieries. Produce less, charge more, dont compete with yourself.

Bush, Cheney and others in the administration are from the oil industry. Cheney also has ties to the military industrial complex, you know, the one that Republican President and war hero Dwight Eisenhower warned us about (the President that extremist right wingers accused of being a Communist). These industries have thrived since the invasion of Iraq. Oil companies, who recently just got huge tax credits thanks to Bush, have been posting record profits.In the meantime the airline workers have taken a double whammy. We have to pay more for fuel like everyone else plus we had to take pay cuts so the airlines could pay more for fuel.

Seems to me that we were a lot better off when Saddam was in power "illegally" dumping cheap oil on the market.


Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

A literal interpretation of this says Congress shall regulate business.

"Blasphemy!!!" The promoters of Lassaiz Faire (including Greenspan, a Randite) like to pretend this doesnt exist, except of course when it benifits them or their interests such as when retirees try to get their prescriptions filled in Canada.

To what purpose?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I expect promotion of the general welfare to break out any time now, as strict interpretation is all the rage.

No doubt they will make up a new interpretation of what "general welfare means. Kind of like how they reinterpreted Christs remark about how hard it is for a rich man to get into Heaven.