Execs Dumping Stock

[diogenes]

Unfortunately, your "word" is inaccurate and misleading, and shows serious misunderstandings about constitutional law. In the real world, the Constutition means what the Supreme Court says it means (see, i.e., Marbury v. Madison), not what you or I "feel" it should mean.

Reconcile "the law is what the SC sez it is" (I understand that is the case in the reality-based world) with all the original intent who-hah Republicans stir up, because you can't have it both ways.

In any case, Kelo still does not help your assertion that a private hog farmer can constitutionally take the land of another private party.

Courts could have just as easily, and just as constitutionally, ruled against the hog farmer. Courts have systemically placed business property rights over private property rights. I'm not saying it isn't that way: I'm saying it is not necessarily constitutional or inevitable.

So again, what Congressional law forbids union members from peaceably assembling? (Maybe it is simpler if you just give me a cite from the U.S. Code.)

Not forbids,but makes much more difficult than forming other organizations. At one time or the other, I have been in on the founding of a church and a business, and I did not have to jump thru these hoops.

http://www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp

I find it of interest I can excercise my religious or business rights with such ease, yet am so hampered to excercise the same rights in the labor arena. I just can't find the reason why in the Constitution. Can you?

(And BTW, the preamble to Section 8 does not mention "in the public interest." But maybe you are referring to something else.)

The Constitution of the United States of America

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

The Founders had just won a revolution against the notion that the citizen served the state when they wrote and installed the Constitution. They created a system where the citizen, not the monarch or the government, is sovereign; that is to say, the state was to serve the citizen. The notion the Founders would have countenanced anything like a corporation to trump citizen sovereignity is laughable.

According to my reading of the Constitution, you cannot separate business activities from the right of the citizens, via their elected officials, to regulate them.

Now if you are saying citizens have done a slacka$$ job regarding their civic duties, then we are in accord.

 

[Bear96]

Reconcile "the law is what the SC sez it is" (I understand that is the case in the reality-based world) with all the original intent who-hah Republicans stir up, because you can't have it both ways.

What am I trying to have both ways? Where did I say I agree with a strict "original intent" view? But even those who do agree with the general precept that the Constution, in the practical world, means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Courts could have just as easily, and just as constitutionally, ruled against the hog farmer.

I disagree. I can't imagine any court saying the person whose land is being negatively affected by a provate hog farm should have any damages compensated out of public funds. Can you point to an example where something like this has happened?

Courts have systemically placed business property rights over private property rights.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I don't think I ever said otherwise.

Not forbids,but makes much more difficult than forming other organizations. At one time or the other, I have been in on the founding of a church and a business, and I did not have to jump thru these hoops.

I am generally a strong supporter of people's rights to form and join a union, but I also agree with creating certain hoops. It is important to make sure that if a union is formed at a workplace, that truly reflects the will of the workers. The primary reason is because once a union is in, it has a lot of power to exert a great deal of influence over the employees there. Quite different than organizing your church supper or starting a sole proprietorship, where if you screw up the only impact is on you and not others, some of whom may have not even wanted to be part of your experiment in the first place.

I find it of interest I can excercise my religious or business rights with such ease, yet am so hampered to excercise the same rights in the labor arena. I just can't find the reason why in the Constitution. Can you?

Yes. Article I gives Congress broad powers to legislate. Specifically, the power to regulate labor regulations is derived from Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce and the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

Ah, I see. That is not Article I section 8, nor does it say "in the public interest," but close enough, I suppose.

The Founders had just won a revolution against the notion that the citizen served the state when they wrote and installed the Constitution. They created a system where the citizen, not the monarch or the government, is sovereign; that is to say, the state was to serve the citizen.

That last bit sounds like a rather expansionist view of government. You were on the right track for a while there with the first bit, though: yes, the citizen is sovereign, which brings me back to my point that the main point of the constitution is to limit and restrain what government does, so as to not infringe on individual citizens any more than necessary to maintain a democratic society.

The notion the Founders would have countenanced anything like a corporation to trump citizen sovereignity is laughable.

So now the concept of corporations is inherently unconstitutional? I suppose we should all go back to being individual shopkeepers or farmers?

According to my reading of the Constitution, you cannot separate business activities from the right of the citizens, via their elected officials, to regulate them.

Who said there is no right to regulate business activities? Are we still talking about the same thing?

You have a curious view of law and policy. There is (or should be) no constitutional right for Congress to regulate unions, yet Congress has (or should have) the right to strictly regulate every aspect of business? Do you see the disconnect? (And my apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding you.)

Now if you are saying citizens have done a slacka$$ job regarding their civic duties, then we are in accord.

At last, something we can agree on.

 

[diogenes]

I disagree. I can't imagine any court saying the person whose land is being negatively affected by a provate hog farm should have any damages compensated out of public funds. Can you point to an example where something like this has happened?

I'm not advocating compensation from public funds, I'm advocating that the courts protect the private property owner to the same or greater degree as the business owner.

According to some property owners I've spoken with, when they show up in court with an appraisal reflecting a lower property value due to the nearby hog operation, they have not been able to collect damages. Moreover, they cannot get the tax evaluation lowered, so they are paying a higher tax than the property is worth. While that may not be a de jure taking, it certainly is a de facto one, and while there is a legal fig leaf, the taking is aided and abetted by the court.

In most cases I'm aware of, business interests have trumped private property interests. And what I'm saying is, while it IS that way, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Again, a lack of civic duty has led to these straits.

I am generally a strong supporter of people's rights to form and join a union, but I also agree with creating certain hoops. It is important to make sure that if a union is formed at a workplace, that truly reflects the will of the workers.

I'm a big believer in democracy too, probably more so than much of the union leadership I'm familiar with. But once the majority has spoken, the deal should be on.

The primary reason is because once a union is in, it has a lot of power to exert a great deal of influence over the employees there. Quite different than organizing your church supper or starting a sole proprietorship, where if you screw up the only impact is on you and not others, some of whom may have not even wanted to be part of your experiment in the first place.

Corporations have greater power to affect employee lives. Ask any US employee. Their screw-ups reach further and wider than union screw-ups. And still the point - labor organization is still much more difficult than business organization. I agree settled law has come to that, but it not so originally ordained in the Constitution. Darned activist, business-oriented judges!

So now the concept of corporations is inherently unconstitutional?

Nope, the Constitution is silent regarding corporations. It says quite a bit about "we the people", which I read to mean that a corporation is subservient to the citizen, as is the state. One only need look around to understand we have it bass-ackwards.

You have a curious view of law and policy. There is (or should be) no constitutional right for Congress to regulate unions, yet Congress has (or should have) the right to strictly regulate every aspect of business? Do you see the disconnect? (And my apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding you.)

No, Congress can regulate labor (commerce clause). The formation is another story. It needs to be just as easy as any other collective activity.

 

[Bear96]

I'm not advocating compensation from public funds, I'm advocating that the courts protect the private property owner to the same or greater degree as the business owner.

You are free to bring a suit for private nuisance.

However, remember the other property owner has rights as well. Reverse the roles here. Maybe you want to start a business on your property that you think is a reasonable and legal use of your property, but a neighbor objects saying "you smell and make strange noises." The courts have to balance both sides. Certainly you wouldn't like it if your neighbor automatically won just because s/he is hypersensitive to certain ordinary things.

As to actual hog farms, your answer may lie in local zoning ordinances, if a private nuisance suit doesn't work.

While that may not be a de jure taking, it certainly is a de facto one . . . .

Oy. Back to Square One. Again, it is NOT a constitutional taking, de facto or otherwise, unless the government is doing the alleged taking, as opposed to your obnoxious private hog-farming neighbor.

(And your hog-farm example wouldn't even count as a constitutional taking EVEN IF it were the government who ran the hog farm. Generally, there is no taking unless property is totally deprived of ANY economic use through government action. But that is a different topic.)

Corporations have greater power to affect employee lives. Ask any US employee. Their screw-ups reach further and wider than union screw-ups.

1. Then refuse to work for a corporation.

2. Corporations are regulated, as are unions. Generally states regulate corporations, and each state has an extensive business corporation code that must be followed. In addition, on the federal level, check out some of the SEC regulations or Sarbanes-Oxley requirements if you don't think corporations are regulated sufficiently. There are good reasons for both unions and corporations to be regulated, and they both are.

And still the point - labor organization is still much more difficult than business organization.

I disagree that unions are more burdened by legislative and regulatory requirements than corporations are (see my point immediately above).

It is hard to organize people these days, yes. But that is because of larger social, political, and economic factors that are going on today.

Nope, the Constitution is silent regarding corporations. It says quite a bit about "we the people", which I read to mean that a corporation is subservient to the citizen, as is the state. One only need look around to understand we have it bass-ackwards.

Hmmm. The Constitution doesn't mention "unions" either.

Isn't a corporation (in the form of a board of directors or shareholders) a free association of individual citizens, much like a union?

Why should one be favored constitutionally over the other?

No, Congress can regulate labor (commerce clause). The formation is another story. It needs to be just as easy as any other collective activity.

If it was simply a bunch of people getting together on their free time chanting "Management is evil! Workers of the world, unite!" and then going home, I would tend to agree with you.

But when you start to add in such powers as dues collection, exclusive representation, collective bargaining, and union shop (all powers that vastly favor unions and are granted / protected by government legislation, by the way), well, with power comes responsibility and accountability.

 

[PITbull]

I am generally a strong supporter of people's rights to form and join a union, but I also agree with creating certain hoops. It is important to make sure that if a union is formed at a workplace, that truly reflects the will of the workers. The primary reason is because once a union is in, it has a lot of power to exert a great deal of influence over the employees there. Quite different than organizing your church supper or starting a sole proprietorship, where if you screw up the only impact is on you and not others, some of whom may have not even wanted to be part of your experiment in the first place.

Hoops? Like in a 3-ring circus? Interesting perspective.

"that it truly reflects the will of the workers", you say...???? It's easier to go through the "eye of a needle", then to bring a union on a property (without getting fired over it), my friend. Ever try it from the grass roots?

I have.

The evidence before you shows a major decline of unionized workers from 20 years ago..18% down to 8% today. And down from 30% some 50 years ago.

"Unions have a lot of power and influence over the employees"...???? How so? When? That comment too is purely speculative, subjective, naive thinking. More often than not...its capitulation by the members regardless of union leadership depending on the intencity of the threat. Concessions and amendable contracts always go out for a vote. All one has to do is simply look at the highly coveted pensions...if you can't protect that, there is no influence on anything. Bankruptcy vehicle renders an uneven playing field for labor as history has shown us all. Doesn't matter on the best advisors one may have, with the anti-labor bk laws, the net result, 9 times out of 10 will be "capitulation".

Corporations, judges, and Government have more influence on "outcome" than any union leadership. According to Jerry Glass method of threats liquidation and bk, "it was a cake walk" to take what they wanted...any time, with anyone any where, any place, any how.

Next...

 

[Bear96]

Hoops? Like in a 3-ring circus? Interesting perspective.

I was trying to echo diogenes' sentiment. If I didn't get the wording exactly right for you, oh well, you'll get over it.

But actually, yes, the labor-management chess game is fascinating to watch, especially in the airline industry these days, in some ways kinda like a three-ring circus.

"that it truly reflects the will of the workers", you say...???? It's easier to go through the "eye of a needle", then to bring a union on a property (without getting fired over it), my friend. Ever try it from the grass roots?

I have.

That's nice.

As I said earlier, of course it is difficult to organize at the grass roots level these days. But I think that has less to do with any government legislation, and more to do with the political climate in the U.S. today, where the average worker is more concerned with gay marriage or flag burning than her rights in the workplace.

The evidence before you shows a major decline of unionized workers from 20 years ago..18% down to 8% today. And down from 30% some 50 years ago.

True. Your point . . . ?

To me, that shows both the effect of today's political climate, and the failure of union leaders to make themselves relevant to the lives of the vast majority of U.S. workers these days. But, I suppose that last bit is MY fault.

By the way, it is interesting that all this concern about how hard it is to organize people and how low union membership is comes from posters who are (or recently were) active in the airline industry, one of the most heavily unionized industries out there. Has there been recent trouble trying to organize anyone at USAirways? I thought pretty much everyone already belonged to unions? All this handwringing about "IF ONLY we had more people unionized, then we'd show 'em!" sounds kinda silly in the airline industry.

"Unions have a lot of power and influence over the employees"...???? How so? When? That comment too is purely speculative, subjective, naive thinking.

Perhaps you aren't reading my posts closely. I expressly gave the examples of the right unions enjoy to exclusive representation, the dues power, and the union shop.

Speculative? Subjective? Naive? Are you saying unions do NOT have the right to exclusively represent those in the bargaining unit? Or the right to collect dues? Or the right to compel everyone to become a union member after a probationary period (the union shop -- the Beck and Ellis objectors notwithstanding, but even then the union can collect about 90% of the dues money from those people)? You don't make sense sometimes.

The rest of your post can be summed up as stating the obvious: "Bankruptcy puts unions at a disadvantage."

Can't disagree with that. But I am curious what prompted you to point it out here? (As in, So what's your point?)

Feel free to lobby to get the laws changed.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

Here is what I was responding to, and what you posted above:

"I am generally a strong supporter of people's rights to form and join a union, but I also agree with creating certain hoops. It is important to make sure that if a union is formed at a workplace, that truly reflects the will of the workers. The primary reason is because once a union is in, it has a lot of power to exert a great deal of influence over the employees there. Quite different than organizing your church supper or starting a sole proprietorship, where if you screw up the only impact is on you and not others, some of whom may have not even wanted to be part of your experiment in the first place."

You said you agree with creating certain hoops. I responded to THAT statement. You clearly were NOT speaking about the hoops in managment. Your issue is you support that these hoops are necessary to ENSURE that bringing in a union truly reflects the WILL of the people. MY POINT is basically that it IS already very, very difficult to organize labor in today's environment.

You say, "that's nice".

Hm, very methodical retort.

You also said that unions exert a great deal of influence over employees.

I clearly don't know your point that you were attempting to make by your second response... but all I gathered from your second response to my post, and your many comments on this forum is basically...
"that's nice" when you lose track of your initial point.

My response to you had nothing to do with USAirways or attempting to organize anyone at USAirways...where did you derive that? With regard to speculative and naive...where did you think that representing an employee, whether it be in a grievance,or contract negotiations or in a court for a major dispute would be what? Free? If not dues collection, then pray tell, find what funds from where for attorneys etc...??? Even churches hire secretaries to run the business office.

I think often times you clearly forget what you post and your original intent gets obviously lost.

Stay focused.

 

[Bear96]

You said you agree with creating certain hoops. I responded to THAT statement. You clearly were NOT speaking about the hoops in managment.

No sh!t. I never said I was speaking about the "hoops in management," whatever that means. Let's try this once more: I was making a reference to what diogenes said in an earlier post, about having to jump over certain hurdles to organize a union. I'll leave it to you to track down the exact language.

Your issue is you support that these hoops are necessary to ENSURE that bringing in a union truly reflects the WILL of the people. MY POINT is basically that it IS already very, very difficult to organize labor in today's environment.

Yes. Those are two different points which can coexist. It is difficult to organize in today's enviromnent; and I think it is important to have safeguards in place to make sure union campaigns and elections are conducted fairly and represent the will of the workers.

Of course, you are free to disagree with me.

You also said that unions exert a great deal of influence over employees.

Yes I did. And?

My response to you had nothing to do with USAirways or attempting to organize anyone at USAirways...where did you derive that?

The point was that you are posting about how hard it is to organize workers, which I found ironic considering the bulk of your union experience has been in a highly unionized industry. That's all. Perhaps you don't see the irony. That's fine.

With regard to speculative and naive...where did you think that representing an employee, whether it be in a grievance,or contract negotiations or in a court for a major dispute would be what? Free? If not dues collection, then pray tell, find what funds from where for attorneys etc...??? Even churches hire secretaries to run the business office.

You're preaching to the choir with this one. (Get it? Church secretaries, and preaching to the choir? ) I had no problem paying dues when I was a union member and thought the money was well worth it. But of course you missed my point, either purposefully or because of poor reading comprehension skills.

While I had no problem paying dues and recognized the value of being in a union, I was also glad that laws existed to make union financial records accessible and that procedures existed to replace the union, to be able to hold union my leaders accountable if necessary. Unfortunately, the history of unions over the years has proven the need for these types of laws. Any time someone has a legally enforceable claim over a chunk of my income and the legal authority to make decisions which can greatly affect my work life, I would want mechanisms in place to make sure they are acting appropriately and in my best interests.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

The bulk of my union experience was not in a highly unionized industry...actually it was in a highly non-unionized industry (Health field). Again, you make assumptions and speculate.

Poor reading comprehension skills???

My reading is as good as your ability to write coherently.

Your best skill is your best attempt to distract the reader by throwing insults, as your point, in order to cover your lack of focus to stay ON point.

And with that...you obviously need to have the last word...go for it!

 

[Bear96]

Bear,

The bulk of my union experience was not in a highly unionized industry...actually it was in a highly non-unionized industry (Health field). Again, you make assumptions and speculate.

Really?

How old are you?

How many of those years (after entering the work force at, say, age 20 or so) were spent at USAirways, and how many somewhere else?

Did you make national news as a union leader in the "Health field" during a particularly tough time in that industry?

How many years did you spend as a union leader at USAirways, versus being a union leader in the "Health field?"

Did you hold a national office position (equivalent to MECP in AFA-speak, representing all employees in a certain craft at a certain company nationwide) as a union leader in the "Health field?"

If so, I certainly stand corrected.

 

[PITbull]

Really?

How old are you?

How many of those years (after entering the work force at, say, age 20 or so) were spent at USAirways, and how many somewhere else?

Did you make national news as a union leader in the "Health field" during a particularly tough time in that industry?

How many years did you spend as a union leader at USAirways, versus being a union leader in the "Health field?"

Did you hold a national office position (equivalent to MECP in AFA-speak, representing all employees in a certain craft at a certain company nationwide) as a union leader in the "Health field?"

If so, I certainly stand corrected.

Well now, you are really throwing me some shi$$$...

Without purposely outting myself....here's what I will post to satisfy your sarcasm:

I had been with USAirways 25 years. In addition, I have been an RN for the past 14 years WORKING AS A NURSE FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS and while working as a flight attendant! Before becoming a nurse, I spent 4 years getting my undergrad in nursing. AND, before that, and right out of H.S. I went to Robert Morris College getting my undergrad in business.

If you want to investigate my history in the union, please contact Neal Bisno, VP of organizing with Health Care Service Workers International 1199P, SEIU out of Harrisburg. He will give you quite a history of my unionizing in the health field. Obviously, I have not sat in idle as a f/a for 25 years.

I had been involved with AFA union for only 4 years of my 25. And I guess, in those short 4 years, one may say, I made a name for myself in the union. For some, they may think that reputation positive or negative depending on what side is telling the story.

Nontheless, my union reputation was just more notorious at USAirways on this forum, than infamous in my experience with the unions in the health field. Whether I held a high office or not is irrelevant for the purpose of discussion on unionizing from the grass roots (which was the original topic in MY original post).

And in your original post, you ASS-UMED that when I spoke of trying to bring a union on a property from the grass roots...you jumped to conclude it was USAirways.

You do stand corrected.

 

[Bear96]

Say what you want Bear96 but at least she was trying to make positive things happen for her members.

Not sure what you are referring to here Bob. I have a great deal of respect for what PITbull accomplished for USAirways F/As, and I have posted that before. When did I suggest she wasn't trying to do positive things for her members?

PITbull I am sure you have experience at other places. That wasn't my point.