What's new

LABOR Ruling McDonalds has DREADED, just became a REALITY !

Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
10,153
Reaction score
681
 
The Democratic-majority board, whose members were appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled 3-2 along partisan lines, with the two Republicans dissenting.
 
Weren't these the clowns appointed while Congress was not at recess?
If so, how can an illegally appointed board conduct rulings?
 
 
Oops, looks like Baracky had new appointees seated.

 
 
This may be why you see fewer and fewer ground handlers in the airlines wearing the uniforms of the airlines they're servicing. Everywhere I've been in the last year, the employees doing handling are wearing a neutral uniform and nametags.

I wouldn't rule out legislative moves to override the NLRB's decision. Law almost always trumps administrative rulings, and the union lobby just ain't what it used to be.
 
Left as is this dies NOT bode well for anyone.
 
1. We will see a hastening of jobs being automated out of existence. Ordering kiosks will be the norm in fast food establishments.
2. Jobs will relocate to anyplace that doesn't have this type of rule.
 
While many bemoan the fact that millions of jobs have been moved offshore there is another culprit as well, actually several. Automation being one of the primary drivers. I know someone who used to work "Big Steel" in Aliquippa, PA. The Control of the plant used to emloy 47 in that area, now it's 2, That's correct! 45 jobs eliminated by computer technology. Now ask why that investment? Simple go back the the US Steelworkers Master Contract and refer to clause 2b, which is a past practices clause. This clause added created a duplication of labor that nearly singlehandedly drove Bis Steel to its knees. This is but one example of why companies seek to automate and outsource. Another is government regulations. In the 1970's the EPS issued stringent air quality standard for steel producers. Problem was the technology required to meet the standards had not been invented yet. Faced with that, what would you do? move as many jobs overseas? Move corporate HQ offshore to avoid taxes? It's never as easy as politicians think. Especially those (like Obama) that come from Academia.
 
This new ruling has a very strong potential to backfire and do the exact opposite of its intention. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we just added an inch of fresh blacktop.
 
eolesen said:
This may be why you see fewer and fewer ground handlers in the airlines wearing the uniforms of the airlines they're servicing. Everywhere I've been in the last year, the employees doing handling are wearing a neutral uniform and nametags.

I wouldn't rule out legislative moves to override the NLRB's decision. Law almost always trumps administrative rulings, and the union lobby just ain't what it used to be.
That may be down more to having to move back & forth between customer airlines multiple times in a shift than anything else...
 
You might be right on the handling of multiple airlines, but the issues of being a secondary employer have been getting a lot more attention over the years.

This ruling won't go by quietly.

Imagine if Subway (an all franchise operation) suddenly had to deal with the Teamsters because one store decided to file for an election?
 
Didn't work that way under the NLRA, unionization can be done per location.

Some companies have unionized shops along with non-union.

Costco is an example.

Duke Energy is an example.

There isn't a master agreement, each location has their own CBA that is unionized.
 
Sure it can be by location. One store in West Dustbin, IA files for representation, and now the guys from CT have to fly in for negotiations?....

Yeah, not quite what the NLRA intended. This is all about Obama being able to redefine who an employer is, and I don't think it will end well.
 
Yeah

McD's, or ValuJet, should be able to just "wash their hands" and say " we didn't do that, those contractors did..."

No responsibility at all, no sir
 
They wouldn't negotiate with corporate as they don't own the store, they would negotiate with the store owners.

Come up with another red herring.
 
Come up with another?

That's all they are, red herrings and hot air, repeated ad nauseam
 
Actually they should as they are unique and different businesses. This latest adventure in Government interference in the free market will not end well for those who punch a clock. It never dies when government is involved.
 
You think it ends well when companies can run their affairs as they see fit?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top