[Joe Potosky]

Labor Relations Board OKs unions paying people to protest Walmart


National Labor Relations Board lawyers okayed a major union's practice of paying people to protest against Walmart in a legal memorandum earlier this month. The federal labor law enforcement agency said the practice of paying workers $50 apiece to join protests “did not constitute unlawful … coercion of employees.”


In a Nov. 15 memorandum from the NLRB's general counsel office regarding the so-called “Black Friday” protests staged by United Food and Commercial Workers against the nonunion retailer last year, the NLRB lawyers determined that the UFCW's offer of $50 gift cards to anyone who showed up to protest “was a non-excessive strike benefit.”

-----------------

The groups are planning another wave of anti-Walmart strikes this week, highlighting the low pay of some employees. They claim they will have events at as many as 1,500 store locations across the country.

What the protests seem to be largely lacking, though, are actual Walmart employees. At events across the country last year, local media struggled to find anyone on the picket lines who also worked at the store. Some events had none at all.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/labor-relations-board-oks-unions-paying-people-to-protest-walmart/article/2539825

 

[trapperwads]

Valid Parade permits required? Inciting a riot? Lawsuits against the unions? ed

 

[darr]

Let's say thy are successful in forcing Wal Mart to pay higher wages. They will be the 1st ones bitching about higher prices. Then they will be the 1st bitching about jobs lost. Some people belong in a communist country. But if they were in a communist country they would be the 1st to bitch about the lack of freedom.


Darr

 

[likes-to-shoot]

Must be all union people on this thread because all I see is bitching in the posts above mine!!!

Thanks for making my day, Bill

 

[whiz-bang]

My self I don't care for Wall Mart but I do like Sams Club. I find it interesting that half my union member friends like and shop at Wall Mart and the other halve hates them. The funny thing is as much as they hate them they sure didn't mind working in the construction trades building them. That's when they should of protested.

 

[Leo]

Construction employment has been horrible around here for several years.

There have been men holding a picket sign outside a new local hospital for two years. They are protesting the contractor that built the hospital. The contractor has been done with the building for at least three years. No problems, they are not inhibiting anyone. They are simply guys holding up a big sign in the hot sun, and now the freezing wind. That is a lousy way to make a few bucks from picket duty pay. I kind of feel sorry for them, If a guy is willing to stand duty out in the elements for $35 a day, he is probably willing to work if he had a job.

 

[Brian in Oregon]

Are these protesters being hired for $50 union members? Is the union providing them with a union contract? Do they have a "living wage"? Health care? Vacation benefits? Retirement plan?

Or is the union hiring scabs?

 

[100straight]

People who want better jobs or more pay should get a better job if they are qualified. If they aren't, they should shut up and work. Labor unions are currently the greatest enemy of this nation, and I include the current President in my evaluation. If you are such a lousy worker that you need a union to keep your job, then you don't deserve a job in the first place.

Mark

 

[midalake]

100straight "Labor unions are currently the greatest enemy of this nation"

"Share of the Work Force in a Union Falls to a 97-Year Low, 11.3%"


My question to you 100straight is WHAT type of person would make such a statement that you did???

AND WHAT would be their reasons!!!!


GS

BECAUSE one of the two quotes above is true!!!

 

[7mag]

I'm sure the union is providing them with health and dental along with that 35 to 50 $. Since they are all about a ( living wage) why aren't they paying the people they employ to picket 35 to 50$ a hour with benefits like they would want a company too ? Maybe we should picket the unions for unfair wages??

 

[Brian in Oregon]

Labor unions are not a big threat because their size has diminished. This does not mean they are without threat.

The first is from excessive power over taxpayers when public employee unions get too entangled with the very state and local governments they serve. Wisconsin has reigned this in, and Oregon is getting set to follow.

The other threat is from blindly supporting the Democrats. And the irony is these same Democrats are busy throwing unions under the bus with NAFTA, Obamacare, etc.

 

[Setterman]

Dave, you don't get it do you?

When the economy is bad, the common employee and employer experiences layoffs, loss of business value, and loss of income. Real estate, 401K's, and other investments suffer as well.

However, government union legacy costs continue on pace or higher. The 89% that are non-union, tax payers are experiencing a lower status of living, but expected to continue to pay for the union employee's continued, unaffected benefits and wages.

The affected 89% is paying for the 11% to live unaffected.

If you have not noticed that nearly all municipalities are struggling with their budgets, you are either blind, ignorant, or not paying attention. Their tax base has decreased, but their legacy costs are increasing.

As more municipalities file for bankruptcy, you will see that you can't get blood out of rock.

And we will shortly see the Unaffordable Care Act crush any chance of recovery.

 

[Model Number 12]

What Setterman says. Well put and to the point.

 

[likes-to-shoot]

So how many of you anti-labor activist live in a right-to-work state?

Just wondering if the hatred is more intense in a non right-to-work state. There is some hatred but it doesn't seem be too bad here in Iowa, a right-to-work state.

Your union friend, Bill

 

[Setterman]

It's not hatred. It's economic common sense, and productive value.

l-t-s....If the population is paying taxes to support a municipal or even state budget, and an independant contractor can perform a duty at the same level or better than government employees at less cost, should it be privately contracted?

 

[halfmile]

From Heritage.org:

Unions operate differently in government than in the private sector. Private-sector unions bargain over limited profits. Competition from other businesses moderates wage demands. Governments earn no profits and have no competition. Government unions negotiate for more tax dollars.

Risking Public Services: When government unions strike, they can deprive citizens of essential services—such as education for children—until demands are met.

Early labor leaders didn’t believe unions belonged in government. In 1955, George Meany, then-president of the AFL-CIO, said: “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” In 1959 the AFL-CIO Executive Council declared, “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.”

FDR: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) gave unions extensive powers to bargain collectively in the private sector but excluded them from government. FDR believed collective bargaining had no place in public service and that a government strike was “unthinkable and intolerable.”

More at the link

HM

 

[likes-to-shoot]

Setterman... I do agree with you on the public sector unions.

halfmile pretty much sums it up in the post above.