Four years after the strike began, the employees voted to de-certify the unions. Petro concluded that allowing government employees to engage in collective bargaining would undermine governmental sovereignty. Petro was a pioneer in opposing the application of NLRA concepts to public-sector labor relations, and even served as counsel for the dissenting employee in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education , U.
Supreme Court. It is fair to say that Petro anticipated all the problems and abuses that Abood created, which the Supreme Court has been forced to confront in a series of subsequent cases. Forty-one years later, many observers predict that the Court will finally overturn Abood in the Janus case this term.
The Kohler Strike: Union Violence And Administrative Law [Sylvester Petro, Robert Henry Winborne Welch] on ykoketomel.ml *FREE* shipping on qualifying. The Kohler Strike: Union Violence and Administrative Law (LvMI) - Kindle edition by Sylvestro Petro. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC.
Once again, Petro was ahead of his time. Later in the s, Petro published a four-part series of lengthy, deeply-researched articles that refuted in detail the myth that, prior to the Norris-La Guardia Act and the Wagner Act or NLRA , that state and federal courts improperly issued injunctions to restrain peaceful concerted action by employees. No wonder labor law scholars prefer to ignore Petro. Imagine Richard Epstein on steroids. He is a giant in the field of labor law.
Austin Mayor Steve Adler is the disaster; the plague of bums and vagrants is the consequences of his folly. Follow us. Labor Law. April 12, by Mark Pulliam. Toledo Law Review His new blog is a welcome addition and a splendid and provocative resource. You don't want to be on the wrong end of his pen. His commentary on law, politics, and policy is not to be missed. And it is our gain. It's awesome. Make sure to visit and register. If business lost the NLRA the employer could refuse to recognize the Union but workers could seize the means of production like what happened during the GM sit, workers could engage in secondary action which is exactly how the Teamsters and all traditional AFL Unions rapidly grew prior to to Taft Hartley.
The problem is you think that was advertising and it wasn't. The current NLRA prohibits this now. Look at your posts, guy? Just how much "meaning" was in them? Or "dialogue", for that matter? And THAT is "meaningful dialogue" where you come from?
And you wonder why certain union members are known as thugs and such. Real mystery, isn't it? Given the number of "union" companies that have gone through bankruptcy witness the once-upon-a-time top LTL trucking companies , what are the odds of unions being recognized at all?
Companies already recognize that at least in attempting to keep the union out, you have a fighting chance at survival Given that fact - and the ability of employment to move virtually anywhere in the world today - just how much better off do you think UNIONS and here I'm NOT talking about true workers In any case, I'm glad you agree. Your argument is typical right-to-work [for less] propaganda. My intuition told me that it was a mistake to even try to engage you in a meaningful dialogue.
I should have listened to my intuition. There is one positive note I can point to: While I've kept you busy inventing scenarios, barnyard animals have enjoyed a respite. Now off you go to your Trump rally. Your rant has ended. Finally, no one is attempting to "push U. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if they can't compete, then THAT is their problem as well; I don't feel the slightest need to subsidize their non-competitive behinds Lastly, when your so-called "workers" go out of the way to damage this nation's economy - and thus my country - they ARE the enemy.
You may not think so At best, you sound like a "gimme, gimme" artist, demanding that OTHERS subsidize you and those like you who don't think it should be necessary to compete against the world as a whole. And, again, you can keep denying reality in that way if you choose Labor leaders have been advocating this since the adoption of Taft Hartley.
Ask any labor leader who has to interact with the NLRA and ask them if they would support;. The fact is the NLRA protects business and you are just another reactionary enemy of the working class. And by the way for all your talk about "competitiveness on the world stage", what that double talk means is your ability as a businessman to force me as a worker to work longer for less so you can make more profits while my income goes down. Be very careful what you ask for, you may find out you are a little to smart for your own good.
If a thief entered your home with the intentions of stealing your TV would you sit idly by, or would you react? Ok then.
Why would anyone fault a group of workers for attempting to protect the wherewithal that allowed them to even buy a TV? Remember, we're speaking hypothetically. Here is the central question: Why are foreign entities allowed to come into our country and under cover of U. Why would politicians allow such laws to exist? Of course, that very last question is rhetorical. We also know that in many cases that filthy lucre is intended to do no more than buy votes.
Get your priorities straight. Workers are not your enemy. Why should you care? It's obvious that "words" or "handlers" or "absurdities" or whatever that you don't have a substantive rebuttal for what I suspect you are very much aware is the reality of the situation.
You want to continue to ignore that reality, then you go right ahead. Just don't be surprised when it eventually bites you in the ass. On and on you go. Again, "right"! It's "pure rubbish". How could I gave been so naive as to even think that such innocent waifs would participate in nefarious activities? Sorry, Sport, but one doesn't have to be on anyone's "payroll" or represent a "foreign entity" to recognize what's going on around them. You want to attempt to "mislead the public" yourself, then you go right ahead and try.
Maybe you make silk purses out of thugs ears Ken - How much are you being paid to call good and decent workers thugs? I ask that question because what you are spouting is pure rubbish. You're attempting to mislead the public.
The next acts of violence were in the employment office picketing which occurred in December, , and January, Sovereignty and compulsory public-sector bargaining by Sylvester Petro Book 5 editions published in in English and held by 36 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. Have one to sell? Publication Timeline. It also prohibits the employer from attempting to avoid the representative by dealing directly with individuals or groups of employees. The Board's position is perhaps most com- prehensively put in this statement: In the instant case. The Labor Secretary resolved the bargaining deadlock and awarded a wage increase of P
C'mon Ken, level with us. How much are you getting paid? Why do I think it would be much more likely some salesmen would have better luck peddling my "buddies" tires and replacement glass after your buddies had at 'em? Yeah, union thugs are the ones we should thank for "weekends off", aren't they? Like they maintained the jobs and paid for the days worked to begin with, 'eh? Good one! Go peddle your malarkey to your right-to-work [for less] buddies. If you get together with them on either Saturday or Sunday, thank the labor movement for your weekends off.
Personally, I agree that it's not "pro-worker" For the good of the country, and it's competitiveness on the world stage, It needs to be disposed of. Perish the thought! Most people do not know that if an employer violates the NLRA there is no penalty. Board Agents are far more likely to sell a worker down the river even in cases where an employer has blatantly violated the NLRA than they are to hold employers responsible for violating a workers rights.
Board Agents are more interested in clearing a charge than they are about justice for workers. Most Board Agents are just doing time and then will go make big bucks working for a management law firm. The last thing those Board Agents want is a record of decisions against employers who they look forward to working for. At a point in history the NLRB did protect workers rights to organize and bargain collectively, then Taft Hartley was adopted and workers rights went out the window in favor of attorneys rights.
Most people don't know that even though the Democratic Party has had 7 opportunities to repeal the Taft Hartley Amendments since they were adopted in , the Democratic Party has not acted once. In fact, the last time a small effort was made it was killed by a Democratic Committee Chair who would not let the Bill out of Committee for a vote.
More input concocted by enemies of labor. Here again you've chosen to repeat their lies. What is your motive? Partially because ILWU isn't exactly clean either, not even close. The NLRB has cited them for sabotaging equipment and sending death threats to family members of management during strikes. It is almost verbatim what they say when [repeatedly] lying to the press. As an aside I notice you weigh in on any number of topics. Do you fashion yourself an expert on everything that ever was, is, and ever will be?
It appears so. The employer in question is headquartered in the Philippines. ICTSI has a dismal labor and human rights record. Moreover, why would you lend even an ounce of credibility to a government agency [NLRB] that has taken the side of a foreign tyrant over men and women who support their schools and communities, many of whom also served in our military?