you get what you vote for.

oh wait, nobody voted for this? well, as the goons always say: it's a Republic, not a Democracy.

you get what you get.

I'll make a deal with my Democrat friends: Restore the balance of power by allowing corporations to unionize.

If workers can organize to try to create a monopoly of labor and drive up prices, then corporations should be allowed to unionize and create a mopology of employment to drive down the price of labor. With two counteracting pressures, fairness results.

Alternatively, corporations can't collude and workers can't unionize. That would also be fair. But the status quo was yet another way big government policies punished corporations, which are the source of 90% of our jobs (and nearly all of our generated wealth). The system is still unfair to corporations on the balance, but this is a step in the right direction.

{{Cue hippies who hate corporations flaming me for trying to generate fairnss. Presumably, the computer they were posting on was made by flower power on a co-op, instead of one of those EEEEEEEEVIL corporations)

The point should be made that the Democratic Party has done almost nothing to oppose or publicize the Bush Administration's gutting of labor protections. I would say most Democrats are in league with the Republicans to reduce any power employees have to negotiate with employers. Democrats want to serve big business, not the people or the common welfare of the nation.

Clearly, American Hawk, doesn't have even the slightest grasp on basic principles of negotiation and bargaining. Likewise, he seems unfamiliar with the monopsonistic aspect of the typical employer/employee relationship. But, what do you expect?

Not only have the vasr majority of wage laborers never heard of any of these anti-union rulings, but also the vast majority of those workers themselves actively despise unions. They have been beaten over the head for the last 30-odd years that unions are foul, evil, destructive groups that wipe out jobs and funnel members' dues to the mafia or (far worse) Democrats.

Thus have most people who would personally benefit from union membership been convinced that they must fight against unionizing.

Maybe this ruling, coupled with Chiao's rule changes two years ago, will wake some people up. When they find that they have been classified as "supervisors" and are now no longer eligible for overtime, and are now expected to put in a minimum of 60 hours per week with no raise or additional benefits--maybe, just maybe, they'll wonder how it is that they have come to have no power over the screw that's slowly grinding them to dust.

Yeah, Hawk, Corporations can't and don't collude -- they are entirely honest and forthright!

Odd how gas prices have tumbled, and that Woodward's book lays it out:

But, elsewhere in his narrative, Woodward provides compelling evidence that the real problem may be worse — the rogue's gallery of outside advisors who do have regular unmediated access to the president. It is not accidental that "State of Denial" begins with a reprise of the Bush family's intimate relationship with a former Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar. At the instruction of his father (Bush 41), Bush (soon to be 43) met with Bandar in 1997 and confided, "I'm thinking of running for president … And I don't have the foggiest idea about what I think about international foreign policy." You do not have to be a Michael Moore-style conspiracy theorist to find it worrisome that a Saudi prince is put in charge of giving a future president his worldview.

Bandar, who may now be much more willing to go public with Woodward since he has returned home to Saudi Arabia, keeps popping up in the narrative in chilling ways. The administration's infamous rendition policy … may have begun shortly after 9/11 when Bush told Bandar, "If we get somebody and we can't get them to cooperate, we'll hand them over to you."

The book also describes Bandar's Oval Office meeting in early 2004 with Bush, Condi Rice (then the national security advisor) and White House chief of staff Andrew Card (another source, since he has now left the administration). Bush, Woodward writes, "thanked Bandar for what the Saudis were doing on oil — essentially flooding the market and trying to keep the price as low as possible. [Bush] expressed appreciation for the policy and the impact it could have during the election year.

You ought to change your handle, Hawk, to Running Dog.

And, as my cute wittle ally-kins will point out, Only the Market can do anything good! It just so happens that the market loves rich white males!

Free at last - free at last.
No longer a lowly "Associate" - Now, I'm a part-time Supervisor!!!

Corporations are already 'unionized.' Stockholders are a collective to exploit labor with their combined capital. Both parties in the US political monopoly value the stockholder over the laborer, and they make laws codifying that preferred value.

And since this ruling mostly affects service industries, they can't pretend that globalization has forced their hand.

Actually, this is quite a clever and far-seeing response to globalization. Think about it: why are American jobs being moved to India and China? Because wages there are so low. However, we'll gradually drive down wages so low over here that it will eventually be cheaper to hire an American, rather than an Indian or Chinese peasant -- and at that point, when Americans are earning $1.17 an hour, the jobs will come flooding back! It's so simple it's brilliant, brilliant I tell you! *cue hysterical laughter*

Since maintaining a secure labor force within the U.S. is a national security issue, Mr. Bokat of the Chamber of Commerce should be tortured until he reveals all of the companies that will be impacted by this horrible, predatory ruling.

[Note to American Hawk: You don't have a fucking clue about macroeconomics, do you, you gaping asshole?]

I'll make a deal with my Democrat friends: Restore the balance of power by allowing corporations to unionize.

Corporations already are unions of capitalists. Allowing workers to unionize is restoring the balance of power.

(Limiting it to non-supervisory employees dilutes this, though, and is buying into the Marxist mistake of casting the so-called "petit bourgeoisie" as natural class allies of capital, ignoring that they are, in fact, predominantly supported by their own wage labor, and to the extent they are ought to be protected just as other wage laborers. It would be better to eliminate the entire class-based approach to labor law, and pursue a relationship-based approach that would provide the right to unionize based on wage-labor relationship.)

People deserve the government they get and they deserve to get it good and hard.

The best commentary on this ruling can be found at that AFL-CIO blog such as this entry by James Parks. This diary by Tula Connell at DKos is excellent as well; she's been writing on the case for some time.

Damn straight - If they are having to create work schedules, oversee the work of others, ponder over the effects of Clinton's penis, agonize about the Arabianization of Europe, help coordinate re-stocking, cheer on the magnificent work of Bush changing the dynamics of Asia, especially bringing back the days of Banzai, and listening very carefully for any sounds of unionization from fellow workers, they damn well should be re-classified as Supervisors.

There's NO shortage of jobs. See your army recruiter for details.

Instead of busting unions, we need to bust corporations' power to collectivize capital. I propose that ALL net profits be distributed to stock holders as dividends. No capital should be retained by the corporation due share holder majority vote. Change the law to distribute profits and release them from the tyranny of the board of directors.

AND someone forgot - no overtime, even though said new "supervisor" may work over 40 hours a week, the new law says no overtime.

I have believed for a very long time that the Republicans are jealous of the ruling classes of third world countries, and their main agenda is to rebuild America in the image of one of those nations.

We are almost there.

If you read the latest book on Karl Rove THE ARCHITECT by James Moore and Wayne Slater there is a chapter about unions and labor, and the plan to destroy them AND their ability to donate to mostly Democratic candidates and causes. Once again, politics trumps all.

Drexel Hill, you left "obsessing over George Clooney" off your list.

Am blowing the country next week for a few weeks. Feel this morning like finding excuses not to come back. How Alec Baldwin of me, I know, only without the floppy jowls and smirk.

Once again, CAPITAL trumps all.

"Blowin' the country for a few weeks"

Probably to spend time at Clooney's villa at Lago di Como - Damn liberals, everytime they lose 3-2, they cut and run.

Damn liberals, everytime they lose 3-2, they cut and run.

If only Iraq were a baseball game, you'd have a point.

and at that point, when Americans are earning $1.17 an hour, the jobs will come flooding back!

Why stop there? Why not go all the way, and bring back slavery. Think of the profit margins then! Plus, slavery was really good for the slaves - they liked it! The owners told me so!

I bet people like Hawk think they'd be one of the ones allowed to hold the whips. How surprised they are going to be...

Look at all these people who hate corporations posting on their laptops built by unionized magic elves. Amazing!

The point should be made that the Democratic Party has done almost nothing to oppose or publicize the Bush Administration's gutting of labor protections.

Katrina is a case in point. While many Dems took their marching order and spoke out about lifting DavisBacon, when it came to the other Bush plan of importing illegal labor from Mexico to take jobs from American_hurricane_victims, the Dems either supported that or kept silent.

The Dems and the MSM have also fully supported massive illegal_immigration everywhere else, which has allowed corrupt corporations to replace union workers with cheaper labor.

And, many unions are strong supporters of illegal immigration as well. For an example, I haven't added much to my page about the Service Employees International Union, but if you click the 'What Links Here' link in the left column, you'll see that they are deeply involved in the move to give illegal aliens rights to which they aren't entitled, something that will only encourage more illegal immigration and give more corporations the chance to do union busting.

But, wait, there's more. Anyone hear any Dems speaking out against the NAFTA Superhighway, a large road system running between Mexico and Canada and bypassing Teamster port workers? No, the Dems are enabling that scheme instead of fighting against it.

Limiting it to non-supervisory employees dilutes this, though, and is buying into the Marxist mistake of casting the so-called "petit bourgeoisie" as natural class allies of capital

Unfortunately the "symbolic analyst" class itself seems to have bought this Marxist mistake hook line and sinker. They hate Marxism and unions, but that's because they think they're the bourgeoisie. Those who actually own the country hold them in contempt.

Look at all these people who hate corporations posting on their laptops built by unionized magic elves. Amazing!

Gollum loves his corporate masters! Masters are good! Masters are kind! (snuffle, snuffle) My preeeeecioussssss....

Does this mean they will get stock options, too?

All Hail the Glorious Soviet Revolution!

Who would have thought that Republican quislings would become the leading edge of our glorious socialist future? Under the new definition, everyone becomes a boss. After the revolution, there will be no workers - only supervisors.

I know that is some far away place far better than here, Lenin, Mao, and Marx are smiling down on each and every one of us.

Unfortunately the "symbolic analyst" class itself seems to have bought this Marxist mistake hook line and sinker.

Well, yeah. When the visible advocates of the interests of capital and the visible advocates of the interests of labor are both saying "you are an ally of capital", well, I mean, what do you expect?

Look at all these people who hate corporations posting on their laptops built by unionized magic elves. Amazing!

Those laptops wouldn't exist if it weren't for publicly supported basic research. You really don't want to point to 20th Century technological history as proof of the glories of rugged individuals competing in an unfettered market.

But whatever. American Hawk (talk about your cheesy nicknames), you've really outdone your oafish self in this thread.

Yeah, I noticed that the little old guy who greets at Wal Mart is now just another corporate Vice President, according to his shiny new name tag.

The last time I worked at a hospital that tried to unionize, the charge nurses on the floors and the lead techs in the lab were the driving force behind the effort. We were uniquely able to see the effects of understaffing on our staffs and on the patients we rendered care to.

I shook my head with incredulity when I heard about this.

"Those laptops wouldn't exist if it weren't for publicly supported basic research"

That's simply ridiculous. Those laptops exist because corporations developed the technology and brought it to market. Texas Instruments was not run by the US government and Jack Kilby wasn't in a union. Next time, try supporting an argument by actually knowing what you are talking about.

Government "basic research" is a black-hole waste of taxpayer money. Look at the fabled Human Genome Project, it was going nowhere till private enterprise offered efficient competition.

The US economy has grown in dominance as union power has decreased. Unions create market inefficiencies, and the current US standard of living is direct evidence that the less union power results in greater prosperity.

But, wait, there's more. Anyone hear any Dems speaking out against the NAFTA Superhighway, a large road system running between Mexico and Canada and bypassing Teamster port workers? No, the Dems are enabling that scheme instead of fighting against it.
Posted by: TLB on October 4, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

The real question is:
Will this highway be built by unionized construction workers, and will the traffic laws on this highway be policed by unionized cops?

Those laptops exist because corporations developed the technology and brought it to market.

That would be news to Steve Jobs.

And Hewlett. And Packard. And the kid who started Dell in his dorm room.

I hate to say this, but I think in the grand scheme of things, the inability to join a union is probably the least of the problems this ruling is going to create. I believe the main thrust of this ruling is it will enable companies to get around a lot of the overtime rules, I mean, wasn't that the reason why so many fast food places for example were reclassifying as many people as possible as supervisors. I'm sure the union bashing part of the ruling is a wonderful side benefit, but I think they are going after much more in this ruling than just that.

I'll make a deal with my Democrat friends:

You have no friends here, asshole.

And go make your deals with Monty Hall. Nobody's buying what you're selling.

"And Hewlett. And Packard. And the kid who started Dell in his dorm room."

Good point...I should have said corporations and entrepeneurs. But again, this is private sector, non-union labor. The government has nothing to do with it.

Look at all these people who hate corporations posting on their laptops built by unionized magic elves.

There is a big gap between thinking that the rules governing corporations (and even more relevant to this thread, labor relations, which often don't differ that much based on the ownership structure of the employing firm) aren't currently well drawn in some respects and "hating corporations".

Just as there is a big gap between thinking the current policy of the incumbent Administration is idiotic and "hating America".

I wonder what this will do to sexual harassment suits. Typically, harassment of one employee by another isn't chargeable to the company unless the company had notice and took no steps to remedy the situation -- or the harassing employee is a supervisor.

Now that they're all gonna be supervisors... what then?

Look at all these people who hate corporations posting on their laptops built by unionized magic elves. Amazing!

Another round of chickenshit's unending battle with straw? Having a tough time with that strawman, chickenshit?

No one is saying they "hate corporations", merely pointing out that, by their very nature, corporations collectivize capital, in effect unionizing. Allowing labor unions levels the playing field a bit (although it is still tilted to the corporate side).

You see, chickenshit, putting more money in the hands of wage-earners helps the economy, because they spend it. Corporate investors are a likely to invest their profits offshore.

Labor unions are patriotic. Why do you hate America, chickenshit?

"no longer have any protection under U.S. labor laws"

Um, protected from what?

And, by the way, shouldn't the post have said "no longer have any protection under a fairly narrow subset of US labor laws applying to collective bargaining and unions?"

How exactly can entrepeneurship improve the lot of the floor nurse or their patient? Just curious.

Understaffing kills people. Bottom line. And unions move to protect the patients and the license of the professionals by contracting for staffing rules. In a world where Bill Frist's family owns a huge sector of the healthcare market, this is not a surprising move.

HCA (the Frist family business) has killed more than one patient through understaffing. I know where some of the bodies are buried. And this time, that is not just an expression.

Damn straight government has nothing to do helping developments - After Jack Kilby invented the chip in 58, why who came running to TI's door? General Motors? General Electric? Nah, not W-M, they weren't around then. Why it was good old Uncle Sam who wanted the chip for its first computer programs with the USAF in 61 and the Minuteman Missile program in 62. With the dollars rolling in from Sam, Kilby was asked by his boss to work on something called a calculator for commercial presentations.

And to think Kilby couldn't even get into MIT - Damn Great Bend, Kansas schooling.

Before Kilby's calculator, "calculator" was a job title.

Or a predator.

And, by the way, shouldn't the post have said "no longer have any protection under a fairly narrow subset of US labor laws applying to collective bargaining and unions?"

Well, since the classification involves the applicability of wage and hour protections and other rules, no, that would be far less accurate.

What makes this "revision" so amazing is that ANY supervisory assignment can now be classified non-union. Since the shop stewards (guess who that is...) make out the schedules where I work, does that mean that I get to negotiate contracts for the company? Seems to me that if I can't represent the employees any more, it's only fair that I get to "represent" the company.

Oh, wait. We were talking about the current administration. Forget I even mentioned fairness and equality.

Mr. A. Hawk,

You are way out of the loop. Corporations DO have a union. It is called the Republican Party. Judging from what I have been reading in the newspaper over the last six years, their union is doing very well by its membership.

Robert

cmdicely: we'd be less inclined to say you are an ally of capital if, when the shit is really hitting the fan - like right now - you stopped rabbiting on about the ways our struggle is limited, buys into old-line Marxist silliness, and that we should fight instead "to eliminate the entire class-based approach to labor law."

Yeah, well, sure. There's always a tension between short- and long-term. I agree with you that we should always see our current battles in a longer perspective, and understand that these are not exactly the ground on which we would choose to fight.

That said, right now the fight in front of us is to defend against a vicious onslaught against nurses' organizing and by implication against millions of other workers. We don't mind folks asking questions, but please don't tell us we should be fighting somewhere else entirely. We want instead to know which side are you on...right now.

We'll engage in whatever debates you care to start, but so long as we know - to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson - you are not inside the tent pissing in! What are you going to do in the here and now to help us win, and then lets talk about how that fight can help with longer term. These are goals on which we'd be more likely to agree than not.

Only the Market can do anything good! It just so happens that the market loves rich white males!

Xenophanes, the pre-Socratic, pointed out 2600 years ago that if horses and cattle could make statues of their gods, their gods would have hooves and horns.

plus ça change...

cmdicely: we'd be less inclined to say you are an ally of capital if, when the shit is really hitting the fan - like right now - you stopped rabbiting on about the ways our struggle is limited, buys into old-line Marxist silliness, and that we should fight instead "to eliminate the entire class-based approach to labor law."

First: Who is "we"?
Second: Where did I say anything about this "we" saying anything about me,personally, being an "ally of capital"?

Yeah, well, sure. There's always a tension between short- and long-term.

Well, there is sometimes a tension between the long-term and short-term, but I'd argue that, for the last couple decades, and particularly right now, a limited focus enables and validates the responses the Right is making, and, as well as the long-term shortsightedness it has been for generations, its also a short-term losing position, as well. And, as technology advances and the ratio of jobs with some analytical and/or supervisory character increases, it will increasingly be a failure.

That said, right now the fight in front of us is to defend against a vicious onslaught against nurses' organizing and by implication against millions of other workers.

An onslaught enabled by the embrace of the myth of the petit bourgeoisie as an ally of capital which rests on the manipulation of the "supervisory" line which directly is a result of the writing of that myth into law.

We don't mind folks asking questions, but please don't tell us we should be fighting somewhere else entirely.

I'm not telling anyone they should be fighting somewhere else. I'm saying that if people are interested in winning this battle, they ought to attack the source of the other side's strength, rather than continuing to validate the source of that strength.

Probably to spend time at Clooney's villa at Lago di Como - Damn liberals, everytime they lose 3-2, they cut and run.

You're being too obvious; rdw could never spell Lago di Como. Anyway, now I've taken two extremely charming clients to lunch and come back to find Fordham got thrown over the side, so life is worth living again. For the moment. Oh, and good luck with the As. No, really, I mean it.

Maybe the vulnerability of unionization to this sort of manuvering is an indicator that the traditional labor vs. management approach to unionization isn't a good way to go about things.

I'd like to see unions move into a situation where they are non-profit service providers for employees, and rather than have membership in a particular union tied to employment in a unionized workplace, have each individual pick a union they'd like to join.

The unions would provide the opportunity to get group rates on health insurance, provide unemployment insurance, job training, job placement, etc.

Ideally, the unions could *help* employers find well trained, valuable workers. When necessary, they could provide financial and legal muscle to deal with workplace harassment, unsafe/illegal working conditions.

It would eliminate much of the things that unions have traditionally done, in particular collective barganing, and preventing companies from shedding jobs. However, unions aren't particularly effective at doing those things anymore anyway. Better to try and find a way in which unions can be a valued part of a 21 century economy, rather than returning to industrial era strategies which worked for a while but have since broken down.

cmdicely is part of the vanguard, she doesn't care about the proles but needs someone to lead

I'm pretty sure Chris is a guy, and every class needs a president. He is ours. Appointed - he didn't even campaign.

Chris is our president? But what about Bob? Oh, wait, he's our Roger Clinton, right?

Our Billy Carter?

It's time to repeal Taft-Harley and go back to the plain letter of the Wagner Act of 1935.

Our Raul Castro?

Our Raymond Babbitt?

Supervisors are ones who have the power to hire and fire; at least, that's how it works with unions.

This weirdness, though, an excuse to put more responsibilities in the hands of workers...

...I dunno, I've never been in an industry that could unionize.

It's a good thing to have these responsibilities spread among workers: Self-motivated, self-scheduling workers are happier, more productive.

Of course, I remember the managers at the places I did work: They had no control over hiring or firing, and made schedules, and basically were the the ones who took all the blame. The general manager fired people willy-nilly. Such is the life in most of our service world.

This is a dumb, obviously anti-union, policy. We were already in a situation where millions of 'supervisors' would rather be with the union than stuck between, let's just add powerless millions more (and I'd bet that number will increase!)

I'm pretty sure Chris is a guy, and every class needs a president. He is ours.

Nothing against dicely, but I prefer an anarchical approach to threads. Fortunately, this blog delivers.

Who's Raymond Babbitt? I know, I know--look it up.

I appreciate the anarchic aspects to - it's the equivalent of an elected official in the House of Commons or the House of Lords standing up and yelling "RRRUUBBBISSSHHHH!" at the Prime Minister when he goes to parlaiment. Love the theatre of a Galloway hearing, yes indeed...

But ya gotta admit, Chris is unflappable. I admire that. He can stick to a topic and not devolve, and eviscerate talking points with utter aplomb, and we need that 'round here sometimes. He is most definitely not a redhead.

here is a comparison of stock market booms:

http://sensiblemom.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/stock_market_at.html

The bottom 20% of Americans are slightly better off now than they were in January 2000.

"here is a comparison of stock market booms:"

Ahh yea, just look at that stock market Boom!:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=%5EIXIC&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC&c=%5EDJI

If workers can organize to try to create a monopoly of labor and drive up prices, then corporations should be allowed to unionize and create a mopology of employment to drive down the price of labor.

AAARGH What part of the word corporation do you not understand?

Nothing against dicely, but I prefer an anarchical approach to threads.

Oh, like "Class President" is a position of real authority. Its more like "Prom King" (but with less prestige) or "President Pro Tem of the Senate" (but without the chance of promotion if the right three people get bumped off).

At least, IME. Not that I've ever held any of those positions aside from my apparent appointment, here.

Sorry to do that to you, Chris. But I do admire your unflappable air.

Jefff,

I went to your link. I see the IXIC bubble and burst.

If you read my link, you'll see that it isn't principally about the stock market, it is about the distribution of income and wealth in Jan 2000 and Oct 2006. On the whole, Americans at all levels of society have more wealth now than then.

Oh, like "Class President" is a position of real authority. Its more like "Prom King" (but with less prestige) or "President Pro Tem of the Senate" (but without the chance of promotion if the right three people get bumped off).

Well, I don't know. What if you turned out to be like Reese Witherspoon's character in Election? Just thought we should err on the side of caution.

cmdicely: Oh, like "Class President" is a position of real authority.

Maybe not. But I detected some warming to your appointment. Are you going to get drunk with power now like the rest of them and cross over to the dark side?

If you do, you'll be impeached immediately! Besides, your position would then fall to to that crazy Cheney -- er, I mean, Bob!

So be cool.

Yet another in the seemingly endless list of anti-union legislation that will increase productivity by increasing unpaid overtime.
Bacically, more legalized embezzelment.

No, I think you ought to read your link. This paragraph is its central point:

"I decided to do a Lexis Nexis search of the Chicago Tribune for January 2000 to see if the paper also put a negative spin on the previous stock market surge (remember that surge occurred while Clinton was president). And guess what I found? An article with a very different tone. "

Its about the "librul media" being biased in that they were more ebuliant about the stock market surge in 2000 than in an assumed surge in 2006. I contend that if you look at the chart it is pretty fantastically obvious why the media were more enthusiastic in 2000: the stock market in particular, and the economy in general were a LOT hotter then than now, and had been for years.

The US stock market did ok this year and that blogger is immediately screaming "but but the librul media aren't as excited by one year of reasonably good performance under bush as they were during the fifth year of very good performance under Clinton". Yea, duh, 5 years amazing performance is more exciting than 1 year reasonably good performance. Write a book on that, see if it sells.

2000 was the height of stock market enthusiasm. Everyone and thier dog seemed to be trading tech stock tips and watching thier portfolios go up for yet another year. 2006, not so much. People are finally seeing thier IRA's worth what they were five years ago. Yea my investments have done well this year, but you would have to be completely brain dead to think my hardcore republican parents were babbling about the stock market in 2000 because they loved Clinton so much.

You know, it's the same divide/conquer technique the fundies used on state/local levels to effectively many abortions impossible (or extremely difficult) to get in most states.

It is based on an uninformed, ignorant public not realizing what is being done in their name.

oops I meant "Make" not "many"

jeff: Its about the "librul media" being biased in that they were more ebuliant about the stock market surge in 2000 than in an assumed surge in 2006.

That's a true statement. What made the link interesting were the other statistics in support of the claim of bias. Ignoring the transient tech stock bubble, which inflated some but not all retirement accounts (I moved all my assets to bonds in 1998 and missed most of the bubble and its rupture), and which may have been driven by the fear of the "millenium bug", most of the economic statistics show that all the quintiles of the income distribution are actually wealthier now than in January 2000. While stocks have been nearly flat in value, other assets, such as homes, have appreciated in value. Now while homes may be depreciating, stocks are rising.

In the aggregate, the bottom quintile ("the poor") are richer than 5 1/2 years ago.

REAd the actual decision and its definitions. Its pretty narrow. I think nurses may be the only large group affected. Its also worth noting that this issue has been struck down twice by the SC.

I'm with you, Global Citizen. I, too, know where coutless bodies are buried and I do not exaggerate. This NLRB ruling was aimed primarily at RN's and was pushed by Bill Frist (R-TN) made rich by HCA. Also pushing this action is The American Hospital Association, who does not want to pay its nurses a living wage and does not want to be held accountable for providing enough RN staffing to allow for decent, let alone 'quality' care. Included in this is and seeking revenge is CA Governor Arnold Schwartzenaggar, who was roundly defeated in his 2004 'special election' by the California Nurses Association et al, when he wanted to rape California's employee pension funds and benefits which included police, teachers and firefighters. I am dishearted that because of 'Foleygate' this matter will receive little media attention before the midterms. This ruling has the potential to affect not just nurse but 34 million middle class workers and deserves much more coverage.

Jesus, If you want to unionize just do it the old fashioned way. Get everyone together. Go to work. Sit down. refuse to leave until you get what you want. Unions didn't start out with NRLB. That was created to deal with a bunch of people who got together and said here's what we /all/ want.

性生活 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 激情图片 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 激情小电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情图片 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情