by:
PAI
March 14 2014
WASHINGTON (PAI) -- Legal schemes, hatched by the anti-worker right wing, may enmesh and delay the United Auto Workers' case for demanding a rerun union authorization election at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.
Aided, abetted and sponsored by the so-called National Right to Work Committee and its legal foundation, a handful of allegedly anti-union workers at the 1,500-person plant are suing VW in federal court in Memphis. They argue VW illegally gave UAW "a thing of value" - access to the plant - before the February vote....
This is amazing. I can't find any record of an establishment in 1955 named the National Right to Work Committee except at their website.
The National Right to Work Committee, (click here) established in 1955, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to the principle that all Americans must have the right to join a union if they choose to, but none should ever be forced to affiliate with a union in order to get or keep a job.
It is dated 1955, (click here) but, I only found it on the organization's website as well.
Supposedly, there is another organization called, "Southern Momentum." (click here) The only organization I found with that name is a women's website of advise from Barbie and recipes.
I don't care if there are a few employees that want to give testimony, just get it over with than risking another appeal, but, who are these organizations the NLRB is allowing to support the employees request?
Ah, but, not all is lost.
FRANKFORT — The sponsor of a right-to-work law (click here) in Kentucky knew it had no chance of passing a House committee Thursday.
But that didn’t stop Rep. Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown, the House Minority Leader, and several others from making their case before the House Labor and Industry Committee in a room filled to overflowing, mostly with union members who oppose the measure....
This is pretty amazing. A company actually enacted a policy whereby employees could not discuss their rate of pay. What do unions do? They work together to enhance pay rates, so therefore, no unions because they would cause loss of employment.
It is a North Carolina firm that should definitely know better. Why does any legal firm even allow this kind of language in their clients documents?
This was not a difficult case. Why didn't the litigators simply let the employer-client know they were acting inappropriately with their employees? This seems like a no brainer to me. If a legal firm provides excellent service, it doesn't mean an indulgence of every client objection to succumb to established laws and principles. The average person has to surmount this mess in order to achieve justice in the USA and it is nearly impossible. Where are the ethics that actually treat human beings with a sincere priority over profits?
August 15, 2013
(CHARLOTTE, N.C.)—Seventy-three (click here) Parker Poe attorneys were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America©
2014 (Copyright 2013 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, SC). Attorneys
from each of the Firm’s five offices are represented in the
publication’s just-released 20th edition....
There seems to be a low bar on those standards. Anything to make a buck should not be a high priority in the rating system.
USA
February 28, 2014
Earlier this month, (click here) the National Labor Relations Board determined that an employer’s confidential information policy contained in the employee handbook violated federal labor law because it applies to employees’ discussion of financial matters, including their pay. MCPc, Inc. (click here) involved claims by an employee relating to his termination from employment. In addition to the facts surrounding the termination, the employee complained that the company’s confidentiality policy violated the NLRA because it could be interpreted to prohibit employees’ discussion of salary and other workplace issues.
The policy in question contained the usual language restricting disclosure of proprietary business information, such as customer pricing. However, the policy also defined confidential information as including “personal or financial information.” In a 3-2 decision, the NLRB affirmed the administrative law judge’s determination that this language violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, because it could have the effect of deterring employees from discussing terms and conditions of employment due to concerns over disciplinary action....
In the absence of any union, companies should be required to prove an independent grievance process for employees. The employer would have to bear the cost.
It is no different than Corker's insulting behavior to effect the outcomes of a union vote. Where are the courts with gag orders for these bozos? The litigation will only slow down the best outcomes for the employees. This should not be a problem.
If Corker can't live with a gag order, throw him in jail until the vote is finished and in solitary if he still assails the court and the law. This is ridiculous. He is using the status of congress to leverage power to disenfranchise citizens from the law. That can't stand. Little tin gods.
March 14 2014
WASHINGTON (PAI) -- Legal schemes, hatched by the anti-worker right wing, may enmesh and delay the United Auto Workers' case for demanding a rerun union authorization election at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.
Aided, abetted and sponsored by the so-called National Right to Work Committee and its legal foundation, a handful of allegedly anti-union workers at the 1,500-person plant are suing VW in federal court in Memphis. They argue VW illegally gave UAW "a thing of value" - access to the plant - before the February vote....
This is amazing. I can't find any record of an establishment in 1955 named the National Right to Work Committee except at their website.
The National Right to Work Committee, (click here) established in 1955, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to the principle that all Americans must have the right to join a union if they choose to, but none should ever be forced to affiliate with a union in order to get or keep a job.
Supposedly, there is another organization called, "Southern Momentum." (click here) The only organization I found with that name is a women's website of advise from Barbie and recipes.
I don't care if there are a few employees that want to give testimony, just get it over with than risking another appeal, but, who are these organizations the NLRB is allowing to support the employees request?
Ah, but, not all is lost.
FRANKFORT — The sponsor of a right-to-work law (click here) in Kentucky knew it had no chance of passing a House committee Thursday.
But that didn’t stop Rep. Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown, the House Minority Leader, and several others from making their case before the House Labor and Industry Committee in a room filled to overflowing, mostly with union members who oppose the measure....
This is pretty amazing. A company actually enacted a policy whereby employees could not discuss their rate of pay. What do unions do? They work together to enhance pay rates, so therefore, no unions because they would cause loss of employment.
It is a North Carolina firm that should definitely know better. Why does any legal firm even allow this kind of language in their clients documents?
This was not a difficult case. Why didn't the litigators simply let the employer-client know they were acting inappropriately with their employees? This seems like a no brainer to me. If a legal firm provides excellent service, it doesn't mean an indulgence of every client objection to succumb to established laws and principles. The average person has to surmount this mess in order to achieve justice in the USA and it is nearly impossible. Where are the ethics that actually treat human beings with a sincere priority over profits?
August 15, 2013There seems to be a low bar on those standards. Anything to make a buck should not be a high priority in the rating system.
USA
February 28, 2014
Earlier this month, (click here) the National Labor Relations Board determined that an employer’s confidential information policy contained in the employee handbook violated federal labor law because it applies to employees’ discussion of financial matters, including their pay. MCPc, Inc. (click here) involved claims by an employee relating to his termination from employment. In addition to the facts surrounding the termination, the employee complained that the company’s confidentiality policy violated the NLRA because it could be interpreted to prohibit employees’ discussion of salary and other workplace issues.
The policy in question contained the usual language restricting disclosure of proprietary business information, such as customer pricing. However, the policy also defined confidential information as including “personal or financial information.” In a 3-2 decision, the NLRB affirmed the administrative law judge’s determination that this language violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, because it could have the effect of deterring employees from discussing terms and conditions of employment due to concerns over disciplinary action....
In the absence of any union, companies should be required to prove an independent grievance process for employees. The employer would have to bear the cost.
It is no different than Corker's insulting behavior to effect the outcomes of a union vote. Where are the courts with gag orders for these bozos? The litigation will only slow down the best outcomes for the employees. This should not be a problem.
If Corker can't live with a gag order, throw him in jail until the vote is finished and in solitary if he still assails the court and the law. This is ridiculous. He is using the status of congress to leverage power to disenfranchise citizens from the law. That can't stand. Little tin gods.
