tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post5221145780275633620..comments2024-03-28T09:54:55.115-05:00Comments on Dad29: Obama NLRB Resurrects the Secondary BoycottDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-89557205844613627302010-10-25T07:43:56.368-05:002010-10-25T07:43:56.368-05:00The union thugs in the case cited did NOT engage i...The union thugs in the case cited did NOT engage in any violence. Had they taken that course of action, they would be in clear violation of the law. Try again!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-34579187714546919782010-10-22T17:07:29.436-05:002010-10-22T17:07:29.436-05:00"Bible thumpers" (and you can bite me on..."Bible thumpers" (and you can bite me on that count) don't beat people. Union thugs do. You have obviously never been through a union "job action". And I don't care about PC. And I doubt you "own" a construction company.Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-24449500931396701812010-10-22T12:00:35.478-05:002010-10-22T12:00:35.478-05:00Sissy means wimp. Besides, I thought you righties...Sissy means wimp. Besides, I thought you righties didn't care about being PC. <br /><br />Ooooh, the big scary union people are outside the construction business I own. Ooooh, they're holding a large banner. Scary. Give me a break. <br /><br />If they were Bible thumpers outside of my business, and I didn't want them there, even though they were not causing a ruckus, tough, right? But, a union, OMG, they have to be in violation of NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), because, after all, they are so corrupt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-55041116343192070332010-10-22T05:33:34.187-05:002010-10-22T05:33:34.187-05:00Who you calling "we" Kemosabe? Oh, I th...Who you calling "we" Kemosabe? Oh, I think that (sissy) is now a homophobic slur, BTW.<br /><br />So having 50 "informational pickets" outside your business isn't intimidation? Then you've never been around a Union.Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-77730364508654498792010-10-22T00:20:39.967-05:002010-10-22T00:20:39.967-05:00Shaming = Intimidation? Wow, what sissies are we....Shaming = Intimidation? Wow, what sissies are we.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-76521165427977523982010-10-21T18:21:52.302-05:002010-10-21T18:21:52.302-05:00So, shaming of neutral business to intimidate them...So, shaming of neutral business to intimidate them is ok, but shaming of someone who violates societies mores is not ok. Do I have that right?Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-25735896793700798462010-10-21T13:38:27.282-05:002010-10-21T13:38:27.282-05:00Yup.
And I think it is more like picketing.Yup.<br /><br />And I think it is more like picketing.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-4089898193756778682010-10-21T12:28:04.647-05:002010-10-21T12:28:04.647-05:00It's called freedom of speech, Dad29.
NLRA S...It's called freedom of speech, Dad29.<br /><br /><br />NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) prohibits conduct found to "threaten, coerce, or restrain" a secondary employer not directly involved in a primary labor dispute if the object of that conduct is to cause the secondary to cease doing business with the primary employer. <br /><br />Prior cases have established picketing that seeks a consumer boycott of a secondary employer is coercive and therefore unlawful, while stationary handbilling with that same object is not coercive and is protected speech. <br /><br />The question before the Board was whether the bannering in the cases at bar was more like picketing or handbilling. The Board majority held that the bannering was not coercive and did not constitute unlawful picketing. <br /><br />Since when is "shaming" threatening, coercive, or restraining? It is up to the patrons, who are smart and sophisticated as we all know, to determine whether or not to continue to freely enter the establishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com