You're surprised at that headline? Then you don't understand how serious the situation in DC really is.
An Aug. 27 board decision on “bannering” highlights this point. Bannering refers to the display of large signs, often containing misleading claims, at job sites belonging to neutral parties. It is a union tactic often designed to threaten and coerce neutral businesses to avoid dealing with non-union contractors or suppliers.
Although the law expressly prohibits unions from engaging in coercive or threatening actions toward neutral businesses, the new board has ruled that bannering is protected. Under this new rule, unions can now target your business or job sites with large banners — or use giant inflatable rats signifying the presence of “scabs” — even when you have no labor dispute with that union.--Keith Eastland, quoted at Labor Pains
Only Obama-lawyers could pretend that "bannering" is not a secondary boycott. And that's who's running the NLRB these days.
It's called freedom of speech, Dad29.
ReplyDeleteNLRA 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.
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.
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.
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.
Yup.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it is more like picketing.
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?
ReplyDeleteShaming = Intimidation? Wow, what sissies are we.
ReplyDeleteWho you calling "we" Kemosabe? Oh, I think that (sissy) is now a homophobic slur, BTW.
ReplyDeleteSo having 50 "informational pickets" outside your business isn't intimidation? Then you've never been around a Union.
Sissy means wimp. Besides, I thought you righties didn't care about being PC.
ReplyDeleteOoooh, the big scary union people are outside the construction business I own. Ooooh, they're holding a large banner. Scary. Give me a break.
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.
"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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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!
ReplyDelete