Posted on 01/28/2009 9:24:30 PM PST by Steelfish
If I am working in a company and decide to get together with my fellow workers as a formal group to approach the boss about pay or working conditions, you don't think I should be able to do that?
Does the bill restrict employees from forming as their own collective bargaining unit or does it say they can only do so through an NRLB recognized union?
You'll have to do a little shuffling between H.R.800 for the 110th Congress and H. R. 243 for the 111th Congress
All of the old bill is available and the only similarity so far is...
SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended...
The old bill had an additional section...
SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.
This is the text of the new bill...
SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended...
Keep in mind the fact that the bill can change over time as there were 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.800 for the 110th Congress. I'm pretty sure they'll get to adding in the other sections of the old bill and bringing the new wording in line to match the old one over time as is usually done when passing bills from one Congress to another.
Now, I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass, but why don't you read it for yourself and answer your own question.
And just in case link jumping is too much trouble...
(h)(1) If, not later than 60 days after the certification of a new representative of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, the employer of the employees and the representative have not reached a collective bargaining agreement with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, the employer and the representative shall jointly select a mediator to mediate those issues on which the employer and the representative cannot agree.
(2) If the employer and the representative are unable to agree upon a mediator, either party may request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to select a mediator and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall upon the request select a person to serve as mediator.
(3) If, not later than 30 days after the date of the selection of a mediator under paragraph (1) or (2), the employer and the representative have not reached an agreement, the employer or the representative may transfer the matters remaining in controversy to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration.'.
Thanks for sparring us the rant. This is a forum for conservative view points.
Yea, good idea. Let's not pool our resouces. Let's all run down the same path, spend the same time reading the same thing and not trust each others anaylisis of the issue. Why didn't I think of that? FR, close up shop.
FR aint what it used to be. Just turning into blather and less and less a resource.
us me the rant.
Are there more than one of you?
Let's all run down the same path, spend the same time reading the same thing and not trust each others anaylisis of the issue.
It has nothing to do with trust and you should make your own analysis by first coming to your own conclusion. You could very well disagree with any analysis I would make and then where would you be? Still stuck in a rut?
FR, close up shop.
A perfect example of what I was just talking about. You came to a conclusion, told me of your analysis of the situation and I couldn't disagree more. I think FR should stay open so that we can educate, and learn from, each other. Can't do that if FR is shut down, can we? Or is that what you really want?
FR aint what it used to be. Just turning into blather and less and less a resource.
Oh, please, don't throw that crap at me when I bent over backwards to provide you with the necessary information for you to make your own analysis of the issue and draw your own conclusions to finally enable you to find the answer to your question.
Loosen the grip on your panties. You've twisted them into a hard, tight wad.
I've been contributing for eight years. I'll take your post as friendly ribbing.
Save it.
Nope, just a typo.
It happens constantly and small companies that cannot afford it can not often comply. Having been on both ends (run a business and worked at plenty of places where I wanted better pay etc., I do see both sides) I know that an employee has the right to find new employment and the employer has the right to find new employees. This legislation throws hurtles at small businesses which many cannot handle. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Labor laws currently afford employees with many options, safeguards, and recourses, varying by state. I don’t see how someone can think that a few employees hired at a small company automatically have the right to take it over. That is socialism. It does not work.
And with the new bill Obama signed, allowing anyone to sue their employer for all past wages they did not get compared to a higher paid fellow worker, should be the final nail in the coffin of all small business, or people trying to start one.
Watch unemployment to go over 20% by 2010. Even beyond the 21% it reached during the Carter years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.