Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Target workers at New York store reject union
Roooooters/Yahoo ^ | circa June 17, 2011

Posted on 06/18/2011 6:22:46 AM PDT by upchuck

Workers at a Target Corp discount store in New York voted to reject union representation in a closely watched battle over unionization in the retail sector.

Workers at the Valley Stream, New York, store voted against union affiliation by a count of 137 to 85, Target said in a statement released Saturday. The vote was taken on Friday.

A union representative could not be reached for comment early Saturday.

Target employs thousands of workers at 27 stores in the New York City area. None of the Minneapolis-based company's 1,755 or so U.S. stores have union-represented employees.

Employees at the suburban store, located roughly 15 miles east of Manhattan, voted not to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: newyork; target; ufcw; unions
Another big win for common sense.
1 posted on 06/18/2011 6:22:49 AM PDT by upchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upchuck

BINGO!

Get lost, union thugs!


2 posted on 06/18/2011 6:24:57 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I have a few words for the union organizers: Ha Ha Ha.


3 posted on 06/18/2011 6:25:38 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Good for them..time to get rid of the unions and if all Americans would do this we would get ride of bullying..

Just be careful these morons have a reputation for harassing and hurting people..So take something along to protect yourself when you go out..

4 posted on 06/18/2011 6:26:47 AM PDT by PLD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

This has to be a hoax! Everyone *knows* that *Walmart* hasn’t been unionized because of its unique anti-union management techniques. /sarc

Thanks upchuck.


5 posted on 06/18/2011 6:31:29 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I wouldn’t count on it being over. There are at least 85 wannabe unionistas still on the job. The organizers behind them will be directing them on further action.


6 posted on 06/18/2011 6:31:52 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I’m curious about why the workers rejected the union. Too bad Reuters didn’t ask.


7 posted on 06/18/2011 6:32:37 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Awesome! Good to see there’s at least some common sense and real self-interest left on Long Island.


8 posted on 06/18/2011 6:32:37 AM PDT by Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I wouldn’t count on it being over. There are at least 85 wannabe unionistas still on the job. The organizers behind them will be directing them on further action.

I agree. Any idea on how long they have to wait to force another vote?

9 posted on 06/18/2011 6:39:27 AM PDT by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I’m sure the union goons are incredibly frustrated they have not been able to ram Card Check down our throats.

That’s what the 85 wannabees are praying for.


10 posted on 06/18/2011 6:39:47 AM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Ha! Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Union is a four-letter word.


11 posted on 06/18/2011 6:49:48 AM PDT by citizen (Romney+Bachmann I was thinking that during the CNN debate. Economic guy+Values gal. I like it a lot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

This would never have happened if they had card check.

Remember that.


12 posted on 06/18/2011 6:50:01 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

My thought, too. Glad they weren’t able to ram through National Card Check. Sometimes there is just enough transparency to reveal the true intentions of the Thugs in charge of our country.


13 posted on 06/18/2011 6:50:27 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Another big win for common sense.

I doubt it

If unemployment was 5 % or lower the union probably would have won

Employees know Target would have cut jobs before forced to be unionized and probably closed some non profitable stores

Nobody wants to take the chance in today's economic climate to be on the chopping block.

I fear it was self preservation more than an anti union sentiment

14 posted on 06/18/2011 6:50:38 AM PDT by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
A union representative could not be reached for comment early Saturday.

Did you try dredging The Hudson?

15 posted on 06/18/2011 6:51:05 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I don’t know where Valley Stream is in New York but I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume it’s not in Anthony Weiner’s district.


16 posted on 06/18/2011 6:52:43 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popman

“I fear it was self preservation more than an anti union sentiment “

Redundant statement; being anti-union is self preservation.


17 posted on 06/18/2011 6:55:28 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
A union representative could not be reached for comment early Saturday.

Thats a complete lie. The communist bastard union boss had plenty to say, but Reuters wants to protect his arrogant red ass

In a statement, the union’s president, Bruce W. Both, said that the workers at the Valley Stream store endured a “campaign of threats, intimidation and illegal acts by Target management,” and that the union would contest the results.

“Target did everything they could to deny these workers a chance at the American dream,” he said. “However, the workers’ pursuit of a better life and the ability to house and feed their families is proving more powerful. These workers are not backing down from this fight. They are demanding another election. They are demanding a fair election. They are demanding justice and they are prepared to fight for it.”

The Commie union bosses can keep playing their games in court with their flying monkey lawyers, but the red sons of bitches are going to get what they deserve real soon.

That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.

As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.

We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the communist American labor movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.

No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.

If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.

Criminalize Government employee unions, blatantly illegal mechanisms for raping taxpayers by bribing leftist politicians with money and votes in exchange for unsustainable compensation and benefits.

There’s nothing patently illegal about a POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision

Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of the new GOP Administration.

Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.

U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437

UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399.

Argued March 29, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.

(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.

(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.

(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.

(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.

334 F.2d 488, affirmed.

Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.

Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]

Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .

Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]

18 posted on 06/18/2011 7:02:46 AM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
I don’t know where Valley Stream is in New York but I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume it’s not in Anthony Weiner’s district.

Nassau County, just over the border from NYC; east of JFK Airport. Not Weiner's district, but still a Dem: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY04)

19 posted on 06/18/2011 7:05:04 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
I agree. Any idea on how long they have to wait to force another vote?

My neighbor was a UAW organizer for a while till he became a company man. He said they do things like keeping tabs on coworkers to make sure rules are strictly enforced to fire anti union coworkers. Anonymous calls to police about anti union coworkers cars being full of guns so police will show up at the workplace. He said there were other more aggressive actions rumored but he didn't want anything to do with that stuff which is why he became a company man.
20 posted on 06/18/2011 7:08:37 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
I'll repost a comment I made on an earlier thread:

The NLRB is working hard to carry the labor unions. They know the free market will eventually kill trade unions.

Recently, the unions have been making a big push to try to organize companies, gambling that the noise over public sector unions will give them some momentum. The NLRB is giving them cover by not reporting results.

I know of a company that was recently the target of an organizing campaign. The election result was dismal for the union: less than 25% of employees voted for the union. Within days, several organizers who were "salted" into the company quit their jobs.

Where can you find out the results of union elections? Why the NLRB website, of course. But wait, when you go to the election reports page this is what you get:

Election Reports

Please note: The National Labor Relations Board is in the process of moving all regional offices to an agency-wide uniform case processing system, which will result in more efficient processing and ensure more consistent and up-to-date case information. During this transition period, from April through September 2011, the monthly election reports will not be available. All election reports for that period will be compiled and posted here by October 2011. In addition, the tables will be simplified and will no longer include information about a union’s affiliation with the AFL-CIO. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. For further information, please contact the NLRB’s Office of Public Affairs at publicinfo@nlrb.gov.

http://www.nlrb.gov/election-reports

How convenient to hide the results so as not to embarrass the unions. They'll just stop reporting the results.


21 posted on 06/18/2011 7:08:37 AM PDT by Second Amendment First ("Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..." - Thomas Jefferson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
Not Weiner's district, but still a Dem: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY04)

Talk about Miracle On The Hudson.

Or whatever river is in this RAT-ette's district.

22 posted on 06/18/2011 7:09:25 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Redundant statement; being anti-union is self preservation.

Basically I would agree, but we do have a class of citizens cave dwellers who do not think past "what's in it for me"

They weight the economic scales and this time the unions lost, next time they might win if it short term benefits them

They could care less about what the union will do to the company who employs them or what condition that company will be in ten years from now.

23 posted on 06/18/2011 7:12:10 AM PDT by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Too bad they didnt have “card check”

Each worker could have then been saved the trouble of voting

3 or 4 nice, friendly, and helpful unions guys could have come right to your house and shown you where to sign your approval for the union, right there in front of them


24 posted on 06/18/2011 7:19:20 AM PDT by Mr. K (CAPSLOCK! -Unleash the fury! [Palin/Bachman 2012- unbeatable ticket])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I worked in an open shop where some of the dead-weight tried to unionize. The guy I was teamed up with was a hard-leftist toilet drinker who would spend all day looking for ways to get out of actually doing any work. I was always careful not to reveal any of my personal views or political inclinations. All he knew about me was that I was a musician and he assumed that I was therefore a fellow leftist.

He approached me about the push and tried to enlist me (sign the union card). Initially I just said that I was indifferent to the effort (didn’t want to tip my hand), but as time wore on and the they neared the magic 51% mark he grew more persistent. Finally I told him flat out “No”.

On the pretext of going out to lunch he set me up to be bushwhacked with members of the union. There were three of them, including the local business manager. They tried to “convince me” of the benefits of joining and I said “Not interested”. They persisted and I explained that they had stepped over the line and were now threatening me. If they didn’t back off I would defend myself and someone would go to the morgue. I did not display, but they knew what I was talking about.

When I got back to work I reported the incident and met with HR and my manager. They told me not to worry, nothing more would come of it.

The union filed a complaint with the NLRB and named my manager AND ME in the complaint. They alleged harassment, intimidation, threats of violence, and anti-union intimidation. The NLRB ruled in our favor.

I then went around to each employee who was subject to the effort and told of the efforts to intimidate. Two employees told of similar events and how they signed under duress. I urged them to go to HR but they feared retaliation. I convinced enough fellow employees to resoundingly reject the union bid.

I got a TRO against the union business manager thug but it expired and the judge wouldn’t extend it. I still have to work around the bastard who set me up.


25 posted on 06/18/2011 7:47:20 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
This is EXACTLY why we need card-check.

Workers should have no say in being unionized.

Their union dues are too important to electing Democrats to leave union membership in their hands.

26 posted on 06/18/2011 7:47:47 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (If Sarah Palin really was unelectable, state-run media would be begging the GOP to nominate her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

“None of the Minneapolis-based company’s 1,755 or so U.S. stores have union-represented employees.”

Actually, I find this hilarious. MN former senator, now governor, is Mark Dayton, a Target heir. Big time lib DEM. Would love to see his voting record on union matters.

But good for the Valley Stream NY workers!


27 posted on 06/18/2011 8:00:59 AM PDT by EDINVA ( CHANGE it back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; All
Unintended consequences. Union bosses in big cities..like NYC, Chicago, have successfully for years fought to keep the big-box stores out..so they build them in the adjacent suburbs.

Had they allowed a Wal-Mart, or a Target, to build in an inner city neighborhood, practically all hiring would have been 100% local, and minority. It would then be pretty easy for the unions to win an organizing election..and once they have one,,,well..it's the camel's nose under the tent...

28 posted on 06/18/2011 8:19:08 AM PDT by ken5050 (Save the Earth..It's the only planet with chocolate!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“He said there were other more aggressive actions rumored but he didn’t want anything to do with that stuff which is why he became a company man.”

One they pulled during our decertification attempt (failed) was to put “Moving, everything must go, no reasonable offer refused. Sale starts Saturday 7:00 A.M.” in the local paper.


29 posted on 06/18/2011 8:38:42 AM PDT by Peet (Leftists think personal liberty is so important it must be carefully rationed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Now I wish I lived in Long Island. Considering this, I’d definitely work for them again, as long as it’s in an office, and not unloading a truck in which I’m not at all built for.


30 posted on 06/18/2011 8:51:16 AM PDT by wastedyears (SEAL SIX makes me proud to have been playing SOCOM since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

As far as I know, it’s Nassau County people working with the NY Islanders on the Nassau Coliseum. From what I’ve read so far about the stadium, Albany or US Congress/Senate hasn’t been involved, and I hope they never do.


31 posted on 06/18/2011 9:00:50 AM PDT by wastedyears (SEAL SIX makes me proud to have been playing SOCOM since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson