Comments on: Why do unions seek exemption from anti-stalking laws?

By: tmc

tmc — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:56:31 +0000

It’s free @OOTS, it’s not a chat room. I think it is very, very nice of Reuters to allow us to freely comment and actually discuss thing on thier site.
Thanks Reuters!

By: OneOfTheSheep

OneOfTheSheep — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:00:00 +0000

I guess the authors or moderators headed off on vacation after releasing this, because NO comments posted, in some cases TWO DAYS AGO have yet to appear. It’s 4pm CST 2/16!

When comments are not posted in a timely manner the impression is that they are NOT “welcome” by authors and advancing “the story through relevant opinion” is thwarted.

By: OneOfTheSheep

OneOfTheSheep — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:39:27 +0000

“With the nation’s highest income and sales tax rates, in addition to many costly regulations, California is already one of the most difficult places to do business. Its exemptions permitting such behavior on the part of unions – which would be considered criminal for you or me – makes the state an even more inhospitable place to do business.”

“The fact that anti-sabotage laws might be construed as an impediment to union organizing says more about union organizing efforts than anything else.”

“During a union organizing effort in Ohio, the owner of one non-union electrical services company had his tires slashed and rocks thrown at his windows. One of his employees was assaulted. The owner was himself shot in the arm while confronting a person who was vandalizing his car on his property. Other owners of non-union shops experienced similar harassment and intimidation.”

UNIONS = THUGS. Everyone’s choice. NO!

By: Benny27

Benny27 — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:15:32 +0000

What claptrap. A bunch of laws, out of the context which they refer to, and piled high with childish assertions. This desperate attempt to smear unions is nothing more than fear-mongering from the most biased of commentators.

Grover should be hiding shame-faced, after his disgraceful attempts to hamstring legislators with the asinine no-tax pledge.

Shame

By: tmc

tmc — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:28:53 +0000

Great Piece. I still think you should change the “Twin” photos Reuters.

By: pavoter1946

pavoter1946 — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:25:53 +0000

….a 2012 U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, “tend to occur in criminal statutes and allow individuals who engage in truly objectionable behavior to avoid prosecution solely because they are participating in some form of labor activity.”

And to think I guessed they might be talking about the company who makes it very clear that if one talks about forming a union, they can be expected to be fired!

For every union that tries intimidation, there is a company that is openly anti-union and makes sure all employees know it. And they suffer no sanctions from the NLRB.