War on Unions Continues: Judge Rules Gov't Can't Require Union Posters in Workplace

[MilesColtrane]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9U4AG500.htm


Judge: Gov't cannot require union posters at work

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON

A federal judge has ruled that the National Labor Relations Board cannot require private employers to put up posters informing workers of their right to form a union.

U.S. District Judge David Norton in South Carolina says the labor board exceeded its authority from Congress when it approved the poster requirement last year.

The decision Friday conflicts with a ruling last month by another federal judge in Washington, D.C., who found the posters were a reasonable means to make workers aware of labor laws.

Both lawsuits were brought by business groups who claim the posters are too one-sided in favor of unions.

A spokeswoman for the labor board did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The rule was supposed to take effect on April 30.

[MilesColtrane]

The current mandated poster is here to view.

I'd like to see which "business group" filed these lawsuits, and who is funding them.

I'd venture that they have the stink of Koch on them.

[sandnsea]

Maybe they should just make the law the same as advising women about abortions in Arizona. Yeah yeah, not funny, but I think there's a point in here somewhere.

• Health-care facilities must put up signs warning against abortion "coercion."
Change this to businesses must put up signs to warn employees against employment coercion.

• The state health department must set up a website focusing on alternatives to abortion and displaying photos of fetuses.
Change this to businesses must set up a web site focusing on alternatives to employment and display photos of dead workers.

• Previous requirements are reiterated for a notarized parental consent form for minors and a mandatory ultrasound screening 24 hours before having an abortion.
Change this to requiring workers to have a 24 hour waiting period before accepting a job.

[KonaKane]

I think they should be required in the workplace, along with any necessary health and safety warning. Exploitation is a long proven threat to working people everywhere, and should come with all the appropriate posted warnings.

[SeattleGirl]

(04-13-2012 06:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I think they should be required in the workplace, along with any necessary health and safety warning. Exploitation is a long proven threat to working people everywhere, and should come with all the appropriate posted warnings.

The businesses who don't want to put up union posters probably also don't give a rat's behind about good workplace safety.

Well, I've got news for them. As workplace accidents go up, so will their worker's comp premiums.

I'm sure they will try and find a way to blame the injured workers, but their state's worker's comp agencies and OSHA will be looking at the employers, not the employees if that happens.

[MilesColtrane]

(04-13-2012 06:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  ...in the workplace, along with any necessary health and safety warning. Exploitation is a long proven threat to working people everywhere, and should come with all the appropriate posted warnings.

Those in positions of power want to keep the rabble ignorant of their lawful rights.

Heck, I'm surprised the SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republicans of the United States) haven't overturned the Miranda decision.

[pappy]

(04-14-2012 02:00 AM)MilesColtrane Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 06:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  ...in the workplace, along with any necessary health and safety warning. Exploitation is a long proven threat to working people everywhere, and should come with all the appropriate posted warnings.

Those in positions of power want to keep the rabble ignorant of their lawful rights.

Heck, I'm surprised the SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republicans of the United States) haven't overturned the Miranda decision.

Scrotus! I like that and only one letter removed from scrotum.