Bush statement

[davdog]

no you wont see me in freakin detroit..the murder capitol of the world!!!

i highly doubt everything you say..including the money...you probaly make 8.25$ a hour NOW..not then!!!

 

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

LOL

 

 

Who said anything about the money I presently make? I wouldn't believe what someone told me they make on this board either, that's why I didn't say it.

 

The way your future employment is going to work out I don't think you'll have much say in where you work.

 

Are you sure you're not a chick? What kind of guy prints a bunch of LOL's and smiley faces?

[dark270]

Who said anything about the money I presently make? I wouldn't believe what someone told me they make on this board either, that's why I didn't say it.

 

The way your future employment is going to work out I don't think you'll have much say in where you work.

 

Are you sure you're not a chick? What kind of guy prints a bunch of LOL's and smiley faces?

 

 

LOL you believe everything you read ??? wow..you must be a stupid republican IDIOT!!!

 

LOL

 

my future is so bright i gotta wear shades.....

 

 

FUCK YOU!

[Trimdingman]

Edited February 27, 2006 by Trimdingman

[dark270]

Including wages and benefits, a US auto worker makes about $62 an hour plus overtime. Unless you are a brain surgeon or supermodel, you can't compete.

 

 

and what is your point ??

 

the company AGREED to this....if it was too high then they should have said NO

[davdog]

LOL you believe everything you read ??? wow..you must be a stupid republican IDIOT!!!

 

LOL

 

my future is so bright i gotta wear shades.....

FUCK YOU!

 

 

What no smiley faces this post?

Sorry, I'm not a republican.

 

I have no idea if your future is bright, I do know that you're not.

[Trimdingman]

Edited February 27, 2006 by Trimdingman

[davdog]

and what is your point ??

 

the company AGREED to this....if it was too high then they should have said NO

 

 

That's the funny thing about companies, they only stick around if they make money, at that point it doesn't matter who said yes or no.

[dark270]

I like it. I get the big bucks too. Are you so paranoid that you think that everyone is out to get you? I know that you would like to lick my nuts. Whoops, Dark... you put an engine dipstick in that transmission.

 

 

paranoid...about what ?? i dont give a fuck...i guess you bozos fail to realize that...

i am going to make lots of money..one way or another....

and remember life is GOOD...

 

oh it's LICK MY NUTS...not yours.....

 

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :P :P :P

 

That's the funny thing about companies, they only stick around if they make money, at that point it doesn't matter who said yes or no.

 

 

 

 

oh yeah i forgot,,,you know it all.....

 

YEAH whatever.....now you want to give us your higher intellect...

 

YEAH.......

[davdog]

paranoid...about what ?? i dont give a fuck...i guess you bozos fail to realize that...

i am going to make lots of money..one way or another....

and remember life is GOOD...

 

oh it's LICK MY NUTS...not yours.....

 

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :P :P :P

oh yeah i forgot,,,you know it all.....

 

YEAH whatever.....now you want to give us your higher intellect...

 

YEAH.......

 

 

What's high and mighty about what I said. A company either makes money or it folds. It doesn't matter if it's the company I work for or the company you work for or the company your uncle bob works for.

[Simpleman]

OH please.....legal strike position ?? wtf ??? when it's convienent for the company that we can get pay raises.....

OK...your one of the anti union bush loving WACKOS!!!

 

 

On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. You better hope you never lose your job with Ford. You don't know history, you can't read, and can't do math. If I were you and given the choice of packages from Ford, I would take the educational package cause you sure need it.

[dark270]

On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. You better hope you never lose your job with Ford. You don't know history, you can't read, and can't do math. If I were you and given the choice of packages from Ford, I would take the educational package cause you sure need it.

 

 

you just said you self

 

In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration

 

does this mean they have the RIGHT to fire them ??? NOPE..according to what you said punishment was not BEING FIRED....

 

WTF ??? they were not legally fired!

 

re-read just what you posted.

[dark270]

On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. You better hope you never lose your job with Ford. You don't know history, you can't read, and can't do math. If I were you and given the choice of packages from Ford, I would take the educational package cause you sure need it.

 

 

here is another article..since we are posting articles!!!

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-vignette_x.htm

 

On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. You better hope you never lose your job with Ford. You don't know history, you can't read, and can't do math. If I were you and given the choice of packages from Ford, I would take the educational package cause you sure need it.

 

 

one more thing...i'm not worried about losing my job....or anything else for that matter

 

and you are not me...so i will make up my own mind !

thanks dippy!

 

On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. You better hope you never lose your job with Ford. You don't know history, you can't read, and can't do math. If I were you and given the choice of packages from Ford, I would take the educational package cause you sure need it.

it also seems reagan was pretty biased as well

 

On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek. In doing so, the union violated a 1955 law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions. However, several government unions (including one representing employees of the Postal Service) had declared strikes in the intervening period without penalties. Ronald Reagan, now President, subsequently declared the PATCO strike a peril to national safety, and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

[Simpleman]

here is another article..since we are posting articles!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-vignette_x.htm

one more thing...i'm not worried about losing my job....or anything else for that matter

 

and you are not me...so i will make up my own mind !

thanks dippy!

it also seems reagan was pretty biased as well

 

On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek. In doing so, the union violated a 1955 law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions. However, several government unions (including one representing employees of the Postal Service) had declared strikes in the intervening period without penalties. Ronald Reagan, now President, subsequently declared the PATCO strike a peril to national safety, and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

 

 

Did you read the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947? Didn't think so.

[dark270]

Did you read the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947? Didn't think so.

 

 

yes i did did you ??

 

where do you read the gov. can fire any employee because it feels like it ??

 

 

Taft-Hartley Labor Act

 

Taft-Hartley Labor Act, 1947, passed by the U.S. Congress, officially known as the Labor-Management Relations Act. Sponsored by Senator Robert Alphonso Taft and Representative Fred Allan Hartley, the act qualified or amended much of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act of 1935, the federal law regulating labor relations of enterprises engaged in interstate commerce, and it nullified parts of the Federal Anti-Injunction (Norris-LaGuardia) Act of 1932. The act established control of labor disputes on a new basis by enlarging the National Labor Relations Board and providing that the union or the employer must, before terminating a collective-bargaining agreement, serve notice on the other party and on a government mediation service. The government was empowered to obtain an 80-day injunction against any strike that it deemed a peril to national health or safety. The act also prohibited jurisdictional strikes (dispute between two unions over which should act as the bargaining agent for the employees) and secondary boycotts (boycott against an already organized company doing business with another company that a union is trying to organize), declared that it did not extend protection to workers on wildcat strikes, outlawed the closed shop, and permitted the union shop only on a vote of a majority of the employees. Most of the collective-bargaining provisions were retained, with the extra provision that a union before using the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board must file with the U.S. Dept. of Labor financial reports and affidavits that union officers are not Communists. The act also forbade unions to contribute to political campaigns. Although President Truman vetoed the act, it was passed over his veto. Federal courts have upheld major provisions of the act with the exception of the clauses about political expenditures. Attempts to repeal it have been unsuccessful, but the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959) amended some features of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act.

[Simpleman]

yes i did did you ??

 

where do you read the gov. can fire any employee because it feels like it ??

Taft-Hartley Labor Act

 

Taft-Hartley Labor Act, 1947, passed by the U.S. Congress, officially known as the Labor-Management Relations Act. Sponsored by Senator Robert Alphonso Taft and Representative Fred Allan Hartley, the act qualified or amended much of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act of 1935, the federal law regulating labor relations of enterprises engaged in interstate commerce, and it nullified parts of the Federal Anti-Injunction (Norris-LaGuardia) Act of 1932. The act established control of labor disputes on a new basis by enlarging the National Labor Relations Board and providing that the union or the employer must, before terminating a collective-bargaining agreement, serve notice on the other party and on a government mediation service. The government was empowered to obtain an 80-day injunction against any strike that it deemed a peril to national health or safety. The act also prohibited jurisdictional strikes (dispute between two unions over which should act as the bargaining agent for the employees) and secondary boycotts (boycott against an already organized company doing business with another company that a union is trying to organize), declared that it did not extend protection to workers on wildcat strikes, outlawed the closed shop, and permitted the union shop only on a vote of a majority of the employees. Most of the collective-bargaining provisions were retained, with the extra provision that a union before using the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board must file with the U.S. Dept. of Labor financial reports and affidavits that union officers are not Communists. The act also forbade unions to contribute to political campaigns. Although President Truman vetoed the act, it was passed over his veto. Federal courts have upheld major provisions of the act with the exception of the clauses about political expenditures. Attempts to repeal it have been unsuccessful, but the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959) amended some features of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act.

 

 

I read the WHOLE Act. Not just the parts I liked.

SEC. 305. It shall be unlawful for any individual employed by the United States or any agency thereof including wholly owned Government corporations to participate in any strike. Any individual employed by the United States or by any such agency who strikes shall be discharged immediately from employment, and shall forfeit his civil service status, if any, and shall not be eligible for re employment for three years by the United States or any such agency.... My Father always warned me not to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[dark270]

I read the WHOLE Act. Not just the parts I liked.

SEC. 305. It shall be unlawful for any individual employed by the United States or any agency thereof including wholly owned Government corporations to participate in any strike. Any individual employed by the United States or by any such agency who strikes shall be discharged immediately from employment, and shall forfeit his civil service status, if any, and shall not be eligible for re employment for three years by the United States or any such agency.... My Father always warned me not to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

 

apparently you did not read this part

 

Sec. 304. Repealed.

 

[see sec. 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972, 2 U.S.C.

Sec. 441b.]

 

Sec. 305. [sec. 188.] Strikes by Government employees. Repealed.

 

[see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1918.]

 

[[Page 290]]

[Simpleman]

apparently you did not read this part

 

Sec. 304. Repealed.

 

[see sec. 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972, 2 U.S.C.

Sec. 441b.]

 

Sec. 305. [sec. 188.] Strikes by Government employees. Repealed.

 

[see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1918.]

 

[[Page 290]]

 

I stand corrected. However I believe this has not been repealed.

 

 

Sec. 208. [sec. 178. Injunctions during national emergency]

(a) [Petition to district court by Attorney General on direction of

President] Upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the

President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court

of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such

strike or lockout or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that

such threatened or actual strike or lockout--

(i) affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged

in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication

among the several States or with foreign nations, or engaged in the

production of goods for commerce; and

(ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national

health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike

or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders

as may be appropriate

[dark270]

I stand corrected. However I believe this has not been repealed.

Sec. 208. [sec. 178. Injunctions during national emergency]

(a) [Petition to district court by Attorney General on direction of

President] Upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the

President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court

of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such

strike or lockout or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that

such threatened or actual strike or lockout--

(i) affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged

in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication

among the several States or with foreign nations, or engaged in the

production of goods for commerce; and

(ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national

health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike

or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders

as may be appropriate

 

 

 

okay, basically saying they can 'order them back to work' ....fine...but dosn't say they can fire them on a whim

ANYHOW i dont mind debating with you but your due comments are unimpressive

[Simpleman]

okay, basically saying they can 'order them back to work' ....fine...but dosn't say they can fire them on a whim

ANYHOW i dont mind debating with you but your due comments are unimpressive

 

 

I'm not quite sure what "due" means, however it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike

or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders

as may be appropriate. I do know what "enjoin" means and basically the govt. had the right to fire them. If the govt. didn't have a legal leg to stand on, where were all the court actions against the govt.? You are the one who is unimpressive.

[dark270]

I'm not quite sure what "due" means, however it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike

or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders

as may be appropriate. I do know what "enjoin" means and basically the govt. had the right to fire them. If the govt. didn't have a legal leg to stand on, where were all the court actions against the govt.? You are the one who is unimpressive.

 

 

 

 

that is not what is being said here...

en·join Pronunciation (n-join)

tr.v. en·joined, en·join·ing, en·joins

1. To direct or impose with authority and emphasis.

2. To prohibit or forbid. See Synonyms at forbid.

 

 

does that mean they can fire at will ?? no...the law is pretty open to interpretation to a judge

were they legal..YES and NO

 

 

i say that because it has never been 'truly' enforced to the point of firing postal workers or any other gov. workers...(hey why were they not fired?) based on what you have said here enjoin does not mean that

 

and again i am not try to be 'impressive' i just said your comments are unneeded

[Simpleman]

that is not what is being said here...

en·join Pronunciation (n-join)

tr.v. en·joined, en·join·ing, en·joins

1. To direct or impose with authority and emphasis.

2. To prohibit or forbid. See Synonyms at forbid.

does that mean they can fire at will ?? no...the law is pretty open to interpretation to a judge

were they legal..YES and NO

 

 

i say that because it has never been 'truly' enforced to the point of firing postal workers or any other gov. workers...(hey why were they not fired?) based on what you have said here enjoin does not mean that

 

and again i am not try to be 'impressive' i just said your comments are unneeded

 

 

I guess you didn't like the part "if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national

health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike

or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders

as may be appropriate." I don't think you can make the case of a striking postal worker imperiling the national health or safety. I'm sure you will try though.

[dark270]

I guess you didn't like the part "if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national

health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike

or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders

as may be appropriate." I don't think you can make the case of a striking postal worker imperiling the national health or safety. I'm sure you will try though.

 

 

okay..so they can end a strike..FINE...but WHERE DOES IT SAY 'THE GOV. CAN FIRE ANY EMPLOYEE FOR ANY REASON' ???????

[Simpleman]

okay..so they can end a strike..FINE...but WHERE DOES IT SAY 'THE GOV. CAN FIRE ANY EMPLOYEE FOR ANY REASON' ???????

 

 

 

"and to make such other orders as may be appropriate." I guess the Govt. made what they thought was the "appropriate" decision by firing the workers. And like I said before, if it was not legal, where were the lawsuits?

[dark270]

"and to make such other orders as may be appropriate." I guess the Govt. made what they thought was the "appropriate" decision by firing the workers. And like I said before, if it was not legal, where were the lawsuits?

 

 

well that is why i said it is open to interpretation...ALSO i believe they had a possible lawsuit....but who is going to stand up to the president of the u.s. ??? you would have gotten killed by 'accident' etc.....

if it was illegal then the us postal service should also have been 'fired' etc.... when they go on strkes..or the pilots union... it could still be 'determental' to the gov. and the people ..could it not ?

but still the law as it stands..does not give permission to fire .....period...it leaves it open to 'interpretation'

[Simpleman]

well that is why i said it is open to interpretation...ALSO i believe they had a possible lawsuit....but who is going to stand up to the president of the u.s. ??? you would have gotten killed by 'accident' etc.....

if it was illegal then the us postal service should also have been 'fired' etc.... when they go on strkes..or the pilots union... it could still be 'determental' to the gov. and the people ..could it not ?

but still the law as it stands..does not give permission to fire .....period...it leaves it open to 'interpretation'

 

 

Yeah, the KGB is running our govt. What, you one of those conspiracy nuts? No, if the postal service goes on strike it is not going to be a national safety crisis. Get over it. These people broke the law. They could have sued, but they didn't cause they did not have a case. Don't you think the lawyers of America would have been all over this if they could have made money? Or were they afraid of the govt. coming to get them too?