What A Nice Thing To Do For Those On A Hunger Strike!! Wonder How Many Joined In?

Yale College Republicans Hold Barbecue Next to Union Hunger Strike

22429

7

Twitter/@gabrielwinant

by BEN KEW29 Apr 20171,503

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Members of the Yale College Republicans held a barbecue on Friday next to eight graduate student teachers on a hunger strike over the Yale University’s refusal to negotiate with its newly formed union.

While the eight protesters sat in a tent next to University President Peter Salovey’s home, having not eaten in three days, the college Republican group cooked up a meal of beef, baked beans, and corn on the cob for the local community.

View image on Twitter

 Follow

gabrielwinant @gabrielwinant

Yale College Republicans barbecuing by union fast site

4:20 PM - 28 Apr 2017

 
•  1,9431,943 Retweets
 
•  4,6774,677 likes

The hunger strike concerned Yale’s unwillingness to negotiate a contract with its graduate teachers, who voted to unionize in February. The union, known as Local 33, is a subgroup of the international labor union UNITE HERE.

The university’s refusal is currently being appealed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), with the university reportedly hoping to hold out until Donald Trump appoints a new batch of anti-union members to the NLRB.

Asked about his reaction to the barbecue, Local 33 Chairman Aaron Greenberg told The New Haven Register, “I’m not really focused on that. I’m focused on making sure we have lots of water, make sure I’m healthy. We have a check in with our nurse this afternoon. We are focused on that.”

In fliers distributed before the strike, the organizers asked others to participate with them in solidarity, urging people to “sit with us and lift our spirits,” and “[join in] when one of us cannot continue.”

Greenberg also attacked the university for “siding with Donald Trump over members of their own community” by taking an anti-union stance.

“I think that is unacceptable. I think that is despicable. They say we have to wait, so we are waiting without eating,” he said.

Is Supreme Court Ruling On Recess Appointments A Slam Against Obama? Or Will He Disregard?

Supreme Court Rules Against Obama On Recess Appointments

June 26, 2014 by McClatchy-Tribune 

 10 3

 

 0 24

WASHINGTON (MCT) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Barack Obama exceeded his power under the Constitution by filling three Federal positions when the Senate was on a brief break, but justices upheld the right of the President to make recess appointments during longer breaks.

While the President is authorized to fill vacancies while the Senate is on recess, the justices decided in a 9-0 ruling that the Senate was not on a true recess in January 2012 when Obama filled three seats on the National Labor Relations Board.

The decision is a rebuke to the President, but its short-term impact on Obama could be muted because last year the Democrat-controlled Senate scrapped a long-standing filibuster rule that had allowed the current Republican minority to block a vote on many of his nominees.

Before that change was made, Republicans effectively blocked many of Obama appointments, prompting the President to turn to recess appointments as a way to fill vacant posts.

The limited scope of the court’s ruling was criticized by Justice Antonin Scalia, who agreed with the majority but said the court should have gone much further.

Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court’s most liberal members also signed onto the opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

“A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House is not long enough to trigger the President’s recess appointment power,” Breyer wrote.

But the court was split 5-4 on the broader question of whether the modern presidency should retain the right to make recess appointments.

Scalia, in an opinion that read more like a dissent than a concurrence, blasted the Breyer opinion from the bench, a highly unusual move.

“The Court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates,” Scalia wrote.

“To reach that result, the majority casts aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text in deference to late-arising historical practices that are ambiguous at best.”

He was joined by fellow conservatives Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

But Breyer wrote for the court that a broader reading of the recess clause “is reinforced by centuries of history, which we are hesitant to disturb. We thus hold that the Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess — intra-session or inter-session — of sufficient length.”

He indicated that a sufficient length might be a break of 11 days.

The Senate subsequently confirmed appointments to the three posts, so the decision will not displace any officials. If Republicans succeed in taking back control of the Senate this fall, the court’s ruling could carry more weight next year.

The ruling will bind future Presidents as well, limiting the chief executive’s authority to go around the Senate. In the early years of the Nation, presidents used “recess” appointments because members of Congress left the capital for several months at a time.

In their absence, the chief executive could make temporary appointments to the government. In more recent times, Presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used temporary appointment power to bypass a Senate that was slow to confirm his nominees.

–David G. Savage and Timothy M. Phelps
Tribune Washington Bureau

Recess Appointments Challenged By Republicans

Senate GOP Files Friend-Of-The-Court Brief In Recess Appointment Case

November 26, 2013 by UPI - United Press International, Inc. 

 1 1

 

 0 6

WASHINGTON (UPI) — The Senate Republican Conference filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose President Barack Obama’s use of recess appointment power.

Several Federal appeals courts have ruled against the Constitutionality of the recess appointments, which included posts on the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the initial insertion of Richard Cordray as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief. The Administration said the appointments were valid, but Senate Republicans said they weren’t because the chamber convened pro forma every three days.

While Cordray eventually was confirmed, Obama agreed to replace the questionable NLRB nominees.

The Senators’ brief was filed in National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning, et al., which raises questions concerning the Constitutionality of Obama’s recess appointments.

The brief, filed Monday, makes many of the same arguments made by Senate Republicans at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roll Call reported.

“Last year, the president made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even trying to obtain its advice and consent,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement announcing the brief.

Is Boeing Issue An Indicator of the Future

Government always knows best or they would like us to think so.  They know what is the best health care; they know the best car safety; they know the best drugs and they know what is best for labor unions. None are correct except the last.  Labor unions are best friends with big government. You see both of them believe that others know better than you.

 

In the latest merger of ideas between government and labor unions, we find the desire for a business (Boeing) which wants to create a second manufacturing plant in another state (South Carolina) which just happens to be a right to work state in order to lower its cost of manufacturing for its new 787 Dreamliner plane.

 

 Seems to me a good idea for several reasons.  Not only are the plants not in the same geographic area so natural disasters would not effect both plants.  Additionally, employees could be drawn from different pools of workers some of which might never move to Washington. However, the last positive is the lower cost of labor in South Carolina which has brought a charge by the National Labor Relations Council (NLRB) .

 

The charge is that Boeing is retaliating against their Washington State workers by opening this plant in South Carolina.  Since the new plant will be non union, the unions are up in arms. Maybe if the union had worked with the company on other issues in the Washington plant, this would not have happened.  Regardless, the Republican candidates, notably Pawlenty and Romney, have seized on this as an issue and I say rightly so.

 

Once we start protecting unions against the best interests of the country, we are in trouble.  Now let me make one thing perfectly clear.  Unions have their place and they came into being at a time where there were major concerns for the workers of the United States. I get that and agree wholeheartedly. However, over the past 90 years more or less, the pendulum has changed and the unions are now stronger than the companies and it is time for a move back to the center.

 

A company must have the ability to handle its business so as to make a profit and to do what is in its best interests.  Once the government gets involved to protect the union, it completely changes the dynamics.

 

This move by the NLRB is wrong and should be resisted.  Boeing should be able to make the decision to open a new plant and pay the wages commensurate with the skills of the people employed.  If the pay is too low, people will not work there or they will join a union to increase the wages. Seems simple to me. What about you?

 

We are listening and want to hear from you.

 

 

Here is an article from TheHill's  Blog Briefing Room that gives more information on the issue.

       

Pawlenty: NLRB’s suit against Boeing evokes 'Soviet Union circa 1970s'

By Ben Geman - 06/11/11 10:55 AM ET

GOP White House contender Tim Pawlenty is ramping up his attacks on the National Labor Relations Board for its complaint against Boeing over the company’s decision to open a non-union airline production plant in South Carolina, allegedly retaliating against unionized workers in Washington state.
“The NLRB decision and what they are saying to an American economy as to where and how they can do business is outrageous. This is not the Soviet Union circa 1970s or 1960s or ‘50s,” Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, said on Fox News Friday.

“The idea that we have a federal agency telling an American business in a supposedly free market that it can’t grow a business or start a business in another state is one of the most outrageous things I have seen,” Pawlenty said.
Boeing opened a 787 Dreamliner assembly plant Friday in South Carolina.

The NLRB alleges Boeing decided to place the plant outside its longstanding Washington production hub “in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.” The complaint seeks to require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The NLRB complaint has become fodder for GOP candidates seeking to show their pro-business bona fides.
Pawlenty has attacked it repeatedly, and it has also come under fire from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Democrats and liberal groups are fighting back against criticism of the National Labor Relations Board as they grow worried that the attacks could diminish the labor board’s authority.
A hearing in the case before an administrative law judge is set for June 14 in Seattle.