Omarosa does have tapes......

[Sarcany]

decay wrote:
[quote=hal]
There is no need for a 'legal reason'. The prez wants her gone, she's gone - end of story.

AKA "right to work"
No.

It's "at will employment."

There is a difference.

[Speedy]

Right to work = right to go broke.

[max]

Bullcrap,
Working at the "pleasure of the President" is the same as being forced to join a union. You are not getting the job if you are not part of one or the other mafia family, you are not getting the job if you did not pay your union dues....

These are not the unions of your greatgrandpappy.
You boyz still live in the fantasy of the past.
How many of you parroting the meaningless "organized" labor slogans have actually worked any of the major unions from inside their business office?
(being a patsy shop steward does not count as working inside)
Unions today are a labor management tool and are just another business. Quite profitable at that.
With a very limited number of shareholders and none of them being rank and file....

[Sarcany]

max wrote:
How many of you parroting the meaningless "organized" labor slogans have actually worked any of the major unions from inside their business office?

The people who work for the unions that I work with in DC are with rare exception the best, kindest, most generous and selfless people I've ever met. I look forward to it every time that I visit one of my union clients. They inspire me to be a better person.

[JoeH]

max wrote:
How many of you parroting the meaningless "organized" labor slogans have actually worked any of the major unions from inside their business office?

Have you? Or are you just parroting the standard anti-union line used by businesses trying to justify their opposition to unions?

[$tevie]

They aren't "meaningless organized labor slogans". They are terms used by legislators. No union member thinks "right to work" means "right to work".

A person can be fired in DC for almost any reason at all.
https://www.blr.com/HR-Employment/Perfor...f-Columbia

[bfd]

The radical right's drive to remove all "rent seekers" including unions and union members is the cretin behind the curtain here. They defined right to work as a deliberately misleading slogan.

But of course, why should anyone have a right to work? Isn't working a privilege? The privilege being given at the pleasure of the master*?









*(gotta love the nannybot - doesn't like mass - a any more than the rest of us) LOFL

[Ted King]

bfd wrote:
They defined right to work as a deliberately misleading slogan.

Sort of like political astroturfing?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE

[max]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=max]
How many of you parroting the meaningless "organized" labor slogans have actually worked any of the major unions from inside their business office?

Have you? Or are you just parroting the standard anti-union line used by businesses trying to justify their opposition to unions?
Yep, JoeH, Teamsters, and I have discussed it before.
How about you, JoeH, or are you just parroting another line of BS on the subject of limited experience, again?...

[max]

Sarcany wrote:
[quote=max]
How many of you parroting the meaningless "organized" labor slogans have actually worked any of the major unions from inside their business office?

The people who work for the unions that I work with in DC are with rare exception the best, kindest, most generous and selfless people I've ever met. Yes, yes, both of them are a rare exception, they rescue stray puppies, daily they snatch big eyed orphans from burning buildings, cut fishing nets entangling sea turtles barely struggling for their last breath and rescue baby seals from club welding, blood lusting, wild eyed Canucks...