Re: Say NO NO NO to Wal-Mart!!!

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Harry Krause wrote:
> 
>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> 
>>>Don Bruder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Harry Krause wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We haven't bought anything at Wal-Mart in years. It is among the most
>>>>>>exploitative employers in the United States, a real rogue corporation,
>>>>>>that screws its workers and its suppliers at every opportunity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wal-Mart, if you will, treats its employees as if they were Iraqis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If their employees are being treated as badly as you say, why is it that
>>>>>no union has been able to organize them?
>>>>>
>>>>>Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because Wal-Mart Inc. has a carved-in-stone anti-union stance. They will 
>>>>(and have, multiple times) fired everybody on the payroll and shut down 
>>>>the entire store rather than allow a union to get so much as a toenail 
>>>>clipping (never mind a foot...) in the door.
>>>
>>>Prove it.
>>>
>>>Federal law mandates union certification elections, if 
>>>enough employees ask for one.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> hahahahahahohohohohohhehehehehe
>> 
>> This government is about as anti-union as Wal-Mart.
> 
> Non sequitur.  Wal-Mart must hold a union certification 
> election if enough employees ask for one.  Their 
> anti-union stance doesn't enter into it.
> 
>> The "law" has been
>> looking the other way for the last three years, for the most part.
> 
> Prove it, liar.
> 

Prove it? Hehehe. There's a ka-zillion cases that have built up the last
few years that show how anti-labor the NLRB has become, at the urging
the Bush-shippers.

If you are that interested, the cites are easy enough to find.

-- 
Email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is never read.