I urge Claims Journal readers to review the NLRB ruling to find out what really happened. https://aboutblaw.com/R8U
It’s hard to believe that writers Josh Eidelson and Hassan Kanu even read the ruling to construct this story, which could easily have been a union press release rather than a news story. (Eidelson is a writer for leftist news organizations such as Bloomberg, Salon and The Nation. Hassan Kanu writes for Bloomberg where his article says this ruling gives management the right to punish speech.)
The behavior of Charles Robinson was not about harassment and discrimination of workers as the lede suggests. In fact, the entire complaint is a description of the harassment of management, not the other way around. The story also credulously quotes Robinson who pretends that management was somehow racist to him when, in fact, the only racist behavior alleged was his own.
Of course, labor relations law tolerates the most uncivil outbursts imaginable from union representatives and people on strike, evidently because it paternalistically views workers as unable to restrain their childish impulses (admittedly, the evidence for that appears legion.) Imagine what would happen if union reps and workers had to behave like adults? The system would surely collapse. Next step: child labor. (Eidelson and Kanu wouldn’t tolerate anything like this behavior from their gardeners but want General Motors to do it). This ruling certainly wasn’t close to collapsing the Infantile Behavior rule, so don’t worry about that, bub. The ruling largely gave Charles Robinson the right to behave like a two-year-old having a Wal-Mart meltdown, too. The right to be cretinous and offensive stands.
The gratuitous suggestion in the story that “Trump” somehow appointed anti-labor representatives (Kanu’s Bloomberg article: All Republican! All men!) to this board is belied by the ruling, which is unbelievably generous to this delinquent ‘union rep.’ Indeed, if the ruling somehow manages to bring any civility at all to the union-management process, it will be a welcome miracle that tones down dialogue from the union standard of pampered, belligerent, racist, screaming infant to a new standard of pampered, belligerent, racist, screaming, infant with a binky.
But, more to the point, can we not expect some small degree professionalism in reporting? Not from Bloomberg and The Nation, of course. But something a little more direct here? A little lighter on hysterical claims? A little closer to the facts? This really should be labeled an opinion piece.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I urge Claims Journal readers to review the NLRB ruling to find out what really happened. https://aboutblaw.com/R8U
It’s hard to believe that writers Josh Eidelson and Hassan Kanu even read the ruling to construct this story, which could easily have been a union press release rather than a news story. (Eidelson is a writer for leftist news organizations such as Bloomberg, Salon and The Nation. Hassan Kanu writes for Bloomberg where his article says this ruling gives management the right to punish speech.)
The behavior of Charles Robinson was not about harassment and discrimination of workers as the lede suggests. In fact, the entire complaint is a description of the harassment of management, not the other way around. The story also credulously quotes Robinson who pretends that management was somehow racist to him when, in fact, the only racist behavior alleged was his own.
Of course, labor relations law tolerates the most uncivil outbursts imaginable from union representatives and people on strike, evidently because it paternalistically views workers as unable to restrain their childish impulses (admittedly, the evidence for that appears legion.) Imagine what would happen if union reps and workers had to behave like adults? The system would surely collapse. Next step: child labor. (Eidelson and Kanu wouldn’t tolerate anything like this behavior from their gardeners but want General Motors to do it). This ruling certainly wasn’t close to collapsing the Infantile Behavior rule, so don’t worry about that, bub. The ruling largely gave Charles Robinson the right to behave like a two-year-old having a Wal-Mart meltdown, too. The right to be cretinous and offensive stands.
The gratuitous suggestion in the story that “Trump” somehow appointed anti-labor representatives (Kanu’s Bloomberg article: All Republican! All men!) to this board is belied by the ruling, which is unbelievably generous to this delinquent ‘union rep.’ Indeed, if the ruling somehow manages to bring any civility at all to the union-management process, it will be a welcome miracle that tones down dialogue from the union standard of pampered, belligerent, racist, screaming infant to a new standard of pampered, belligerent, racist, screaming, infant with a binky.
But, more to the point, can we not expect some small degree professionalism in reporting? Not from Bloomberg and The Nation, of course. But something a little more direct here? A little lighter on hysterical claims? A little closer to the facts? This really should be labeled an opinion piece.