Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 111th Congress
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
underhi2p
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Mar 6 2009, 09:20 PM) *
No, it eliminates the employer's right to request a secret ballot after 50%+ of the relevant employees have signed cards to the effect that they each wish to have xyz represent them for purposes of collective bargaining.

Under current law, there is no REQUIREMENT for a secret ballot before the employer recognizes the results of the card-signing drive.

Under EFCA, the 30% of the relevant employees can still request a secret ballot decertification.



Fortunately, unions have a history of criminal and corrupt activity.

The management of unions can't be trusted to be honest about anything.

I think there needs to be an intermediary due to the history of unions being corrupt and criminal.
Nomarchy
QUOTE
AN ACT

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    This Act may be cited as the `Employee Free Choice Act of 2007'.



SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.


    (a) In General- Section 9(c] of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c]) is amended by adding at the end the following:


    `(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).


    `(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include--


      `(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and


      `(B] procedures to be used by the Board to establish the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.'.


    (b] Conforming Amendments-


      (1) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- Section 3(b] of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(b]) is amended, in the second sentence--


        (A] by striking `and to' and inserting `to'; and


        (B] by striking `and certify the results thereof,' and inserting `, and to issue certifications as provided for in that section,'.


      (2) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES- Section 8(b] of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b]) is amended--


        (A] in paragraph (7)(B] by striking `, or' and inserting `or a petition has been filed under section 9(c](6), or'; and


        (B] in paragraph (7)(C] by striking `when such a petition has been filed' and inserting `when such a petition other than a petition under section 9(c](6) has been filed'.



SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.


    Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end the following:


    `(h) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of establishing an initial agreement following certification or recognition, the provisions of subsection (d) shall be modified as follows:


      `(1) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor organization that has been newly organized or certified as a representative as defined in section 9(a), or within such further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall meet and commence to bargain collectively and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement.


      `(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.


      `(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.'.



SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT.


    (a] Injunctions Against Unfair Labor Practices During Organizing Drives-


      (1) IN GENERAL- Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(l)) is amended--


        (A] in the second sentence, by striking `If, after such' and inserting the following:


    `(2) If, after such'; and


        (B] by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:


    `(1) Whenever it is charged--


      `(A] that any employer--


        `(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a](3) of section 8;


        `(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a](1) of section 8; or


        `(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsection (a](1) that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;


      while employees of that employer were seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in section 9(a] until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative; or


      `(B] that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A], (B] or (C] of section 8(b](4), section 8(e), or section 8(b](7);


    the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred.'.


      (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 10(m) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(m)) is amended by inserting `under circumstances not subject to section 10(l)' after `section 8'.


    (b] Remedies for Violations-


      (1) BACKPAY- Section 10(c] of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c]) is amended by striking `And provided further,' and inserting `Provided further, That if the Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a](3) of section 8 while employees of the employer were seeking representation by a labor organization, or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a] of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract was entered into between the employer and the representative, the Board in such order shall award the employee back pay and, in addition, 2 times that amount as liquidated damages: Provided further,'.


      (2) CIVIL PENALTIES- Section 12 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended--


        (A] by striking `Any' and inserting `(a] Any'; and


        (B] by adding at the end the following:


    `(b] Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsections (a](1) or (a](3) of section 8 while employees of the employer are seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization has been recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a] of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative shall, in addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation. In determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed by this Act, or on the public interest.'.


Passed the House of Representatives March 1, 2007.

Attest:

LORRAINE C. MILLER,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 66

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 800

AN ACT

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.


March 2, 2007


Read the second time and placed on the calendar
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...emp/~c1104wkpSg::
Nomarchy
QUOTE (underhi2p @ Mar 6 2009, 06:25 PM) *
Fortunately, unions have a history of criminal and corrupt activity.

The management of unions can't be trusted to be honest about anything.

I think there needs to be an intermediary due to the history of unions being corrupt and criminal.


That'll be the NLRB. No need for the employer, the other party to collective bargaining, to be that 'intermediary'.
underhi2p
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Mar 6 2009, 09:29 PM) *



Sounds like a good way to strong arm folks.

Nomarchy
QUOTE (underhi2p @ Mar 6 2009, 06:31 PM) *
Sounds like a good way to strong arm folks.




Don't sign the card. Sign the card for decertification. Vote against the union in the secret ballot.
Arturo_Vandelay
What secret ballot?
QUOTE
the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
Nomarchy
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 6 2009, 10:19 PM) *
What secret ballot?


This is the part that is "amended"

QUOTE
Representatives and Elections

Sec. 9
[...]
(c] [Hearings on questions affecting commerce; rules and regulations] (1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board--

(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9(a)*** [subsection (a) of this section], or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in section 9(a)*** [subsection (a) of this section]; or

(B] by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]***;

the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.

(2) In determining whether or not a question of representation affecting commerce exists, the same regulations and rules of decision shall apply irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the petition or the kind of relief sought and in no case shall the Board deny a labor organization a place on the ballot by reason of an order with respect to such labor organization or its predecessor not issued in conformity with section 10(c] [section 160(c] of this title].

[[Page 265]]

(3) No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held. Employees engaged in an economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be eligible to vote under such regulations as the Board shall find are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act [subchapter] in any election conducted within twelve months after the commencement of the strike. In any election where none of the choices on the ballot receives a majority, a runoff shall be conducted, the ballot providing for a selection between the two choices receiving the largest and second largest number of valid votes cast in the election.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the waiving of hearings by stipulation for the purpose of a consent election in conformity with regulations and rules of decision of the Board.

(5) In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b] [of this section] the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling.

    `(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)***.


    `(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include--


      `(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and


      `(B] procedures to be used by the Board to establish the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.'.


The 'amendment' to 159(c] is in italics and Tahoma font above.

***
QUOTE
Sec. 9 [Sec. 159.] (a) [Exclusive representatives; employees' adjustment of grievances directly with employer] Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment.


For the text of the NLRA, http://www.union-organizing.com/nlra.html
Davis 2.0
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 6 2009, 08:12 PM) *
Odd thing for an atheist to say.



Where did that come from? Unless I'm mistaken he isn't an atheist. He doesn't trumpet his faith but I appreciate that.
patheticJT
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 7 2009, 03:12 AM) *
Odd thing for an atheist to say.



Lefties love religion when it comes to damning their political opponents to hell.
arebuntz
I found it interesting the card check is valid unless the employees already represented by some other labor organization... then they got's to have a vote... why not just allow employees to change representation with 50%+1 card check?

I need to look into contract labor investment possibilities...
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE (patheticJT @ Mar 7 2009, 11:37 AM) *
Lefties love religion when it comes to damning their political opponents to hell.


I don't take that chance. Not even with Castro, though I thought about it a time or two.

Above my pay grade.
Nomarchy
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 7 2009, 02:38 PM) *
I don't take that chance. Not even with Castro, though I thought about it a time or two.

Above my pay grade.



So, what possessed you to address me as an atheist?
Arturo_Vandelay
Come now, only Innocent and davis go after religion more than you.
Davis 2.0
I never said I was an atheist. There may very well be a creator, god or whatever you want to call it.

I'm more of an agnostic.


I do hate evangelical Christian hypocrites though. I know enough about the religion to see when they are twisting it for monetary or political gain.
Davis 2.0
Come to think of it, has innocent claimed to be an atheist?
Nomarchy
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 7 2009, 04:46 PM) *
Come now, only Innocent and davis go after religion more than you.



You really are losing your touch, lately. Seriously, everything OK?

Luther went after "religion", too. In the form of the then Catholic Church. Did that make him an atheist?

Why can't you just admit, for once, that you farked up and take something back?
Lord_Proprietor
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:

Obama Requires You To Serve: H.R. 1388

Library of Congress,

by Congress


3/15/2009 6:12:22 AM

HR 1388, will hit the House floor on Tuesday.It is called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act

(The Give Act.) and appears to require individuals to give 3 years 'service'

H.R.1388
GIVE Act (Introduced in House)


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:




Comments:

http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=457694

QUOTE
I couldn't wade through all this tripe in a short amount of time, but just from the statement of purpose here are some zingers.

THE ACORN ENHANCEMENT PROVISIONS:

`(9) recognize and increase the impact of social entrepreneurs and other nonprofit community organizations in addressing national and local challenges;

`(10) increase public and private investment in nonprofit community organizations that are effectively addressing national and local challenges and to encourage such organizations to replicate and expand successful initiatives;

`(11) leverage Federal investments to increase State, local, business, and philanthropic resources to address national and local challenges;

`(12) encourage national service efforts to address pressing national challenges, such as improving education for low-income students, increasing energy conservation, and improving the health, well-being, and economic opportunities of the neediest individuals in the Nation;

An opportunity in Congress is nothing more than an unfunded mandate. We'll all be under the control of the little urchins from ACORN.


QUOTE
Farm team for the Democrat Party! After getting their feet wet in this outfit they can become "community organizers" to marshal welfare recipients to elect Democrats to take from to the productive to give to the indolent. All the coaches we need in our race to the bottom!
underhi2p
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Mar 15 2009, 07:06 AM) *
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:

Obama Requires You To Serve: H.R. 1388

Library of Congress,

by Congress


3/15/2009 6:12:22 AM

HR 1388, will hit the House floor on Tuesday.It is called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act

(The Give Act.) and appears to require individuals to give 3 years 'service'

H.R.1388
GIVE Act (Introduced in House)


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:




Comments:

http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=457694






Do you have any ideas of what the uniform looks like and what patches are included?

Lord_Proprietor
QUOTE (underhi2p) *
Do you have any ideas of what the uniform looks like and what patches are included?



Something similar shown with the officers cap! Or with a Union or Confederate Kepi! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Mar 15 2009, 09:48 AM) *


Something similar shown with the officers cap! Or with a Union or Confederate Kepi! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif



Uniform included. Where do I sign up?
Lord_Proprietor
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 15 2009, 11:53 AM) *
Uniform included. Where do I sign up?



WH Basement NE corner!!! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Brian_Lambchops
How could you fight a dude dressed like that. I think they rely on the art of surprise, and laughter.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE (Brian_Lambchops @ Mar 15 2009, 09:58 AM) *
How could you fight a dude dressed like that. I think they rely on the art of surprise, and laughter.


But you get a sword and everything.
Russ Logan
Here's a nice little gem from the text of the bill, in the section referring to participation by schools and students enrolled in private non-federally funded schools - see if you read it as I do (maybe I'm reading too much in): (re: ‘‘SEC. 115. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
5 FROM PRIVATE SCHOOLS.)

"‘(cool.gif WAIVER.—If a State, Territory, Indian tribe, or local educational agency is prohibited by law from providing for the participation of students or teachers from private nonprofit schools as required by subsection (a), or if the Corporation determines that a State, Territory, Indian tribe, or local educational agency substantially fails or is unwilling to provide for such participation on an equitable basis, the Chief Executive Officer shall waive such requirements and shall arrange for the provision of services to such students and teachers. Such waivers shall be subject to the requirements of sections 9503 and 9504 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 20 U.S.C. 7883 and 7884)."


As I read this - boiled down - If an existing law would prevent participation, the CEO of the federally created corporation to administer the provisions of the GIVE Act is granted the power to set aside such law and to then tell the offending government agency or State just how they will participate.

So some federal bureaucrat, without any legal entanglement, can set aside the law at any level and mandate participation in this program in whatever manner they choose, as long as it meets 20 USC 7883 and 7884 (for those interested here is the text of said sections that deals with complaint processes for private schools and the By-Pass determinations):

Sec. 7883. Complaint process for participation of private school children

-STATUTE-
(a) Procedures for complaints
The Secretary shall develop and implement written procedures for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints from parents,
teachers, or other individuals and organizations concerning violations of section 7881 of this title by a State educational
agency, local educational agency, educational service agency, consortium of those agencies, or entity. The individual or
organization shall submit the complaint to the State educational agency for a written resolution by the State educational agency
within a reasonable period of time.
(cool.gif Appeals to Secretary
The resolution may be appealed by an interested party to the Secretary not later than 30 days after the State educational agency
resolves the complaint or fails to resolve the complaint within a reasonable period of time. The appeal shall be accompanied by a
copy of the State educational agency's resolution, and a complete statement of the reasons supporting the appeal. The Secretary shall
investigate and resolve the appeal not later than 120 days after receipt of the appeal.

-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 89-10, title IX, Sec. 9503, as added Pub. L. 107-110, title IX, Sec. 901, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1977.)

-End-



-CITE-
20 USC Sec. 7884 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 20 - EDUCATION
CHAPTER 70 - STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
SUBCHAPTER IX - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Part E - Uniform Provisions
subpart 1 - private schools

-HEAD-
Sec. 7884. By-pass determination process

-STATUTE-
(a) Review
(1) In general
(A) Written objections
The Secretary shall not take any final action under section 7882 of this title until the State educational agency, local
educational agency, educational service agency, consortium of those agencies, or entity affected by the action has had an
opportunity, for not less than 45 days after receiving written notice thereof, to submit written objections and to appear
before the Secretary to show cause why that action should not be taken.
(cool.gif Prior to reduction
Pending final resolution of any investigation or complaint that could result in a determination under this section, the
Secretary may withhold from the allocation of the affected State educational agency or local educational agency the amount
estimated by the Secretary to be necessary to pay the cost of those services.
(2) Petition for review
(A) Petition
If the affected agency, consortium, or entity is dissatisfied with the Secretary's final action after a proceeding under
paragraph (1), the agency, consortium, or entity may, within 60 days after notice of that action, file with the United States
court of appeals for the circuit in which the State is located a petition for review of that action.
(cool.gif Transmission
A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary.
© Filing
The Secretary, upon receipt of the copy of the petition, shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which
the Secretary based the action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28.
(3) Findings of fact
(A) In general
The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, but the court, for
good cause shown, may remand the case to the Secretary to take further evidence and the Secretary may then make new or
modified findings of fact and may modify the Secretary's previous action, and shall file in the court the record of the
further proceedings.
(cool.gif New or modified findings
Any new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
(4) Jurisdiction
(A) In general
Upon the filing of a petition, the court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set the action aside, in whole or in part.
(cool.gif Judgment
The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or
certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.
(cool.gif Determination
Any determination by the Secretary under this section shall continue in effect until the Secretary determines, in consultation
with that agency, consortium, or entity and representatives of the affected private school children, teachers, or other educational
personnel, that there will no longer be any failure or inability on the part of the agency, consortium, or entity to meet the
applicable requirements of section 7881 of this title or any other provision of this chapter.
© Payment from State allotment
When the Secretary arranges for services pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall, after consultation with the
appropriate public and private school officials, pay the cost of those services, including the administrative costs of arranging for
those services, from the appropriate allocation or allocations under this chapter.
(d) Prior determination
Any by-pass determination by the Secretary under this chapter as in effect on the day preceding January 8, 2002, shall remain in
effect to the extent the Secretary determines that that determination is consistent with the purpose of this section.

-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 89-10, title IX, Sec. 9504, as added Pub. L. 107-110, yitle IX, Sec. 901, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1978.)

-End-"

Source: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/20C70.txt

Gives a real meaning to the plethora of "Czars" we now have - now under this proposed law, this one at least, can act like the Russian Czars of old and simply dictate to the nation. Or so I read this. BTW public institutions and governments are also subject to this same CEO (read Czar) in like manner under this bill.

Color me opposed.
arebuntz
I read it the other way... if against the law or just not going to do it then the Corporation will waive the requirement for the restricted/unwilling organization to do it and make other accommodations for the private students and teachers...
Russ Logan
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Mar 15 2009, 01:09 PM) *
I read it the other way... if against the law or just not going to do it then the Corporation will waive the requirement for the restricted/unwilling organization to do it and make other accommodations for the private students and teachers...

And does that simple fact that I can read it one way and you the other, not give you pause? Which way do you think a government bureaucrat who has been given the power to override a law shall read it? Which way ensures the exercise of his/her prerogatives? If it should be interpreted under your reading than why not simply say that and that only?

or (one of my favorite lines from [corrected]Oliver Twist) admit "The Law is an ass!"
Lord_Proprietor
QUOTE (Russ Logan @ Mar 15 2009, 01:36 PM) *
Here's a nice little gem from the text of the bill, in the section referring to participation by schools and students enrolled in private non-federally funded schools - see if you read it as I do (maybe I'm reading too much in): (re: ‘‘SEC. 115. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
5 FROM PRIVATE SCHOOLS.)

"‘(cool.gif WAIVER.—If a State, Territory, Indian tribe, or local educational agency is prohibited by law from providing for the participation of students or teachers from private nonprofit schools as required by subsection (a), or if the Corporation determines that a State, Territory, Indian tribe, or local educational agency substantially fails or is unwilling to provide for such participation on an equitable basis, the Chief Executive Officer shall waive such requirements and shall arrange for the provision of services to such students and teachers. Such waivers shall be subject to the requirements of sections 9503 and 9504 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 20 U.S.C. 7883 and 7884)."


As I read this - boiled down - If an existing law would prevent participation, the CEO of the federally created corporation to administer the provisions of the GIVE Act is granted the power to set aside such law and to then tell the offending government agency or State just how they will participate.

So some federal bureaucrat, without any legal entanglement, can set aside the law at any level and mandate participation in this program in whatever manner they choose, as long as it meets 20 USC 7883 and 7884 (for those interested here is the text of said sections that deals with complaint processes for private schools and the By-Pass determinations):

Gives a real meaning to the plethora of "Czars" we now have - now under this proposed law, this one at least, can act like the Russian Czars of old and simply dictate to the nation. Or so I read this. BTW public institutions and governments are also subject to this same CEO (read Czar) in like manner under this bill.

Color me opposed.



Sounds as if they have used some of the "old power language" from the "school intergration" times in the 1960s - Even though my school was already intergrated, I had two of the most rude, ill-bred DC lawyers in my office, (wanting numbers) reading law and directives to me and telling me of their power --------- they were up set that I didn't have a list of B/W #s on my desk. So when I got them calmed down, I prepared a form and sent HS students around to get the numbers of black students in each classroom. The lawyers were totally possessed with POWER and I'm still not convinced they had the power/authority to do what they were doing.
arebuntz
QUOTE (Russ Logan @ Mar 15 2009, 03:28 PM) *
And does that simple fact that I can read it one way and you the other, not give you pause? Which way do you think a government bureaucrat who has been given the power to override a law shall read it? Which way ensures the exercise of his/her prerogatives? If it should be interpreted under your reading than why not simply say that and that only?

or (one of my favorite lines from As You Like It) admit "The Law is an ass!"

Well yes, don't see the need for the Feds to be organizing the volunteers at all and using the school system to boot. On the other hand when "we" elect a community organizer we are going to get some organizin'...
patheticJT
While Obama righteously fights to have AIG bonuses returned, Pelosi quietly authorized another congressional pay raise that goes into effect this month...............


Pay Raises for Lawmakers Anger Watchdog Groups
Each lawmaker is due for a $4,700 cost-of-living wage hike starting in January, which will amount to a total cost of $2.5 million for taxpayers
By Stephen Clark

As Americans across the country grapple with one of the worst financial crises since the Great Depression, members of Congress quietly are getting a pay raise.

Each lawmaker's annual salary is due for a $4,700 cost-of-living increase starting in January, which will amount to a cost to taxpayers of $2.5 million in 2009, infuriating watchdog groups.

"Members of Congress don't deserve one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009," said Tom Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

"While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise," he said in a written statement.

Members of Congress make an average of $169,300 a year, with Congressional leaders making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cailf., makes $217,400, while the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate each make $188,100.

The raise will increase the average salary to about $174,000, up 2.8 percent.

Pelosi's and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's offices did not respond to FOXNews.com's requests for comment.

Pay raises for public officials, whether at the federal, state or local level, usually spark outrage among taxpayer advocates. But the deepening financial crisis has led even a few lawmakers to object.

Earlier this year, Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, introduced legislation that would have stopped the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which drew 34 cosponsors, died in committee.

Two other members of Congress, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind, and Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-SC, also tried to block the wages but didn't get very far. Burton plans to return his pay increase to the Treasury Department.

"As we face the most challenging economic crisis in our history, and with many Americans and Hoosiers enduring personal financial hardships, I am opposed to any pay increase for members of Congress in 2009," he said in a written statement. He said he'll try again next year.

Lawmakers have received automatic raises since 1989. As part of an ethics bill, Congress gave up its ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless lawmakers voted otherwise.

Lawmakers have rejected pay raises six times since then, most recently last year, when Democrats, newly elected to the majority, had vowed to block an increase in their paychecks until Congress raised the minimum wage.

For the past eight years, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, has been trying to end the automatic salary hike for House members, arguing that spending priorities in a time of war and economic crisis do not include pay raises for lawmakers.

Matheson wants to put the automatic pay raises to a vote.

"At a time when people are losing their jobs, their homes and their retirement, I think the least we could do is openly debate whether we should take the pay increase this year or do some belt-tightening," he said in a written statement.

As he has done for the past eight years, Matheson plans to donate his pay raise to charity, his spokeswoman said.

The Senior Citizens League asserted the pay raise would rank each lawmaker in the top six percent of American households.

"As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain," the group's chairman, Daniel O'Connell, said in a written statement. "This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter."

The group estimates that a senior receiving average benefits will get a $63 monthly increase to just $1,153 per month next year, increasing their annual total to $13,836.

The pay raises come as the economic recession deepens. The economy lost 533,000 jobs in November, bringing the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent.


where are the shills raging against hypocrisy?

P

A

T

H

E

T

I

C
Arturo_Vandelay
The only raise they can get is a quiet one.

I'd be all for merit pay. Give them a raise when the budget is balanced and unemployment is under 6%.
Lord_Proprietor




Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...cks-aig---time/

Nomarchy
Those would be DONORS, not recipients.
Lord_Proprietor
Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG

March 17, 3:01 PM · 234 comments

http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-P...-Bonus-from-AIG

AP Photo/Ron EdmondsSenator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
underhi2p
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Mar 17 2009, 05:06 PM) *




Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...cks-aig---time/



Dodd is a major player in this year's Senate Dummy of the Year Award.
underhi2p
Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Take Small Lead on Generic Congressional Ballot
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Email to a FriendAdvertisementSupport for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.

Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin, while non-investors would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin.

Democrats began the year holding a six or seven point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. Over the past month, the gap has been smaller, with Democrats holding a two-to-four point lead. It remains to be seen whether the current results reflect lasting change or statistical noise.

Over the past year, Democratic support has ranged from a low of 39% to a high of 50%. In that same time period, Republicans have been preferred by 34% to 41% of voters nationwide.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...essional_ballot
Nomarchy
The mob is fickle.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Mar 18 2009, 03:08 PM) *
The mob is fickle.

It is.
arebuntz
Indeed...
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE (underhi2p @ Mar 18 2009, 05:05 AM) *
Dodd is a major player in this year's Senate Dummy of the Year Award.


Major winner in the money stakes as well....
Arturo_Vandelay
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...hole-says-dodd/

BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd
Posted: 05:56 PM ET
Sen. Dodd told CNN Wednesday that officials in the Treasury Department asked him to add the bonus loophole to the stimulus bill before it was passed.


WASHINGTON (CNN) — Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.
Davis 2.0
Friggin moron. Liar too. See ya.
inyerface
"I did not want to make changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG"
Davis 2.0
Riiiight. Who can you believe? Maybe he should have said "no". Simple enough.
underhi2p
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Mar 19 2009, 09:25 AM) *
Riiiight. Who can you believe? Maybe he should have said "no". Simple enough.



See the "Barak" (sic) Obama thread for details.

beasty
QUOTE (inyerface @ Mar 19 2009, 05:04 AM) *
"I did not want to make changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG"



So Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away.
Hondo
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/18/pelo...is-un-american/




Pelosi: Enforcing American immigration law is un-American

posted at 7:45 pm on March 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Spectacular Hispandering (as Kaus calls it) from Madam Speaker, coinciding with The One’s decision to toss yet another hot-button issue that he doesn’t have to deal with right now onto his already crowded plate. Describing positions she disagrees with as un-American or unpatriotic is an endearing little habit of Pelosi’s and comes this time with a twist: Not only are immigration raids unpatriotic, apparently, but illegal aliens are among the greatest patriots of all.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is “un-American.”…

“You are special people. You’re here on a Saturday night to take responsibility for our country’s future. That makes you very, very patriotic.”

“I was embarrassed by what she said,” said Rick Oltman, with Californians for Population Stabilization, an anti-illegal immigrant group. “Exhorting illegal aliens for taking responsibility for our country’s future…. In fact, sitting there in the audience…. I really resented that comment.”

This also coincides with a new poll from Rasmussen showing 68% support for punishing businesses that hire illegals, up slightly from a few years ago despite the headwinds from Hopenchange. No matter. Like The One says, “I won.” And like the boss says, “The question is not whether, but when.”


SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (inyerface @ Mar 19 2009, 07:04 AM) *
"I did not want to make changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG"

In fact, the language is not limited to AIG and may well affect others.
Hondo
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Mar 19 2009, 11:29 PM) *
In fact, the language is not limited to AIG and may well affect others.



This is a good excuse for Democrats to create a business enemies list and special tax punishments to be visited on small and select groups that earn their money in some unapproved but legal way.
underhi2p
QUOTE (Hondo @ Mar 20 2009, 12:49 AM) *
This is a good excuse for Democrats to create a business enemies list and special tax punishments to be visited on small and select groups that earn their money in some unapproved but legal way.






Hondo!

Congratulations Hondo.
inyerface
like a new pearl harbor
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.