In order for it to be scientific, it must make falsifiable predictions. Please state what predictions ID makes so that we can design actual experiments to try to disprove it. That is how science works. If it doesn't make falsifiable predictions, it isn't science.
Well, perhaps it could be included in a philosophy clasroom as an example of modern day sophistry:
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant; it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
Yeah, 780 on my verbal SATs makes me such a retard with such poor comprehension, you ad hominem using clueless AC. Please read the ruling yourself, or at least read the dialogue between daveschroeder and myself where he essentially reverses his position and claims that fraternization in uniform was never the issue all along, he was always talking about handing out literature in uniform.
Yes, he read it. But I have read it and it is very clear, there are three seperate issues. What he quotes does not even back up his claim. In the thread where he posted it, he and I have been in a discussion, and if you read that thread, you can see him completely change his argument as he realizes I have called his bluff. Let me reiterate: this is not about fraternization in uniform. Please read the ruling or at least read the thread where daveschroeder weasels his postion 180 degrees in the opposite direction and claims that fraternization in uniform was never the issue and that he was always talking about restrictions on handing out literature in uniform, which by the way the NLRB struck down as against the law, even while they upheld the part of the handbook restricting any fraternization not related to union activites. They are not even making the employer make that clear in the handbook, the wording stands as is and the employees are just supposed to know that the no fraternization rule doesn't apply to union activities. But it does apply to anything else.
Hehe, I just had a week long debate with another slashdotter over this very issue. You are right, it is fraught with exceptions and pitfalls. Yes, only in terms of land and natural resources, no one can deny that a person should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, and that coercion should never be used by anyone or any group to take the fruits of someone's labor, essentially enslaving them.
I'm not arguing your right to lock your door. Lets just say I'm trying to point out that by your definition property ownership itself (in the terms we agree too, land and natural resources) is not a basic right, it is a privilege granted by society, and as such, that privilege may come with certain restricitions imposed by society in return for society granting it.
Bah! The union challenged the original ruling, and their challange was shot down by the highest arbiter of company/union conflict in the land. The NLRB has made their position clear: we support companies on this issue, not the workers. That is the issue, and the dire implications of this should be crystal clear to anyone.
First, I would like to point out that you have changed your original position, which was that this was about fraternization in uniform, but I don't expect you to admit that, even your record on the subject is clear.
Second, the judges have stated that the wording of the handbook is clear. Meaning the company doesn't have to change the wording. Meaning that employees are just supposed to know that this doesn't apply to union organizing activities. These activities are hard enough to carry out when companies employ workers at will and can fire them under any pretext without suffering the consequences of union busting.
"What? no, we didn't fire Joe for union organizing, we fired him for, uh, insubordination! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
What this ruling does is show companies that the NLRB is completely on their side. It also means, that in this particular case, the employees do not have to be notified that they do have the right to organize a union. The ruling states that the wording is clear enough, without having to specify that union organizing is okay. That is the part that chills participation in union organizing.
Thank you. I really felt irate and to be honest, kind of hopeless yesterday, as if I was arguing with preschoolers with their hands over the ears as they yelled "is not, is not, is not!" I'm sure you know how that feels. I actually gained two foes out of it! I must have been doing something right;-) The problem is cognative dissonance, where people's brains shut down. You can see they have a particular worldview that calls for a certain kind of response, no matter what the facts are. Changing the worldview feels like a kind of ego-death to them, so they can't, even if it means supporting patently ridiculous positions.
Employers can make up any rules they want. The constitution only applies to what the government can and can't do. Unfortunately, it doesn't much apply to what you can do to yourself through contract. A contract you signed saying you were someone's slave wouldn't be valid, but a contract that said that someone wouldn't pay you if you didn't act like their slave would be.
This ruling has nothing to do with fraternization in uniform. It has to do with handing out union literature in uniform, and fraternization of any kind, two seperate issues. Please do not base your argumant on anything daveschroeder says, he is a known right wing fundie troll and in this case, a complete liar. Follow his own link in his post and read the decision yourself if you doubt me.
Please, the whole story as posted is about the fraternization issue, and you in your first post tried to conflate the fraternization and in uniform issues, which you now admit are seperate.
So answer this simple question: does this ruling have anything to do with fraternization in uniform, yes or no?
I'll do you the favor of posting a link to your reply here in all the threads where you state that is does so people can see that you clearly state here that it doesn't.
Does this ruling have anything to do with fraternization in uniform? Just a one word answer please, yes or no.
Yeah, I know he's a right winger, but one would hope he could admit when he's so obviously wrong. He sounds just like Bush, "We went to war because of WMD, no wait I mean FREEDOM..." as he gets caught out in his bullshit he changes his story.
Oh, please. This is not a matter of interpretation. There were three seperate issues appealed by the employees: the chain of command, distributing literature in uniform, and after hours fraternization. There was simply no fraternization in uniform issue discussed at all. That's a fact, not an opinion. Please try to inform yourself of the facts before commenting on things like this. The ruling is freely available to read.
By your definition property itself is a privilege. My owning a property means everyone else is excluded. My right to property exists at the expense of everyone else being able to go where they want.
So in fact, the NLRB is also there to keep me from simply taking back my right to occupy your factory and use it for myself. But I suppose it okay for a factory owner to use force to keep me from doing that, hmmm?
Let me point out that in your original comment you stated "The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform." (emphasise yours)
Now you are trying to backpedal and claim that you were making a completely different point. Originally, the supposed "in-uniform" clause was the issue, now that that has been shown to be a false issue, you claim that all along you had been stating that the order, which overturns a judge's decision that employers may forbid employees from handing out union literature in uniform, was the issue. Please explain the inconsitancy between your posts, and please explain why you have not corrected the obvious misinformation I quote above.
I will hazard a guess as to you ideology: Cheap Labor Conservative. As in, someone who will do anything to promote cheap labor and undermine the power of the working man to receive a fair wage. I would also go so far as to characterize you as a n authoritarian ideologue. This is only based on the kinds of things you post here, I really have no idea what you are like outside of slashdot.
If you were not an ideologue, you would retract your incorrect statements.
When a party to a complaint appeals a judge's order and a higher body upholds the original decision, that is still an affirmative action. The board is the final arbiter, and as in a previous case, the two Bush appointees upheld an employer's right to prohibit after hours fraternization while the same Clinton appointee disputed it. This is the only case mentioned in the report, so to claim that the board made no affirmative action in this regard is a little disingenuous.
This is completely the opposite of what the ruling says. The ruling says that ONLY union related activites are protected. All others can be forbidden, as there is no law protecting them. Please read the actual ruling. It also overturned a previous ruling and said that employees can hand out literature in uniform. Note the "in-uniform" and "fraternization" issues are seperate.
Something quite chilling about this. Definitely a slope, quite slippery.
You are being dense. Look, someone contested the original judge's ruling and the labor board upheld it. That is an affirmative decision.
But that isn't the point. The point is the propaganda you have been spreading regarding fraternization in uniform. Please issue a retraction of your earlier statements, as they have been picked up and run with by other posters too lazy to read the ruling. You know you were wrong. You know the ruling had nothing to do with fraternization in uniform, but you are content to let the disinformation stand because it suits your ideology.
The ruling only says that the employer's rules won't chil section 7 rights. It doesn't say they have to explain anything to tme employees. They don't have to change the manual to say, "but you can do union related things." So the manual stands as is, prohibiting fraternization, and it is up to the individual employee to figure out that means they can talk about unions.
Look, there is no reason to mod someone insightful when they are flat out wrong. This isn't opinion, this is facts. Read the ruling yourself. There are two seperate issues, handing out literature in uniform, which by the way the board overturned, and the fraternization issue, which they upheld.
So go screw yourself, dave. Yeah, I can tell from the way you write this is you. You like to come across as completely rational, but like all authoritarians, when you think you can get away with it, the fists come out.
I suppose this is as close to an admission that you were wrong as I'm going to get, but the damage is already done. You have conflated the two seperate issues in numerous highly rated posts in this thread and people will see those and believe what you wrote, that the entire issue is about fraternization in uniform. My hat is off to your superior propaganda skills.
These are two seperate issues, distributing literature and fraternization. In fact, if you bothered to read the article yourself, you would see that the issue of distributing literature in uniform was overturned, while the issue of fraternization was upheld.
Here's some advice for you: why don't you try actually comprehending the ruling, m'kay? Sometimes just reading it obviously isn't enough.
Please, dave, quite being dense and just show me where the ruling talks about fraternization in uniform?
And just because the two conservative, Bush-appointed anti-labor idiots on the board think that employees will understand that the rule doesn't apply to union related issues doesn't mean they will understand that.
Finally, the company can still prohibit any fraternization that doesn't relate to union activities, in or out of uniform, while you have gone out of your way in numerous posts to make it seem like the issue is about being in uniform. It's not. They are prohibiting people from meeting together out of uniform.
Please point out where it talks about that, as that is the issue you have posted about numerous times in this thread. Are you being deliberately dense? The fact is that the company can make it seem like they can fire you for fraternization relating to union affairs, while they can't. Besides that, they can fire you for fraternization that doesn't realte to union affairs.
To repeat: where does it talk about fraternization in uniform? I would like you to publically retract your statements if you can't back them up. If I am wrong, I will publically retract my statements.
You are a liar, and you know it. The ruling says nothing about fraternization in uniform, but by posting that lie literally dozens of times in this article, you have obviously gotten thousands to believe you. Please mods, read the ruling and decide for yourself. The ruling talks about handing out information in uniform and fraternization after hours and they are two distinct issues.
Re-read the ruling. There are twqo seperate issues, handing out literature in uniform and fraternizing. You are conflating the two when they are completely unrelated. And mods, please, don't mod this man up until you read the ruling yourself. If I am wrong, you can mod me into oblivion, but this man is spreading outright lies and being modded up for it and it disgusts me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, perhaps it could be included in a philosophy clasroom as an example of modern day sophistry:
Yeah, 780 on my verbal SATs makes me such a retard with such poor comprehension, you ad hominem using clueless AC. Please read the ruling yourself, or at least read the dialogue between daveschroeder and myself where he essentially reverses his position and claims that fraternization in uniform was never the issue all along, he was always talking about handing out literature in uniform.
Yes, he read it. But I have read it and it is very clear, there are three seperate issues. What he quotes does not even back up his claim. In the thread where he posted it, he and I have been in a discussion, and if you read that thread, you can see him completely change his argument as he realizes I have called his bluff. Let me reiterate: this is not about fraternization in uniform. Please read the ruling or at least read the thread where daveschroeder weasels his postion 180 degrees in the opposite direction and claims that fraternization in uniform was never the issue and that he was always talking about restrictions on handing out literature in uniform, which by the way the NLRB struck down as against the law, even while they upheld the part of the handbook restricting any fraternization not related to union activites. They are not even making the employer make that clear in the handbook, the wording stands as is and the employees are just supposed to know that the no fraternization rule doesn't apply to union activities. But it does apply to anything else.
Hehe, I just had a week long debate with another slashdotter over this very issue. You are right, it is fraught with exceptions and pitfalls. Yes, only in terms of land and natural resources, no one can deny that a person should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, and that coercion should never be used by anyone or any group to take the fruits of someone's labor, essentially enslaving them.
I'm not arguing your right to lock your door. Lets just say I'm trying to point out that by your definition property ownership itself (in the terms we agree too, land and natural resources) is not a basic right, it is a privilege granted by society, and as such, that privilege may come with certain restricitions imposed by society in return for society granting it.
Bah! The union challenged the original ruling, and their challange was shot down by the highest arbiter of company/union conflict in the land. The NLRB has made their position clear: we support companies on this issue, not the workers. That is the issue, and the dire implications of this should be crystal clear to anyone.
First, I would like to point out that you have changed your original position, which was that this was about fraternization in uniform, but I don't expect you to admit that, even your record on the subject is clear.
Second, the judges have stated that the wording of the handbook is clear. Meaning the company doesn't have to change the wording. Meaning that employees are just supposed to know that this doesn't apply to union organizing activities. These activities are hard enough to carry out when companies employ workers at will and can fire them under any pretext without suffering the consequences of union busting.
"What? no, we didn't fire Joe for union organizing, we fired him for, uh, insubordination! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
What this ruling does is show companies that the NLRB is completely on their side. It also means, that in this particular case, the employees do not have to be notified that they do have the right to organize a union. The ruling states that the wording is clear enough, without having to specify that union organizing is okay. That is the part that chills participation in union organizing.
Thank you. I really felt irate and to be honest, kind of hopeless yesterday, as if I was arguing with preschoolers with their hands over the ears as they yelled "is not, is not, is not!" I'm sure you know how that feels. I actually gained two foes out of it! I must have been doing something right ;-) The problem is cognative dissonance, where people's brains shut down. You can see they have a particular worldview that calls for a certain kind of response, no matter what the facts are. Changing the worldview feels like a kind of ego-death to them, so they can't, even if it means supporting patently ridiculous positions.
I'm very glad we're not alone, too.
Employers can make up any rules they want. The constitution only applies to what the government can and can't do. Unfortunately, it doesn't much apply to what you can do to yourself through contract. A contract you signed saying you were someone's slave wouldn't be valid, but a contract that said that someone wouldn't pay you if you didn't act like their slave would be.
This ruling has nothing to do with fraternization in uniform. It has to do with handing out union literature in uniform, and fraternization of any kind, two seperate issues. Please do not base your argumant on anything daveschroeder says, he is a known right wing fundie troll and in this case, a complete liar. Follow his own link in his post and read the decision yourself if you doubt me.
Please, the whole story as posted is about the fraternization issue, and you in your first post tried to conflate the fraternization and in uniform issues, which you now admit are seperate.
So answer this simple question: does this ruling have anything to do with fraternization in uniform, yes or no?
I'll do you the favor of posting a link to your reply here in all the threads where you state that is does so people can see that you clearly state here that it doesn't.
Does this ruling have anything to do with fraternization in uniform? Just a one word answer please, yes or no.
Yeah, I know he's a right winger, but one would hope he could admit when he's so obviously wrong. He sounds just like Bush, "We went to war because of WMD, no wait I mean FREEDOM..." as he gets caught out in his bullshit he changes his story.
Oh, please. This is not a matter of interpretation. There were three seperate issues appealed by the employees: the chain of command, distributing literature in uniform, and after hours fraternization. There was simply no fraternization in uniform issue discussed at all. That's a fact, not an opinion. Please try to inform yourself of the facts before commenting on things like this. The ruling is freely available to read.
By your definition property itself is a privilege. My owning a property means everyone else is excluded. My right to property exists at the expense of everyone else being able to go where they want.
So in fact, the NLRB is also there to keep me from simply taking back my right to occupy your factory and use it for myself. But I suppose it okay for a factory owner to use force to keep me from doing that, hmmm?
Let me point out that in your original comment you stated "The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform." (emphasise yours)
Now you are trying to backpedal and claim that you were making a completely different point. Originally, the supposed "in-uniform" clause was the issue, now that that has been shown to be a false issue, you claim that all along you had been stating that the order, which overturns a judge's decision that employers may forbid employees from handing out union literature in uniform, was the issue. Please explain the inconsitancy between your posts, and please explain why you have not corrected the obvious misinformation I quote above.
I will hazard a guess as to you ideology: Cheap Labor Conservative. As in, someone who will do anything to promote cheap labor and undermine the power of the working man to receive a fair wage. I would also go so far as to characterize you as a n authoritarian ideologue. This is only based on the kinds of things you post here, I really have no idea what you are like outside of slashdot.
If you were not an ideologue, you would retract your incorrect statements.
When a party to a complaint appeals a judge's order and a higher body upholds the original decision, that is still an affirmative action. The board is the final arbiter, and as in a previous case, the two Bush appointees upheld an employer's right to prohibit after hours fraternization while the same Clinton appointee disputed it. This is the only case mentioned in the report, so to claim that the board made no affirmative action in this regard is a little disingenuous.
This is completely the opposite of what the ruling says. The ruling says that ONLY union related activites are protected. All others can be forbidden, as there is no law protecting them. Please read the actual ruling. It also overturned a previous ruling and said that employees can hand out literature in uniform. Note the "in-uniform" and "fraternization" issues are seperate.
Something quite chilling about this. Definitely a slope, quite slippery.
Whatever. Please simply retract your incorrect statement that this ruling had anything to do with fraternization in uniform.
You are being dense. Look, someone contested the original judge's ruling and the labor board upheld it. That is an affirmative decision.
But that isn't the point. The point is the propaganda you have been spreading regarding fraternization in uniform. Please issue a retraction of your earlier statements, as they have been picked up and run with by other posters too lazy to read the ruling. You know you were wrong. You know the ruling had nothing to do with fraternization in uniform, but you are content to let the disinformation stand because it suits your ideology.
The ruling only says that the employer's rules won't chil section 7 rights. It doesn't say they have to explain anything to tme employees. They don't have to change the manual to say, "but you can do union related things." So the manual stands as is, prohibiting fraternization, and it is up to the individual employee to figure out that means they can talk about unions.
I call that chilling section 7 rights.
Look, there is no reason to mod someone insightful when they are flat out wrong. This isn't opinion, this is facts. Read the ruling yourself. There are two seperate issues, handing out literature in uniform, which by the way the board overturned, and the fraternization issue, which they upheld.
So go screw yourself, dave. Yeah, I can tell from the way you write this is you. You like to come across as completely rational, but like all authoritarians, when you think you can get away with it, the fists come out.
I suppose this is as close to an admission that you were wrong as I'm going to get, but the damage is already done. You have conflated the two seperate issues in numerous highly rated posts in this thread and people will see those and believe what you wrote, that the entire issue is about fraternization in uniform. My hat is off to your superior propaganda skills.
These are two seperate issues, distributing literature and fraternization. In fact, if you bothered to read the article yourself, you would see that the issue of distributing literature in uniform was overturned, while the issue of fraternization was upheld.
Here's some advice for you: why don't you try actually comprehending the ruling, m'kay? Sometimes just reading it obviously isn't enough.
Please, dave, quite being dense and just show me where the ruling talks about fraternization in uniform?
And just because the two conservative, Bush-appointed anti-labor idiots on the board think that employees will understand that the rule doesn't apply to union related issues doesn't mean they will understand that.
Finally, the company can still prohibit any fraternization that doesn't relate to union activities, in or out of uniform, while you have gone out of your way in numerous posts to make it seem like the issue is about being in uniform. It's not. They are prohibiting people from meeting together out of uniform.
Please point out where it talks about that, as that is the issue you have posted about numerous times in this thread. Are you being deliberately dense? The fact is that the company can make it seem like they can fire you for fraternization relating to union affairs, while they can't. Besides that, they can fire you for fraternization that doesn't realte to union affairs.
To repeat: where does it talk about fraternization in uniform? I would like you to publically retract your statements if you can't back them up. If I am wrong, I will publically retract my statements.
You are a liar, and you know it. The ruling says nothing about fraternization in uniform, but by posting that lie literally dozens of times in this article, you have obviously gotten thousands to believe you. Please mods, read the ruling and decide for yourself. The ruling talks about handing out information in uniform and fraternization after hours and they are two distinct issues.
Re-read the ruling. There are twqo seperate issues, handing out literature in uniform and fraternizing. You are conflating the two when they are completely unrelated. And mods, please, don't mod this man up until you read the ruling yourself. If I am wrong, you can mod me into oblivion, but this man is spreading outright lies and being modded up for it and it disgusts me.