https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/uaw-hits-musk-trump-with-federal-labor-charges-over-union-busting-comments/ar-AA1oJlWO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47960995)

The federal courts are already about to gut the administrative state, and stunts like this don’t help.

If the NLRB has any sense it’ll quickly dismiss this. It’s clearly baseless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961030)

And the NLRB regulates employers, not political candidates. The normal remedy for 8(a)(1) violations is a notice posting at the employer’s facility and disseminated to its employees. The Board doesn’t even have a mechanism for “remedying” this “violation.” Trump said this, not Elon.

And assuming Elon said shit, it’s an extreme reach and possibly carries constitutional implications to find him liable for this shit. But from a practical standpoint, the Board needs to stop this. A federal court in Texas just issued a preliminary injunction against the Board and NLRA as being unconstitutional. Stuff like this plays into the courts wanting to gut this agency. the courts are about to unleash hell on federal agencies, chief among them the NLRB because of its extreme overreach. these shitlibs running the agency are committing suicide. it's insane they don't see it.

and i say this as someone who, even though i'm a management-side lawyer, has a vested interest in the NLRB being aggressive and expansive. but they fucked up.

I’ve forgotten more about labor law than you could hope to know, so you should stop there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961099)

any ideas for an alternative career for me? i am 45.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47972077)

so how the furk can they file a charge against X over this? its retarded, its basically trumps retarded viewpoint of what happened

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961143)

cons tried to go after labor unions in the early 80s because they were openly supporting divestment and boycott of ISRAEL. there is at least one NLRB GC memo on this** where the GC concluded BDS was too far afield of labor relations to possibly be a violation of the Act.

this is kinda reminiscent of that. Trump saying ANYTHING about labor is irrelevant. I dunno what Elon said, but i'd guess that whatever he did say was generic and in the context of this interview with trump, not threats to his employees. it's just a reach to classify this shit as a violation of the NLRA, which is very specific and particular about what it prohibits.

the NLRB has really lost the plot in the last few years, and the people running the agency amazingly cannot see that the courts are about to end the agency.

it sucks because i have no other skills. luckily i put away a fair amount for retirement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961533)

you need to take your meds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961549)

SpaceX got an NLRB charge filed against it for offering an "overbroad" severance agreement in it, requiring that the signatories keep the terms of the agreement confidential, and that they not disparage one another. the NLRB issued complaint, because this dumb GC bitch thinks that's a violation of the law, and the NLRB agreed in early 2023. basically, SpaceX is getting pursued for some bullshit that 10 years ago everyone would have said has NOTHING to do with the NLRA, but the current GC wants to make everything illegal under federal labor law.

SpaceX filed an injunction action in fed ct in Texas, asking for the court to order the NLRB not to process the complaint, on the ground that the NLRA violates Article II of the constitution, because NLRB members and judges can only be removed for "cause" or similar shit, and the president cannot remove them at will.

Texas judge agreed and ordered the NLRB to stop processing the complaint. not a reach to conclude that the 5th cir will uphold, and i'd say the same for SCOTUS.

people aren't quite seeing it yet, but we are like 10 years out from the death of the administrative state.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961572)

this is one of the more moronic takes i've seen re labor relations. it's even surprising coming from you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47982654)

--unaninmous SCOTUS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961242)

Imagine the combination of politicking, bullying, and grit it takes to reach the highest levels of the UAW.

Only other similar climb I can think of is up through the CCP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961638)

all of us on the management side are playing defense from that in CBA negotiations. the wage demands were already bad bc of inflation, but the UAW's contract settlement didn't help.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47961878)

my first boss (a sole practitioner who is 82 and a closet gay and who used to hit on me constantly) told me that the chief ALJ called him as a reference and told him that i'd made an initial cut, even though they don't usually hire from the private sector (that is an understatement, i don't know of a single judge who hadn't spent their entire career as an NLRB trial attorney).

former boss told me he was raving about how great i am, etc., but then said "but you won't hire him because he's an able-bodied white male." lmao. i doubt i'd have made it anyway because i don't think they'd really hire a management-side lawyer, but i think that effectively killed my application.

now i'm glad that went nowhere. between the case i referenced above (texas judge) and the SCOTUS likely extending that jakersy case in the future, i don't see NLRB judges existing in 5 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5575202&forum_id=2#47972086)