Corporate thugs...of course.
 

Carwash Workers Win Big Victory in NLRB Settlement
Bookmark and Share

Carwash workers in Los Angeles won a major victory in their struggle for
better working conditions and decent pay. Today, the workers reached a
formal settlement in their National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
complaint against Vermont Hand Wash, one of the area’s most notorious
anti-worker car washes.

As a result of the settlement, Vermont’s owners must pay more than
$50,000 in back pay to workers who were illegally fired for union activity.

The NLRB issued the complaint in late May alleging that Vermont’s
management targeted and then fired three workers because they sought to
form a union. According to the complaint, among other retaliatory acts,
Vermont management cut the hours of union supporters or assigned them
less desirable duties and unplugged the time clock when union supporters
picketed the carwash, resulting in a loss of wages to workers on the job.

******The complaint identifies one manager, Manuel Reyes, who, it says,
threatened employees on multiple occasions with bullets, a machete and a
combat knife. The NLRB also charged Reyes with similarly threatening two
union organizers with a side-handle billy club in front of carwash
employees.******

After the full NLRB’s likely approval of the settlement, the decision
will have the same effect as a board order and will be backed by an
enforcement decree from a federal appeals court. That means Vermont’s
owners, the Pirian brothers, could face jail time if they violate the
settlement.

The settlement prohibits Vermont Hand Wash from committing any of the
violations they already have committed, as well as any other violations
of the National Labor Relations Act.

Vermont Hand Wash worker Pedro Guzman, who will receive $1,650 back pay
under the deal, told a rally last week the workers suffered retaliation
and intimidation by the owner, Benny Pirian, when they tried to form a
union.

He took us into his office and interrogated us about our union
activities. And he even offered to compensate me if I would work on his
side against the union and my companeros. But I would never do that. Our
struggle continues with the incredible support from unions, students,
faith groups, old people, and young people, all of them willing to come
out and sweat under the sun to show us their solidarity.

Before the rally, Vermont’s owners pressured a billboard company to take
down a sign with the message: “Wash Away Injustice! Support Carwash
Workers.”

- - -

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:45:38 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Carwash Workers Win Big Victory in NLRB Settlement
Bookmark and Share

Carwash workers in Los Angeles won a major victory in their struggle for
better working conditions and decent pay. Today, the workers reached a
formal settlement in their National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
complaint against Vermont Hand Wash, one of the area’s most notorious
anti-worker car washes.

As a result of the settlement, Vermont’s owners must pay more than
$50,000 in back pay to workers who were illegally fired for union activity.

The NLRB issued the complaint in late May alleging that Vermont’s
management targeted and then fired three workers because they sought to
form a union. According to the complaint, among other retaliatory acts,
Vermont management cut the hours of union supporters or assigned them
less desirable duties and unplugged the time clock when union supporters
picketed the carwash, resulting in a loss of wages to workers on the job.

******The complaint identifies one manager, Manuel Reyes, who, it says,
threatened employees on multiple occasions with bullets, a machete and a
combat knife. The NLRB also charged Reyes with similarly threatening two
union organizers with a side-handle billy club in front of carwash
employees.******

After the full NLRB’s likely approval of the settlement, the decision
will have the same effect as a board order and will be backed by an
enforcement decree from a federal appeals court. That means Vermont’s
owners, the Pirian brothers, could face jail time if they violate the
settlement.

The settlement prohibits Vermont Hand Wash from committing any of the
violations they already have committed, as well as any other violations
of the National Labor Relations Act.

Vermont Hand Wash worker Pedro Guzman, who will receive $1,650 back pay
under the deal, told a rally last week the workers suffered retaliation
and intimidation by the owner, Benny Pirian, when they tried to form a
union.

He took us into his office and interrogated us about our union
activities. And he even offered to compensate me if I would work on his
side against the union and my companeros. But I would never do that. Our
struggle continues with the incredible support from unions, students,
faith groups, old people, and young people, all of them willing to come
out and sweat under the sun to show us their solidarity.

Before the rally, Vermont’s owners pressured a billboard company to take
down a sign with the message: “Wash Away Injustice! Support Carwash
Workers.”


Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

jps wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:45:38 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Carwash Workers Win Big Victory in NLRB Settlement
Bookmark and Share

Carwash workers in Los Angeles won a major victory in their struggle for
better working conditions and decent pay. Today, the workers reached a
formal settlement in their National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
complaint against Vermont Hand Wash, one of the area’s most notorious
anti-worker car washes.

As a result of the settlement, Vermont’s owners must pay more than
$50,000 in back pay to workers who were illegally fired for union activity.

The NLRB issued the complaint in late May alleging that Vermont’s
management targeted and then fired three workers because they sought to
form a union. According to the complaint, among other retaliatory acts,
Vermont management cut the hours of union supporters or assigned them
less desirable duties and unplugged the time clock when union supporters
picketed the carwash, resulting in a loss of wages to workers on the job.

******The complaint identifies one manager, Manuel Reyes, who, it says,
threatened employees on multiple occasions with bullets, a machete and a
combat knife. The NLRB also charged Reyes with similarly threatening two
union organizers with a side-handle billy club in front of carwash
employees.******

After the full NLRB’s likely approval of the settlement, the decision
will have the same effect as a board order and will be backed by an
enforcement decree from a federal appeals court. That means Vermont’s
owners, the Pirian brothers, could face jail time if they violate the
settlement.

The settlement prohibits Vermont Hand Wash from committing any of the
violations they already have committed, as well as any other violations
of the National Labor Relations Act.

Vermont Hand Wash worker Pedro Guzman, who will receive $1,650 back pay
under the deal, told a rally last week the workers suffered retaliation
and intimidation by the owner, Benny Pirian, when they tried to form a
union.

He took us into his office and interrogated us about our union
activities. And he even offered to compensate me if I would work on his
side against the union and my companeros. But I would never do that. Our
struggle continues with the incredible support from unions, students,
faith groups, old people, and young people, all of them willing to come
out and sweat under the sun to show us their solidarity.

Before the rally, Vermont’s owners pressured a billboard company to take
down a sign with the message: “Wash Away Injustice! Support Carwash
Workers.”


Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?


The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?


The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?



flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.


I had to look that up... lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.


I had to look that up... lol



flajim is one of our many secretive boatless righties. They "go after"
those they don't like but make sure they never reveal anything about
themselves.

flajim is such a pussy, he once asked another poster here to please not
mention what part of florida he lived in, because he was afraid a poster
here might show up on his doorstoop and punch him in the nose.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?


The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

H the K wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.


I had to look that up... lol



flajim is one of our many secretive boatless righties. They "go after"
those they don't like but make sure they never reveal anything about
themselves.

flajim is such a pussy, he once asked another poster here to please not
mention what part of florida he lived in, because he was afraid a poster
here might show up on his doorstoop and punch him in the nose.



Yawn. You say you hold multiple degrees. You sure don't act like such a
person. Grow up.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

Jim wrote:
H the K wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.


I had to look that up... lol



flajim is one of our many secretive boatless righties. They "go after"
those they don't like but make sure they never reveal anything about
themselves.

flajim is such a pussy, he once asked another poster here to please
not mention what part of florida he lived in, because he was afraid a
poster here might show up on his doorstoop and punch him in the nose.



Yawn. You say you hold multiple degrees. You sure don't act like such a
person. Grow up.

He doesn't. He lies about every aspect of his life.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?


The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then they
should stop harassing the management and get to work before they get
fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's ok
for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then they
should stop harassing the management and get to work before they get
fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's ok
for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.


Are you serious? flajim doesn't believe in that sort of thing. Anyone
who reads his posts knows that.





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:33:08 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.


I had to look that up... lol



flajim is one of our many secretive boatless righties. They "go after"
those they don't like but make sure they never reveal anything about
themselves.

flajim is such a pussy, he once asked another poster here to please not
mention what part of florida he lived in, because he was afraid a poster
here might show up on his doorstoop and punch him in the nose.



Yawn. You say you hold multiple degrees. You sure don't act like such a
person. Grow up.

By deduction, you got the 8th grade.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then they
should stop harassing the management and get to work before they get
fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's ok
for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment
they can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts
grads waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the
employees would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't
it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other
employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's
ok for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment they
can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts grads
waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.


With no other job prospects? Hardly.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is "legal"
even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is for the
female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss to be held
accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more reasonable. If the
boss actually treats his employees with respect, then no one needs to be
held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is needed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the
employees would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't
it?
The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other
employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.

So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's
ok for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment they
can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts grads
waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.


With no other job prospects? Hardly.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is "legal"
even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is for the
female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss to be held
accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more reasonable. If the
boss actually treats his employees with respect, then no one needs to be
held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is needed.


You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash
managers are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to
employer who is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there
will be a place to work when times get better. On the other side of the
coin, when times are good, business is booming, employees are in short
supply, advantage goes to employee until a threshold is reached where
the employer cannot bend to the employees demands and the business is in
jeopardy. So long as the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect, then
no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is
needed.


You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash managers
are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to employer who
is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there will be a place
to work when times get better. On the other side of the coin, when times
are good, business is booming, employees are in short supply, advantage
goes to employee until a threshold is reached where the employer cannot
bend to the employees demands and the business is in jeopardy. So long as
the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee doesn't
get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting employer
for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil tongue.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect, then
no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is
needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash managers
are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to employer who
is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there will be a place
to work when times get better. On the other side of the coin, when times
are good, business is booming, employees are in short supply, advantage
goes to employee until a threshold is reached where the employer cannot
bend to the employees demands and the business is in jeopardy. So long as
the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee doesn't
get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting employer
for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil tongue.

wellll excuseee meeee.

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect,
then no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no
union is needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash
managers are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to
employer who is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there
will be a place to work when times get better. On the other side of the
coin, when times are good, business is booming, employees are in short
supply, advantage goes to employee until a threshold is reached where
the employer cannot bend to the employees demands and the business is in
jeopardy. So long as the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee
doesn't get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting
employer for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil
tongue.

wellll excuseee meeee.


If you were actually excusing yourself, I would acknowledge it and that
would be the end of it, but clearly you're not doing that.

I also note that you haven't done the substitution of the words.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect, then
no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is
needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash managers
are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to employer who
is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there will be a place
to work when times get better. On the other side of the coin, when times
are good, business is booming, employees are in short supply, advantage
goes to employee until a threshold is reached where the employer cannot
bend to the employees demands and the business is in jeopardy. So long as
the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee doesn't
get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting employer
for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil tongue.


That'll be...never.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Corporate thugs...of course.
 

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:40:45 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the
employees would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't
it?
The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other
employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.

So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's
ok for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment they
can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts grads
waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.


With no other job prospects? Hardly.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is "legal"
even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is for the
female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss to be held
accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more reasonable. If the
boss actually treats his employees with respect, then no one needs to be
held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is needed.


You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash
managers are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to
employer who is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there
will be a place to work when times get better. On the other side of the
coin, when times are good, business is booming, employees are in short
supply, advantage goes to employee until a threshold is reached where
the employer cannot bend to the employees demands and the business is in
jeopardy. So long as the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.

OMG. You nearly made sense but had to throw the last line in.

"I've got mine" was penned by a Republican and will forever be
registered, copyrighted and vigilantly protected by the conservative
movement.

Republicans are the folks who don't like to share, unless they feel
like it. Right.