Tag Archives: ethics

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to disband the NLRB.

McDonald’s Corp could be treated as a joint employer with its franchisees in labor complaints, according to a National Labor Relations Board legal determination….

The relationship between a franchisee and the parent franchisor varies in the details of the franchise contract. However, the general nature of the reputation is quite limited. The franchisee gets to use the franchisor name and the franchisor’s marketing and accounting assistance, and it gets the franchisor’s market power in holding down the cost of supplies. In return, the franchisee is bound to the franchisor’s rules regarding the use to which the franchise name is put and the nature, quality, and standardization of the product being sold. The franchisee also is required to refrain from activities that would result in denigration of the franchise name.

There’s nothing in there concerning hiring or employment practices, or anything else involving labor decisions, that tie the franchisor to the franchisee. Existing labor law covers the franchisee’s hiring and employment.

The NLRB knows this, of course, which makes its ruling even more pernicious.

As Predicted

Posted on by
Reply

I predicted this at the end of last week.

Iran agreed to new steps to contain its nuclear work in exchange for additional sanctions relief from the US as the two sides extended negotiations for four more months to reach a comprehensive deal.

Under Friday’s deal, the US will give Tehran access over the next four months to an additional $2.8 billion in oil export revenues frozen abroad by American sanctions, Secretary of State John Kerry said.

In return for this additional money, this speaking fee for the Iranian negotiators,

Iran agreed Friday to take further measures to curtail the most advanced parts of its nuclear program.

Iran also agreed to dilute its stock of up to 2% enriched uranium into natural uranium, Western officials said, which could slightly lengthen the time it would take to spin that into highly enriched fuel for a nuclear weapon.

And we believe them. Certainly the guy who currently sits in the Secretary of State’s chair believes them. John Kerry said, in announcing this latest American concession,

Let me be clear, Iran will not get any more money during these four months than it did during the last six months.

In other words and as noted above, Iran is going to get more money: the $8 billion to which it got access “the last six months” is only an upper bound to that additional money; the released $2.8 billion may not be the last of it.

One last thing: here’s what President Barack Obama said last January in his State of the Union address when he described the just-expired 6 months of talks that were, then, just getting started:

If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.

The opportunity is passed. It expired Friday. But, then, that was just a deadline.

The MH17 Shootdown

Posted on by
Reply

That this was done by the Ukrainian “separatists” (in quotes because, as some commentators are beginning to recognize, these…people…aren’t interested in separation from Ukraine so much as they are interested in uniting with Russia) with Russian SAM systems and personnel assistance is by now quite clear.

Yet, as The Wall Street Journal put it over the weekend,

The greatest foreign-policy failing of this Presidency is that he refuses to see that the world has bad actors. He can explain the consequences of aggression as he did on Friday, but he refuses to admit or explain that certain countries are responsible for those consequences and must be opposed.

Ronald Reagan didn’t flinch this way, and neither does Mr Obama’s own UN Ambassador.

Barack Obama, though, is no Ronald Reagan.

The Word of a Union

Posted on by
Reply

The UAW broke its pledge to cease organizing activity at the Chattanooga auto plant that rejected unionization, announcing on Thursday afternoon that it would form a voluntary union for factory workers.

The union signed a neutrality agreement with the German auto manufacturer that gave organizers an advantage during its campaign.

However, that agreement also contained a provision barring the union from any organizing activity for one year following the vote.

The union decided to break that pledge on Thursday, announcing the formation of a new local that would allow workers to join voluntarily.

Who can trust a union’s promise?

What is this Administration Trying to Hide?

Posted on by
Reply

Or, of what is this administration so terrified?

Nebraska’s governor says 200 children who entered the country illegally were sent to his state this week without warning and that federal officials are refusing to identify them or their locations.

Governor Dave Heineman (R) said federal officials also wouldn’t answer questions about public school attendance by the children and the potential costs to taxpayers.

“Governors and mayors have the right to know when the federal government is transporting a large group of individuals, in this case illegal immigrants, into your state,” Mr Heineman told The Wall Street Journal in an interview on Saturday. “We need to know who they are, and so far, they are saying they’re not going to give us that information.”

An Obama administration official on Saturday said the Central American children now in Nebraska aren’t at a facility but are being housed with family members and sponsors while they await immigration proceedings.

“There are concerns that this type of activity—placing children in locations across the country—is occurring throughout the United States, and information is not being shared appropriately with states,” the Republican Governors Association policy director, Marie Thomas Sanderson, wrote in an email to members on Friday….

Why is this administration so reluctant to tell anyone what they’re doing with these children? Why do they think the receiving state governments have no need to know who these kids are or the housing arrangements being made for them? About school attendance expectations? About the health status of these children? About the costs these moves will impose and who’s expected to cover those costs? What else is this administration doing with these children that it won’t say anything about their disposition?