Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas

Topic:  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
Author
Message
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/10/2016 7:12:46 PM 
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


No, it's not. Read the text of the bill that I posted. Read the debate. The purpose of this bill was solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. If the bill inadvertently did more than that, I'm sure it'll be amended in the near future. This will probably not be enough to call off the attack dogs, though, who don't care about the truth. They have their agendas. The urbane idiots in Charlotte are not to be looked up to as more "tolerant" than the hicks in the rest of state. That gives tolerance a bad name.

Last Edited: 4/10/2016 10:22:33 PM by OhioCatFan

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/10/2016 10:26:58 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


No, it's not. Read the text of the bill that I posted. Read the debate. The purpose of this bill was solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. If the bill inadvertently did more than that, I'm sure it'll be amended in the near future. This will probably not be enough to call off the attack dogs, though, who don't care about the truth. They have their agendas. The urbane idiots in Charlotte are not to be looked up to as more "tolerant" than the hicks in the rest of state. That gives tolerance a bad name.



You probably think the Mississippi Bill was all about Freedoms too.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/10/2016 10:27:15 PM 
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


+1
Back to Top
  
bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,035

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 5:53:57 AM 
Those "urbane idiots" are not just in Charlotte. Try Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Greensboro - where Springsteen was suppose to play last night but cancelled in protest to HB2. Not unlike what his sidekick and lead guitarist of nearly half a century Steven Van Zandt did in the early 1980s when he led a boycott of Sun City in protest of apartheid in South Africa. Nearly four decades later and we're still disagreeing over equal rights in this country.

Heck, I'll bet we might have one or two of those NC "urbane idiots" as members of BA.

Last Edited: 4/11/2016 5:55:35 AM by bobcatsquared
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 7:36:35 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


No, it's not. Read the text of the bill that I posted. Read the debate. The purpose of this bill was solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. If the bill inadvertently did more than that, I'm sure it'll be amended in the near future. This will probably not be enough to call off the attack dogs, though, who don't care about the truth. They have their agendas. The urbane idiots in Charlotte are not to be looked up to as more "tolerant" than the hicks in the rest of state. That gives tolerance a bad name.



I've read the Bill several times.There seems to be a disconnect between what the Bill actually says and what people think it implies.

I don't see anywhere where the Bill where it would permit discrimination.
From what I've read on other sites,people seem to think that, because the bill doesn't specifically ban certain types discrimination,it is implied that it would be allowed.

For one thing,that would violate Federal Laws.

The issue of transgender access is a hot topic in several school districts out here.
No one has a problem with unisex bathrooms.But allowing transgender students to use the locker room of their "non-biological" identity is.

The biggest opponents are the parents of preteen/teenage girls who don't want their daughters having to feel uncomfortable with a naked biological guy in the locker room next to them.

Some schools have offered to have an area screened off for transgender students,but they say that's "isolating" them.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,022

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 9:13:55 AM 
bobcatsquared wrote:
Those "urbane idiots" are not just in Charlotte. Try Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Greensboro - where Springsteen was suppose to play last night but cancelled in protest to HB2. Not unlike what his sidekick and lead guitarist of nearly half a century Steven Van Zandt did in the early 1980s when he led a boycott of Sun City in protest of apartheid in South Africa. Nearly four decades later and we're still disagreeing over equal rights in this country.

Heck, I'll bet we might have one or two of those NC "urbane idiots" as members of BA.


http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/11/congressman-...

The supporters of at least two of the republican candidates will raise holy hell over this at the same time they'll use their power and position to block a supreme court nomination. You can't have it both ways folks.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 9:31:54 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


No, it's not. Read the text of the bill that I posted. Read the debate. The purpose of this bill was solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. If the bill inadvertently did more than that, I'm sure it'll be amended in the near future. This will probably not be enough to call off the attack dogs, though, who don't care about the truth. They have their agendas. The urbane idiots in Charlotte are not to be looked up to as more "tolerant" than the hicks in the rest of state. That gives tolerance a bad name.



If you are honest about the language of bills, it's often times what they don't say that creates the problem and the issues. And lets be honest, your children are probably safer using the public bathroom with a person who equates to the opposite sex than they do being on Dennis Hastert's wrestling team. And yes, I played that card. That man molest boys and then blocks equality measures while in the House.

I've read the Bill several times.There seems to be a disconnect between what the Bill actually says and what people think it implies.

I don't see anywhere where the Bill where it would permit discrimination.
From what I've read on other sites,people seem to think that, because the bill doesn't specifically ban certain types discrimination,it is implied that it would be allowed.

For one thing,that would violate Federal Laws.

The issue of transgender access is a hot topic in several school districts out here.
No one has a problem with unisex bathrooms.But allowing transgender students to use the locker room of their "non-biological" identity is.

The biggest opponents are the parents of preteen/teenage girls who don't want their daughters having to feel uncomfortable with a naked biological guy in the locker room next to them.

Some schools have offered to have an area screened off for transgender students,but they say that's "isolating" them.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 11:03:28 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
[QUOTE=rpbobcat] [QUOTE=OhioCatFan] [QUOTE=bobcatsquared] ]

If you are honest about the language of bills, it's often times what they don't say that creates the problem and the issues. And lets be honest, your children are probably safer using the public bathroom with a person who equates to the opposite sex than they do being on Dennis Hastert's wrestling team. And yes, I played that card. That man molest boys and then blocks equality measures while in the House.



As far as the Bill's language,there's nothing in there that even hints at allowing discrimination.
It doesn't speak to it.

Plus,as I said,any discrimination would violate Federal Law.


Also,my post never raised an issue of "safety" as it pertains to transgender individuals using bathrooms or locker rooms for other then their biological "plumbing".

As I said,unisex bathrooms address the bathroom issue.

The problem with locker rooms is that people are saying a transgender individual has the right to feel "comfortable", even if other people aren't.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 11:45:37 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
[QUOTE=rpbobcat] [QUOTE=OhioCatFan] [QUOTE=bobcatsquared] ]

If you are honest about the language of bills, it's often times what they don't say that creates the problem and the issues. And lets be honest, your children are probably safer using the public bathroom with a person who equates to the opposite sex than they do being on Dennis Hastert's wrestling team. And yes, I played that card. That man molest boys and then blocks equality measures while in the House.



As far as the Bill's language,there's nothing in there that even hints at allowing discrimination.
It doesn't speak to it.

Plus,as I said,any discrimination would violate Federal Law.


Also,my post never raised an issue of "safety" as it pertains to transgender individuals using bathrooms or locker rooms for other then their biological "plumbing".

As I said,unisex bathrooms address the bathroom issue.

The problem with locker rooms is that people are saying a transgender individual has the right to feel "comfortable", even if other people aren't.






The ISSUE OF SAFETY is why this B.S. law was passed, to protect children from poser molesters who would use transgender to prey on children. That comes directly from one of the lead legislators responsible for the bill.

And again, it's often whats not specifically stated that causes problems with legislation.
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,820

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 4:51:53 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


No, it's not. Read the text of the bill that I posted. Read the debate. The purpose of this bill was solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. If the bill inadvertently did more than that, I'm sure it'll be amended in the near future. This will probably not be enough to call off the attack dogs, though, who don't care about the truth. They have their agendas. The urbane idiots in Charlotte are not to be looked up to as more "tolerant" than the hicks in the rest of state. That gives tolerance a bad name.



No OCF - The purpose of this bill was not solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. Yes, I have read the bill and, as a member of the NC Tourism community, am intimately involved in the "wordsmithing" taking place in Raleigh to try to massage the PR and commerce nightmare.

For you to simply drop in a "If the bill inadvertently did more than that..." tells me you know exactly what the bill did and why. For everyone else, I will explain - so as to provide the truth - both as someone who lives in Charlotte, and also as someone who spends most of my professional time in rural NC - working with the "hicks" as you so comfortably call them.

The reality is that NC is a "right to work state" - which in the legal world means you can fire someone for pretty much any reason. Now the state has had laws on the books to protect may groups - based on sex, race, etc. - and those conditions are reaffirmed in the Bill Part III. However, the section specifically, and knowingly, leaves out sexual-orientation. A condition that the Charlotte City Council had included. So the result of the bill is indeed that you can still be fired because of your sexual-orientation (RP - unfortunately not having defined, means it is not protected). And since Section III addresses "accommodation" the lack of protection against discrimination extends to not only right of employment, but also right of service. Meaning you can not serve a same-sex couple because they are holding hands....of course, it was not too long ago that the same mentality (and law) applied to interracial couples.

Now there are two other condition of the Bill that further prove the intent of the bill was not solely to "prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect." They are...

1). Section C of Part III - "...General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State..."

meaning no city or local government can provide employment protection to someone based on sexual-orientation - since the state legislature supersedes.

And of course

Part II - which has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, or bathroom facilities - but takes the opportunity to specifically not permit local governments from raising the minimum wage above the state level -- which of course makes perfect sense since our state is unique in that the the cost of living is the same no matter where you live....oh wait, that's not true. Man, I wonder how that part of the bill "inadvertently" got put in there?

So obviously, the bill did more than address the bathroom situation -- and it was not "inadvertent." I guess Raleigh owes us NC citizens a big "oops" for that huh?

The reality is City Council overstepped by incorporating the bathroom portion to be part of the Bill. Behind doors, republicans wanted that part in the city bill because it gave them the emotional element to fight the bill in Raleigh (it allows them to have the uninformed refer to HB2 as the "bathroom bill" when it goes well beyond that). Democrats (state and nationally) wanted it in because they felt it could be an angle to push for legal battles to take down the road.

If City Council had simply passed a bill that folded sexual-orientation into the non-discrimination classification, it would have passed here and even the "hicks" as you so fondly refer to my fellow citizens in rural NC would not have cared.

The other reality is the business and economic kickback has been pretty strong and consistent since HB2 was passed. It is impacting business, tourism, and a new initiative that I am helping to run point on which is to further solidify NC as a primary retirement state.

Consequently, I suspect that the "inadvertent" parts of the bill will be addressed, and the "bathroom bill" will be modified to become exactly, and solely just that - a narrow bill that addresses a local overstep. Both sides can then take credit for a "win" - which is the only way politics work this day.




Last Edited: 4/11/2016 5:24:49 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 7:22:11 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
bobcatsquared wrote:
C'mon OCF. Who can use which bathrooms is just a very small part of the "bathroom" bill.

Republicans in NC want people to think that it is only about bathrooms. Instead, it's more about making it OK to discriminate against those with different sexual orientations in terms of work, housing, where they can eat, etc. . . Big cities in NC, run by people a little more open minded than those running the state, can no longer have laws banning such discrimination.


No, it's not. Read the text of the bill that I posted. Read the debate. The purpose of this bill was solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. If the bill inadvertently did more than that, I'm sure it'll be amended in the near future. This will probably not be enough to call off the attack dogs, though, who don't care about the truth. They have their agendas. The urbane idiots in Charlotte are not to be looked up to as more "tolerant" than the hicks in the rest of state. That gives tolerance a bad name.



No OCF - The purpose of this bill was not solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. Yes, I have read the bill and, as a member of the NC Tourism community, am intimately involved in the "wordsmithing" taking place in Raleigh to try to massage the PR and commerce nightmare.

For you to simply drop in a "If the bill inadvertently did more than that..." tells me you know exactly what the bill did and why. For everyone else, I will explain - so as to provide the truth - both as someone who lives in Charlotte, and also as someone who spends most of my professional time in rural NC - working with the "hicks" as you so comfortably call them.

The reality is that NC is a "right to work state" - which in the legal world means you can fire someone for pretty much any reason. Now the state has had laws on the books to protect may groups - based on sex, race, etc. - and those conditions are reaffirmed in the Bill Part III. However, the section specifically, and knowingly, leaves out sexual-orientation. A condition that the Charlotte City Council had included. So the result of the bill is indeed that you can still be fired because of your sexual-orientation (RP - unfortunately not having defined, means it is not protected). And since Section III addresses "accommodation" the lack of protection against discrimination extends to not only right of employment, but also right of service. Meaning you can not serve a same-sex couple because they are holding hands....of course, it was not too long ago that the same mentality (and law) applied to interracial couples.

Now there are two other condition of the Bill that further prove the intent of the bill was not solely to "prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect." They are...

1). Section C of Part III - "...General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State..."

meaning no city or local government can provide employment protection to someone based on sexual-orientation - since the state legislature supersedes.

And of course

Part II - which has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, or bathroom facilities - but takes the opportunity to specifically not permit local governments from raising the minimum wage above the state level -- which of course makes perfect sense since our state is unique in that the the cost of living is the same no matter where you live....oh wait, that's not true. Man, I wonder how that part of the bill "inadvertently" got put in there?

So obviously, the bill did more than address the bathroom situation -- and it was not "inadvertent." I guess Raleigh owes us NC citizens a big "oops" for that huh?

The reality is City Council overstepped by incorporating the bathroom portion to be part of the Bill. Behind doors, republicans wanted that part in the city bill because it gave them the emotional element to fight the bill in Raleigh (it allows them to have the uninformed refer to HB2 as the "bathroom bill" when it goes well beyond that). Democrats (state and nationally) wanted it in because they felt it could be an angle to push for legal battles to take down the road.

If City Council had simply passed a bill that folded sexual-orientation into the non-discrimination classification, it would have passed here and even the "hicks" as you so fondly refer to my fellow citizens in rural NC would not have cared.

The other reality is the business and economic kickback has been pretty strong and consistent since HB2 was passed. It is impacting business, tourism, and a new initiative that I am helping to run point on which is to further solidify NC as a primary retirement state.

Consequently, I suspect that the "inadvertent" parts of the bill will be addressed, and the "bathroom bill" will be modified to become exactly, and solely just that - a narrow bill that addresses a local overstep. Both sides can then take credit for a "win" - which is the only way politics work this day.






So if the bathroom portion of the bill is merely a republican ruse to gin up the mob, will the democrats agree to remove that portion from the bill? It appears there are about two pages of material on this very thread with folks supporting the bathroom portion of the bill, yet you are saying this portion was nothing but a republican trick. If that's so, why do the democrats raise so much hell about the bathroom portion of the bill? Or is that only the out-of-state response?

I appreciate your explanation. I could do without the snark.

Last Edited: 4/11/2016 7:22:54 PM by Robert Fox
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,022

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 7:57:27 PM 
The quotes have gotten a bit long so I'll just reply. I don't see two pages of folks supporting the bathroom thing. I for one am not a big fan of it and I am sure there are others that feel the same way. When I walk into an airport bathroom I expect to see other guys - period. As for CC's comments, that might be the most coherent post ever offered on this site and it certainly wasn't snarky. The governor of NC has already sent hundreds of teachers over the border to seek employment elsewhere. I'm afraid this bill will have a negative economic impact as well.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 8:28:34 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
. . . . Consequently, I suspect that the "inadvertent" parts of the bill will be addressed, and the "bathroom bill" will be modified to become exactly, and solely just that - a narrow bill that addresses a local overstep. Both sides can then take credit for a "win" - which is the only way politics work this day.


That would satisfy me. I appreciate your insights. I was actually in NC when some of this was going on, but obviously not as in tune with the process as you were. Also, I consider myself to have hillbilly roots, so hick is not a bad word in my vocabulary. I was making sarcastic reference in this thread to the way the urbane often refer to and think of rural bumpkins. Myself I like folks that are close to the soil.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,820

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/11/2016 8:32:24 PM 
My post specifically notes that both ides saw a political reason to include the portion in the bill. The republicans because it would gin up the base, the Dems because they knew the Republicans would block it and such action would open up court case to be used to block other LGBT laws down the road (in state and out).

No tricks involved, no ruse - just party self interest...by both parties.

Yes, I think both parties would take the compromise, I have not met anyone that embraces the bathroom portion of the Charlotte law. Only the very zealot of the right want to deny LGBT protection in employment or services.

The financial impact on the state and the PR connection to Mississippi is not something the state (meaning Raleigh) wants. Additionally, as is happening in Georgia, large corporations carry incredible weight.

PS - If I came across as snarky it was strictly in response to me and my fellow citizens being labeled as urbane idiots and hicks and what I thought was a rather cavalier comment about "inadvertent" components of the bill...when they were clearly part of the bill and its implications.

Alan - don't get me started on the teacher situation...

OCF - fair enough - as long as I can include the group on the corner last weekend holding their bibles and bathroom signs as :urbane idiots as well.

Last Edited: 4/11/2016 8:35:12 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 7:15:18 AM 
In one of the posts, cc-cat says that NC is a Right to Work State and because of that people can be fired for almost any reason.

I don't live in a Right to Work State.
All I know about it is what I've read.
But it seems to apply only to requiring some one to join a union.

I don't know how that morphs into firing some one without cause .

I would also think that if someone was fired for a discriminatory reason, the ACLU would file a Federal lawsuit in a heartbeat.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 7:59:43 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
In one of the posts, cc-cat says that NC is a Right to Work State and because of that people can be fired for almost any reason.

I don't live in a Right to Work State.
All I know about it is what I've read.
But it seems to apply only to requiring some one to join a union.

I don't know how that morphs into firing some one without cause .

I would also think that if someone was fired for a discriminatory reason, the ACLU would file a Federal lawsuit in a heartbeat.






Well then you have fallen for the propaganda. Like this bill being debated, RTW does allow the individual to opt out of union membership in a closed shop environment. It's all the other fun stuff that go with RTW legislation that makes it so much fun. But hey, it's what states are voting in.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,022

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 8:01:04 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
In one of the posts, cc-cat says that NC is a Right to Work State and because of that people can be fired for almost any reason.

I don't live in a Right to Work State.
All I know about it is what I've read.
But it seems to apply only to requiring some one to join a union.

I don't know how that morphs into firing some one without cause .

I would also think that if someone was fired for a discriminatory reason, the ACLU would file a Federal lawsuit in a heartbeat.






Well then you have fallen for the propaganda. Like this bill being debated, RTW does allow the individual to opt out of union membership in a closed shop environment. It's all the other fun stuff that go with RTW legislation that makes it so much fun. But hey, it's what states are voting in.


http://www.aol.com/article/2012/12/21/right-to-work-laws-... /
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 8:11:33 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
In one of the posts, cc-cat says that NC is a Right to Work State and because of that people can be fired for almost any reason.

I don't live in a Right to Work State.
All I know about it is what I've read.
But it seems to apply only to requiring some one to join a union.

I don't know how that morphs into firing some one without cause .

I would also think that if someone was fired for a discriminatory reason, the ACLU would file a Federal lawsuit in a heartbeat.






Well then you have fallen for the propaganda. Like this bill being debated, RTW does allow the individual to opt out of union membership in a closed shop environment. It's all the other fun stuff that go with RTW legislation that makes it so much fun. But hey, it's what states are voting in.


http://www.aol.com/article/2012/12/21/right-to-work-laws-... /



I just Googled the author of the AOL piece.
I wouldn't call her exactly "objective".
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 8:33:46 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
In one of the posts, cc-cat says that NC is a Right to Work State and because of that people can be fired for almost any reason.

I don't live in a Right to Work State.
All I know about it is what I've read.
But it seems to apply only to requiring some one to join a union.

I don't know how that morphs into firing some one without cause .

I would also think that if someone was fired for a discriminatory reason, the ACLU would file a Federal lawsuit in a heartbeat.






Well then you have fallen for the propaganda. Like this bill being debated, RTW does allow the individual to opt out of union membership in a closed shop environment. It's all the other fun stuff that go with RTW legislation that makes it so much fun. But hey, it's what states are voting in.


http://www.aol.com/article/2012/12/21/right-to-work-laws-... /



I just Googled the author of the AOL piece.
I wouldn't call her exactly "objective".




On an issue like this you are not going to find objectivity, highly publicized issue. Instead, educate your self with the information and draw your own conclusions. You can start by examining the demographics of the states and look at all the numbers.
Back to Top
  
mf279801
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,452

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 9:50:41 AM 
cc-cat wrote:


....Yes, I have read the bill and, as a member of the NC Tourism community....


This brings up an interesting question: I'm going on vacation to North Carolina twice this summer. In light of this controversy, what can you do for me discount or other perk-wise on my trip? I'm still going to either way, but if I can save some money due to all this, I'd definitely be on board.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 10:06:52 AM 
I disagree with Billy The Cat that there isn't objective information concerning this issue.

I started by reading the actual Right to Work Legislation in several States.

I also researched the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.

The issue seems to be, not what the Right to Work Legislation says,but how people on both sides interpret/misinterpret what it says.

I've worked on several Bills that have gone before the N.J. Legislature.
I was taught that "all words have meaning" and that legislative language should be as specific as possible, so that it isn't open to interpretation.

I know there are a lot of people that oppose Right to Work and have tried to challenge it in court.But does anyone know if any State that went Right to Work ever voted to repeal it ?


Last Edited: 4/12/2016 10:08:45 AM by rpbobcat
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 10:45:51 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
I disagree with Billy The Cat that there isn't objective information concerning this issue.

I started by reading the actual Right to Work Legislation in several States.

I also researched the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.

The issue seems to be, not what the Right to Work Legislation says,but how people on both sides interpret/misinterpret what it says.

I've worked on several Bills that have gone before the N.J. Legislature.
I was taught that "all words have meaning" and that legislative language should be as specific as possible, so that it isn't open to interpretation.

I know there are a lot of people that oppose Right to Work and have tried to challenge it in court.But does anyone know if any State that went Right to Work ever voted to repeal it ?




RP, someone can always find bias, even in Passed Laws like Taft-Hartley, which clearly has the voice of labor over Big business. If you can't read what's out there on the subject (like the other poster claims he can't find) and can not find objective information, well then, in ones own mind they must not exist. And in today's society where we somehow label about all forms of media as biased in one way or another.

So long story short, you mistook my post on this. As the KEY line and you said it "how people on both sides interpret"


And if you'd read what I said, I clearly stated read the actual sources and decided for yourself, which is what you did by reading the Labor law and RTW laws themselves.

Last Edited: 4/12/2016 10:48:33 AM by BillyTheCat
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,820

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 10:46:37 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
In one of the posts, cc-cat says that NC is a Right to Work State and because of that people can be fired for almost any reason.

I don't live in a Right to Work State.
All I know about it is what I've read.
But it seems to apply only to requiring some one to join a union.

I don't know how that morphs into firing some one without cause .

I would also think that if someone was fired for a discriminatory reason, the ACLU would file a Federal lawsuit in a heartbeat.



RP - thanks for following up - especially regarding "right to work." Subsequently I reached out to an associate's husband who is in HR (plants in SC and NC). He slapped me around a little for mixing up right to work and employment at will. Said folks dealing with the situation (myself included) are like the blind men and the elephant - each touching part of the situation and extrapolating to the whole.

The update: We are a right to work state, which does have the union bent to it. We are also a employment at will state which is the "fire at will" condition I referenced.

http://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/eaw.htm

The Right to work fits in in that unions can provide prejudicial cover - so (as he said) "dumb" people like me get them crossed - I'm sure he was smiling.

Anyway, as an employment at will state there is broad path to fire people - the exceptions being (per link) conditions that protect an employee's civil rights based on age, race, sex, religion, national origin, color, disability [including the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)], or pregnancy. Sexual-orientation is not protected. And now in NC (and other states), states are restricting local governments from adding such protection.

I asked if such discrimination was not protected by Federal Law - he said the Civil Rights and EEOC have established some protection, but that it is not "finished' law in that it is policy, not a law and has not been affirmed by the courts. He said this (workers are covered by federal law) was another area that people often misrepresent - not out of malice, but misinformation.

Apparently, since it is not finished, states are taking moves to preempt a ruling with both sides looking to move cases that could be used for court rulings. Thus, as I said in my initial post - both sides playing the "court game" and, as you mentioned, the ACLU sweeping in - not to enforce a current law, but to try to forward a case that would "finish" the law.

Companies of course can have their own policies regarding protection that local or states can not infringe upon. His does, as do many of the large corporations (e.g., BOA, Duke, etc.)

He left me with an interesting story. Said last year he did have a young lady come out. He said one person approached his assistant to complain. His assistant said, "you worked fine with her yesterday and she was gay, what's the difference?" The guy responded, "but now I know something about her I didn't know yesterday." His assistant responded, "now we know something about you too."

He forwarded me the attached (surprising since he is an "R") this morning.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/22/8465027/lgbt-nondiscriminati...

I'll add this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discriminati...

I think his situation reflects the general mood of the Carolinas and the country: He said "even in the mills" they have moved beyond gay. The transgender is still foreign "'LGB' is no big deal. Still not there on the 'T'"

Again, thanks for the follow-up and dialogue. Yes, legislature language should be as specific as possible. Unfortunately in this case it is very specific and, to those that feel sexual-preference should be protected, the language included and the language purposely excluded is disturbing.

Last Edited: 4/12/2016 10:55:36 AM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
Kevin Finnegan
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,084

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 4:29:18 PM 
Since this thread started off about Governor Kasich and delved into the NC law, of course he had to bring it full-circle. His condemnation of these laws is very interesting.

I know earlier in the thread, the discussion was on his sincerity. It feels like he's speaking straight from the heart and is avoiding bombastic claims. I disagree with him on many social and fiscal issues, but I genuinely get the feeling that what he feels is because he thinks it's in the best interest of our country. I get the impression he could be a good leader. He doesn't seem to be looking to put on a show or grab headlines, he just wants to jumpstart many national discussions.

Similarly, on the topic of level-headedness and conversation-building, thank you CC Cat for your posts. I can honestly say that I learned a lot from your posts and felt that you did it without truly planting a stake in the ground. Are you the same one who once posted at length about branding? If so, I think I could read your writing everyday. You're quite thoughtful in your words and stop and make me think. Thanks for that.
Back to Top
  
Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 2,992

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Governor Kasich Faux Pas
   Posted: 4/12/2016 4:37:54 PM 
finnOhio wrote:
Since this thread started off about Governor Kasich and delved into the NC law, of course he had to bring it full-circle. His condemnation of these laws is very interesting....


Can you share where he condemned them? I missed it.



Can somebody hit a pull up jumper for me?.....

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  76 - 100  of 128 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 237 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
237 Guests
0 Registered Users
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties