3 ms·

The elections will continue until the Party wins. Then, they will end.

shkkmo 5y ago
...or atleast they will continue until independent observers view them as fairly conducted.
echelon 5y ago
Kind of like Amazon forcing a redo of the JEDI government cloud computing contract that they lost. Or Blue Origin trying to force a redo of the NASA lunar lander contract.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. These are all examples of organizations acting in bad faith - including the union here in this case. Such things should not be allowed.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The order here is from the NLRB, which is an independent agency of the US Government, not the union. You can grumble as much as you'd like about their order, but it's not clear where the "bad faith" on the NLRB's part is.
  - mikestew 5y ago
    I know the HN guidelines recommend against asking about one's reading of the article, but how about the headline at the top of the page? Can we at least expect that much to have been read? Hell, I'm in the reply box, and I can still see at the top: "US labor board official orders...", with no mention of union action at all. I don't think it's the union making the bad faith argument here.
    - seneca 5y ago
      The NLRB order is in response to requests from the union.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Requests that, under federal law, the union is perfectly entitled to make. The NLRB is neither an arm of nor subservient to the union; it's discharging its responsibilities as required by law.
      - DrewRWx 5y ago
        The point is that it is not acting in bad faith to take a grievance to a government agency and have it rule in their favor.
        seneca 5y ago
        Sure, not saying it is. I was just disagreeing with the assertion that there was no union action involved.
        mikestew 5y ago
        The assertion was, and I quote myself, "with no mention of union action at all". (referring to the headline, and emphasis mine) Of course, at some point in the process there was "union action"; kinda thought that would go with saying, but...
        jjk166 5y ago
        Your statement reads like you're saying: 'I can still see at the top: "US labor board official orders...", with no mention of union action at all [and the omission implies there was none]. I don't think it's the union [because they are unmentioned, rather I think it is some other entity] making the bad faith argument here'
DrewRWx 5y ago
Please stop with the re-heated McCarthyism. It isn't helping the discussion.

...or atleast they will continue until independent observers view them as fairly conducted.

Kind of like Amazon forcing a redo of the JEDI government cloud computing contract that they lost. Or Blue Origin trying to force a redo of the NASA lunar lander contract.

koheripbal 5y ago
Yes, exactly. These are all examples of organizations acting in bad faith - including the union here in this case. Such things should not be allowed.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The order here is from the NLRB, which is an independent agency of the US Government, not the union. You can grumble as much as you'd like about their order, but it's not clear where the "bad faith" on the NLRB's part is.
- mikestew 5y ago
  I know the HN guidelines recommend against asking about one's reading of the article, but how about the headline at the top of the page? Can we at least expect that much to have been read? Hell, I'm in the reply box, and I can still see at the top: "US labor board official orders...", with no mention of union action at all. I don't think it's the union making the bad faith argument here.
  - seneca 5y ago
    The NLRB order is in response to requests from the union.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Requests that, under federal law, the union is perfectly entitled to make. The NLRB is neither an arm of nor subservient to the union; it's discharging its responsibilities as required by law.
    - DrewRWx 5y ago
      The point is that it is not acting in bad faith to take a grievance to a government agency and have it rule in their favor.
      - seneca 5y ago
        Sure, not saying it is. I was just disagreeing with the assertion that there was no union action involved.
        mikestew 5y ago
        The assertion was, and I quote myself, "with no mention of union action at all". (referring to the headline, and emphasis mine) Of course, at some point in the process there was "union action"; kinda thought that would go with saying, but...
        jjk166 5y ago
        Your statement reads like you're saying: 'I can still see at the top: "US labor board official orders...", with no mention of union action at all [and the omission implies there was none]. I don't think it's the union [because they are unmentioned, rather I think it is some other entity] making the bad faith argument here'

DrewRWx 5y ago

Please stop with the re-heated McCarthyism. It isn't helping the discussion.