Current Affairs 2024 POTUS race

Status
Not open for further replies.
AFTER INVOKING THE legacy of Ronald Reagan to suggest that striking United Auto Workers members should be fired for demanding higher wages, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., may soon find himself before the National Labor Relations Board. On Thursday, Shawn Fain, the president of UAW, filed a complaint claiming that Scott’s utterance violated federal labor law. Under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, anyone can file a charge against an employer, even if they do not work for that employer.

The complaint accuses Scott of violating the section of the NLRA that lays out employees rights to participate in labor actions: “Within the past six months, the employer has interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On Monday September 18, 2023 Tim Scott threatened employees with adverse consequences if they engage in protected, concerted activity by publicly responding to a question about striking workers as follows: ‘You strike, you’re fired.’”

The complaint was filed against Scott in his capacity as a representative for Tim Scott for America. In addition to being a senator representing the state of South Carolina, Scott is running for president, making him an employer as well. The premise of the complaint is that Scott’s comments could be construed as a direct threat against his campaign staffers, whose right to strike is enshrined in federal law.

Scott’s comments appear to violate those laws, said Benjamin Sachs, a professor of labor law at Harvard University. “A statement as direct as ‘if you strike your fired’ is textbook unfair labor practice language because workers can’t be fired for striking,” Sachs told The Intercept. “If a reasonable employee could interpret the statement as ‘if I strike, I’m fired,’ then it is without a doubt an unfair labor practice violation.”
 

Am interested in trying to figure out who this hurts more. He casts himself as some "centrist independent thinker" (=code word for fence-sitting "rhymes-with-runt, and is also absolutely stupid in dangerous, child-killing ways), so he is likely to pull the left and independent anti-vaxx voters, but also draw from Trump voters? I suspect this will hurt no one, and as 2024 unfolds and he'll end his campaign and do some weak-ass endorsements of soft-right candidates while not really endorsing any Democrat, despite his family's history. It is possible, as he digresses further into cognitive insecurity, that he might also come to endorse Trump (??).
 
Am interested in trying to figure out who this hurts more. He casts himself as some "centrist independent thinker" (=code word for fence-sitting "rhymes-with-runt, and is also absolutely stupid in dangerous, child-killing ways), so he is likely to pull the left and independent anti-vaxx voters, but also draw from Trump voters? I suspect this will hurt no one, and as 2024 unfolds and he'll end his campaign and do some weak-ass endorsements of soft-right candidates while not really endorsing any Democrat, despite his family's history. It is possible, as he digresses further into cognitive insecurity, that he might also come to endorse Trump (??).
Agree that it likely won’t have much real impact, not even sure how many states he’ll be listed as an option, although in theory it would hurt Trump more


But wouldn’t entirely rule out a Trump endorsement
 
So far it looks as though democracy and law are doing what they’re supposed to in the USA, frustratingly slow as the process is. Trump has had numerous pre trial decisions go against him and there have been lots of convictions for his supporters. Once the field for Republican nominee clears a little and if he’s found guilty then polling data will hopefully change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top