This post was updated on .
"The declared purpose of the Wagner Act, as shown in its first section, is to encourage collective bargaining, and to protect the 'full freedom' of workers in the selection of bargaining representatives of their own choice. To this end Congress made it illegal for an employer to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in selecting their representatives. Congress attached no conditions whatsoever to their freedom of choice in this respect. Their own best judgment, not that of someone else, was to be their guide. 'Full freedom' to choose an agent means freedom to pass upon that agent's qualifications."
OK - USAO, IRO - Name the case, name the year & name the Supreme Court Justice writing this in the majority opinion?
Contrast the above Supreme Court command relative to Rank & File Voting Rights under the NLRA, (which you are all presumed to know) to the "position below" written by UBCJA attorneys, per who's specific direction?
This post was updated on .
May 29, 2011 Letter to SEC, by Ed J Durkin......
Page 1 - right out of the gate, sentence one & two:
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ("Carpenters,,)l respectfully petitions2 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission" or "SEC") to initiate a rulemaking to amend Rule 14a-4(b)(2)3 (Requirements as to proxy) to eliminate the "withhold authority" vote on proxy forms used for the election of corporate directors. 4
The "withhold authority" vote," or so-called "withhold" vote, established decades ago to "provide greater opportunities for shareholders to exercise their right of
suffrage ...,5 has outlived its intended purpose.
INTERESTING HOW THE RIGHT TO VOTE HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULLNESS -
PER THE UBC & DICTATOR DOUG
Pg 7 excerpt
We respectfully submit that the broad emergence of the majority vote standard in director elections at U.S. public corporations compels the Commission to revise Rule l4a-4(b)(2) to eliminate the use of the "withhold" vote on the corporate proxy form in all corporate director elections. The market has advanced a vote standard, majority voting, that provides shareholders a valid opposition vote in director elections and removes any justification for the Commission's continued allowance of the "withhold" vote in director elections.
Compel? Why not just demand it and bribe someone as per the usual course of Business?
pg 7 cont -
Corporations that retain a plurality vote standard choose not to afford shareholders a valid opposition vote and Commission rules should not permit them to present a symbolic "withhold" vote on the form of proxy that has no legal effect on the outcome of an election.
YEAH, TOO BAD EH? ALAS, THERE IS A REASON FOR IT & THAT IS TO PROTECT CORPORATIONS FROM HOSTILE TAKEOVERS BY MONIED PENSION FUND INTEREST'S WITH DIRECT TIES TO THE MOB
In these elections, shareholders that do not support a nominee or slate can chose to abstain from voting. The integrity of director elections depends on the clear presentation and explanation of shareholders' vote options in corporate proxy materials. The use of the "withhold" vote in plurality vote elections contributes to and enables confusing and misleading disclosure in proxy materials that in some instances mask the absence of a majority vote standard and a valid opposition vote.29
BUMMER DUDE! WHAT, YOU PROFFER THE DOUGGIE SLATE INSTEAD?
pg 8 excerpt
The revised Rule 14a-4(b)(2) should provide that a form of proxy in a plurality vote election present shareholders an opportunity to vote "for" or to "abstain" with regard to individual nominees' or the entire slate of nominees. This ballot would accurately convey shareholders' options and eliminate any ambiguity or confusion associated with the current "withhold" vote.
Further, the new rule and any instruction thereto should clarify that the form of proxy in a majority vote standard election provide shareholders an opportunity to vote "for," "against,"(not "withhold") or to "abstain" from voting with regards to each nominee or the entire slate of nominees.
AGAIN DUMMY - THE "WITH-HOLD VOTE" KEEPS THE SCUM OUT!
In a majority vote election, "for" and "against" votes are valid support and opposition votes, each having a legal effect on the outcome of an election. Shareholders that neither support nor oppose a nominee or slate may choose to "abstain."
Pg 9 excerpt
…the Commission must now address the "confusing and misleading" use of the "withhold" vote in director elections.
Over thirty years ago, the Commission committed to monitor the workings of Rule 14a-4 and to "consider appropriate revisions as deemed necessary to facilitate shareholder participation in the corporate electoral process." The necessary Rule 14a-4(b)(2) revision is the elimination of the symbolic "withhold" vote from the form of proxy in all corporate director elections.
BOO-HOO ED, nothing symbolic about it, it's there to keep the scum away from the loot, from stacking the Board and firing the CEO & CFO so you can take the company over at less than Fair Market Value.
SEEMS DOUG DOES NOT LIKE IT WHEN THE RULES FOR VOTING IMPACT HIS MARCHING ORDERS FROM HIGHER UP'S. HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS....
excerpt - Lincoln-Douglas debate..."Pigeon Soup", eerily familiar to McCarrons Centralization position - except one thing, the Federal Constitution does not allow for it!
"The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paens to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing Sovereignty-that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of "Sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully?
Has it not got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the domain of thought.
It is precisely no other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground."
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|