For Pelosi and any other Agricultural employer to willingly seek to hire Unionized Labor or discuss with their employees to possibly of unionizing such action is against California State Law, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which became effective on August 28, 1975:

The purpose of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act is to ensure peace in the fields of California by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers and stability in agricultural labor relations. The Act seeks to achieve these ends by providing orderly processes for protecting, implementing, and enforcing the respective rights and responsibilities of employees, employers and labor organizations in their relations with each other.

The agency created to implement this Act is the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Within its statutory assignment, the ALRB has two principal functions:

1. To determine and implement, through secret ballot elections, the right of agricultural employees to choose whether or not they wish to be represented by a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with their employer; and

2. To prevent and remedy certain kinds of conduct, called unfair labor practices, on the part of both employers and labor organizations, which, the Act declares, are destructive of the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining.

ALRB’s authority is divided between a Board composed of five members and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. Together, they are responsible for the prevention of those practices which the Act declares to be impediments to the free exercise of employee rights. When a charge is filed, the General Counsel conducts an investigation to determine whether an unfair labor practice has been committed. If he believes that there has been a violation, he issues a complaint. The Board provides for a hearing to determine whether a respondent has committed the unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint.

Under the statute, the Board may delegate, and in practice has delegated, its authority to hear such cases to Administrative Law Judges (ALJ’s) who take evidence and make initial recommendations in the form of written decisions with respect to issues of fact or law raised by the parties. Any party may appeal any of the findings, conclusions or recommendations of the ALJ to the Board, which then reviews the record and issues its own decision and order in the case. Parties dissatisfied with the Board’s order may petition for review in the Court of Appeal. Attorneys for the Board defend the decisions rendered by the Board. If review is not sought or is denied, the Board may seek enforcement of its order in superior court.

When a final remedial order requires that parties be made whole for unfair labor practices committed against them, the Board has followed the practice of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in holding supplemental proceedings to determine the amount of liability. These hearings, called compliance hearings, are also typically held before ALJ’s who write recommended decisions for review by the Board. Once again, parties dissatisfied with the decision and order issued by the Board upon review of the ALJ’s decision may petition for review of the Board’s decision in the Court of Appeal. If the court denies the petition for review or orders the Board’s order in a compliance case enforced, the Board may seek enforcement in superior court.

In addition to the Board’s authority to issue decisions in unfair labor practice cases, the Board, through personnel in various regional offices, is responsible for conducting elections to determine whether a majority of the employees of an agricultural employer wishes to be represented by a labor organization or, if the employees are already so represented, to determine whether they wish to continue to be represented by that labor organization, a rival labor organization or no labor organization at all. Chapter 5 of the ALRA empowers the Board to direct an election provided that Board investigation reveals the existence of a bonafide question concerning such representation. Because of the seasonal nature of agriculture and the relatively short periods of peak employment, the Act provides for a speedy election process, mandating that elections be held within seven days from the date an election petition is filed, and within 48 hours after a petition has been filed in the case of a strike. Any party believing that an election ought not to have been conducted, or that misconduct occurred which tended to affect the outcome of the election, or that the election was otherwise not fairly conducted, may file objections to the election. The objections are reviewed by the Board’s Executive Secretary, who determines whether they establish a prima facie case that the election should not have been held or that the conduct complained of affected its outcome. If such a prima facie case is found, a hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge acting in the capacity of an Investigative Hearing Examiner to determine whether the Board should refuse to certify the election as a valid expression of the will of the employees. The Investigative Hearing Examiner’s conclusions may be appealed to the Board. Except in very limited circumstances, court review of any decision of the Board in representation matters may be had only in connection with an order in an unfair labor practice case which is based upon the Board’s certification.

Pelosi Vineyard Employee Wages:
According to Monsignor John Brenkle, a well known advocate for farm workers and is involved in labor negotiations with the same labor manager the Pelosis use, the Pelosis pay a $1.25 an hour more than workers at Napa’s biggest union winery.

When Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution the individual who started this controversy was asked if he had researched the above facts before he called Pelosi a hypocrite, he responded “It’s really for her to explain why there is this inconsistency. It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.”

The hypocrisy is not that Pelosi, as Schweizer said “has won the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers Union and yet they don’t use members of the United Farm Workers Union to actually pick the grapes on their winery” it is that Schweizer is criticizing an individual who is operating within the confines of the law. Until Pelosi’s employees decide to unionize and we see how she responds, let us not state Pelosi is a hypocrite.

Sources:
http://www.alrb.ca.gov/

“Pelosi’s Napa Business Scrutinized – Hypocrisy Or Conservative Hatchet Job?” by Mark Matthews http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4804677

Me: “As I have pointed out before, Nancy Pelosi has a voting record. The Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America (IAVA) have a ratings system for all people in congress with respect to supporting the troops. They give Pelosi a “B+.” Mighty Aphrodite’s Speaker of choice, Dennis Hastert, gets an “F.”

Mighty A-hole: “Naturally BluePUP, you veered off into another tangent and fell in the proverbial ditch.”

Mighty A-hole says Pelosi votes against “protecting our country.” I point out that veterans like her voting record on supporting the troops. Mighty A-hole claims I changed the subject. Do you see what we’re dealing with here, people? A lying, obfuscating sociopath.

43 minutes worth of thought put into that. Wow.

What gave that away ? Me posting twice saying this crap isn’t even worth reprinting ?

If you buy Drudge’s crap I am happy for you.

You really are a sharp one aren’t you. Yes I’m here in a campaign to try and encourage the things I believe in being treated as worthless bullshit that isn’t worth repeating. Because that just makes so much sense.

I hope you vote against the gay marriage amendment.

Why ? Is the majority of Americans opposing this looking shaky or something ?

Oh, you didn’t know that Drudge is a fag???
Comment by JPark — November 4, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

Yes I did know that. John from Americablog also blows other guys. Is there a reason either of their sexual preferences is relevant to them both being compete partisan hacks unworthy of serious attention ?

Well yes you could cueball. Missed the point much ?
After all, if Drudge asks nicely for Thinkprogress to not run 4 or 5 stories in the lead up to a national election and instead devote that space to a single completely pointless statement, you could indeed call that participating in right wing bullshit.

As usual, a lot of self-assured ranting with little substance. As I have pointed out before, Nancy Pelosi has a voting record. The Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America (IAVA) have a ratings system for all people in congress with respect to supporting the troops. They give Pelosi a “B+.” Mighty Aphrodite’s Speaker of choice, Dennis Hastert, gets an “F.”

This says a lot about Mighty A’s values.

*******Dear BP – Isn’t the term “progressive patriot” an oxymoronic paradox of the highest order?

…ostracize them, shun them,and do all you can to dissuade them from casting votes with the CONNEDservative inbred masses who will DESTROY this republic if REPULSIVESCUM maintain power…

…AMERICA is depending on Prograessive Patriots to mobilize and defend her against the intellectually retarded, morally bankrupt hypocritical right wing fascists…

…The criminal Bushite junta and their corporate fellow TRAITORS MUST be held accountable…

*****I’ve been referring to Nancy “Bueller” Pelosi all week as the incredible, invisible Congresswoman. I think it will be a wonderful benefit to America when more people get to know Nancy. Voting against anything and everything designed to protect our country, Nancy is a jewel in the crown of Progressivism. The good news? She can’t do a thing until she gets a Dem President to rubberstamp her plans – and by 2008, enough Americans will get to know the REAL Nancy…..

Happy Weekend, Proga

Testing into whether Pelosi masks make liberal soldiers invisible to conservatives will soon commence. The use of Pelosi as a possible secret weapon against the largely conservative Islamic terror groups that threaten America may yeild results in stealth technology hithertoo deemed impossible.

Research into generating a Pelosi invisibility field must be funded forthwith, as the ability to mimic this strange and wonderful power of turning invisible to conservatives should prove useful in dealing with more conservative governments, as well as groups such as the KKK. Imagine; a invisible brigade of FBI units infiltrating a KKK meeting in order to foil their nefarious plans by swiping their lighters!

Locations where the oil springs eternal, where the underground efforts of re-defining the Constitution is calibrated and where there are hundreds of maps on the wall detailing how to divvy up the entire planet’s natural resources.

To note: You can be sure there are no oil-refinerers anywhere close.

Now, the Pelosi attacks aren’t new. In fact, they’re getting to the point where obsession overrides reality. But what’s the deal then with the man with infinitely more power, responsibiliy and democratic transparency??

In short: Where the Hell is he??