Once again the Bush administrations NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) has launched a full frontal assault on the working class.  The case called the "Kentucky River" is nothing more than a union-busting tactic, of the Bush administration. The language changes or classification changes that would occur regarding supervisor or other personal in a lead position would prohibit those individuals from the benefits of being a union member.

Unions protect workers from being exploited, unions stop unjust dismissal's and allows the workers to voice their concerns against an unfair employer, in other words unions demand that their members voice's be heard, through democracy. The Bush administration is desperately trying to silence the middle class of American Workers.

In my opinion, the language of this case if it prevails will affect nearly every worker at every job in America, reducing union membership to number's so low, that it will affectively eliminate the union's ability to be a functioning factor for the working class of America. Which includes all workers ability to receive the best possible living wage available. The Bush administration's agenda is simple; "rob from the poor to give to the rich" and destroy the middle class. 

Along with trying to suppress the rights of all working Americans to be union members this administration will not allow oral arguments on the case.  Once again, it could not be more apparent, by the actions of this administration, to defy, at any given opportunity, a basic principle, guaranteed by our founding fathers, that every citizen of this country, the right to be openly and verbally involved in policy making.

George Bush has successfully, but not single handily infringed on most of our rights as so- called free Americans, we have allowed this fascist regime to erode our fundamental principles that has stood solid for over 200 years. I more so blame the American people for letting it happen, than blaming Bush for doing it.

If Bush succeeds in the Kentucky River case what will be next?
   

Please read the Kentucky River case below:
STATEMENT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGARDING " KENTUCKY RIVER " CASES
An important issue pending before the National Labor Relations Board is the proper legal standards for determining whether a nurse or other skilled employee is a supervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act.  In Oakwood Healthcare Inc., Case 7-RC-22141; Golden Crest Healthcare Center , Case 18-RC-16415; and Croft Metals Inc., Case 15-RC-8393, the Board is considering the test for determining whether an individual assigns or responsibly directs employees using independent judgment, and thus qualifies as a supervisor under Section 2(11).   
The United States Supreme Court has twice rejected prior Board rulings for minimizing the importance of independent judgment in the assignment or direction of employees by nursing personnel.  In those cases, the Board found that nurses who direct other employees in their patient care duties are not statutory supervisors.  In the first case [NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U.S. 571, 579-580 (1994)], the court rejected the Board's analysis as "inconsistent with ··· the statutory language," because it "rea[d] the responsible direction portion of § 2(11) out of the statute in nurse cases."  In the second case [NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 721 (2001)], the court found the Board's interpretation of "independent judgment" to be incorrect. 
In deciding the three pending cases, the Board is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.  After reviewing the written record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, the relevant case precedent and the applicable sections of the Act, the Board will issue its decisions in the pending cases. 
The three cases have been pending before the Board since 2002.  As part of its consideration of the cases, the Board issued a Notice and Invitation to File Briefs in July 2003, to which 22 interested parties responded, in addition to eight briefs that previously had been filed by the parties.   
On February 10, 2006, the AFL-CIO filed a motion for oral argument in Oakwood Healthcare,
7-RC-22141, and Croft Metals, 15-RC-8393; and on May 4, 2006, the Service Employees International Union filed a request for oral argument.  On June 23, 2006, the Board denied the requests for oral argument on the basis that "the record and briefs adequately present and address the issues and the positions of the parties and amici."  Member Liebman would have granted the requests.