74 replies to this topic

[Ryinrea]

-Mr_Fess-, on 10 December 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Alright so say you are a conservative who works for a union and there is a 99% chance that union is lobbying to democrats with your union dues, because there probably really is a 99% chance they are, would you still think they are acting on your behalf? Union leadership is no different than the politicians and fatcat CEO's except that CEO's usually know how to run a business and create jobs. In fact, they're the only one of the three groups that actually provide anything.

For your information ,I am a actual libertarian, Not some Republican. who says she is a Libertarian because she's ashamed of being associated with them. The union  Pac are the ones that give money to the lobbying people. And yes they are given to Democrats. . But can you blame them?  Since i believe the democrats don't make bills that destroy Unions also if these" right to work bills" are so great then, why are the Firefighter unions and Police unions are exempt  from this bill. which from what I read in this article.......  it stated that these Unions are the ones that normally give money to Republican  Politicians. Also, I liked your comment for amusing me and not for being correct in any way shape or form.

Edited by Ryinrea, 12 December 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 12 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

While I agree that a functional government could take care of union functions with a lower level of collusion, what I really was pointing out is that the same people who claim that the government should stay out of everybody's business are those who, when it comes to their favorite enemy, invoke government as their advocate.

The point they keep forgetting is that unions exist so the government can stay out their business.

OK. I can agree with that. But, the government is simply not going away.... So then must we keep the Unions that cover the same ground. Seems like doublespending to me. Or, is it simply Insurance?

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 12 December 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

OK. I can agree with that. But, the government is simply not going away.... So then must we keep the Unions that cover the same ground. Seems like doublespending to me. Or, is it simply Insurance?

It is really practical. Not so long ago I was the publisher ( a better word for CEO) of a larger company and I can't imagine discussing salaries with everyone of the several thousand employees that company had (all down from editorial to printing staff). I could not imagine either that it would be practical to hire fifty or sixty additional people to do something that the vice-president for staffing could do in two days with the union representatives, especially as the union representatives were not paid by the company (as would be the case hiring extra manpower) but by the employees. But that is the point of view of a large company. With 50-60 employees it is more a bother as the person in charge of personnel affairs could discuss pay and benefits with each and everyone of the employees individually.

So I would say that the scope of the union should be limited. Small companies should be supervised by the government, large companies should have the freedom to discuss terms with worker's representatives.

[Bama13]

questionmark, on 12 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

And because these government regulations are so well enforced we don't have millions of illegal aliens working under despicable conditions and for less than minimum wages...we know that the government is the cure for all... sure do...

The government shouldn't be concerned about people that are here illegally, other than to deport them ASAP. They aren't supposed to be here in the first place.

[supervike]

Dredimus, on 12 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

There are mulitiple government regulations and organisations already in place that handle everything you just mentioned... OSHA is a major one... I mean, OSHA alone takes care of the "sweat shop" and "unsafe worker conditions" you mentioned. Minimal pay is regulated by the states and fed... and the Fair Labor Standards Act clearly state that if an employer request that an employee works over 40 hours then the employee must receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek of at least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay.... So you see... unions are not needed...

But those laws CAN be changed.  They are not set in stone.  Without any balances, what will stop corporations from slowly eroding away those laws to their benefits.  They have the money, the power, and the will to do so.  There will be no organized dissenting opinion.

[F3SS]

Ryinrea, on 12 December 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

For your information ,I am a actual libertarian, Not some Republican. who says she is a Libertarian because she's ashamed of being associated with them.    The union  Pac are the ones that give money to the lobbying people. And yes they are given to Democrats. . But can you blame them?  Since i believe the democrats don't make bills that destroy Unions also if these" right to work bills" are so great then, why are the Firefighter unions and Police unions are exempt  from this bill. which from what I read in this article.......  it stated that these Unions are the ones that normally give money to Republican  Politicians. Also, I liked your comment for amusing me and not for being correct in any way shape or form.

I'm not sure why they are exempt but I know the unions are ticked about that too because usually when these things happens the unions scare the hell out of citizens by threatening and maybe even enacting major cutbacks to police and firefighters. That's usually the crutch that they use to get the people all riled up at the politicians for cutting union power. Maybe there is a reasonable reason or maybe it was a really smart political play because now the unions are stuck and they have nothing else to get the people back on their side. And if you want to be a smartass just be a smartass. You don't need to issue false likes then be shtty about it. Just debate me like an adult and not a smarmy girlfriend.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 12 December 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[RavenHawk]

I’m hearing that the pro Union side says that if you work in the state, you should have some skin in the game by joining the Union.  I would think that if you work, you already have skin in the game.  Does the Union represent the worker or the pocket book of the Union?

This is what is wrong with the Union.  It has too much power.  This is why it destroys jobs and business.  It is no longer working for the benefit of the worker.  The Union should not be a tool to attack business; it should be used as a means to improve the working conditions of the worker.  If a bad condition arises that is bad enough then you will have enough workers stand up to oppose it.  This is where the Union can step in.  If the situation is not that bad, then there won’t be that many workers that would protest it.  The Union shouldn’t need to get involved with everything.  It should only be there when it is absolutely needed.

[supervike]

RavenHawk, on 12 December 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

I'm hearing that the pro Union side says that if you work in the state, you should have some skin in the game by joining the Union.  I would think that if you work, you already have skin in the game.  Does the Union represent the worker or the pocket book of the Union?

This is what is wrong with the Union.  It has too much power.  This is why it destroys jobs and business.  It is no longer working for the benefit of the worker.  The Union should not be a tool to attack business; it should be used as a means to improve the working conditions of the worker.  If a bad condition arises that is bad enough then you will have enough workers stand up to oppose it.  This is where the Union can step in.  If the situation is not that bad, then there won't be that many workers that would protest it.  The Union shouldn't need to get involved with everything.  It should only be there when it is absolutely needed.

Well, it does make sense that a worker benefitting from a Union Negotiated contract should have to pay for that bargaining/representation.  If they work in a Union represented division, they'll get whatever their Unionist co-workers get, but not have to pay a dime for that representation.  It's not as if they strike their own, separate deal.

I do agree that Unions should scale back and start focusing on what they were designed for.  A Union that want's to bankrupt it's own company deserves to be out of a job.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 12 December 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

So I would say that the scope of the union should be limited. Small companies should be supervised by the government, large companies should have the freedom to discuss terms with worker's representatives.

I can understand that reasoning and appreciate it. But should all those who work for that large company be Forced to join the union and forced to accept the payrate of the union, and forced to have their dues spent on stuff they don't agree with? (Not necessarily politics).

That is what I feel Michigan is doing. Giving everyone the right to join the union or not. And this makes the unions angry, as they always had that monopoly on forcing people to join their organization.

[supervike]

DieChecker, on 13 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

I can understand that reasoning and appreciate it. But should all those who work for that large company be Forced to join the union and forced to accept the payrate of the union, and forced to have their dues spent on stuff they don't agree with? (Not necessarily politics).

That is what I feel Michigan is doing. Giving everyone the right to join the union or not. And this makes the unions angry, as they always had that monopoly on forcing people to join their organization.

I have to say I don't disagree with the 'right to work' states (my state is one).  It makes sense that someone shouldn't be forced to join a Union, if they don't want to.  I do understand the 'freeloader' attitude though.

[Harte]

supervike, on 10 December 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Sorry Mr. Fess, you are wrong on this.  Union dues DO NOT GO TO POLITICAL PARTIES.  It is illegal to do so.

Sorry, but it is you that is wrong:

Quote

• Between 1990 and 2010, 93 percent of donations made by National Education Association political action committees and individual officers went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. According to the NEA’s own “Status of the American Public School Teacher 2005-2006,” (latest available data produced March 2010) only 41 percent of public school teachers are Democrats. A Wall Street Journal editorial revealed that the National Education Association — the nation’s largest teachers union — “is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA’s $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on ‘political activities and lobbying’ and another $65.5 million on ‘contributions, gifts and grants’ that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.”

Source

Harte

[supervike]

Harte, on 13 December 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Sorry, but it is you that is wrong:

Source

Harte

I'm not trying to parse words here.  UNION DUES are different from UNION PAC money.  Union Dues cannot go to Political parties.  I'm not saying that there isn't some 'funny accounting' going on.  But, money cannot be taken from dues and given to Political Parties.  It is illegal to do so.

[Harte]

supervike, on 13 December 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

I'm not trying to parse words here.  UNION DUES are different from UNION PAC money.  Union Dues cannot go to Political parties.  I'm not saying that there isn't some 'funny accounting' going on.  But, money cannot be taken from dues and given to Political Parties.  It is illegal to do so.

You should tell that to the NEA then.

Let me quote this again:

Quote

According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA’s $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on ‘political activities and lobbying’ and another $65.5 million on ‘contributions, gifts and grants’ that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.”

341 mil in total receipts.
291 of that was dues.
So 50 mil was other revenue.

But they spent over 90 mil on political contributions.

Harte

[Tiggs]

Harte, on 13 December 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

You should tell that to the NEA then.

Let me quote this again:

341 mil in total receipts.
291 of that was dues.
So 50 mil was other revenue.

But they spent over 90 mil on political contributions.

Harte

Alternately - you might want to take a closer look at where the money classified as "designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals" goes to.

Teacher's associations, mostly.

[Harte]

Tiggs, on 13 December 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Alternately - you might want to take a closer look at where the money classified as "designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals" goes to.

Teacher's associations, mostly.

I stand corrected.  Thanks Tiggs.

Harte