Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel

[quot=Little-Acorn]Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel


Good. Once that is passed and signed, then they can start working on a bill to ban automatic deduction of the rest of public dues (aka taxes) from our paychecks.

No more income tax withholding, Social Security withholding etc. You get the full amount your worked for, in every paycheck. "Net Pay" is the same as "Gross pay". And you write the checks yourself, to the various government agencies you owe taxes to, every two weeks (or whenever your paycheck comes). It will all come out exactly as it does today, won't it, liberals?

The only difference will be, for the first time the American people will witness firsthand how much they pay out of their own pockets, to support all the "free" stuff government hands out (which is the majority of the Federal budget).

And if you think they got a shock on Sept. 11, 2001, that's nothing compared to the nationwide shock they will get each time the get a paycheck... plus that notice of how much to pay to the government, in six or seven separate checks to six or seven different agencies.

It's the biggest single thing that can be done, to motivate the American people to start examining (most of them for the first time) just how much the government spends... and whose money they are spending. And the biggest thing that can be done to get them to rattle the doors of their representatives' offices and tell them what they think of so much money being spent out of THEIR pockets.

The huge government-uber-alles that kicked into high gear with the passage of the Federal Income Tax in 1913, and Automatic Withholding in the 1930s, will get jammed to a stop even more quickly, and returned back to the limited government the people authorized... which is about one-fifth the size of the present Borg.
[/quote]

And here we go with the bull-shit from little-asshole.

Hey little-asshole, how much did the big-bad feds take of your ?hard earned monies? for 2014?
Have you noticed that when somebody suggests a plan that REALLY scares the big-govt liberals, they immediately go on the attack and start calling names, spluttering profanity, and generally ranting hysterically?

Happens every time.

You liberals aren't suggesting that people would dislike this plan, are you?

It wouldn't make any financial difference to anybody at all, you know. Their hourly pay would be exactly what it would be without the plan, and the amounts paid to government would likewise be exactly the same. There would be no difference at all.

So why are you so upset???

The only difference would be, that the people paying your big-govt salaries, would have to LOOK AND SEE exactly how much of their money was going to government. Every paycheck. The amounts wouldn't change from what they are paying now. They would just be more aware of what you liberals are costing them.

And that, of course, is what would destroy liberalism more thoroughly than any vote or campaign. People realizing exactly what the liberals are doing to them. And the liberals would become as despised as Osama Bin Laden. Maybe more so... because bin Laden only hit them once.
 
I believe some laws to be too arbitrary and capricious to be necessary or proper.

That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.
"Bill the firm" for what? What service has the union provided to the firm?
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.
 
Unions are not gov't agencies and have no right to auto-attach any part of ones wages but all union members are free to use their bank's BillPay service and ... it's FREE! The prob here isn't the oppression of union rights but rather your fear that given the option, people just won't pay.

Nobody can 'auto-attach' a voluntary without the OK of the employee.

No one should have the right to compel a business to make payroll deductions - even "voluntary" ones - and payments to non-gov't agencies.
 
Why not ban corporate lobbying funding as well, if not agreed to voluntarily by Labor.
Who owns the company? Strange logic you have.
Who owns labor?

Good point! Labor is the property of the laborer and they have the right to sell their labor to any employer they choose without union or gov't interference. Hell, they can even buy or establish their own biz and be both the company and the labor!
 
I believe some laws to be too arbitrary and capricious to be necessary or proper.

That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why not have the union bill their clients instead of having a third party collect the fee?

This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.
 
According to Republicans, it's NOT OK for an auto deduction which costs nothing, but IT IS OK to use your cell phone to pay, and PAY A FEE.

I LOVE IT.....screw workers and suck your contributors all at once! YOU GO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel News The Advocate Baton Rouge Louisiana
I think it's a good idea to not force the taxpayers to subsidize the DNC through forced dues of public school teachers to the NEA.

You're ignorant of the fact that the LAW allows employees to opt out of the portion of any union dues that go for political activity, therefore, supporting the same is voluntary,

therefore this is an attempt by government to interfere with an employee's choice to join a union.
 
I believe some laws to be too arbitrary and capricious to be necessary or proper.

That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why not have the union bill their clients instead of having a third party collect the fee?

This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.

Why not allow the employer and the union to agree to the fees deduction in the union contract?
 
According to Republicans, it's NOT OK for an auto deduction which costs nothing, but IT IS OK to use your cell phone to pay, and PAY A FEE.

I LOVE IT.....screw workers and suck your contributors all at once! YOU GO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel News The Advocate Baton Rouge Louisiana
I think it's a good idea to not force the taxpayers to subsidize the DNC through forced dues of public school teachers to the NEA.

You're ignorant of the fact that the LAW allows employees to opt out of the portion of any union dues that go for political activity, therefore, supporting the same is voluntary,

therefore this is an attempt by government to interfere with an employee's choice to join a union.

Wait ... relieving biz of the job of collecting union dues interferes with ones choice to join a union?
Dayam! That statement clearly illustrates what it takes to be a loony leftist ... ya gotta be batshit goofy!
 
I believe some laws to be too arbitrary and capricious to be necessary or proper.

That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why not have the union bill their clients instead of having a third party collect the fee?

This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.
Sure; why not. Unions should merely bill Firms for labor costs.
 
This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.
Why not allow the employer and the union to agree to the fees deduction in the union contract?

Fine and dandy but you completely miss Papa's point. This isn't about the union's right to collect their dues from their members, it's about the right of businesses to decline involvement in the transaction.
 
That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why not have the union bill their clients instead of having a third party collect the fee?

This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.

Why not allow the employer and the union to agree to the fees deduction in the union contract?
Only if the union gets to agree on how much goes to political contributions by the Firm.
 
This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.
Why not allow the employer and the union to agree to the fees deduction in the union contract?

Fine and dandy but you completely miss Papa's point. This isn't about the union's right to collect their dues from their members, it's about the right of businesses to decline involvement in the transaction.
That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why not have the union bill their clients instead of having a third party collect the fee?

This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.

Why not allow the employer and the union to agree to the fees deduction in the union contract?
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.
 
Sure; why not. Unions should merely bill Firms for labor costs.

Interesting concept. I wonder how the members would feel about their union being a middle man in that transaction?
You may want to ask them BEFORE suggesting such an arrangement.
:lmao:
 
Sure; why not. Unions should merely bill Firms for labor costs.

Interesting concept. I wonder how the members would feel about their union being a middle man in that transaction?
You may want to ask them BEFORE suggesting such an arrangement.
:lmao:
It should be "transparent" to individuals; they would get their pay from the union instead of the Firm.
 
That is why unions shouldn't have the dues taken out By the employer through payroll. Let the worker make that payment every month, to make sure they realize the costs and the benefits.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why should the firm take out the wages? It is between the union and the worker, have the union bill the individual and let the individual see how much they spend and what their return on investment is.
Why not just have the union bill the Firm for payroll and let them handle their own issues.

Why not have the union bill their clients instead of having a third party collect the fee?

This is a union and their membership, it has nothing to do with the employer, the employer is not a collection company for the union.

Why not allow the employer and the union to agree to the fees deduction in the union contract?

Those kinds of "agreements" are made at the point of a gun.
 
Sure; why not. Unions should merely bill Firms for labor costs.

Interesting concept. I wonder how the members would feel about their union being a middle man in that transaction?
You may want to ask them BEFORE suggesting such an arrangement.
:lmao:
It should be "transparent" to individuals; they would get their pay from the union instead of the Firm.

And where would the union get the money to pay them?
 

Forum List

Back
Top