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

[bripat9643]

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.

You're getting dumber every day. The law against it would be at the point of a gun by your reasoning.

No, being left alone doesn't require guns. Being forced to purchase labor from a union does. No company is going to voluntarily pay union agency fees. There doesn't even need to be a law "against it." There simply doesn't need to be a law supporting it.

Firms have to purchase labor from somewhere; why the insistence on Individuals when hiring on the part of a Firm not an Individual?

Because that's the way firms like it. They want control over what they are paying each employee. They don't want some union deciding that for them.

 

[SAYIT]

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

Which is PRECISELY the point of the new legislation! There is nothing in that law which would interfere with such a mutually agreed upon contractual stipulation.
It would however, remove the govt's hand in forcing businesses, at their expense, to collect union dues.

 

[SAYIT]

How many unions want to be denied and disparaged in their collective bargaining?

The new law neither denies nor disparages the unions. It simply puts the responsibility of collecting union dues on ... drum roll, please ... THE UNIONS! What a terrible injustice!

 

[Papageorgio]

How many unions want to be denied and disparaged in their collective bargaining?

The new law neither denies nor disparages the unions. It simply puts the responsibility of collecting union dues on ... drum roll, please ... THE UNIONS! What a terrible injustice!

What an injustice, forcing a union worker to actually get a bill from the union and being able to see the cost involved.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

then your issue is with the NEA, not the teachers. On the other hand, contributions from big corporate interests from the profits made on their products seems just fine. What if I don't want any of my money to go to the GOP, yet I am forced to buy products whose profits end up there? Should I do without? Should I drill for, extract and refine my own gasoline?

You aren't forced to buy those products, so your complaint is groundless.

right. I can drill for my own oil, refine it, store it and burn it in my car with no problem.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

then your issue is with the NEA, not the teachers. On the other hand, contributions from big corporate interests from the profits made on their products seems just fine. What if I don't want any of my money to go to the GOP, yet I am forced to buy products whose profits end up there? Should I do without? Should I drill for, extract and refine my own gasoline?

You aren't forced to buy those products, so your complaint is groundless.

right. I can drill for my own oil, refine it, store it and burn it in my car with no problem.

You can buy your gas from a company that doesn't contribute to causes you dislike. For instance, Citgo is owned by Venezuela. It certainly doesn't give money to Republican candidates.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is this an issue in your life? Or, as I suspect... you're just being a typical leftwing moral busybody....

 

[Little-Acorn]

This ALL about more union busting and getting more Americans working for less money and benefits and having fewer rights in the workplace.

The same is true for police work against robbers and other criminals. It purpose is to interfere with coercion and theft, and get more robbers to have less money - the money they used to steal from honest people.

And the robbers get fewer "rights" in their "workplace" - they lose the "right" to stick a gun in somebody's chest in a dark alley and lift his wallet and watch.

And that's a GOOD thing, whether the robbers are street thugs or union bosses.

 

[Slyhunter]

I was a Union Shop Steward in Disney world, in a Right to work State, Florida, and they wouldn't let me quit the union without quitting my job. That's bullshit.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left has nothing to worry about, people will contribute to public employee unions voluntarily...right?

 

[SwimExpert]

What part of Canada is PG County?

 

[danielpalos]

Sure; why not. Unions should merely bill Firms for labor costs.

Why should a firm be forced to purchase labor from a union?

so they won't have to complain about union dues.

The employees are the ones complaining about union dues, numskull. Employers have no interest in doing business with unions, period. Your "solution" would only allow unions to get into a firms business in a much bigger way. No firm wants that.

How many unions want to be denied and disparaged in their collective bargaining?

We're talking about what employees want, not what unions want.

most employees seem to want union benefits and union pay scales, but without the hassle of having to join a union. Unions exist for a reason; there is no reason they cannot "modernize" and compete for Labor with Capitalists.

 

[OKTexas]

In reality the unions don't want the added cost of collections, it's so much easier just to deposit those checks from government. There's no reason governments should be collection agents for private unions.

Unions don't deposit checks, it's electronic.

Having workers pay bank fees are what Republicans want.

All this talk and still no justification as to why governments should be collection agents for private unions. BTW I don't see you bitching about governments requiring people to have bank accounts to receive benefits such as Social Security.

 

[OKTexas]

Well there ya go, they can pay on line and save the cost of postage.

BTW what have you got against the postal workers union?

If you're not wealthy, paying on-line cost money.

The issue is forcing Union members to pay a fee to pay their dues.

What do Postal Workers have to do with this?

Postal workers need to make a living too.

BTW I'm not wealthy and it cost me nothing to pay bills on line.

 

[danielpalos]

In reality the unions don't want the added cost of collections, it's so much easier just to deposit those checks from government. There's no reason governments should be collection agents for private unions.

Unions don't deposit checks, it's electronic.

Having workers pay bank fees are what Republicans want.

All this talk and still no justification as to why governments should be collection agents for private unions. BTW I don't see you bitching about governments requiring people to have bank accounts to receive benefits such as Social Security.

because they have to do it anyway for direct forms of taxation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why should a firm be forced to purchase labor from a union?

so they won't have to complain about union dues.

The employees are the ones complaining about union dues, numskull. Employers have no interest in doing business with unions, period. Your "solution" would only allow unions to get into a firms business in a much bigger way. No firm wants that.

How many unions want to be denied and disparaged in their collective bargaining?

We're talking about what employees want, not what unions want.

most employees seem to want union benefits and union pay scales, but without the hassle of having to join a union. Unions exist for a reason; there is no reason they cannot "modernize" and compete for Labor with Capitalists.

Good, then they need to write a check to the union every month.

 

[Papageorgio]

In reality the unions don't want the added cost of collections, it's so much easier just to deposit those checks from government. There's no reason governments should be collection agents for private unions.

Unions don't deposit checks, it's electronic.

Having workers pay bank fees are what Republicans want.

All this talk and still no justification as to why governments should be collection agents for private unions. BTW I don't see you bitching about governments requiring people to have bank accounts to receive benefits such as Social Security.

because they have to do it anyway for direct forms of taxation.

It is an added layer of work, why do you object to having a person write out a check to a union every month?

 

[danielpalos]

so they won't have to complain about union dues.

The employees are the ones complaining about union dues, numskull. Employers have no interest in doing business with unions, period. Your "solution" would only allow unions to get into a firms business in a much bigger way. No firm wants that.

How many unions want to be denied and disparaged in their collective bargaining?

We're talking about what employees want, not what unions want.

most employees seem to want union benefits and union pay scales, but without the hassle of having to join a union. Unions exist for a reason; there is no reason they cannot "modernize" and compete for Labor with Capitalists.

Good, then they need to write a check to the union every month.

What if they are simply "hired" by the union and "assigned" to those jobs which may bring in the most revenue for the union?

 

[danielpalos]

In reality the unions don't want the added cost of collections, it's so much easier just to deposit those checks from government. There's no reason governments should be collection agents for private unions.

Unions don't deposit checks, it's electronic.

Having workers pay bank fees are what Republicans want.

All this talk and still no justification as to why governments should be collection agents for private unions. BTW I don't see you bitching about governments requiring people to have bank accounts to receive benefits such as Social Security.

because they have to do it anyway for direct forms of taxation.

It is an added layer of work, why do you object to having a person write out a check to a union every month?

because it is being imposed by the Establishment for political purposes.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Why not require Capitalists to write a check every month for their Taxes and political costs?

 

[OKTexas]

In reality the unions don't want the added cost of collections, it's so much easier just to deposit those checks from government. There's no reason governments should be collection agents for private unions.

Unions don't deposit checks, it's electronic.

Having workers pay bank fees are what Republicans want.

All this talk and still no justification as to why governments should be collection agents for private unions. BTW I don't see you bitching about governments requiring people to have bank accounts to receive benefits such as Social Security.

because they have to do it anyway for direct forms of taxation.

So union dues are now taxes, or should be treated like taxes, I don't think so.