Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Why? Non-union workers negotiate for themselves. They never asked the union to negotiate on their behalf.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

You can't blame liberals anymore. What will you do?

PS. When your only defense consists of asking "is this bad?" You already know it is and have no defense.

No, because I don't believe it is bad. What is bad is limiting choices people have.

But limiting public schools is just fine. Gotcha!

 

[Coyote]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Why? Non-union workers negotiate for themselves. They never asked the union to negotiate on their behalf.

Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?
In every state, workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer must get support from a majority of the workers in a unit (sometimes a whole workplace, sometimes a particular group of employees). When the union gets majority support, it has a legal duty to bargain on behalf of all the workers in the unit, including those who object to the union.

Requiring unions to offer free representation to workers who do not want a union makes no sense.
This is the so-called rule of exclusive representation, and it applies everywhere in the country.

In right-to-work states, however, objecting workers can refuse to pay the union for its services. Hence, the double bind: Unions are obligated to provide free services for workers who don't want a union.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Why? Non-union workers negotiate for themselves. They never asked the union to negotiate on their behalf.

Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?
In every state, workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer must get support from a majority of the workers in a unit (sometimes a whole workplace, sometimes a particular group of employees). When the union gets majority support, it has a legal duty to bargain on behalf of all the workers in the unit, including those who object to the union.

Requiring unions to offer free representation to workers who do not want a union makes no sense.
This is the so-called rule of exclusive representation, and it applies everywhere in the country.

In right-to-work states, however, objecting workers can refuse to pay the union for its services. Hence, the double bind: Unions are obligated to provide free services for workers who don't want a union.

Well I disagree with that. I think that those who are not paying the union should not benefit from their agreement. However........if the only way unions can get the power to negotiate is by a majority (union and non-union workers) then those non-union workers gave them the ability to do the negotiating in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

You can't blame liberals anymore. What will you do?

PS. When your only defense consists of asking "is this bad?" You already know it is and have no defense.

No, because I don't believe it is bad. What is bad is limiting choices people have.

But limiting public schools is just fine. Gotcha!

How are they limiting public schools?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

You can't blame liberals anymore. What will you do?

PS. When your only defense consists of asking "is this bad?" You already know it is and have no defense.

No, because I don't believe it is bad. What is bad is limiting choices people have.

But limiting public schools is just fine. Gotcha!

How are they limiting public schools?

They are, you agree. The how doesn't matter. The fact that they are is the point. But you don't believe in limiting choices. Riiight

 

[Tresha91203]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Like Texas, Lousiana and Georgia?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Like Texas, Lousiana and Georgia?

Three states doesn't represent all states silly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

 

[Tresha91203]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Like Texas, Lousiana and Georgia?

Three states doesn't represent all states silly.

Those are 3 in the top 10, not out of 50, silly. My point is someone (not no one, as the OP claimed) does want to open them in "Cleetus" states.

 

[bodecea]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Why? Non-union workers negotiate for themselves. They never asked the union to negotiate on their behalf.

Simply not true.....it's done by collective bargaining....by the union reps.

 

[bodecea]

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Why? Non-union workers negotiate for themselves. They never asked the union to negotiate on their behalf.

Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?
In every state, workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer must get support from a majority of the workers in a unit (sometimes a whole workplace, sometimes a particular group of employees). When the union gets majority support, it has a legal duty to bargain on behalf of all the workers in the unit, including those who object to the union.

Requiring unions to offer free representation to workers who do not want a union makes no sense.
This is the so-called rule of exclusive representation, and it applies everywhere in the country.

In right-to-work states, however, objecting workers can refuse to pay the union for its services. Hence, the double bind: Unions are obligated to provide free services for workers who don't want a union.

In CA, the non-union members get all the benefits and protections that union members get.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Yeah public schools are awesome!!!! Don't introduce competition, Nah let the unions control everything, they really care about the kids and not about themselves.

Sarcasm isn't a defense of why Charter Schools should replace public schools.

Who said replace? Just have them compete, so if charter schools suck as much as you guys say, what is the problem?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Why? Non-union workers negotiate for themselves. They never asked the union to negotiate on their behalf.

Simply not true.....it's done by collective bargaining....by the union reps.

I've never been in a union and held several jobs, blue and white collar. They set the wage and benefits, I either accept or turn down the job. Unions are just bloated beauracracies that get a few people rich

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

What am I rejecting? And BTW, the Democrats sure as hell like the two party system as well, so don't say it's just Republicans.

So how do you expect to "change the minds" of the voters? Brainwashing? If people want to vote for a third party, it's up to them. Because you don't like voters not exercising that option is not restricting anybody from anything. You're just making that all up.

As for vouchers, they go to lower income families in most cases. That's what they were designed for. The rich don't necessarily make out because with vouchers, you can send your kid to a religious school and even another public school in your area.

Our schools are mostly locally funded. The only way to have school choice without vouchers is to make education federal or state run which I'm sure many don't want to do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

You can't blame liberals anymore. What will you do?

PS. When your only defense consists of asking "is this bad?" You already know it is and have no defense.

No, because I don't believe it is bad. What is bad is limiting choices people have.

But limiting public schools is just fine. Gotcha!

How are they limiting public schools?

They are, you agree. The how doesn't matter. The fact that they are is the point. But you don't believe in limiting choices. Riiight

Limiting public schools to what? I don't even understand your accusation here. A public school (in most cases) is run by the school board where they make all the decisions. When I was a kid, I knew troublemakers in public school that were eventually expelled. I knew a family on our street that had a problem child that couldn't get into the public school and they sent him to school that catered to those with special needs.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, those kids go into these schools and come out not knowing a thing about the real world. They've been brainwashed to believe that success in this great country is limited to where you were born, what family you were born into, and what race you happen to be. If you don't fall into any of those categories, you are going to be a complete failure in life unless you can make a good rap song or are very good in sports.

They don't have to be brainwashed, that's the reality. they live in a world where a black child can be shot with impunity for playing with a toy, where we have more black men in prison than college.

But sadder still is white trash like you who can't even get decent medical insurance through your work and you think you have it good.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, those kids go into these schools and come out not knowing a thing about the real world. They've been brainwashed to believe that success in this great country is limited to where you were born, what family you were born into, and what race you happen to be. If you don't fall into any of those categories, you are going to be a complete failure in life unless you can make a good rap song or are very good in sports.

They don't have to be brainwashed, that's the reality. they live in a world where a black child can be shot with impunity for playing with a toy, where we have more black men in prison than college.

But sadder still is white trash like you who can't even get decent medical insurance through your work and you think you have it good.

So what's your point besides trying to change the subject, that blacks make bad decisions? I guess that's one of the few honest things you've ever said. But as long as there are liberals like you convincing blacks they are helpless without Democrat aid, then expect those prisons to remain full of black people because you libs convinced them they never had a chance.

 

[JoeB131]

About a third of Limbaugh's audience are flaming liberals or at least left leaning.
Limbaugh will put liberal callers to the head of the queue.

silly boy still thinks Limbaugh still has an audience.

 

[JoeB131]

So what's your point besides trying to change the subject, that blacks make bad decisions?

we all make bad decisions... it's just that white people aren't shot with impunity for them. I've given you a whole list of white people brandishing guns where the cops managed to take them into custody without shooting them, but the kid playing with a toy gets shot on sight.

White kids get rehab, black kids get prison.

Or as I said to an aquantence, "Nobody shot you for Grand theft lightbulb!" (A time when he was 17 and got caught stealing a neighbor's outdoor lighting because it would look cool for his garage band.)

It's not 'making bad decisions, it's how the system treats you.