Should People Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues?

[DaGoose]

Did Dave ever come out and stick with a single position?

Trying to get Dave to commit to a position is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

then lets put it another way. Since you cant comprehend what i am saying... Employers cannot hire whomever they want if it is a union shop. The union says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if i want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... The hotel can try to hire me but i will be allowed to work there if i do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

i understand exactly what you are saying. Appently you still don't get it. The employers relinquished their right to hire whomever they choose when the signed the contract with the union. Do you not believe they have the right to freely enter contracts?

i love that... Relinquished their right to hire.

Try the were forced to do that.

No business or employer freely enters any contract with any union. Do try again.

bingo!!!!

 

[DaGoose]

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

Not necessarily true in my experience.... They don't have to be Union members to be hired, but they do have to join the Union once they are hired.... IF it goes to the street.

I'll give you an example.... The Maps & Records Tech jobs I mentioned earlier. They have to be posted INTERNALLY first. That means all the current Union members get first crack at them IF THEY ARE QUALIFIED. We haven't found any QUALIFIED applicants, so it's now going to be posted EXTERNALLY. At that point ANYONE has the opportunity to submit a resume. Even if the applicant is an existing BUW member from another company, that is not taken into account once it goes EXTERNAL. Of course whoever gets offered the job will have to join Local 369 of the BUW if they accept the job.

But.....but.....but.....Unions have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant.

There's the rub. If a company treats its employees right then I would agree that there's no need to organize (even as pro-labor as I am). But all too often when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies unfairly squeeze their employees to provide bigger checks for CEO's.

Goose, that's exactly the issue in this case. The company has no interest in anything other than the dividend checks for the investors. It's all about the bottom line. The customers, the employees, the work and the regulators be damned. They're letting go of 1200 non-union employees between back in March and the end of July.... not because we don't need them but to ensure they can cut a certain amount out of the budget. We've literally told the regulators that we're not doing ANY maintenance work that they haven't agreed to allow us to get returned from the customers in the last rate case.

Three departments have gone Union (Engineering, Relay, and now Dispatch) in the last 4 years in an attempt to protect ourselves from the management of this company. THAT should tell everyone something about this company.

Statistically, union members get paid more than non-union labor in the same field - and that difference is significantly more than what they pay in union dues.

Why should someone get paid more than others in his field if he doesn't pay dues to the organization that got him those better wages?

A mistake union people make all the time. The union did not "get" the wages for the workers. The worker earns the money based on performance and skill which got the worker in the door.
Even though the labor organization negotiated the wages and bennies for it's members, if each individual member does not perform, the entire group is jeopardized. This is the system under which unions work. The group. Individuals mean nothing, but it cuts both ways.
Unfortunately, unions also go out of their way to protect mediocre workers in order to protect the group as a whole. This is just on of many reasons why unions are so unpopular.
Of course unions have the option of staying out of right to work states.

i understand exactly what you are saying. Appently you still don't get it. The employers relinquished their right to hire whomever they choose when the signed the contract with the union. Do you not believe they have the right to freely enter contracts?

i love that... Relinquished their right to hire.

Try the were forced to do that.

No business or employer freely enters any contract with any union. Do try again.

bingo!!!!

You're amazing!! Not only are you an expert on local government you're an expert on unions too!!

So please explain how companies cannot hire who they want and how the Unions protect "mediocre" workers. This ought to be good.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

Uhhhh.....Employers DO hire who they want and the union cannot say who or who doesn't get hired. Employees do not join the union until AFTER they are hired as a condition of employment. And that is only in "Closed Shop" states.

The only exception are labor halls. And companies such as mine can maintain a list of names of individual contractors that are not allowed on the property for legitimate reasons.

.

A condition of employment? lol. Again... the bottom line is join the union or dont work for who YOU want and who has hired you.

What if you don't want to join the union?

The Employer decides whether or not they will negotiate work issues with an employee representative agency, aka the union. It's the Employer's decision.

Once the Employer has made that decision, it becomes a condition of your employment, along with the many conditions of your employment.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

Not necessarily true in my experience.... They don't have to be Union members to be hired, but they do have to join the Union once they are hired.... IF it goes to the street.

I'll give you an example.... The Maps & Records Tech jobs I mentioned earlier. They have to be posted INTERNALLY first. That means all the current Union members get first crack at them IF THEY ARE QUALIFIED. We haven't found any QUALIFIED applicants, so it's now going to be posted EXTERNALLY. At that point ANYONE has the opportunity to submit a resume. Even if the applicant is an existing BUW member from another company, that is not taken into account once it goes EXTERNAL. Of course whoever gets offered the job will have to join Local 369 of the BUW if they accept the job.



Goose, that's exactly the issue in this case. The company has no interest in anything other than the dividend checks for the investors. It's all about the bottom line. The customers, the employees, the work and the regulators be damned. They're letting go of 1200 non-union employees between back in March and the end of July.... not because we don't need them but to ensure they can cut a certain amount out of the budget. We've literally told the regulators that we're not doing ANY maintenance work that they haven't agreed to allow us to get returned from the customers in the last rate case.

Three departments have gone Union (Engineering, Relay, and now Dispatch) in the last 4 years in an attempt to protect ourselves from the management of this company. THAT should tell everyone something about this company.

i love that... Relinquished their right to hire.

Try the were forced to do that.

No business or employer freely enters any contract with any union. Do try again.

bingo!!!!

You're amazing!! Not only are you an expert on local government you're an expert on unions too!!

So please explain how companies cannot hire who they want and how the Unions protect "mediocre" workers. This ought to be good.

.

Do you really want to go there?
Ok....I used to work a part time job with a friend in NYC. He was a supervisor with Con Edison. He came to work one evening and he was hot.
He goes on to tell me how he caught a guy not doing his job and that this guy was a habitual offender. So he wrote up the worker. Something he'd done multiple times. Now in the real world if a worker gets reprimanded or written up a few times, they are history.
Not with unions. Oh no. This mediocre POS looked my buddy straight in the eye and told him to go ahead an write him up. The union doesn't allow supervisors to fire anyone.
Are you really going to tell me that unions do not protect their worst workers with grievance processes and all kinds of other red tape so that the piss poor workers can keep their jobs. Ever hear of the NYC Teacher's union "rubber room"?...This is where poor performing teachers are sent to sit and watch tv and do crossword puzzles at full salary because they cannot be fired. Of course this hit the news and the NYC Schools Chancellor saw to it that this practice would end.
Look, there are reams of examples of methods by which unions protect their weakest links. That's what unions do. They are groups with a group mentality.
You are so pro-union you believe that unions and their members can do no wrong. That's blind faith alright.
Well guess what. You're placing your faith in a dying business. Unions are on their way out. Nobody wants to deal with the cost, the troubles and the adversarial relationship unions under which unions must operate in order to have a purpose. Now you can come back with any kind of excuse, spin or whatever. It still does not change the fact that union membership has dwindled and over time will eventually cease to exist.
Oh, these laws that allegedly require companies to negotiate with unions at the end of their respective contract....Bull shit. Those laws need to be abolished. They are one sided. It laws such as those that cause just exactly what is happening with Boeing. That company has been in the Seattle area for a very long time. I don't think Charleston, SC was on the radar, save for that city having the third business seaport on the east coast, unless the unions in Washington State didn't start throwing their weight around.
I wonder why you union people are so upset. Boeing is going to pay at or near the union scale and the benefits for the workers are supposed to be fantastic. So tell me, where's the problem? So what if those people are non-union. They will be well compensated for their work.
Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty.

 

[manifold]

Uhhhh.....Employers DO hire who they want and the union cannot say who or who doesn't get hired. Employees do not join the union until AFTER they are hired as a condition of employment. And that is only in "Closed Shop" states.

The only exception are labor halls. And companies such as mine can maintain a list of names of individual contractors that are not allowed on the property for legitimate reasons.

.

A condition of employment? lol. Again... the bottom line is join the union or dont work for who YOU want and who has hired you.

What if you don't want to join the union?

The Employer decides whether or not they will negotiate work issues with an employee representative agency, aka the union. It's the Employer's decision.

Once the Employer has made that decision, it becomes a condition of your employment, along with the many conditions of your employment.

Bingo.

 

[DaGoose]

Not necessarily true in my experience.... They don't have to be Union members to be hired, but they do have to join the Union once they are hired.... IF it goes to the street.

I'll give you an example.... The Maps & Records Tech jobs I mentioned earlier. They have to be posted INTERNALLY first. That means all the current Union members get first crack at them IF THEY ARE QUALIFIED. We haven't found any QUALIFIED applicants, so it's now going to be posted EXTERNALLY. At that point ANYONE has the opportunity to submit a resume. Even if the applicant is an existing BUW member from another company, that is not taken into account once it goes EXTERNAL. Of course whoever gets offered the job will have to join Local 369 of the BUW if they accept the job.



Goose, that's exactly the issue in this case. The company has no interest in anything other than the dividend checks for the investors. It's all about the bottom line. The customers, the employees, the work and the regulators be damned. They're letting go of 1200 non-union employees between back in March and the end of July.... not because we don't need them but to ensure they can cut a certain amount out of the budget. We've literally told the regulators that we're not doing ANY maintenance work that they haven't agreed to allow us to get returned from the customers in the last rate case.

Three departments have gone Union (Engineering, Relay, and now Dispatch) in the last 4 years in an attempt to protect ourselves from the management of this company. THAT should tell everyone something about this company.

bingo!!!!

You're amazing!! Not only are you an expert on local government you're an expert on unions too!!

So please explain how companies cannot hire who they want and how the Unions protect "mediocre" workers. This ought to be good.

.

Do you really want to go there?
Ok....I used to work a part time job with a friend in NYC. He was a supervisor with Con Edison. He came to work one evening and he was hot.
He goes on to tell me how he caught a guy not doing his job and that this guy was a habitual offender. So he wrote up the worker. Something he'd done multiple times. Now in the real world if a worker gets reprimanded or written up a few times, they are history.
Not with unions. Oh no. This mediocre POS looked my buddy straight in the eye and told him to go ahead an write him up. The union doesn't allow supervisors to fire anyone.
Are you really going to tell me that unions do not protect their worst workers with grievance processes and all kinds of other red tape so that the piss poor workers can keep their jobs. Ever hear of the NYC Teacher's union "rubber room"?...This is where poor performing teachers are sent to sit and watch tv and do crossword puzzles at full salary because they cannot be fired. Of course this hit the news and the NYC Schools Chancellor saw to it that this practice would end.
Look, there are reams of examples of methods by which unions protect their weakest links. That's what unions do. They are groups with a group mentality.
You are so pro-union you believe that unions and their members can do no wrong. That's blind faith alright.
Well guess what. You're placing your faith in a dying business. Unions are on their way out. Nobody wants to deal with the cost, the troubles and the adversarial relationship unions under which unions must operate in order to have a purpose. Now you can come back with any kind of excuse, spin or whatever. It still does not change the fact that union membership has dwindled and over time will eventually cease to exist.
Oh, these laws that allegedly require companies to negotiate with unions at the end of their respective contract....Bull shit. Those laws need to be abolished. They are one sided. It laws such as those that cause just exactly what is happening with Boeing. That company has been in the Seattle area for a very long time. I don't think Charleston, SC was on the radar, save for that city having the third business seaport on the east coast, unless the unions in Washington State didn't start throwing their weight around.
I wonder why you union people are so upset. Boeing is going to pay at or near the union scale and the benefits for the workers are supposed to be fantastic. So tell me, where's the problem? So what if those people are non-union. They will be well compensated for their work.
Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty.

Do you really want to go there?

Why not?

Ok....I used to work a part time job with a friend in NYC. He was a supervisor with Con Edison. He came to work one evening and he was hot.
He goes on to tell me how he caught a guy not doing his job and that this guy was a habitual offender. So he wrote up the worker. Something he'd done multiple times. Now in the real world if a worker gets reprimanded or written up a few times, they are history.
Not with unions. Oh no. This mediocre POS looked my buddy straight in the eye and told him to go ahead an write him up. The union doesn't allow supervisors to fire anyone.
Are you really going to tell me that unions do not protect their worst workers with grievance processes and all kinds of other red tape so that the piss poor workers can keep their jobs.

Interesting. I used to work for Com Edison and never knew things like that to happen. I saw plenty of people fired and not even their union buddies ever lost any sleep over it. Each one of them deserved it.

And the "grievance process" is there to keep workers from being unfairly targeted by personality conflicts. After that it goes to what is called "arbitration" where an impartial judge makes a final decision. (Geez, do I need to explain all of this to you??)

Anywho...YOU may enjoy working in an environment where your boss can come in and fire you because his wife didn't give him a piece of ass the night before but I sure don't.

You are so pro-union you believe that unions and their members can do no wrong. That's blind faith alright.

And you are blinded by the belief that they can do no right. If you were being honest in your story then I agree there's a problem. But if one guy slacks off then others need to pick it up. And I can GUARANTEE you that it wouldn't last long. The union doesn't protect slackers any more than guys who ignore safety rules.

Ever hear of the NYC Teacher's union "rubber room"?...This is where poor performing teachers are sent to sit and watch tv and do crossword puzzles at full salary because they cannot be fired. Of course this hit the news and the NYC Schools Chancellor saw to it that this practice would end.

I disagree with that practice as would most union members. What's your point? You just wanted me to say it?

Oh, these laws that allegedly require companies to negotiate with unions at the end of their respective contract....Bull shit. Those laws need to be abolished. They are one sided. It laws such as those that cause just exactly what is happening with Boeing. That company has been in the Seattle area for a very long time. I don't think Charleston, SC was on the radar, save for that city having the third business seaport on the east coast, unless the unions in Washington State didn't start throwing their weight around.

Well exactly when in the hell you do WANT them to negotiate? In the middle of the contract? These are legally binding contracts we're talking about or didn't you know that? When a contract expires it is time to renegotiate, plain and simple.

I wonder why you union people are so upset. Boeing is going to pay at or near the union scale and the benefits for the workers are supposed to be fantastic. So tell me, where's the problem? So what if those people are non-union. They will be well compensated for their work.

Try looking at prior posts where I stated that as long as a company treats its workers fairly, and they are happy, then there is no need for a union. But you will always have horror stories like Anachronism's above.

Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty

YOU ain't established shit. As long as it's within the law, and you want to work in a unionized facility, then you must join the union in a "Closed Shop" state. You don't like it? Change the law.

Nobody is ever "compelled" to join a union. They can go down the street and work somewhere else. THERE'S your "freedom and liberty".

Well, I see you know about as much about unions as you do about local government. You need to get your information from places other than FOX and Rush Limbaugh. All you are doing is parroting their talking points and THINK you're arguing politics. But you just continue to show your ignorance there Scooter. Annd anytime you REALLY want to have an informed discussion on unions and local government try asking instead of attacking. You'll get a lot further and learn a lot more in the meantime.

Class dismissed.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're amazing!! Not only are you an expert on local government you're an expert on unions too!!

So please explain how companies cannot hire who they want and how the Unions protect "mediocre" workers. This ought to be good.

.

Do you really want to go there?
Ok....I used to work a part time job with a friend in NYC. He was a supervisor with Con Edison. He came to work one evening and he was hot.
He goes on to tell me how he caught a guy not doing his job and that this guy was a habitual offender. So he wrote up the worker. Something he'd done multiple times. Now in the real world if a worker gets reprimanded or written up a few times, they are history.
Not with unions. Oh no. This mediocre POS looked my buddy straight in the eye and told him to go ahead an write him up. The union doesn't allow supervisors to fire anyone.
Are you really going to tell me that unions do not protect their worst workers with grievance processes and all kinds of other red tape so that the piss poor workers can keep their jobs. Ever hear of the NYC Teacher's union "rubber room"?...This is where poor performing teachers are sent to sit and watch tv and do crossword puzzles at full salary because they cannot be fired. Of course this hit the news and the NYC Schools Chancellor saw to it that this practice would end.
Look, there are reams of examples of methods by which unions protect their weakest links. That's what unions do. They are groups with a group mentality.
You are so pro-union you believe that unions and their members can do no wrong. That's blind faith alright.
Well guess what. You're placing your faith in a dying business. Unions are on their way out. Nobody wants to deal with the cost, the troubles and the adversarial relationship unions under which unions must operate in order to have a purpose. Now you can come back with any kind of excuse, spin or whatever. It still does not change the fact that union membership has dwindled and over time will eventually cease to exist.
Oh, these laws that allegedly require companies to negotiate with unions at the end of their respective contract....Bull shit. Those laws need to be abolished. They are one sided. It laws such as those that cause just exactly what is happening with Boeing. That company has been in the Seattle area for a very long time. I don't think Charleston, SC was on the radar, save for that city having the third business seaport on the east coast, unless the unions in Washington State didn't start throwing their weight around.
I wonder why you union people are so upset. Boeing is going to pay at or near the union scale and the benefits for the workers are supposed to be fantastic. So tell me, where's the problem? So what if those people are non-union. They will be well compensated for their work.
Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty.

Why not?



Interesting. I used to work for Com Edison and never knew things like that to happen. I saw plenty of people fired and not even their union buddies ever lost any sleep over it. Each one of them deserved it.

And the "grievance process" is there to keep workers from being unfairly targeted by personality conflicts. After that it goes to what is called "arbitration" where an impartial judge makes a final decision. (Geez, do I need to explain all of this to you??)

Anywho...YOU may enjoy working in an environment where your boss can come in and fire you because his wife didn't give him a piece of ass the night before but I sure don't.



And you are blinded by the belief that they can do no right. If you were being honest in your story then I agree there's a problem. But if one guy slacks off then others need to pick it up. And I can GUARANTEE you that it wouldn't last long. The union doesn't protect slackers any more than guys who ignore safety rules.



I disagree with that practice as would most union members. What's your point? You just wanted me to say it?



Well exactly when in the hell you do WANT them to negotiate? In the middle of the contract? These are legally binding contracts we're talking about or didn't you know that? When a contract expires it is time to renegotiate, plain and simple.

I wonder why you union people are so upset. Boeing is going to pay at or near the union scale and the benefits for the workers are supposed to be fantastic. So tell me, where's the problem? So what if those people are non-union. They will be well compensated for their work.

Try looking at prior posts where I stated that as long as a company treats its workers fairly, and they are happy, then there is no need for a union. But you will always have horror stories like Anachronism's above.

Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty

YOU ain't established shit. As long as it's within the law, and you want to work in a unionized facility, then you must join the union in a "Closed Shop" state. You don't like it? Change the law.

Nobody is ever "compelled" to join a union. They can go down the street and work somewhere else. THERE'S your "freedom and liberty".

Well, I see you know about as much about unions as you do about local government. You need to get your information from places other than FOX and Rush Limbaugh. All you are doing is parroting their talking points and THINK you're arguing politics. But you just continue to show your ignorance there Scooter. Annd anytime you REALLY want to have an informed discussion on unions and local government try asking instead of attacking. You'll get a lot further and learn a lot more in the meantime.

Class dismissed.

.

Change the Law..
That's precisely the path that is being tried.
Besides, the thread in't about that. It's about whether or not any and all workers in union shops regardless of state must join a labor organization where on exists.
Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.
I use no talking points. Talking points are the exclusive province of the Left.
I am not attacking anything. Now you're the victim. Sheesh.

 

[DaGoose]

Do you really want to go there?
Ok....I used to work a part time job with a friend in NYC. He was a supervisor with Con Edison. He came to work one evening and he was hot.
He goes on to tell me how he caught a guy not doing his job and that this guy was a habitual offender. So he wrote up the worker. Something he'd done multiple times. Now in the real world if a worker gets reprimanded or written up a few times, they are history.
Not with unions. Oh no. This mediocre POS looked my buddy straight in the eye and told him to go ahead an write him up. The union doesn't allow supervisors to fire anyone.
Are you really going to tell me that unions do not protect their worst workers with grievance processes and all kinds of other red tape so that the piss poor workers can keep their jobs. Ever hear of the NYC Teacher's union "rubber room"?...This is where poor performing teachers are sent to sit and watch tv and do crossword puzzles at full salary because they cannot be fired. Of course this hit the news and the NYC Schools Chancellor saw to it that this practice would end.
Look, there are reams of examples of methods by which unions protect their weakest links. That's what unions do. They are groups with a group mentality.
You are so pro-union you believe that unions and their members can do no wrong. That's blind faith alright.
Well guess what. You're placing your faith in a dying business. Unions are on their way out. Nobody wants to deal with the cost, the troubles and the adversarial relationship unions under which unions must operate in order to have a purpose. Now you can come back with any kind of excuse, spin or whatever. It still does not change the fact that union membership has dwindled and over time will eventually cease to exist.
Oh, these laws that allegedly require companies to negotiate with unions at the end of their respective contract....Bull shit. Those laws need to be abolished. They are one sided. It laws such as those that cause just exactly what is happening with Boeing. That company has been in the Seattle area for a very long time. I don't think Charleston, SC was on the radar, save for that city having the third business seaport on the east coast, unless the unions in Washington State didn't start throwing their weight around.
I wonder why you union people are so upset. Boeing is going to pay at or near the union scale and the benefits for the workers are supposed to be fantastic. So tell me, where's the problem? So what if those people are non-union. They will be well compensated for their work.
Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty.

Why not?



Interesting. I used to work for Com Edison and never knew things like that to happen. I saw plenty of people fired and not even their union buddies ever lost any sleep over it. Each one of them deserved it.

And the "grievance process" is there to keep workers from being unfairly targeted by personality conflicts. After that it goes to what is called "arbitration" where an impartial judge makes a final decision. (Geez, do I need to explain all of this to you??)

Anywho...YOU may enjoy working in an environment where your boss can come in and fire you because his wife didn't give him a piece of ass the night before but I sure don't.



And you are blinded by the belief that they can do no right. If you were being honest in your story then I agree there's a problem. But if one guy slacks off then others need to pick it up. And I can GUARANTEE you that it wouldn't last long. The union doesn't protect slackers any more than guys who ignore safety rules.



I disagree with that practice as would most union members. What's your point? You just wanted me to say it?



Well exactly when in the hell you do WANT them to negotiate? In the middle of the contract? These are legally binding contracts we're talking about or didn't you know that? When a contract expires it is time to renegotiate, plain and simple.



Try looking at prior posts where I stated that as long as a company treats its workers fairly, and they are happy, then there is no need for a union. But you will always have horror stories like Anachronism's above.

Anyway, this is a moot point. It has been established that no one should be compelled to join a labor organization. The thread was not about laws rules or regulations. It's a question of freedom and liberty

YOU ain't established shit. As long as it's within the law, and you want to work in a unionized facility, then you must join the union in a "Closed Shop" state. You don't like it? Change the law.

Nobody is ever "compelled" to join a union. They can go down the street and work somewhere else. THERE'S your "freedom and liberty".

Well, I see you know about as much about unions as you do about local government. You need to get your information from places other than FOX and Rush Limbaugh. All you are doing is parroting their talking points and THINK you're arguing politics. But you just continue to show your ignorance there Scooter. Annd anytime you REALLY want to have an informed discussion on unions and local government try asking instead of attacking. You'll get a lot further and learn a lot more in the meantime.

Class dismissed.

.

Change the Law..
That's precisely the path that is being tried.
Besides, the thread in't about that. It's about whether or not any and all workers in union shops regardless of state must join a labor organization where on exists.
Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.
I use no talking points. Talking points are the exclusive province of the Left.
I am not attacking anything. Now you're the victim. Sheesh.

THAT'S the best you've got?

Besides, the thread in't about that. It's about whether or not any and all workers in union shops regardless of state must join a labor organization where on exists.

If the law requires it, then they MUST join. If the law doesn't require it, then they don't have to. THERE....question answered.

Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.

Make up your mind. What's the real issue? Having to join or how dues are spent? Do you even have a clue what the real issue is? Doesn't matter. The "rank and file" (like you know what the hell that is) has an individual right to withold dues used for political purposes. (I'm pretty certain you didn't that which is more and more the case with you. Try doing your own research.)

Face it. You're a tool, a mouthpiece for the wingnut faction. They treat you like a mushroom, kid. They keep you in the dark and feed you full of shit.

.

 

[JBeukema]

funny... the same people who insist I'm not forced to work for any employer are claiming people are forced to join the union

 

[DaGoose]

funny... the same people who insist I'm not forced to work for any employer are claiming people are forced to join the union

Bottom line.....NOBODY can force you to work for anyone you don't want to work for, right?

Now if a law is passed that forces you to work for an employer, then you might have a complaint. Until then, you don't. Period.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why not?



Interesting. I used to work for Com Edison and never knew things like that to happen. I saw plenty of people fired and not even their union buddies ever lost any sleep over it. Each one of them deserved it.

And the "grievance process" is there to keep workers from being unfairly targeted by personality conflicts. After that it goes to what is called "arbitration" where an impartial judge makes a final decision. (Geez, do I need to explain all of this to you??)

Anywho...YOU may enjoy working in an environment where your boss can come in and fire you because his wife didn't give him a piece of ass the night before but I sure don't.



And you are blinded by the belief that they can do no right. If you were being honest in your story then I agree there's a problem. But if one guy slacks off then others need to pick it up. And I can GUARANTEE you that it wouldn't last long. The union doesn't protect slackers any more than guys who ignore safety rules.



I disagree with that practice as would most union members. What's your point? You just wanted me to say it?



Well exactly when in the hell you do WANT them to negotiate? In the middle of the contract? These are legally binding contracts we're talking about or didn't you know that? When a contract expires it is time to renegotiate, plain and simple.



Try looking at prior posts where I stated that as long as a company treats its workers fairly, and they are happy, then there is no need for a union. But you will always have horror stories like Anachronism's above.



YOU ain't established shit. As long as it's within the law, and you want to work in a unionized facility, then you must join the union in a "Closed Shop" state. You don't like it? Change the law.

Nobody is ever "compelled" to join a union. They can go down the street and work somewhere else. THERE'S your "freedom and liberty".

Well, I see you know about as much about unions as you do about local government. You need to get your information from places other than FOX and Rush Limbaugh. All you are doing is parroting their talking points and THINK you're arguing politics. But you just continue to show your ignorance there Scooter. Annd anytime you REALLY want to have an informed discussion on unions and local government try asking instead of attacking. You'll get a lot further and learn a lot more in the meantime.

Class dismissed.

.

Change the Law..
That's precisely the path that is being tried.
Besides, the thread in't about that. It's about whether or not any and all workers in union shops regardless of state must join a labor organization where on exists.
Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.
I use no talking points. Talking points are the exclusive province of the Left.
I am not attacking anything. Now you're the victim. Sheesh.

THAT'S the best you've got?

Besides, the thread in't about that. It's about whether or not any and all workers in union shops regardless of state must join a labor organization where on exists.

If the law requires it, then they MUST join. If the law doesn't require it, then they don't have to. THERE....question answered.

Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.

Make up your mind. What's the real issue? Having to join or how dues are spent? Do you even have a clue what the real issue is? Doesn't matter. The "rank and file" (like you know what the hell that is) has an individual right to withold dues used for political purposes. (I'm pretty certain you didn't that which is more and more the case with you. Try doing your own research.)

Face it. You're a tool, a mouthpiece for the wingnut faction. They treat you like a mushroom, kid. They keep you in the dark and feed you full of shit.

.

Ahh yes. In a fit of rage because you cannot dominate the discussion and compel my agreement with your agenda, you flail away with name calling. Typical. This is why you libs can never win an argument.
This issue union dues, forced unionism is predicated on the premise of union officials using the dues collected from members to serve a certain political agenda. That is where this started.
It's a shame you lack the ability to pay attention.
Now, go ahead and post some clever insult. Because that is all you have left.
I will make you hate me so much you'll want to put a fist through your monitor. LOL....
I have your number, pal. I hit a nerve and you cannot let it go. Glad I pissed you off.
Now, go ahead and have at it. Throw some other vile name at me. You cannot resist.

 

[manifold]

The same people who constantly (and often deservedly) decry the encroachment of nanny-state policies seem to be screaming the loudest for nanny-state regulations limiting what companies are allowed to agree to contractually, because of course they know what is best for others.

True story

 

[thereisnospoon]

The same people who constantly (and often deservedly) decry the encroachment of nanny-state policies seem to be screaming the loudest for nanny-state regulations limiting what companies are allowed to agree to contractually, because of course they know what is best for others.

True story

What nanny-state policies might those be?
Right to Work does not limit anything. Unions can still organize labor in right to work states. The law simply states that no worker may be compelled to join a labor organization to procure or maintain employment. Very simple.
There is no interference with anyone. Unions are free to do business in all 50 states.
As a matter of fact in closed shop or forced union states legislation is written so that workers do NOT have a choice as to join a union or not. That's nanny state government.

 

[manifold]

The same people who constantly (and often deservedly) decry the encroachment of nanny-state policies seem to be screaming the loudest for nanny-state regulations limiting what companies are allowed to agree to contractually, because of course they know what is best for others.

True story

What nanny-state policies might those be?
Right to Work does not limit anything. Unions can still organize labor in right to work states. The law simply states that no worker may be compelled to join a labor organization to procure or maintain employment. Very simple.
There is no interference with anyone. Unions are free to do business in all 50 states.
As a matter of fact in closed shop or forced union states legislation is written so that workers do NOT have a choice as to join a union or not. That's nanny state government.

"Right to work" is a government regulation that restricts the rights of business owners.

No amount of spin changes this simple fact.

 

[DaGoose]

The same people who constantly (and often deservedly) decry the encroachment of nanny-state policies seem to be screaming the loudest for nanny-state regulations limiting what companies are allowed to agree to contractually, because of course they know what is best for others.

True story

What nanny-state policies might those be?
Right to Work does not limit anything. Unions can still organize labor in right to work states. The law simply states that no worker may be compelled to join a labor organization to procure or maintain employment. Very simple.
There is no interference with anyone. Unions are free to do business in all 50 states.
As a matter of fact in closed shop or forced union states legislation is written so that workers do NOT have a choice as to join a union or not. That's nanny state government.

"Right to work" is a government regulation that restricts the rights of business owners.

No amount of spin changes this simple fact.

He doesn't "spin". You have to have ideas to spin first. What he does is change the subject and tries to define what the "real issue" is.

On one hand these guys try and decry the "nanny state". They say that the government should not interfere with businesses or individual decisions. That they are for freedom!!!!

THEN they turn around and beg for a "nanny state" to interfere with businesses by passing RTW laws. Then they beg the "nanny state" to pass laws against abortion, euthanasia, marijuana, prostitution, etc.

These guys are so hypocritical it's funny.

.

 

[DaGoose]

Change the Law..
That's precisely the path that is being tried.
Besides, the thread in't about that. It's about whether or not any and all workers in union shops regardless of state must join a labor organization where on exists.
Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.
I use no talking points. Talking points are the exclusive province of the Left.
I am not attacking anything. Now you're the victim. Sheesh.

THAT'S the best you've got?



If the law requires it, then they MUST join. If the law doesn't require it, then they don't have to. THERE....question answered.

Actually the real issue here is about how union leaders spend the money collected from the rank and file in the form of dues.

Make up your mind. What's the real issue? Having to join or how dues are spent? Do you even have a clue what the real issue is? Doesn't matter. The "rank and file" (like you know what the hell that is) has an individual right to withold dues used for political purposes. (I'm pretty certain you didn't that which is more and more the case with you. Try doing your own research.)

Face it. You're a tool, a mouthpiece for the wingnut faction. They treat you like a mushroom, kid. They keep you in the dark and feed you full of shit.

.

Ahh yes. In a fit of rage because you cannot dominate the discussion and compel my agreement with your agenda, you flail away with name calling. Typical. This is why you libs can never win an argument.
This issue union dues, forced unionism is predicated on the premise of union officials using the dues collected from members to serve a certain political agenda. That is where this started.
It's a shame you lack the ability to pay attention.
Now, go ahead and post some clever insult. Because that is all you have left.
I will make you hate me so much you'll want to put a fist through your monitor. LOL....
I have your number, pal. I hit a nerve and you cannot let it go. Glad I pissed you off.
Now, go ahead and have at it. Throw some other vile name at me. You cannot resist.

Ahhh yes. You're the "union expert" Well tell me this "expert"............

How did it escape your notice that each individual union member can opt out of the part of the dues that go to political fund raising? NOBODY allows their dues to be used for political purposes without their consent.

So please enlighten me there, "expert". I'm listening.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The same people who constantly (and often deservedly) decry the encroachment of nanny-state policies seem to be screaming the loudest for nanny-state regulations limiting what companies are allowed to agree to contractually, because of course they know what is best for others.

True story

What nanny-state policies might those be?
Right to Work does not limit anything. Unions can still organize labor in right to work states. The law simply states that no worker may be compelled to join a labor organization to procure or maintain employment. Very simple.
There is no interference with anyone. Unions are free to do business in all 50 states.
As a matter of fact in closed shop or forced union states legislation is written so that workers do NOT have a choice as to join a union or not. That's nanny state government.

"Right to work" is a government regulation that restricts the rights of business owners.

No amount of spin changes this simple fact.

Ok, then you'll not be inconvenienced by providing examples of how right to work restricts the rights of of business owners.
Unions are not restricted by right to work. Unions have the right to do business anywhere they wish. In any state they wish. It is the worker that is liberated from restrictive closed shop laws and regulations. Right to work levels the playing field.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What nanny-state policies might those be?
Right to Work does not limit anything. Unions can still organize labor in right to work states. The law simply states that no worker may be compelled to join a labor organization to procure or maintain employment. Very simple.
There is no interference with anyone. Unions are free to do business in all 50 states.
As a matter of fact in closed shop or forced union states legislation is written so that workers do NOT have a choice as to join a union or not. That's nanny state government.

"Right to work" is a government regulation that restricts the rights of business owners.

No amount of spin changes this simple fact.

He doesn't "spin". You have to have ideas to spin first. What he does is change the subject and tries to define what the "real issue" is.

On one hand these guys try and decry the "nanny state". They say that the government should not interfere with businesses or individual decisions. That they are for freedom!!!!

THEN they turn around and beg for a "nanny state" to interfere with businesses by passing RTW laws. Then they beg the "nanny state" to pass laws against abortion, euthanasia, marijuana, prostitution, etc.

These guys are so hypocritical it's funny.

.

What do those things have to do with right to work laws? Nothing.
If you want to discuss these issues by all means start threads on those issues.
BTW, beyond government, there are contemporary community standards. These, quite simply are standards by which people in a given area, neighborhood or region choose to live. Most often these are higher standards than those set by the legislative process.
For example, off road ATV's are perfectly reasonable in rural areas. Most folks have one or two. In suburban areas, these vehicles are held to be unacceptable to be ridden in the same manner they would in a rural area. So if those suburban people ask of their local government to place restrictions on ATV operation, would you consider that "nanny-state"?
Now back to the topic of the thread...unions and should one be obligated to join.

 

[thereisnospoon]

THAT'S the best you've got?



If the law requires it, then they MUST join. If the law doesn't require it, then they don't have to. THERE....question answered.



Make up your mind. What's the real issue? Having to join or how dues are spent? Do you even have a clue what the real issue is? Doesn't matter. The "rank and file" (like you know what the hell that is) has an individual right to withold dues used for political purposes. (I'm pretty certain you didn't that which is more and more the case with you. Try doing your own research.)

Face it. You're a tool, a mouthpiece for the wingnut faction. They treat you like a mushroom, kid. They keep you in the dark and feed you full of shit.

.

Ahh yes. In a fit of rage because you cannot dominate the discussion and compel my agreement with your agenda, you flail away with name calling. Typical. This is why you libs can never win an argument.
This issue union dues, forced unionism is predicated on the premise of union officials using the dues collected from members to serve a certain political agenda. That is where this started.
It's a shame you lack the ability to pay attention.
Now, go ahead and post some clever insult. Because that is all you have left.
I will make you hate me so much you'll want to put a fist through your monitor. LOL....
I have your number, pal. I hit a nerve and you cannot let it go. Glad I pissed you off.
Now, go ahead and have at it. Throw some other vile name at me. You cannot resist.

Ahhh yes. You're the "union expert" Well tell me this "expert"............

How did it escape your notice that each individual union member can opt out of the part of the dues that go to political fund raising? NOBODY allows their dues to be used for political purposes without their consent.

So please enlighten me there, "expert". I'm listening.

.

Rights are not absolute.
How many union workers are going to stand up against their union delegate?
I can just see it now. Joe Smith the iron worker goes to the shop steward says he is not at all happy with his money going to candidate "X"....A few days later Joe Smith is reassigned to the union hall to wait for another job.
C'mon dude. Ya gotta do better than that.
Now as with the Con Edison incident, you'll now tell me "it happens all the time"..Yeah, ok.
BTW , you still trying to dig up an example of where I "lied"....? Just wondering where your balls went.