In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Union dues and mandatory healthcare premiums

24

Comments

  • the middlethe middle Member Posts: 3,089
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    I would like to point out to you all that my union (the IBEW) PROHIBITS socialist, communeist, nazism, or any other unAmerican "ism" from having any part in the union!!! ITS ON PAGE 1!!!

    Hell, about half the guys I work with are republicians!!

    I am a vet. as are most of my co-workers, and none, NONE of us are socialist!!!

    I RESENT BEING CALLED THAT!!!!!!!

    NEVER in ALL my years of going to union meetings was socialism EVER brought up!!!!

    I have never gotten socialist or commie propaganda in the mail from my union, EVER!!!!


    Is that true in all unions, I dont know, but I doubt any Bad "ism" is in any union.....All that is is right wing HATE being spread to enjoyn fear into people who are too weak minded to know better!!!!




    That being said, I somewhat agree with the idea that FORCEED union membership is wrong!! I somewhat agree with right to work in that respect. BUT, I also feel that IF a person takes advantage of collective bargining in a right to work state they BETTER join the union, or they are a complete fool!!


    I do not think all union members are socialist, or even that all unions desire socialism.

    However when over 90% of unions (collectively) political contributions go to the democratic party, which is driving the bus straight to socialism, what does that say? When the union members organize to promote, and encourage the union members to vote for candidates who are voting us into socialism, what does that say.

    Perhaps your union doesn't do this and runs a good program. If so your union should do well in a true free market. But collectively the unions are a strong part of the engine driving us into a socialist state. IMO unions (collectively) have become a threat to liberty in this country. It does not have or need to be that way, but it is. How do we change that?



    What the hell is it with some people who think that anyone who is not a republican or tea bagger, or dont have the same views as themselves is automaticly a socialist or commie??

    Really, COME ON!!!! It way beyond getting old already!!!


    I admit there are some kooks in the democratic party, there are also some in the republican too. BUT, I dont think ANY are true socialist!! WHY would they??????? Most of them are very wealthy. It would not be in anyones interest, especialy their own, to be socialist!!


    GROW UP!!!!!

    QUIT WATCHING FOX NEWS GARBAGE!!!!!!(same goes with msnbc by the way[8D])


    To keep calling the democrats socialist is just as stupid as calling the republicans nazis........it just makes you look dumb!!!
  • nordnord Member Posts: 6,106
    edited November -1
    The moment wealth or supposed wealth of another is brought up is the moment one shows his true colors. The obsession of gauging one's status or that of another by the perception of wealth is very much in line with the beliefs of Marx. Entitlement, equality, distribution of wealth, are all buzzwords of socialism. It matters not whether one's union has never considered communism or socialism. What matters is the fact that labor unions are in the socialist camp by virtue of their very nature!

    I have no problem with any one of you looking at me and deciding that I charge too much for my services. This is entirely fair and you are free to offer my clients a better job at a lesser rate. I'll, in turn, respond by either adding to the value I provide or lowering my fees... Or I'll walk away. This is free enterprise and it works! Merit is the key.

    Now, when one of you looks at me and decides that I have too much, then we're on to an entirely different subject. What I or anyone have or don't have is none of your business. If you make it your business, then perhaps you might again consult Marx as he has some ideas and comments on the subject of class envy and the power of its use. (Read that as socialism and communism.)

    At this juncture I'm all but certain that many of you think I'm anti-union. If so, you're correct in a way. Actually I'm anti-stupid.
    And stupid runs from those with the lowest of IQ's to those with the highest. Stupid has no regard for degrees nor social positions. It's universal.

    Unions, I believe, have a place in society. Certainly they have a place where the stock in trade of a company is physical labor of which there is a greater supply than demand. Usually undereducated, often functionally illiterate, and just as often ripe to be taken advantage of. These folks need help and very often unions have the ability to make their lives better.

    On the other hand a profession such as teaching is an avocation, not a really just a job. In order to perform as a teacher (and many other like jobs) it is assumed that advanced education is necessary. This might reasonably lead to the conclusion that an "educated" individual would be better equipped to cope with the world than a typical laborer. If so, then why would an "educated" person need a union unless they were perhaps more indoctrinated than educated?

    Which leads to one final opinion... The people we're seeing demonstrating in Wisconsin and other states aren't educated. They care little about anyone, except for themselves, and have accepted indoctrination in lieu of of actual education. Their value to a free and viable society is next to nothing. On a personal level I wish them no misfortune, but we as a nation would be better off without them.
  • lpaalplpaalp Member Posts: 951 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Which leads to one final opinion... The people we're seeing demonstrating in Wisconsin and other states aren't educated. They care little about anyone, except for themselves, and have accepted indoctrination in lieu of of actual education. Their value to a free and viable society is next to nothing. On a personal level I wish them no misfortune, but we as a nation would be better off without them. Which may be a little strong, but leads to yet another conclusion: The driving factor in society is personal ambition / betterment. Business growth is desirable, to provide increased profits to owners. Growth of governmental functions is driven by the desire of our elected reps to remain in office and improve their own lot-- thus the trend to giving the citizenry more, thus the growth of entitlement programs, and their extention to ever more citizens. Unions are also afflicted... unions are constantly seeking "more" for their members -- who would pay dues to an organization that promises to maintain the status quo?

    Business growth is somewhat constrained by competition; government growth has hit the wall, thus the huge deficits; the "more" which unions, particularly public unions, can provide is also hitting the wall - thus the situation in Wisconsin and several other states.
  • nordnord Member Posts: 6,106
    edited November -1
    Lpaalp,

    Only a little strong? Maybe I should do an edit and say what I really think.[;)]
  • lpaalplpaalp Member Posts: 951 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    nord - just try to keep it clean...
  • nordnord Member Posts: 6,106
    edited November -1
    Lpaalp,

    You're fairly new here and don't apparently know me. I'll never resort to the gutter. No need. I'm well able to express myself in a civil manner and always invite opinions contrary to my own.

    Best,
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    Freemind,



    Trade unions, company union, and public employee unions are all different.

    I never stated a person did not have the right to collective bargaining. That is not my point at all. I did state they should not be forced to as a condition of employment. I also do not think unions have the same place in the public (tax payer funded) sector as the private sector.

    As I have stated, IMO unions can be a benefit to both the employee and the company when ran well. The current system with a high level of government intervention is not in the best interest of this country.

    If you do not agree with my position, it's America and we both have that right. But please do take the time to understand it, I try to give you this courtesy.

    I am not completely anti-union, I am completely anti-socialism and very pro-liberty. The over all union situation runs counter to my beliefs of liberty and free markets being the most important assets we have here in America.


    "Forced as a condition of employemnt" is subjective. Some companies require YOU to provide steel toe work boots, tools, measuring equipment, ect. at your OWN expense. As a condition of employment of course. Why is being a paid member of a union so offensive? At least as a union member, you have a voice. The "employee" is usually ignored at best, and terminated at worst for being a pain.
    There are MANY conditions that the employers force on employees as a "condition" of employment. Most are even on the fly, and not laid out in advance to give the worker a "heads up".

    As far as unions go in the public sector, I agree to a point. In general, I think they have no place. However, IF the elected Reps sign a contract, the public is BOUND to fulfill the obligations of that contract. Union contract or otherwise, a contract IS a contract. BOTH sides are bound by law and ethics to meet the terms of the contract.
    IF the intent is to no longer have state employee unions, then the elected Reps need to refuse to sign anymore contracts. Simple solution that requires NO legislation.


    Unions NEVER benefit the company. It lays out rules and protocols that can't be deviated from unless the terms of the contract are renegotiated. What a union REALLY does, is stop the abuse a company can inflict on the workers and level the playing field. While not all employers streamroll over the workers, many DO. This is why in a non-union company, you will not see individual workers have a contract with an employer. It takes away their power to squash people and treat them any way they please.

    And I agree, that government should NOT intervene where contracts are concerned, unless one side or the other is not honoring their terms of the contract. Government has no authority to tell either side what they will or will not do.


    I too, am anti-socialism and pro-liberty. That is one reason why I belive that unions have as much right to exist as the new business that springs up down yonder. My labor and time are a valuable product and I should be able to market and contract it as I see fit. Just because all the other employees of a particular business feel the same, so? So what if people come together as a group to achieve a common goal? I don't see it as bad, evil, or backwards.

    Even the foundation of our country and our liberty were formed with people coming together as one. In order to create a more perfect UNION, dontcha know. [:)]

    I appreciate the good discussion Scouts. Glad we can keep it civil. [:)]
  • reloader44magreloader44mag Member Posts: 18,783 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bhale187
    quote:Originally posted by RtWngExtrmst
    quote:Originally posted by UNIVERSITY50
    Even in a "Closed" Union shop you do not HAVE TO join the Union. You can always opt out as a Fair Share Employee. You are not forced to join the Union in any job, that would be a Federal Violation.

    The whole purpose of the union is to take money from members. If you're forced to pay money to the union, what difference does it make if you're a 'member'. What's this 'fair share' crap? Sounds like a Dim bitching because the 10% top earners ONLY pay 70% of the taxes.

    Fair share means you pay partial dues and in return you get the same pay and benefits that union members get. What they don't get is union representation in greivances against the employer, ie if the employee gets disciplined or fired and they think wrongly so they are on their own. They also do not get to vote on contracts, and don't get use of the lodge facilities.


    See RED above...absolutely not true. The Union is legally bound to represent Fair share payers/Dues objectors...Unions are required to audit themselves and then have independant auditors come in to local lodges, District lodges and Internationals....to determine cost which are non-germane to collective bargaining and representation...ie. anything to do the expenditures on political activity....percetages of dues spent on these non-germane activities is figured and then the employees dues are reduced by that percentage. Objectors must request to be objectors and it is true that they CANNOT participate in the union in ANY way...run for a union position, go to union meetings, vote on representatives and vote on contracts...otherwise they enjoy ALL of the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement including the grievance process....there is also another class...Agency fee payers...these are individuals that pay FULL union dues but choose not to be a members...the same restrictions apply to these individuals, this class typically have religious reasons for not being MEMBERS....my 2 cents...reloader44mag
  • reloader44magreloader44mag Member Posts: 18,783 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    Something very wrong though when you belive a worker has no right to collectively bargin his/her wage. THAT is a example of the Barons squashing the worker.
    I did not come away with this thought from reading Scout's post. Maybe I'm missing something, which wouldn't be the first time.


    Certainly what he make me think in the other thread. He walked away from the conversation.

    When you get down to brass tacks, that certainly is what is implied when you take away the tools of the union. He supports the idea of "right to work states" that take away union membership. He is supporting non union workers work side by side of union workers with the same pay and benefits and are not required to pay any union dues.

    Busting the ability to collectively bargin, is what this matter comes down to.
    freemind.. you and I have butted heads before but as I see it from your post on this thread we agree on this issue....reloader44mag
  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,181 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    I would like to point out to you all that my union (the IBEW) PROHIBITS socialist, communeist, nazism, or any other unAmerican "ism" from having any part in the union!!! ITS ON PAGE 1!!!

    Hell, about half the guys I work with are republicians!!

    I am a vet. as are most of my co-workers, and none, NONE of us are socialist!!!

    I RESENT BEING CALLED THAT!!!!!!!

    NEVER in ALL my years of going to union meetings was socialism EVER brought up!!!!

    I have never gotten socialist or commie propaganda in the mail from my union, EVER!!!!


    Is that true in all unions, I dont know, but I doubt any Bad "ism" is in any union.....All that is is right wing HATE being spread to enjoyn fear into people who are too weak minded to know better!!!!




    That being said, I somewhat agree with the idea that FORCEED union membership is wrong!! I somewhat agree with right to work in that respect. BUT, I also feel that IF a person takes advantage of collective bargining in a right to work state they BETTER join the union, or they are a complete fool!!


    I do not think all union members are socialist, or even that all unions desire socialism.

    However when over 90% of unions (collectively) political contributions go to the democratic party, which is driving the bus straight to socialism, what does that say? When the union members organize to promote, and encourage the union members to vote for candidates who are voting us into socialism, what does that say.

    Perhaps your union doesn't do this and runs a good program. If so your union should do well in a true free market. But collectively the unions are a strong part of the engine driving us into a socialist state. IMO unions (collectively) have become a threat to liberty in this country. It does not have or need to be that way, but it is. How do we change that?



    What the hell is it with some people who think that anyone who is not a republican or tea bagger, or dont have the same views as themselves is automaticly a socialist or commie??

    Really, COME ON!!!! It way beyond getting old already!!!


    I admit there are some kooks in the democratic party, there are also some in the republican too. BUT, I dont think ANY are true socialist!! WHY would they??????? Most of them are very wealthy. It would not be in anyones interest, especialy their own, to be socialist!!


    GROW UP!!!!!

    QUIT WATCHING FOX NEWS GARBAGE!!!!!!(same goes with msnbc by the way[8D])


    To keep calling the democrats socialist is just as stupid as calling the republicans nazis........it just makes you look dumb!!!


    Some things you may want to understand. I am not pro-republican, I very seldom watch FOX news and it is even more rare that I see any of Glen Becks stuff, in fact I can't recall ever watching his show.

    I am active in my local Tea Party Patriots group. They are a good bunch of hard working folks. We spend the largest part of our efforts in our own county, lord knows we have enough local problems with out all the national mess. We are involved on the state and national level, just most of our efforts are very local. We are in part if not greatly responsible for some socialist leaning politicians being booted from office. Call us what you wish, we are doing good work.

    As for me portraying people and groups as socialist. If someone or an organization works to promote socialist ideas and concepts here in America, what do you wish me to call them? Do most of these people think of it in this way, NO they do not. In fact most of them are ignorant to the dangers of what they are promoting. Some of course know exactly what they are doing and they manipulate the rest. However they are every bit as dangerous to this country as a pure ideologist of socialism. Actions bring results even if the actions are not understood by the person performing them.

    Currently buying union = promoting socialism due to the reasons I have stated. If you want to help fix that then help educate the unions members. Better to educate them and have them change themselves than to keep angering the rest of America until the unions are dealt with post haste.

    This issue is in front of us, how it is dealt with is very much up to the unions and the members. Change themselves or we will change them.
  • the middlethe middle Member Posts: 3,089
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    I would like to point out to you all that my union (the IBEW) PROHIBITS socialist, communeist, nazism, or any other unAmerican "ism" from having any part in the union!!! ITS ON PAGE 1!!!

    Hell, about half the guys I work with are republicians!!

    I am a vet. as are most of my co-workers, and none, NONE of us are socialist!!!

    I RESENT BEING CALLED THAT!!!!!!!

    NEVER in ALL my years of going to union meetings was socialism EVER brought up!!!!

    I have never gotten socialist or commie propaganda in the mail from my union, EVER!!!!


    Is that true in all unions, I dont know, but I doubt any Bad "ism" is in any union.....All that is is right wing HATE being spread to enjoyn fear into people who are too weak minded to know better!!!!




    That being said, I somewhat agree with the idea that FORCEED union membership is wrong!! I somewhat agree with right to work in that respect. BUT, I also feel that IF a person takes advantage of collective bargining in a right to work state they BETTER join the union, or they are a complete fool!!


    I do not think all union members are socialist, or even that all unions desire socialism.

    However when over 90% of unions (collectively) political contributions go to the democratic party, which is driving the bus straight to socialism, what does that say? When the union members organize to promote, and encourage the union members to vote for candidates who are voting us into socialism, what does that say.

    Perhaps your union doesn't do this and runs a good program. If so your union should do well in a true free market. But collectively the unions are a strong part of the engine driving us into a socialist state. IMO unions (collectively) have become a threat to liberty in this country. It does not have or need to be that way, but it is. How do we change that?



    What the hell is it with some people who think that anyone who is not a republican or tea bagger, or dont have the same views as themselves is automaticly a socialist or commie??

    Really, COME ON!!!! It way beyond getting old already!!!


    I admit there are some kooks in the democratic party, there are also some in the republican too. BUT, I dont think ANY are true socialist!! WHY would they??????? Most of them are very wealthy. It would not be in anyones interest, especialy their own, to be socialist!!


    GROW UP!!!!!

    QUIT WATCHING FOX NEWS GARBAGE!!!!!!(same goes with msnbc by the way[8D])


    To keep calling the democrats socialist is just as stupid as calling the republicans nazis........it just makes you look dumb!!!


    Some things you may want to understand. I am not pro-republican, I very seldom watch FOX news and it is even more rare that I see any of Glen Becks stuff, in fact I can't recall ever watching his show.

    I am active in my local Tea Party Patriots group. They are a good bunch of hard working folks. We spend the largest part of our efforts in our own county, lord knows we have enough local problems with out all the national mess. We are involved on the state and national level, just most of our efforts are very local. We are in part if not greatly responsible for some socialist leaning politicians being booted from office. Call us what you wish, we are doing good work.

    As for me portraying people and groups as socialist. If someone or an organization works to promote socialist ideas and concepts here in America, what do you wish me to call them? Do most of these people think of it in this way, NO they do not. In fact most of them are ignorant to the dangers of what they are promoting. Some of course know exactly what they are doing and they manipulate the rest. However they are every bit as dangerous to this country as a pure ideologist of socialism. Actions bring results even if the actions are not understood by the person performing them.

    Currently buying union = promoting socialism due to the reasons I have stated. If you want to help fix that then help educate the unions members. Better to educate them and have them change themselves than to keep angering the rest of America until the unions are dealt with post haste.

    This issue is in front of us, how it is dealt with is very much up to the unions and the members. Change themselves or we will change them.



    Change them for us???? LIKE HELL YOU WILL!!!!!!!!

    WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???????

    If you dont like unions, fine dont join one!!! Unless your a member you have NO RIGHT, moral or legal, to do any "changeing"!

    We exercise our right to assemble, and freedom of speech, to get togther and have one voice when dealing with manament , government or any body else we deal with!!!


    By the way, who wrote the check so you could start your little "tea party"?????

    Bet you dont tell, or give some BS like "we all throw a couple bucks into the hat"!

    If you threw a couple bucks into a hat it would have taken DECADES to get the tea bagger crap national!!

    SO, Ill ask you again, who wrote you the check????

    We unions are honest about where our cash comes from. Unions have to have members permission, in writing , to spend dues money on politics.

    So our side is out in the open and on the up and up.


    WHO WROTE YOUR CHECK???????
  • bhale187bhale187 Member Posts: 7,798
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    See RED above...absolutely not true. The Union is legally bound to represent Fair share payers/Dues objectors

    That sounds like coffe shop law, can you point me to where that is written in law?

    I know for a fact that at least the F.O.P. and U.A.W. here always refuse to accept greivances from fair share employees and they never get called on it.
  • UNIVERSITY50UNIVERSITY50 Member Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    SCOUT5,
    That last reply sounds a little like something from 1930's Germany. Have you been reading Mein Kampf again? Re-educate them? Really!! Well I hope "They" show up at my doorstep to TEACH ME! I Guess we will all end up in Camps with Large Ovens.
    Everyone knows there are the people that are Far Left & those that are Far Right, but even if both side will not admit it, 95% of the rest of the Nation all sit somewhere in the Middle. Sometimes we lean to the Right & sometimes to the Left, that is what keeps us moving along.[:)]
  • UNIVERSITY50UNIVERSITY50 Member Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    One might wish to reflect upon the National Socialist Party's approach to trade unions, as well.

    Of course, it was all for the good of the country back then, too.

    Well then the Tea Party would fit that bill also, it is a Union.

    Definitions of union (n)
    act of joining together: the act of joining together people or things to form a whole
    result of joining together: a result of joining together people or things
    agreement: agreement or unity of interests or opinions
    Synonyms: amalgamation, combination, blending, coming together, joining together, unification, merger
  • the middlethe middle Member Posts: 3,089
    edited November -1
    Well Scouts, who wrote that check?????
  • reloader44magreloader44mag Member Posts: 18,783 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bhale187
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    See RED above...absolutely not true. The Union is legally bound to represent Fair share payers/Dues objectors

    That sounds like coffe shop law, can you point me to where that is written in law?

    I know for a fact that at least the F.O.P. and U.A.W. here always refuse to accept greivances from fair share employees and they never get called on it.
    I'm not going to get into this with you...contact a labor law attorney and ask about "Duty of fair representation" law suits...
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Oh boy,......another union thread!

    Personally I only worked for a unionized company one time in my life. I quit within months of seeing all the BS and wasted time that takes place. Funny thing is I went right back to work for MORE money than I was making before.

    When the foreman would blow the break whistle, these dolts would stop immediately regardless of how much time it was going to cost in terms of getting the job finished. Call me stupid, but if I was within an hour or two of finishing my work, I would finish the job first and then eat, no big deal to me, and a heck of a lot more efficient for the employer.

    I really don't give a rats butt about what unions do in the private sector, but I sure as heck don't believe in public sector employee unions at all. If you don't like your Government job,.....quit and give it to someone else that might actually work.

    Even in Florida where there is very little union activity, the government employees are the laziest slugs you will ever find by and large,.......there are exceptions of course, but they are few and far between. Most are so confident that they can't be fired, they do the bare minimum to get by.

    My own fiancee is a state employee and thinks she pays too much for health insurance for her and her son. Less than 100 bucks a month is taken from her check and she makes in the 50K range.
    Pension is 100% funded,.....she pays nothing on her own.

    If I was a private employer that ran a business where the workers tried to unionize, I would fire them all, or simply shut the thing down. Has nothing to do with wages or benefits either, it has to do with the fact that I would not tolerate all the BS and wasted time involved in dealing with folks like that.

    Also as the person that started the business, I would not be told by employees how I was going to operate. If you want to do that,.....start your own damn business and run it the way you see fit.

    Somehow I was always able to 'negotiate' my own wages and benefits, and was satisfied with the employers I worked for. I never asked for a raise in my life,.....they just came all by themselves on a regular basis. Might have had to do with the fact I busted my * and made my employer a lot of money. For some reason when you do that, they sure as heck don't want to lose you.

    There was a time I guess where they did some good,.....those days are long gone now. A bunch of crooked thieves run them, so at least they have a lot in common with the politicians.

    One other thing I have noticed in all of the union protesting. I have never seen a bigger collection of fat slobs in my life! Is there a requirement that you must weigh a minimum of 300 pounds to belong to a union?
    Watched a show the other night in a plant making vehicles full of UAW members. I would guess that about 10 to 15% of the folks I saw on film were not obese.

    What's the deal with that?[:0][:D]
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • armilitearmilite Member Posts: 35,490 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:scottm21166
    Advanced Member



    Cuba
    14555 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2011 : 01:50:39 AM

    It occurs to me, there are alot o union members here. I know we like to back unions as a group because we remember they brought us out of the over worked underpaid era in america...or at least we think they did. What hey really did, was price us as employee's right out f a job.
    Not because everyone took their business ofshore but because companies figured out it was cheaper and easier in the long run to creat machines to do the things we used to do by hand.
    No it takes two people working full time to have the same thing we had when dad went to work and mom stayed home to raise us right.
    Bt the question I have is this. If it is unconstitutional for the government to demand us to pay for health insurance why is it constitutiional for a union to demand we join them to work a job?
    I can't work in a trade without being in a union, not a truck driver, teacher, fisherman. I can't even take a job as a ditch digger without joining a union...How is that right?And what have unions done for us lately (besides drive our employers out of business)
    The free market should determine salary and benefits for everyone then maybe people would actually focus in school insead of waiting for a legecy membership in the local union.


    Wrong, you can do this in prison, no union requirements there.
  • bhale187bhale187 Member Posts: 7,798
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    quote:Originally posted by bhale187
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    See RED above...absolutely not true. The Union is legally bound to represent Fair share payers/Dues objectors

    That sounds like coffe shop law, can you point me to where that is written in law?

    I know for a fact that at least the F.O.P. and U.A.W. here always refuse to accept greivances from fair share employees and they never get called on it.
    I'm not going to get into this with you...contact a labor law attorney and ask about "Duty of fair representation" law suits...

    So sorry to have bothered you with the question. I went ahead and checked the law here in Illinois myself, and I was right the first time around. IL only requires the union to represent those in the 'unit' and the unit is defined as union members, not fair share members.
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,178 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Unions are no better or worse than the folks who run them - they comprise only about 7% of the private work force so I don't see getting all that excited about them one way or the other. I deal with the SEIU and have a good relationship, but all this "working brothers" approach by them goes only so far. When the local here couldn't get members to OK increased monthly dues the national threatened to pull their affiliation. Amazingly, of 3,000 members only 100 showed up for the vote and 90 approved it. Quadaffi wishes he could rig an election that well. [;)]

    The government doesn't support unions out of love for the working man, it's simple economics. A fewllow making $20.00 an hr pays more in taxes and contributes more money to the economy than a fellow making $10.00.

    The flaw in the union approach is that unless in a right to work state, once the union is in they tend to operate as a monopoly and ultimatel, that doesn't give their members the best "product" so to speak. From what I see, folks complain more about their union than any company they work for. I think that's the big flaw of the unions - very little or no competition leads to their leadership doing a lousy job. I have to think that has something to do with such low representation in the work place.
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,178 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bhale187
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    quote:Originally posted by bhale187
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    See RED above...absolutely not true. The Union is legally bound to represent Fair share payers/Dues objectors

    That sounds like coffe shop law, can you point me to where that is written in law?

    I know for a fact that at least the F.O.P. and U.A.W. here always refuse to accept greivances from fair share employees and they never get called on it.
    I'm not going to get into this with you...contact a labor law attorney and ask about "Duty of fair representation" law suits...

    So sorry to have bothered you with the question. I went ahead and checked the law here in Illinois myself, and I was right the first time around. IL only requires the union to represent those in the 'unit' and the unit is defined as union members, not fair share members.


    It can get a bit complicated. The CBA our employees use speaks to union duties regarding nonunion members and there is a distinction made between the two. IIRC disciplinary, grievance and other "non-economic" specifics of the CBA are not applied to non-union members. A CBA can be very well written or poorly and the definition of what is "economic" and not economic can be fuzzy. There is in general a duty to represent but as usual the devil is in the details.
  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,181 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    Well Scouts, who wrote that check?????


    I have many other things to do besides sit on my computer, today I worked, 12 hours in fact. I got paid well for it, and I am not in a union.

    I see the truth is going to mean little to you. Our Tea Party group started with effort and some self paid ads in the local rags to let people know we were there. We got an amazing response. It doesn't take money to do most of what we do. There is not a national Tea Party directing our movement. There is a loose afiliation with other groups. The media keeps thrying to place someone as our national leaders, I guess you buy into that.

    Yes we raised our own money, mostly out of our own pockets. What you choose to believe is obviously up to you. Our budget isn't very large really. Again believe what you want. No one wrote us a check to get started, do you understand, NO ONE. Oh that's right, you didn't want me to tell you the truth, it doesn't fit what you wish to believe. I respond simply because I want other readers to know the truth.

    The voters of this country will teach the unions some hard lessons if the unions continue to try shoving socialism down our throats by supporting POS socialist like BHO. I have made an honest attempt to relay that point without insulting or getting hostile. If you take my opinion as insulting so be it. There is a very strong drive to move this country to socialism and the unions as a whole are a major force, the hammer if you will, pushing in that direction. If that insults you, fine, it is your mind doing the processing.

    When I said we will change them, did you think I meant? I meant the American people, those of us who still believe in liberty, personal freedom, and personal free enterprise. You know, the things unions don't believe in, if they believed in them they would support them instead of POS socialist like BHO and others of his ilk. Actions speak, when the union's actions promote socialism that is all the proof needed to understand their beliefs.

    If this goes to the street are the unions going to arm themselves and fight for the imperial power they so much admire or are they going to fight for liberty and personal freedom? What are you going to do? I suggested and am lobbying for an alternative, seems you are not interested in that.
  • stegsteg Member Posts: 871 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    One of the classic cases of Union abuse ruining an American industry is what happened to the US Merchant Marine.
    Today, it is almost impossible for a young lad to go to sea unless he joins the Coast Guard or the Navy. If he goes to a shipping company to get a job on a ship, he is told to go to register with the Coast Guard. The CG will tell him they can't register him unless he has a ship-board job or a letter if intent to hire from the ships owners. The shipping company or ship owners then tells him they can't give him the letter unless he is a union member. When he goes to the appropriate maritime union, they tell him he can't join unless he has his Coast Guard "ticket". Over the last few years, only one or two graduates of our Merchant Marine Academies are able to get steady shipboard employment.
    Going to sea now-a-days has become a "Father and Son" proposition because of the maritime unions.
    During WWII, when our Merchant Marine was the greatest the world has ever seen, and the Maritime Unions were at their most powerful, they were able to get Congress to enact job protection work legislation that effectively destroyed our merchant marine in the post WWII years. We now have one of the smallest merchant fleets in the world....simply because American ship owners cannot economically compete with foreign flag vessels.
    American ships that must be manned under law by 42 men and officers are routinely manned with a crew of 19 under foreign flag....the labor balance being made up by the use of computors which are not allowed on US ships.
    If you have any doubt of this, just look at any cruise ship line....a multi billion dollar a year business.....none of the ships are registered in the US nor do they have any Americans in their operating crews!
  • JasonVJasonV Member Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    I would like to point out to you all that my union (the IBEW) PROHIBITS socialist, communeist, nazism, or any other unAmerican "ism" from having any part in the union!!! ITS ON PAGE 1!!!

    Hell, about half the guys I work with are republicians!!

    I am a vet. as are most of my co-workers, and none, NONE of us are socialist!!!

    I RESENT BEING CALLED THAT!!!!!!!

    NEVER in ALL my years of going to union meetings was socialism EVER brought up!!!!

    I have never gotten socialist or commie propaganda in the mail from my union, EVER!!!!


    Is that true in all unions, I dont know, but I doubt any Bad "ism" is in any union.....All that is is right wing HATE being spread to enjoyn fear into people who are too weak minded to know better!!!!




    That being said, I somewhat agree with the idea that FORCEED union membership is wrong!! I somewhat agree with right to work in that respect. BUT, I also feel that IF a person takes advantage of collective bargining in a right to work state they BETTER join the union, or they are a complete fool!!


    I do not think all union members are socialist, or even that all unions desire socialism.

    However when over 90% of unions (collectively) political contributions go to the democratic party, which is driving the bus straight to socialism, what does that say? When the union members organize to promote, and encourage the union members to vote for candidates who are voting us into socialism, what does that say.

    Perhaps your union doesn't do this and runs a good program. If so your union should do well in a true free market. But collectively the unions are a strong part of the engine driving us into a socialist state. IMO unions (collectively) have become a threat to liberty in this country. It does not have or need to be that way, but it is. How do we change that?



    What the hell is it with some people who think that anyone who is not a republican or tea bagger, or dont have the same views as themselves is automaticly a socialist or commie??

    Really, COME ON!!!! It way beyond getting old already!!!


    I admit there are some kooks in the democratic party, there are also some in the republican too. BUT, I dont think ANY are true socialist!! WHY would they??????? Most of them are very wealthy. It would not be in anyones interest, especialy their own, to be socialist!!


    GROW UP!!!!!

    QUIT WATCHING FOX NEWS GARBAGE!!!!!!(same goes with msnbc by the way[8D])


    To keep calling the democrats socialist is just as stupid as calling the republicans nazis........it just makes you look dumb!!!


    Some things you may want to understand. I am not pro-republican, I very seldom watch FOX news and it is even more rare that I see any of Glen Becks stuff, in fact I can't recall ever watching his show.

    I am active in my local Tea Party Patriots group. They are a good bunch of hard working folks. We spend the largest part of our efforts in our own county, lord knows we have enough local problems with out all the national mess. We are involved on the state and national level, just most of our efforts are very local. We are in part if not greatly responsible for some socialist leaning politicians being booted from office. Call us what you wish, we are doing good work.

    As for me portraying people and groups as socialist. If someone or an organization works to promote socialist ideas and concepts here in America, what do you wish me to call them? Do most of these people think of it in this way, NO they do not. In fact most of them are ignorant to the dangers of what they are promoting. Some of course know exactly what they are doing and they manipulate the rest. However they are every bit as dangerous to this country as a pure ideologist of socialism. Actions bring results even if the actions are not understood by the person performing them.

    Currently buying union = promoting socialism due to the reasons I have stated. If you want to help fix that then help educate the unions members. Better to educate them and have them change themselves than to keep angering the rest of America until the unions are dealt with post haste.

    This issue is in front of us, how it is dealt with is very much up to the unions and the members. Change themselves or we will change them.



    Change them for us???? LIKE HELL YOU WILL!!!!!!!!

    WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???????

    If you dont like unions, fine dont join one!!! Unless your a member you have NO RIGHT, moral or legal, to do any "changeing"!

    We exercise our right to assemble, and freedom of speech, to get togther and have one voice when dealing with manament , government or any body else we deal with!!!


    By the way, who wrote the check so you could start your little "tea party"?????

    Bet you dont tell, or give some BS like "we all throw a couple bucks into the hat"!

    If you threw a couple bucks into a hat it would have taken DECADES to get the tea bagger crap national!!

    SO, Ill ask you again, who wrote you the check????

    We unions are honest about where our cash comes from. Unions have to have members permission, in writing , to spend dues money on politics.

    So our side is out in the open and on the up and up.


    WHO WROTE YOUR CHECK???????



    nice rant
    once your temper takes over you have lost the argument
    formerly known as warpig883
  • victorlvlbvictorlvlb Member Posts: 5,004
    edited November -1
    If eight to ten percent of the people in the U.S.A are union, then ninety percent of you are screwing things up.If your city or state employs 100,000 people and only 10,000 of then are union , who's zooming who?
  • scottm21166scottm21166 Member Posts: 20,723
    edited November -1
    Nord.
    What you say is true especially the part about there being more workers than jobs. Thats where we are now with 20% real unemployment and more mouths to feed moving north every day.
    I think without a union, every employer would hire the guy who could do the work for the least amount of money. It would lead to abuse by the companies.
    Its the public sector that doesn't need a union. They should have their pay regulated by prevailing wage and pay for a portion of their bennifits like everyone else.
  • OLDCOPOLDCOP Member Posts: 629 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I won't enter this fray, but will give you two issues from my own life. I belonged to a police union, which was always trying to get us to protest to our city that we weren't being paid enough. The problem is that we had no complaint as our department was consistently the highest paid in the state. In fact, the city manager kept track of the salaries of all the other departments and when a department elsewhere was paid more, they atuomatically upped our salaries. The union managers were p....d that we wouldn't join their street protests.

    Second, and recently, my wife retired from a county job where she was required to join the union thru not-so-subtle pressure. The union reps consistently "fought" for reclassifications and pay hikes. They never succeeded in her time and in recent years actually lost ground. I told her she didn't have to pay $76.00 a month for union dues, especially if there was no return. She tried to quit, but was told that she didn't meet the window that the union established, so she had to wait 10 months until the next window opened. She sent in her resignation in timely fashion and it was ignored and she was continually docked the union dues. After hiring an attorney, the union finally stopped her dues but began to harass her at work, calling her names, etc. In addition it took some pressure from us to get the union to repay the dues that wee illegally withheld. When the check came, it looked like every union rep had walked on it. This was happening at the same time that union management went on annual "conferences" to semi-exotic places to "confer with other chapters." Everyone knew that this was done with union dues and was a load of BS, but no one wanted to get on the union's bad side and didn't complain. Comically, the union then had the cojones to print a periodic newsletter on very expensive paper, saying how they were "fighting" for the union worker, seeking better this and that. Nothing was happening. In the same paper, the "conference" report said very little about any progress or learning, but did say how the union reps played at a great golf course, had great dinners and thoroughly enjoyed their "conference." How any union member can continue to put up with that kind of union arrogance is beyond me.

    I'm also aware of one egregious case where a teacher's tenure kept her in a job that she should have been fired from decades ago. The school didn't want to spend the money it would take to fight the union to fire her. It was cheaper to simple relegate her to a non-teaching position and pay the salary year after year. The students and the community lost the whole time she "worked." Now she enjoys a nice "union" retirement at taxpayer expense. There are many of those stories.

    I've spent about 55 years looking at unions and their histories. Yes, at one time they had a purpose, but no longer. They have instilled in each member the wrong message, especially when we're in a financial meltdown. Unions members need to use their brains and stop their overfeeding. I'm tired of paying union prices. No wonder that hire illegals to do many jobs. They work hard, complain little and are happy to have the employment.

    I know not every union member is a leech, so go ahead and yell at me and others who feel the same way. That's what unions are good at...yelling. States are right in reducing union throttle holds. If they don't, even union members will sink with the ship.
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:
    sixth, in some states you dont have to join a union if you dont want to! they are right to work (for less) states, but the average wage in those states is a lot lower than closed shop states, which I dont think is a good thing but that another subject!


    Your post was chalk full of falcities but I'll just pick this one.

    Your union job in Cleveland (Detroit, Chicago, etc) at $35/hr provides about the same standard of living as the same non-union job paying $15/hr in Dallas. Your $35/hr has to cover an awful lot of fluff that doesn't exist in the non-union job. Thugs like Richard Trumka aren't working for free - in fact, I'd be surprised if he doesn't make middle 6-figures+. Add to that multiple other layers of union costs and before you know it you need $35/hr to get by.

    Some unions are worse than others but the entire concept seems unAmerican to me. Oh the big bad company might make you work too many hours - well, go get a better job. In the real world you demand better working conditions by being worthy of them, not by having some nanny union threaten to trash the company with a strike to get them.

    It seems to me that union workers aren't self-starters and don't have the mindset to go out and do things for themselves, rather they depend on pack mentality for strength.
  • victorlvlbvictorlvlb Member Posts: 5,004
    edited November -1
    Wyatt Earp
    And the other ninety percent are doing what?
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:


    Change them for us???? LIKE HELL YOU WILL!!!!!!!!

    WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???????

    If you dont like unions, fine dont join one!!! Unless your a member you have NO RIGHT, moral or legal, to do any "changeing"!

    We exercise our right to assemble, and freedom of speech, to get togther and have one voice when dealing with manament , government or any body else we deal with!!!


    By the way, who wrote the check so you could start your little "tea party"?????

    Bet you dont tell, or give some BS like "we all throw a couple bucks into the hat"!

    If you threw a couple bucks into a hat it would have taken DECADES to get the tea bagger crap national!!

    SO, Ill ask you again, who wrote you the check????

    We unions are honest about where our cash comes from. Unions have to have members permission, in writing , to spend dues money on politics.

    So our side is out in the open and on the up and up.


    WHO WROTE YOUR CHECK???????



    The thuggery typical of the union mind comes out in your post. You're used to pushing your way around, it's the union way. Got news for ya though, you're a dying breed and your union thugs aren't welcome here in the still-free part of the country where corporations are relocating to escape union thuggery.

    Did it ever dawn on you that right-to-work states are the ones thriving now? Did it ever dawn on you that it's total BS to suggest that we feel like we don't have GREAT non-union jobs and lives in right-to-work states????????? We have a great standard of living down here that we wouldn't trade for your union way of life for anything, so keep crapping in your OWN nest and keep your union BS up there!
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by victorlvlb
    Wyatt Earp
    And the other ninety percent are doing what?


    You union types err in thinking we want or need your help in right-to-work states. You've crapped in your own nest for decades and ruined your region - we don't want that here!

    I get sick and tired of hearing you union guys suggest that unions can make our jobs better. Look at what it's done for you!!! Your states/cities are broke, you have chased jobs/factories to other countries and to right-to-work states. No thank you, we don't want your help - our standard of living is just fine, thank you.
  • the middlethe middle Member Posts: 3,089
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by the middle
    Well Scouts, who wrote that check?????


    I have many other things to do besides sit on my computer, today I worked, 12 hours in fact. I got paid well for it, and I am not in a union.

    I see the truth is going to mean little to you. Our Tea Party group started with effort and some self paid ads in the local rags to let people know we were there. We got an amazing response. It doesn't take money to do most of what we do. There is not a national Tea Party directing our movement. There is a loose afiliation with other groups. The media keeps thrying to place someone as our national leaders, I guess you buy into that.

    Yes we raised our own money, mostly out of our own pockets. What you choose to believe is obviously up to you. Our budget isn't very large really. Again believe what you want. No one wrote us a check to get started, do you understand, NO ONE. Oh that's right, you didn't want me to tell you the truth, it doesn't fit what you wish to believe. I respond simply because I want other readers to know the truth.

    The voters of this country will teach the unions some hard lessons if the unions continue to try shoving socialism down our throats by supporting POS socialist like BHO. I have made an honest attempt to relay that point without insulting or getting hostile. If you take my opinion as insulting so be it. There is a very strong drive to move this country to socialism and the unions as a whole are a major force, the hammer if you will, pushing in that direction. If that insults you, fine, it is your mind doing the processing.

    When I said we will change them, did you think I meant? I meant the American people, those of us who still believe in liberty, personal freedom, and personal free enterprise. You know, the things unions don't believe in, if they believed in them they would support them instead of POS socialist like BHO and others of his ilk. Actions speak, when the union's actions promote socialism that is all the proof needed to understand their beliefs.

    If this goes to the street are the unions going to arm themselves and fight for the imperial power they so much admire or are they going to fight for liberty and personal freedom? What are you going to do? I suggested and am lobbying for an alternative, seems you are not interested in that.




    I knew you wouldnt tell the truth! You dont go from nothing to have a "tea party" in every little county and town in the nation overnight without extreme amount of cash....enter the Koch brothers....

    for your reading pleasure...I pull back the curtain......



    Peter Fenn
    Tea Party Funding Koch Brothers Emerge From Anonymity
    By Peter Fenn

    Posted: February 2, 2011
    Print
    Few in America had heard about the third-richest Americans, brothers David and Charles Koch, until just recently. Aside from David Koch's gifts to the Lincoln Center in New York and the naming of a theater after him, few outside a small, elite circle would recognize the name or know how to pronounce it. ("Koch" as in "coke")

    For decades, they were under the radar. They and their father had amassed an incredible fortune, mainly in the oil business. Their privately held company revenues last year were estimated at $100 billion. Each brother is worth $21.5 billion. That is a very big "B" in both cases.

    For many years, they have been involved in politics but not terribly open or transparent about it. It is true that David Koch ran as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket, to the right of Ronald Reagan. According to New York Times columnist Frank Rich, "his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the FBI, the CIA, and public schools." Since the Libertarian party's 1 percent showing in 1980, David Koch has very much been behind the scenes, until now. [See who donates the most to your member of Congress.]

    Jane Mayer, of The New Yorker, in her 10,000 word piece last August, peeled the cover off the onion of the Koch brothers' empire. And she focused not only on their personal wealth and family, but on their political empire building.

    It was not, and is not, easy to get the details on the extent of their tentacles. They funnel money through 501c3 tax-exempt foundations, and they give money to other foundations, lobbying organizations, and right wing think tanks. They have PACs; they support candidates. Only a small portion of what they control do they divulge.

    But it has now come out how involved they have been in funding Tea Party groups, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy ($12 million). [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the Tea Party.]

    We do know, from Mayer's reporting, that the Koch brothers have personally given over $2 million to candidates over the last 12 years, their PAC has contributed $8 million to candidates, and they have spent $50 million on lobbying. The Charles Koch Foundation has given $48 million, and another foundation they control gave $28 million. David Koch's foundation gave more than $120 million. According to Mayer, $196 million dollars in total was distributed in the last 10 years to conservative causes and institutions.

    That all, as they say, is not chicken feed, and it begs the question: How in the heck did they stay under the radar for as long as they did?

    Part of the reason is that much of what they did was not reportable but, more important, until recently they were not pouring the millions into campaigns through advertising and expenditures allowed due to the Citizens United Supreme Court case. [Read the U.S. News debate: Is the Citizens United decision hurting democracy?]

    Now, to the paranoia. These folks would make Richard Nixon's enemies list look tame. This could be a movie akin to George Clooney's Michael Clayton.

    This past weekend the Koch brothers hosted a conference in Palm Springs that resembled an armed camp. Private Koch security was everywhere-manning every doorway and stairway within range of the conference. Reporters were confronted by private security guards and told to leave or they would be arrested, and a Common Cause official had his lunch reservation canceled and was told to check out of the hotel by Koch's security detail. Young environmental activists were slapped with $100,000 law suits for demonstrating and engaging in pranks. A Politico reporter describes being thrown out and threatened with "a night in the Riverside County jail."

    All this while hiring an army of lawyers, PR flacks, political consultants, and pollsters to protect their "empire." Everywhere there were folks spinning. Even reporters, who had been paid by Koch, attended the conference to "report" on what they "learned." Well, Lord knows they have the money.

    My guess is that anonymity will not be the Koch brothers' middle name any longer





    n May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company's upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala's co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy's mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.

    The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city's most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center's New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.

    One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event's third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

    With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch-who, years ago, bought out two other brothers-among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.


    from the issuecartoon banke-mail this.The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry-especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers' corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a "kingpin of climate science denial." The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies-from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program-that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

    In a statement, Koch Industries said that the Greenpeace report "distorts the environmental record of our companies." And David Koch, in a recent, admiring article about him in New York, protested that the "radical press" had turned his family into "whipping boys," and had exaggerated its influence on American politics. But Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There's no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I've been in Washington since Watergate, and I've never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."

    A few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation-an organization that David Koch started, in 2004-held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials "have a socialist vision for this country."

    Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. "Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests," it said. "But you can do something about it." The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said, "What they don't say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens' movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires."

    PHOTOGRAPH: RICHARD SCHULMAN/CORBIS
    "Covert .

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1F9lKmvtM
  • the middlethe middle Member Posts: 3,089
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
    quote:


    Change them for us???? LIKE HELL YOU WILL!!!!!!!!

    WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???????

    If you dont like unions, fine dont join one!!! Unless your a member you have NO RIGHT, moral or legal, to do any "changeing"!

    We exercise our right to assemble, and freedom of speech, to get togther and have one voice when dealing with manament , government or any body else we deal with!!!


    By the way, who wrote the check so you could start your little "tea party"?????

    Bet you dont tell, or give some BS like "we all throw a couple bucks into the hat"!

    If you threw a couple bucks into a hat it would have taken DECADES to get the tea bagger crap national!!

    SO, Ill ask you again, who wrote you the check????

    We unions are honest about where our cash comes from. Unions have to have members permission, in writing , to spend dues money on politics.

    So our side is out in the open and on the up and up.


    WHO WROTE YOUR CHECK???????



    The thuggery typical of the union mind comes out in your post. You're used to pushing your way around, it's the union way. Got news for ya though, you're a dying breed and your union thugs aren't welcome here in the still-free part of the country where corporations are relocating to escape union thuggery.

    Did it ever dawn on you that right-to-work states are the ones thriving now? Did it ever dawn on you that it's total BS to suggest that we feel like we don't have GREAT non-union jobs and lives in right-to-work states????????? We have a great standard of living down here that we wouldn't trade for your union way of life for anything, so keep crapping in your OWN nest and keep your union BS up there!


    In case you havent noticed corporations are leaveing the country, not closed shop states!

    many of these of those leaveing are from right to work (for less) states! Explain that. (youll probably still balme the unions)

    The union "thug" has long ago gone into the dust bin of history, we are a lot better educated than the members were when unions started 100 years ago and dont put up with "thugs"! We vote a-holes like that out!

    I have no doubt that you have great jobs in right to work states, and Im really happy for you. IF all company treated their workers good out of genuine concern for their well being there would be no need for unions at all. hell Id vote mine out! But not all companys are the same now are they? The only reason that a lot of companys treat there people good is because they know if they didnt a union would be voted in.

    I think you should know that unions are in all 50 states, so we are already in your still "free" part of the nation. They are there because some companys treat there workers like chit. Look it up if you dont believe me.
  • peabopeabo Member Posts: 3,098
    edited November -1
    The union "thug" has long ago gone into the dust bin of history, we are a lot better educated than the members were when unions started 100 years ago and dont put up with "thugs"! We vote a-holes like that out!



    Yeah, right. And an election has never been rigged -- who is counting the votes? That union thug that has been mentioned.
    Same as 'Chicago style' politics.


    Thanks---Peabo
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:In case you havent noticed corporations are leaveing the country, not closed shop states!

    You know, it's futile to have a discussion with you if you make up your own facts and ask me to refute them. Ford built a big plant in Arlington, Tx, Toyota and Mitsubishi and/are building in RTW states.

    quote:The union "thug" has long ago gone into the dust bin of history, we are a lot better educated than the members were when unions started 100 years ago and dont put up with "thugs"! We vote a-holes like that out!

    Yeah, sure they have:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fascists-go-home-tea-partier-injured-in-assault-by-teamster-at-sacramento-protest/

    quote:I have no doubt that you have great jobs in right to work states, and Im really happy for you. IF all company treated their workers good out of genuine concern for their well being there would be no need for unions at all. hell Id vote mine out! But not all companys are the same now are they? The only reason that a lot of companys treat there people good is because they know if they didnt a union would be voted in.

    Well you can put someone (a union) in charge of making a company treat you fairly, or you can pull up your britches and find one yourself.

    quote:I think you should know that unions are in all 50 states, so we are already in your still "free" part of the nation. They are there because some companys treat there workers like chit. Look it up if you dont believe me.

    You have been indoctrinated, brainwashed into thinking you can't make it without a union wiping your behind. In Texas, as an example, we're still free. The roofing business is a good example, there is no licensure, you can just go in the roofing business tomorrow if you want. We live by the Latin term: Caveat Emptor, which in essense means to look out for yourself because we don't want a nanny state holding our hand and telling us how much we can make and when we should and shouldn't work.

    You should try living free for a change, heck, you might like it...and it's really the way our founding fathers meants for us to live in this country. Or, in the alternative, you can keep buying into that union bunk that tells you every business owner is a crook who wants to get rich while paying slave wages in dungeonous working conditions. Face it, your union bosses have sold you a bill of goods so that you'll keep paying union dues like obedient sheeple.
  • Duce1Duce1 Member Posts: 9,329
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    quote:Originally posted by bhale187
    quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
    See RED above...absolutely not true. The Union is legally bound to represent Fair share payers/Dues objectors

    That sounds like coffe shop law, can you point me to where that is written in law?

    I know for a fact that at least the F.O.P. and U.A.W. here always refuse to accept grievances from fair share employees and they never get called on it.
    I'm not going to get into this with you...contact a labor law attorney and ask about "Duty of fair representation" law suits...



    Yep, you are correct they do have to represent you under condition that you are a member in good standing and all dues are paid up. And to add if you dig deep into the unions by-laws they do not have to pay to represent you, they may force you to pay them to represent you. It is not free in some cases, it all depends on what step you want to take your grievance and if the union is willing to pay for it or force you to. I have seen this happen in several cases and it is one of the many reasons I do not like unions. You pay your dues and still may be forced to pay to be represented ! This has happen in the I.A.M.


    Step One: Grievance filled and meeting held. At this point you have been represented according to the union and they need not take it any farther.

    Step Two: If the union feels that they want to represent you they will if not they will charge you or drop the grievance.
  • nordnord Member Posts: 6,106
    edited November -1
    And so we come back to education or indoctrination. In my opinion many of those who believe they're educated are actually sadly lacking in such.

    I as a parent am most proud of my oldest son's reaction to a college professor who pronounced that he was going to change the way his students thought. Further, he was going to be their boss and would dictate dress codes, projects, etc. Workers/students would be required to conform to his rules.

    My son stood up and asked what would happen if he refused to comply. He was told that he'd fail. He immediately "resigned" and walked out. This led to a meeting with the dean in which I was included. Both my son and I knew what the result of the meeting would be, but we decided to enjoy it anyway. And so my first question after introductions was...

    My son aced the course, didn't he? The answer was no, but that he could return to class if he submitted to the rules. My/our answer to the dean was that the "rules" were, in fact, satisfied and that Aaron had obviously aced the course as every employee has the option of walking out the door before he's fired. He had merely taken advantage of an option that the school hadn't prepared themselves for.

    The dean considered and agreed, but then countered that class rules were school rules. Thus, my son MUST follow school rules. We politely told the dean to go to * and walked out never to return. I expect the school didn't miss either of us and I can assure you that we didn't miss the school.

    So... Play the game if you will. Allow others to do your thinking. Put yourself in a vulnerable position. Allow yourself to become indoctrinated. Take out huge loans that tie you to the system. Go ahead!

    Or think for yourself. Get an education, not necessarily a degree. Become valuable for what you carry between your ears. Don't follow the crowd. Be different. Do these things and you likely won't be popular with the "followers", but you might just succeed beyond your dreams.

    Again... Unions are for followers. Be it by choice or necessity, it makes little difference. Union membership is by definition power in numbers. A herd mentality if you will. Let's face it, a herd of cows on the stampede is a formidable sight. One cow? Not so much. And certainly the collective IQ of the herd isn't increased by the number of cows even though it still bears consideration due to numbers.

    Some of us have the ability not to be union but choose to join the herd. Too bad because a herd mentality stifles and discourages ability. Granted, there are others of us who have no choice. Protection in numbers is a matter of survival. For those seeking survival I have no quarrel.

    Others are blessed with ability to avoid the herd. We succeed or fail based on our value to society and business. Generally we think somewhat out of the box and don't understand the herd mentality. Or we do understand and refuse to participate.

    I have my doubts that those such as myself and those on the union side will ever have much in common. Our thought processes are totally different. I don't hate those who think differently, I merely believe that they're in the main very wrong. That, or that they are unable or unwilling to compete alone in this world.

    In my opinion a union member shouting that he or she is in favor of liberty, freedom, choice, and the American Way is an oxymoron of sorts. Stating such in a sentence is correct enough, but it's impossible! Unions are about control, power, and socialism. (The minute "COLLECTIVE" is used we're talking a socialist concept.) Maybe not a pretty thought, but true! And socialism in any form is the antithesis of personal freedom!

    So not much sympathy from me. It's cold in the Midwest, there are more bodies to fill them than positions to be filled, taxpayers are at their limits, and governments are broke. Tomorrow morning schools should be in session even if janitors are running the show. Professionals still on the picket line should be encouraged to join the brotherhood of the unemployed. Sympathy can (and should) be found in Webster's dictionary.
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:

    Or think for yourself. Get an education, not necessarily a degree. Become valuable for what you carry between your ears. Don't follow the crowd. Be different. Do these things and you likely won't be popular with the "followers", but you might just succeed beyond your dreams.


    + 1000
  • danielgagedanielgage Member Posts: 10,543 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    the wise men that founded this country stood together to form a more perfect union one person by himself could not do this sometimes we need to stick together if it is for the right cause just my thoughts take em or leave em you choose because we all have that freedom in the states to think for ourselves and act on our own beliefs
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by danielgage
    the wise men that founded this country stood together to form a more perfect union one person by himself could not do this sometimes we need to stick together if it is for the right cause just my thoughts take em or leave em you choose because we all have that freedom in the states to think for ourselves and act on our own beliefs


    Two totally different kinds of unions there Hoss. Unions take away individuality - that's pretty much the definition of the word. If you want that for yourself, groovy, but I darn sure don't want it to spread to my part of the world.
Sign In or Register to comment.