Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 848545556575859 LastLast
Results 856 to 870 of 873
  1. #856
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,688

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    And here all these years I always thought collective bargaining labor agreements and unionization was up to the employees themselves.....
    From what I read, some states have outlawed closed shops, where only union members may work, and union shops, where non-union employees pay a discounted rate for dues. Even though federal laws allow it, the effect of hiring union workers depends on what state the facility is located.
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  2. #857
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,688

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Actually, Scooter read it correctly.

    I still am at a loss for what you read that led you to believe the union is coming back for the bakers.

    Maybe they will... anything's possible, but there's no indication of it in the article.
    Read what, your mind? Your response certainly didn't reflect it.

    I realize the company didn't put it in what I imagine would be your words:
    That danged WSJ is full of bulldung
    and "merely" had to go out of their way publishing a correction while only saying “statements attributed to various Hostess officials were incomplete and did not reflect the company’s policies” and “none of the company representatives stated or intended to imply that Hostess will be avoiding union-represented employees or job applicants” while the WSJ headline was "New Twinkie Maker Shuns Union Labor" there's a world of difference in comparing those statements.

    Maybe I'll mow the law today. Maybe I won't. Maybe Hostess will hire union workers. Maybe state laws will allow a union shop. I don't care about arguing maybes.

    What the second article reveals is the first article was wrong and definitely certain news sources get a free ride while others don't by your words and arguments.
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  3. #858
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,208

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Read what, your mind? Your response certainly didn't reflect it.
    If your mind worked like the fine tuned engines running the likes of Scooter's and mine, you'd be able to put more into the equation than what's presently in front of your nose.

    I know, there's an art to understanding the constructs of a leading question and some folks just never quite get it. Keep tryin'.

    I realize the company didn't put it in what I imagine would be your words: "That danged WSJ is full of bulldung ."
    Cute. But since the WSJ is one one of the few periodicals I trust, wrong again. Keep tryin'.

    and "merely" had to go out of their way publishing a correction while only saying “statements attributed to various Hostess officials were incomplete and did not reflect the company’s policies” and “none of the company representatives stated or intended to imply that Hostess will be avoiding union-represented employees or job applicants” while the WSJ headline was "New Twinkie Maker Shuns Union Labor" there's a world of difference in comparing those statements.
    You can continue to repeat and repeat and repeat, but you still haven't climbed the "WSJ got slammed" deal you started. Until you can do that, this entire argument is pretty much burned toast.

    We all know the WSJ was "incomplete", according to Hostess, after they caught some flack.

    "WSJ got slammed!!!" and Hostess becoming unionized again are the issues here.

    I see you've got nothin' on either front.

  4. #859
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    13,757

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Yeah, they aren't stupid enough to hire union morons again.

    http://live.wsj.com/video/new-twinki...8-FEBF390A14B0

  5. #860
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    From what I read, some states have outlawed closed shops, where only union members may work, and union shops, where non-union employees pay a discounted rate for dues. Even though federal laws allow it, the effect of hiring union workers depends on what state the facility is located.
    How would state law overrule federal law? Don't tell the pro-life people.

  6. #861
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,875

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    How would state law overrule federal law? Don't tell the pro-life people.
    It wouldn't. States may restrict life further than the feds (eg local gun laws), unless the feds specifically disallow further restriction. States may not permit what the feds ban (eg legalizing murder for an extreme example), or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

    From otoc's brief post, I take it that the feds still permit closed shops.

  7. #862
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Houston
    Age
    70
    Posts
    1,050

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    States may not permit what the feds ban (eg legalizing murder for an extreme example), or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.
    So what about the states that have legalized Mary Jane? Another example of selective enforcement?
    Last edited by thewanderer; 05-07-2013 at 08:33 AM. Reason: to correct Quote marks

  8. #863
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,875

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Yeah, that example came to mind. IMHO, and no legal expert nor one who cares much about what CO does with pot, we haven't heard anywhere near the end of this one. I think we'll see the Supreme Court weighing in at some point. That's why I said "supposed to work", LOL.

  9. #864
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,688

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    It wouldn't. States may restrict life further than the feds (eg local gun laws), unless the feds specifically disallow further restriction. States may not permit what the feds ban (eg legalizing murder for an extreme example), or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

    From otoc's brief post, I take it that the feds still permit closed shops.
    Not being a union guy, I read more and found closed shops are not allowed, while union shops are still allowed. States may pass "Right to Work" legislation or similar provisions that prevents it. Google is my friend...
    A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. "Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[1] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

    Right-to-work provisions (either by law or by constitutional provision) exist in twenty-four U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States but also in northern states such as Michigan. Business interests represented by the Chamber of Commerce have lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[2][3][4][5] Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between those employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector with states that are otherwise union shop (i.e., pay union dues or lose the job) having right to work laws in effect for government employees.

    In January 2012, in the immediate aftermath of passage of Indiana's right-to-work law, Rasmussen Reports found that 74% of U.S. voters support right-to-work laws.[6]
    Active links for the quote, including Taft-Hartley are found here...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

    Hope that helps.
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  10. #865
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,115

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Given a choice...

    http://eagnews.org/thousands-of-empl...-in-wisconsin/

    housands of employees are quitting public sector unions in Wisconsin

    Tweet

    By Steve Gunn
    EAGnews.org
    MADISON, Wis. – Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says one of the goals behind Act 10, his landmark legislation that clipped the power of most public sector unions, was to give workers more freedom to decide if they wanted to belong to a union.

    He’s apparently accomplished his mission. Several of the largest public sector unions in the state have lost thousands of members over the past few years, and a great deal of wealth and political power, as well.
    The Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, lost about half of its 98,000 members since Act 10 became law in 2011, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
    That means WEAC has lot approximately half of its annual income from membership dues, which has impacted its ability to remain a force on the state political scene.
    “The financial pressure has caused the union to cut a large share of its staff,” the news report said. “For a time last year, union executives considered selling WEAC’s prominent hilltop headquarters on the south side of Madison. The union’s board stepped in and put a halt to the idea, according to sources familiar with the matter.”
    Other public sector unions have suffered big losses, as well.
    The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 48 lost nearly two-thirds of its approximately 9,000 members, the news report said. As a result the union is now more than $650,000 in debt.
    AFSCME District Council 40, another branch of the same union, has lost 36 percent of its membership, the news report said.
    The Wisconsin State Employees Union has lost more than half of its members, dropping from roughly 22,000 to somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 members, according to the newspaper.
    Some people say this is all the result of Walker’s war on unions. They note that public sector unions have long been active in the Democratic Party, and claim GOP governors like Walker have used their power to attack the unions for political purposes.
    There’s probably something to that argument, but so what? Most special interests are smart enough to make friends on both sides of the political aisle, so they can continue to remain relevant when power shifts from one party to the other.
    That’s a smart way to go.
    But the unions have stubbornly stuck almost exclusively with Democrats and worked hard to defeat Republicans in every election cycle. They shouldn’t have been surprised when the Republicans finally decided to fight back.
    But all politics aside, there’s nothing wrong with allowing public employees to determine if they want to belong to a union. Mandatory union membership, which was the norm for decades, is clearly wrong. This is America, and nobody should be forced to belong to any organization they don’t want to join, just to secure and maintain employment.
    The diminishing number of union members is more a reflection of the unions themselves that it is on Walker or his policies. Nobody forced so many employees to leave the unions. The new law simply unlocked their cage and allowed them to leave if they wanted to.
    The fact that so many took advantage suggests that public sector unions can only thrive when they have thousands of imprisoned members who have dues involuntarily deducted from their paychecks.
    If that’s the case, should their sudden demise be considered a tragedy or a happy liberation for thousands of trapped workers who simply wanted their freedom?

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #866
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,115

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Thank your union b*tches...

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #867
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    13,757

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    ^^^And don't forget to keep voting for hope and change Democrats! I'm sure Bernie will be the one that puts a stop to all of the American manufacturer job losses, lol. I guarantee these people voted Democrat 95% strong and are probably sitting at home tonight wondering where it all went wrong. Well guys let me tell you where. It was 1992 when instead of voting for someone who was against NAFTA you got behind Bill Clinton. Perot was so right when he explained that giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the US to Mexico.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    H. L. Mencken

  13. #868
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,115

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Despite the lefty astroturf efforts.. Janus is settled law now. And the result... given a choice people are leaving the unions in droves. Now the left is looking for another way to fill their coffers with your money... here is apparently their newest pitch... we'll take your money in advance.

    Loads of American workers are dropping out of unions – Now liberals have a new plan to save left's cash cow

    Government labor unions are losing dues-paying members at an unprecedented rate, which is good news for workers and bad news for liberal coffers. The mass exodus is forcing leaders on the left to address a serious problem: Their decades of financial backing from fat cat union bosses may be coming to an end.

    Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark right-to-work ruling last June (Janus v. AFSCME) and the Freedom Foundation’s efforts to inform public employees of the court’s decision, more than 40,000 union members on the West Coast have defected during the past six months alone. Now that government workers have a choice to leave their unions, they are fleeing in droves.


    The sharp decline in membership probably explains why union leaders have hatched a scheme in Oregon that they hope will become a playbook for the rest of the nation.


    Oregon House Bill 2643, authored by Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene, and scheduled to be introduced during the current legislative session, is a shot across the bow of Janus, which banned the so-called “agency” fees that government employees who successfully opted-out of full union participation were still required to pay in lieu of dues.


    The measure would replace Oregon’s existing agency fee laws by creating a slush fund from which state and local government would pay the equivalent of each employee’s monthly dues directly to the union.


    While Janus stops governments from requiring employees to make payments to unions out of their own pockets, HB-2643 proponents insist it doesn’t prevent state and local governments from supporting unions instead.


    Rather than paying a state employee a salary of $50,000, for example, from which $1,000 in agency fees would be deducted, the bill proposes to simply alter the arrangement on paper so that the employee’s revised salary is $49,000, with the state diverting the remaining $1,000 to the union itself.

    This underhanded scheme allows unions to keep lining their pockets and writing checks at liberal fundraisers.


    The concept can trace its roots back to at least 2015, when a pair of leftist law professors – correctly anticipating an anti-union outcome in Janus – authored a law review article that hypothesized a radical restructuring of government/union relationships in order to exploit a perceived loophole in the ruling.


    Union leaders and the leftist politicians they corrupt with someone else’s dues money are hopeful that this legislative monster currently on the drawing board in Oregon can be reanimated in other states too.


    Their theory, however, has any number of legal and logical holes in it.


    For starters, it envisions an impossibly unworkable arrangement in which the government represents both labor and management in collective bargaining negotiations – a prospect that makes even some union officials queasy.


    More fundamentally, though, it completely disregards the court’s clear intent in Janus.


    The whole point of Janus was to safeguard the right of government employees to decide for themselves which political causes and candidates to support – if any – with their hard-earned dollars. HB-2643 is a brazen attempt to seize that right and hand it back to a greedy, unscrupulous special interest.



    The decline of unions may seem like the natural progression of American history, but it has real political consequences, especially going into 2020. In Oregon, we’re seeing a desperate attempt to save the left’s cash cow. And if their scheme flies in Oregon, you can bet your life your state will be next.


    Aaron Withe is the Oregon director and Ashley Varner is vice president for communications of the Freedom Foundation, a West Coast-based, nonpartisan policy organization advocating free markets and limited, accountable government.
    Greedy money grabbers ain't even trying to disguise it as a "fee" any more.. they straight up take their graft up front.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #869
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,115

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    More undoing of Mr. Pen and phone's union backscratching...

    Trump Administration Blocks States From Skimming Medicaid Payments for Unions

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #870
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,725

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    More undoing of Mr. Pen and phone's union backscratching...

    Trump Administration Blocks States From Skimming Medicaid Payments for Unions

    Captain TelePrompter:

    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    "More worthless commentary from the word salad king and wannabe hall monitor who lies about his own posts..."
    Quote Originally Posted by Stinky View Post
    Taint +3
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinky View Post
    MIA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •