PDA

View Full Version : Do You Hate Unions, move to a Non-Union State



Cigar
01-07-2013, 03:15 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/298988_526566244043317_36789497_n.jpg

Peter1469
01-07-2013, 03:18 PM
I want Americans to be free to join a union, or free to not join a union.

How about you?

patrickt
01-07-2013, 03:49 PM
What state is a non-union state, Nitwit? Name a state that doesn't allow unions. Or, are you thinking about states where workers have a choice? You know what really brings a state down in the rankings? Not unions or free working people. No, it's people who make a free-will choice to be deadbeats.

ptif219
01-07-2013, 05:22 PM
I moved from Wisconsin where you have no choice to Florida years ago. Florida is a right to work state where you do not have to join a union. Funny how democrats claim choice for abortion but want to force you into unions. More hypocrisy from the party that hates freedom of choice

GrassrootsConservative
01-07-2013, 05:29 PM
I moved from Wisconsin where you have no choice to Florida years ago. Florida is a right to work state where you do not have to join a union. Funny how democrats claim choice for abortion but want to force you into unions. More hypocrisy from the party that hates freedom of choice

And the hypocrisy doesn't stop there either.
They find it absolutely atrocious that someone would benefit from unions without paying union dues, but it's completely cool with them for someone to have government handouts without paying taxes.
:rofl: what a bunch of nimrods.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 07:44 AM
I want Americans to be free to join a union, or free to not join a union.

How about you?

In my 50 years on this Earth ... no one has ever demanded that I join a Union.

How about you?

hanger4
01-08-2013, 07:51 AM
In my 50 years on this Earth ... no one has ever demanded that I join a Union.

How about you?

Yup

patrickt
01-08-2013, 09:17 AM
In my 50 years on this Earth ... no one has ever demanded that I join a Union.

How about you?

Absolutely. In my first factory job I was threatened and when I still refused to join I was fired. When I was a police officer my reports disappeared, union goons refused to cover me on calls, and I was fired. I got my job back, though, with a nice settlement and the chief who was a toady for the union left.

If you're actually black and 50 years old, you probably couldn't have gotten into most unions when you were young but I suspect you're neither black nor fifty years old but have you ever belonged to a union? Tell us your wonderful experiences with unions. I answered your question so, for once, why don't you answer a question?

Now, Nitwit, name the state that is a non-union state? You know, one that prohibits unions. Name that mythical state with no criminal unions. Or, you can admit that what you meant with your red rhetoric was a free-choice state.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 09:32 AM
I love letting experts project their expertise on things they know nothing about ... it's truly amusing.

Chris
01-08-2013, 10:25 AM
I love letting experts project their expertise on things they know nothing about ... it's truly amusing.

Criminy, cigar, you asked a direct question about anyone demanded to join a union and you get two responses you ignore as you go on to troll something else.

patrickt
01-08-2013, 10:38 AM
Cigar loves monologues and hates dialogue. He can't handle dialogue because his received talking points are shallow.

You've never answered my question about whether taxpayers have a free-will choice not to support deadbeats who have made a free-will choice not to work. Now, I'll add, tell me the non-union states, to the list of questions you can't answer.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 10:38 AM
Criminy, cigar, you asked a direct question about anyone demanded to join a union and you get two responses you ignore as you go on to troll something else.


Yep ... I asked and I got the answer I was look for.

No one makes me do anything I don't want to ... but if you joined a union because someone made you join ... then that's on you not me.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 10:41 AM
Cigar loves monologues and hates dialogue. He can't handle dialogue because his received talking points are shallow.

You've never answered my question about whether taxpayers have a free-will choice not to support deadbeats who have made a free-will choice not to work. Now, I'll add, tell me the non-union states, to the list of questions you can't answer.


Unemployment is handled differently from state to state.

If your state gives out unemployment insurance to people who don't look for work, maybe you should elect a better Governor.

hanger4
01-08-2013, 10:49 AM
Unemployment is handled differently from state to state.

If your state gives out unemployment insurance to people who don't look for work, maybe you should elect a better Governor.

Why do you ignore the others on the tax payer dole ??

Unemployment insurance ain't all of it kid !!

And how do you explain your contradiction in regards to freedom of choice ??

Chris
01-08-2013, 10:53 AM
Yep ... I asked and I got the answer I was look for.

No one makes me do anything I don't want to ... but if you joined a union because someone made you join ... then that's on you not me.

When you ask someone a question then you ought to have the common decency to respond to their answer.

On them? How? The facts is unions can force people to join them.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 10:55 AM
Why do you ignore the others on the tax payer dole ??

Unemployment insurance ain't all of it kid !!

And how do you explain your contradiction in regards to freedom of choice ??

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about ... freedom of choice about what?

Paying taxes or not paying Taxes?

If you don't want to pay your taxes ... then stop paying your taxes.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 10:57 AM
When you ask someone a question then you ought to have the common decency to respond to their answer.

On them? How? The facts is unions can force people to join them.


Look ... if you're weak enough, anyone can force you to do anything.

nic34
01-08-2013, 11:01 AM
Why do you ignore the others on the tax payer dole ??

As for myself, I don't. The richest of the rich are doing the theft.

And most folks getting assistance are honest, not the other way around as you would have us believe.

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/


Dig that mote outa your eye...

hanger4
01-08-2013, 11:01 AM
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about ... freedom of choice about what?

Paying taxes or not paying Taxes?

If you don't want to pay your taxes ... then stop paying your taxes.

The right of women to choose,

The right to not be forced in to a union. A right to work state.

Freedom of choice is freedom of choice right ??

BTW which states ban unions ??

I can't seem to find any.

GrassrootsConservative
01-08-2013, 11:04 AM
As for myself, I don't. The richest of the rich are doing the theft.

And most folks getting assistance are honest, not the other way around as you would have us believe.

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/


Dig that mote outa your eye...

Investigation Reveals Welfare Withdrawals at Bars, Sex Shops, Strip Clubs



http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/07/some-new-yorkers-withdraw-welfare-funds-at-strip-clubs-investigation-finds/#ixzz2HOta1u2t



These are the true thieves, but of course, you think this shit is okay.

Chris
01-08-2013, 11:05 AM
Look ... if you're weak enough, anyone can force you to do anything.

Not the point cigar. Nice troll tho'.

Chris
01-08-2013, 11:07 AM
As for myself, I don't. The richest of the rich are doing the theft.

And most folks getting assistance are honest, not the other way around as you would have us believe.

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/


Dig that mote outa your eye...


The richest of the rich are doing the theft.

Admittedly there are rich crooks, just as theire are poor ones, but you overgeneralize about the richest being thieves.

nic34
01-08-2013, 11:08 AM
These are the true thieves, but of course, you think this shit is okay.

Where did I say it was ok?

So you think everyone on assistance are theives?

You gotta plank in yer eye too....

Chris
01-08-2013, 11:09 AM
Where did I say it was ok?

So you think everyone on assistance are theives?

You gotta plank in yer eye too....

Just as you think the rich are thieves?

nic34
01-08-2013, 11:15 AM
Admittedly there are rich crooks, just as theire are poor ones, but you overgeneralize about the richest being thieves.

But the loudest complaints and sometimes the ONLY complaints are about individuals gaming the system, and little about the big $$$ "giveaways" to corporations, many that use it to move THOSE SAME PEOPLE'S JOBS offshore.

Again, mote in eye folks.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 11:17 AM
Not the point cigar. Nice troll tho'.


So you were forced to join a union?

Chris
01-08-2013, 11:37 AM
But the loudest complaints and sometimes the ONLY complaints are about individuals gaming the system, and little about the big $$$ "giveaways" to corporations, many that use it to move THOSE SAME PEOPLE'S JOBS offshore.

Again, mote in eye folks.

So when you blurt out the rich are thieves, you mean "the big $$$ "giveaways" to corporations". Now I am as much against social as corporate welfare, but who is the thief here? Who is doing the taking and giving away? Why it's neither the poor nor the rich but the government. It's the thief, the only one with the power to do it.

Chris
01-08-2013, 11:38 AM
So you were forced to join a union?

The question is are some forced to join unions and the answer is yes.

GrassrootsConservative
01-08-2013, 11:39 AM
and little about the big $$$ "giveaways" to corporations,

Like the $9 Billion (with a B) tax credit Obama wants to give to Wall Street?

nic34
01-08-2013, 11:40 AM
Why it's neither the poor nor the rich but the government. It's the thief, the only one with the power to do it.

Then tell your GOP friends in Bohener's congress to stop doing it.

GrassrootsConservative
01-08-2013, 11:42 AM
Then tell your GOP friends in Bohener's congress to stop doing it.

You are truly misinformed.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 11:44 AM
The question is are some forced to join unions and the answer is yes.


Ok ... I just don't know of anyone who is forced to join a Union

ptif219
01-08-2013, 11:47 AM
In my 50 years on this Earth ... no one has ever demanded that I join a Union.

How about you?

In states like Wisconsin if you go to work where there is a union you have no choice you will be a union member and union dues will be a payroll deduction

nic34
01-08-2013, 11:49 AM
You are truly misinformed.

Who controls the money? The House.

While Republicans and Corporate Democrats begin discussions on all the social welfare programs they plan to cut let’s not forget they love welfare when it’s for people who will have enough money left over to give a campaign contribution – talk about promoting dependency.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/03/fiscal-cliff-deal-packed-with-corporate-welfare/

Agravan
01-08-2013, 11:59 AM
Who controls the money? The House.

While Republicans and Corporate Democrats begin discussions on all the social welfare programs they plan to cut let’s not forget they love welfare when it’s for people who will have enough money left over to give a campaign contribution – talk about promoting dependency.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/03/fiscal-cliff-deal-packed-with-corporate-welfare/



So, the only time the house controls the money is when it is a Republican House, right? When the Dems controlled the House during the Bush years, it was Bush that controlled the money, and when they controlled the house during obama's term, it was the minority Republicans that controlled the money.
In other words, it's alway those Evil Republicans (TM) that control the money and not the poor Virtous Democrats (TM).

Chris
01-08-2013, 12:01 PM
Then tell your GOP friends in Bohener's congress to stop doing it.

I'm not a GOPer, nic. The problem is both sides the aisle do it, engage in crony capitalism. There's a thread floating around here about Delay, the k-street king of cronyism years back. He's been convicted. What about Obama?


On the Friday before Christmas, President Obama announced that he was appointing Mohamed A. El-Erian, the CEO of Pacific Investment Management Company, as the chairman of his Global Development Council.

The announcement didn’t get much attention, but it should. It exemplifies what’s wrong with Obama’s approach to economic policy, which amounts to: insult rich people as “fat cats,” raise their taxes, and then choose a favored few of them for special access.

If you’re not familiar with El-Erian, you must not be watching CNBC or attending the World Economic Forum at Davos. The son of an Egyptian ambassador to France and a French mother, El-Erian worked for 15 years, from 1983 to 1997, on the staff of the International Monetary Fund. In 1999 he joined Pimco, a California-based manager of bond funds.

El-Erian’s reputation as a money manager is not without its blemishes....

Now, maybe Pimco’s El-Erian has agreed to volunteer as chairman of President Obama’s Global Development Council entirely out of an altruistic concern for the people of the developing world. And maybe the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, volunteered to head Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness entirely out of patriotic concern for jobless Americans.

But you don’t have to be either a skeptic or a cynic to see the presidential appointment as just the latest piece of a business strategy that relies on closeness to the government as an edge. Fortune described it well in a 2009 article: “Pimco’s success stems from shrewd bets on government intervention.”

The Fortune article went on, “For example, in 2008 Gross shifted from Treasuries and corporate bonds into mortgage debt backed by Fannie and Freddie because he believed that the government would ultimately keep those government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) afloat. By May, Gross had moved 60 percent of Total Return into GSE-backed bonds, up from 20 percent the year before. ‘In a way, we’ve partnered with the government,’ says El-Erian. ‘We looked for assets that we felt the government would eventually have to own or support.’”...

@ Obama's Crony Capitalism (http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/07/president-partners-with-pimco)

patrickt
01-08-2013, 12:08 PM
And the Senate's budget?

Chris
01-08-2013, 12:20 PM
Ok ... I just don't know of anyone who is forced to join a Union

Two members just answered you they were. Maybe you need to remove the mote, or the beam.

nic34
01-08-2013, 12:42 PM
So, the only time the house controls the money is when it is a Republican House, right? When the Dems controlled the House during the Bush years, it was Bush that controlled the money, and when they controlled the house during obama's term, it was the minority Republicans that controlled the money.
In other words, it's alway those Evil Republicans (TM) that control the money and not the poor Virtous Democrats (TM).


Republicans and Corporate Democrats

Guess you didn't read the piece...

nic34
01-08-2013, 12:44 PM
I'm not a GOPer, nic. The problem is both sides the aisle do it, engage in crony capitalism. There's a thread floating around here about Delay, the k-street king of cronyism years back. He's been convicted. What about Obama?

@ Obama's Crony Capitalism (http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/07/president-partners-with-pimco)


Both parties are guilty, but not equally.

Chris
01-08-2013, 12:57 PM
Both parties are guilty, but not equally.

How do you measure that when crony capitalism, be it welfare or corporate welfare, requires bipartisan support?

Bigred1cav
01-08-2013, 03:11 PM
They are most contracts now have a "Fair Share" clause. Agency shop language requires joining and maintaining union membership after passing the employers probationary period. Union Shops are unlawful. Used as a big lie by gop and employers.

Bigred1cav
01-08-2013, 03:17 PM
I think some of you do not have any inkling of what a union is or does.

A union contract with and employers lays out the rights and duties of the employer and employees.

If an Agency Shop is included in the language, the employer agreed to that provision. That provision requires those employed by the employer after the probation period established by the employer. Join and maintain membership in the union.

Many contracts now contain Fair Share language and that provides the employee pay the fair share of negotiating and enforcing the agreement.

patrickt
01-08-2013, 05:21 PM
They are most contracts now have a "Fair Share" clause. Agency shop language requires joining and maintaining union membership after passing the employers probationary period. Union Shops are unlawful. Used as a big lie by gop and employers.

Requiring an employee to join and maintain union membership is the definition of a closed shop.
"A shop in which persons are required to join a particular union as a precondition to employment and to remain union members for the duration of their employment."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Closed+Shop

"An agency shop is a form of union security agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement) where the employer may hire union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) or non-union workers, and employees need not join the union in order to remain employed.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Pynes-1)However, the non-union worker must pay a fee to cover collective bargaining costs.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Pynes-1) The fee paid by non-union members under the agency shop is known as the "agency fee."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Guerin-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Mauer-3)Where the agency shop is illegal, as is common in labor law governing American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) public sector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector) unions, a "fair share provision" may be agreed to by the union and the employer.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Guerin-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Mauer-3) The provision requires non-union employees a pay "fair share fee" to cover the costs of the union's collective bargaining activities. The "fair share" is similar to the agency shop, but usually more restrictive as to what may be charged to the non-member.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Guerin-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-Mauer-3) In Canada, the agency fee is usually known as the Rand formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop#cite_note-4)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop

Whether you call it a closed shop, an agency shop, or there is a contract with a so-called "Fair Share Provision" it's all just different ways of saying if you want to work in that business, you pay the union.
Don't let union goons on the left try to confuse you with silly semantic games. And just remember that unions, as with any corporation, is in business for the money. Sadly, the business of unions is extortion.

patrickt
01-08-2013, 05:24 PM
Cigar, I'm still waiting to hear which state it is that is a non-union state? Are you still looking for one or are you making a free-will choice to not answer?