RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 343 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
If you concur with my post including the last paragraph, them we are in agreement and I guess the case is "closed".

Miller time.

Pretty simple. If working at a union job and being represented by a union isn't in their best interest, there's lots of non-union jobs around. They can quit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Pretty simple. If working at a union job and being represented by a union isn't in their best interest, there's lots of non-union jobs around. They can quit.


Or they can petition their respective governments to pass laws which protect their right to assoicate or not to associate with whomever they choose in the workplace.. Nobody likes being forced to buy something they don't want. It's up to you to sell your service to them and make them want to hire you. The Vegas union figured it out and built a better mousetrap. If you like the old mousetrap, keep it. That's up to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17353
Location: The blue parts of the map
Yeah. Like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Ronald Reagan was a union "boss".


But he was a very unpopular union "boss."

Just like New Yorkers were onto drumpf 30 years ago, L.A. was onto ronzo. For all the good it did.

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

Or they can petition their respective governments to pass laws which protect their right to assoicate or not to associate with whomever they choose in the workplace.. Nobody likes being forced to buy something they don't want. It's up to you to sell your service to them and make them want to hire you. The Vegas union figured it out and built a better mousetrap. If you like the old mousetrap, keep it. That's up to you.

Oh, this is just hilarious. This isn't about sales. This is about improving lives. All you guys think about is the dollars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:35 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Oh, this is just hilarious. This isn't about sales. This is about improving lives. All you guys think about is the dollars.

Well okay. This is about persuasion. It is up to you to convince potential members that they are better off belonging to your union than not. Vegas Culinary Union figured out to get it done. I would spend more time duplicating their model. But if you like the old ways then stick with the old ways.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:16 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
Well okay. This is about persuasion. It is up to you to convince potential members that they are better off belonging to your union than not. Vegas Culinary Union figured out to get it done. I would spend more time duplicating their model. But if you like the old ways then stick with the old ways.

Um, Joe, I was the one that POSTED this thread celebrating what this union has done. It's not the only union doing great things. My union thrives in the anti-union south. I'm afraid you've taken the wrong lesson from it. I'm not surprised.

The other thread posted about wildly corrupt people in Fiat-Chrysler and the United Auto Workers is the antonym of this lesson. I'm dejected, disheartened and appalled that such corruption existed in such a fine union. It's hard to believe that such things were going on without the top leadership knowing something about it.

It's very true that unions got fat and happy for too long, and their job is to be relevant in the world, to make lives better for workers, not to fill their own pockets. Many unions are doing just that. That's the labor movement I want, and a labor movement I champion.

My views on right-to-work are apart from that. It's like when you buy a house where there is a homeowners association. You have to join that association, and you have to pay dues, and you have to abide by the rules of that association. If you don't like homeowners associations - and some folks don't - you don't have to buy the house, there are plenty of places to live without one.

But I don't see Republicans clamoring for a "right-to-own" law where homeowners don't have to join the homeowners association if they don't want to. It's the same thing. My house I sold last year was in one. The Association was often a pain in the ass, but I'll say this - I made quite a profit on my house when I sold it. So being in a union has made my life better, and so did that association.

So, people banding together for their betterment is a great thing, and laws should be in place to strengthen such action, not destroy it. Before you start in on "collectivism" just remember what corporations are. Right-to-work laws are in place, not for freedom, but to weaken the collective power of workers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:29 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Um, Joe, I was the one that POSTED this thread celebrating what this union has done. It's not the only union doing great things. My union thrives in the anti-union south. I'm afraid you've taken the wrong lesson from it. I'm not surprised.

The other thread posted about wildly corrupt people in Fiat-Chrysler and the United Auto Workers is the antonym of this lesson. I'm dejected, disheartened and appalled that such corruption existed in such a fine union. It's hard to believe that such things were going on without the top leadership knowing something about it.

It's very true that unions got fat and happy for too long, and their job is to be relevant in the world, to make lives better for workers, not to fill their own pockets. Many unions are doing just that. That's the labor movement I want, and a labor movement I champion.

My views on right-to-work are apart from that. It's like when you buy a house where there is a homeowners association. You have to join that association, and you have to pay dues, and you have to abide by the rules of that association. If you don't like homeowners associations - and some folks don't - you don't have to buy the house, there are plenty of places to live without one.

But I don't see Republicans clamoring for a "right-to-own" law where homeowners don't have to join the homeowners association if they don't want to. It's the same thing. My house I sold last year was in one. The Association was often a pain in the ass, but I'll say this - I made quite a profit on my house when I sold it. So being in a union has made my life better, and so did that association.

So, people banding together for their betterment is a great thing, and laws should be in place to strengthen such action, not destroy it. Before you start in on "collectivism" just remember what corporations are. Right-to-work laws are in place, not for freedom, but to weaken the collective power of workers.


You make some good points. Your analogy regarding a homeowners association is one of the better ones. If I were forced to join a homeowners association which formed after I purchased my property I would have the same complaint and rightfully so. And I probably would not be alone. Further we are speaking not about property maintenance and improvements but about personal representation. Two different products. I feel strongly that I should not be forced to pay for representation unless I choose my representative. It’s that simple. The representative should have to demonstrate to me that they are worth the money I will pay them for representation. The union in Vegas was successfully able to do that in a right to work state. If I were in your business, I would be encouraging my fellow union members to look to that model. I am sure some of them are. As you said, it is about relevance in a changing business and work environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:47 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

You make some good points. Your analogy regarding a homeowners association is one of the better ones. If I were forced to join a homeowners association which formed after I purchased my property I would have the same complaint and rightfully so. And I probably would not be alone. Further we are speaking not about property maintenance and improvements but about personal representation. Two different products. I feel strongly that I should not be forced to pay for representation unless I choose my representative. It’s that simple. The representative should have to demonstrate to me that they are worth the money I will pay them for representation. The union in Vegas was successfully able to do that in a right to work state. If I were in your business, I would be encouraging my fellow union members to look to that model. I am sure some of them are. As you said, it is about relevance in a changing business and work environment.

Untrue about HOAs. They are set up pretty much like unions, and they are democratic. You can go to HOA meetings, and vote on your leadership.

Most HOAs are formed when the properties are built, but then, most workers come to work at a facility that is already unionized. So, your argument falls right there. You made the point that you'd only be upset if one was formed after the fact, so your same argument should be that if you go to work at an already-unionized workplace, you'd have no problem with paying fees to the union being a requirement of your employment.

After all, you know the rules coming in. If you don't like it, don't take the job, right?

I think you'll find that if homeowners form an HOA AFTER the fact, it's a democratic vote, and then everyone is required to join and abide by the HOA.

HOAs have extreme power - they can actually confiscate your property from you, and they also have to pass on who you sell your property to. They also have veto power on how much you sell your property for.

And yet I don't hear any Republicans screaming "FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM" about HOAs. It shows the sheer dishonesty of the argument about unions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:59 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Untrue about HOAs. They are set up pretty much like unions, and they are democratic. You can go to HOA meetings, and vote on your leadership.

Most HOAs are formed when the properties are built, but then, most workers come to work at a facility that is already unionized. So, your argument falls right there. You made the point that you'd only be upset if one was formed after the fact, so your same argument should be that if you go to work at an already-unionized workplace, you'd have no problem with paying fees to the union being a requirement of your employment.

After all, you know the rules coming in. If you don't like it, don't take the job, right?

I think you'll find that if homeowners form an HOA AFTER the fact, it's a democratic vote, and then everyone is required to join and abide by the HOA.

HOAs have extreme power - they can actually confiscate your property from you, and they also have to pass on who you sell your property to. They also have veto power on how much you sell your property for.

And yet I don't hear any Republicans screaming "FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM" about HOAs. It shows the sheer dishonesty of the argument about unions.


You are correct that if I take a job in a union shop, then I accept the fact going in that I am obligated to the union for representation. Again, I make a personal decision to accept that before taking the job. However, if I work for a business that unionized after I enter employment, I should not be forced to pay for representation I did not ask for and did not contract for. I should not be forced after the fact to pay for a service I neither want or need. It should be the unions job to convince me otherwise. If they cannot do that then they are not entitled to my money. IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

You are correct that if I take a job in a union shop, then I accept the fact going in that I am obligated to the union for representation. Again, I make a personal decision to accept that before taking the job. However, if I work for a business that unionized after I enter employment, I should not be forced to pay for representation I did not ask for and did not contract for. I should not be forced after the fact to pay for a service I neither want or need. It should be the unions job to convince me otherwise. If they cannot do that then they are not entitled to my money. IMO.

Most people want those union jobs because of the superior pay and benefits. Paying union fees is part of that equation. Plus, when unions are organized, there is a democratic vote, and then when a contract is negotiated, the workers receive the increased pay and better benefits, which more than covers the cost of the fees.

I'm saying fees rather than dues because you are NEVER forced to JOIN an organizing - we have freedom of association in America - although corporations, through intimidation and other illegal tactics don't seem to believe in such a thing. The fees you would pay if you don't want to join the union are for costs associated with negotiating and servicing a contract. That means you can file a grievance, and the union pays all costs associated with that grievance, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars if it goes to arbitration. These are very real and tangible monetary benefits to working at a union workplace, so I certainly feel that it is reasonable.

Also remember the workers at a workplace can also decertify the union with a simple majority, so they have rights to do so too, if they don't like it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Most people want those union jobs because of the superior pay and benefits. Paying union fees is part of that equation. Plus, when unions are organized, there is a democratic vote, and then when a contract is negotiated, the workers receive the increased pay and better benefits, which more than covers the cost of the fees.

I'm saying fees rather than dues because you are NEVER forced to JOIN an organizing - we have freedom of association in America - although corporations, through intimidation and other illegal tactics don't seem to believe in such a thing. The fees you would pay if you don't want to join the union are for costs associated with negotiating and servicing a contract. That means you can file a grievance, and the union pays all costs associated with that grievance, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars if it goes to arbitration. These are very real and tangible monetary benefits to working at a union workplace, so I certainly feel that it is reasonable.

Also remember the workers at a workplace can also decertify the union with a simple majority, so they have rights to do so too, if they don't like it.


I understand the process but If we have freedom of association, if I choose not to associate with the union, why should I have to pay a fee at all? That assumes we are speaking of a new union and not an existing contract prior to taking a job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

I understand the process but If we have freedom of association, if I choose not to associate with the union, why should I have to pay a fee at all? That assumes we are speaking of a new union and not an existing contract prior to taking a job.

Once again, freedom of association doesn't enter into it, as you aren't required to be a member. But you are paying the fee for real and tangible monetary benefits. The Union is required to represent you, so the costs should be shared among all the workers getting those benefits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358

Sorry, that's a lie. Prove


You know it is true and I am amazed you clsimed I am lying.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:27 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
Sorry, that's a lie. Prove


You know it is true and I am amazed you clsimed I am lying.

You are. Our conversation was far more nuanced than what you are claiming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
You are. Our conversation was far more nuanced than what you are claiming.



Later when I am on my laptop I will address this if I have time

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371


Later when I am on my laptop I will address this if I have time

Will the NRA hire anti-gun activists? Should they? Yes or no?

But the bottom line is this: You are just throwing this out to distract. That has NOTHING to do with this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 13173
Will the NRA hire anti-gun activists? Should they? Yes or no?

But the bottom line is this: You are just throwing this out to distract. That has NOTHING to do with this thread.

Glen is doing, without knowing it, what kgb operatives and gop operatives are trained to do in social media

a. never respond to charges
b. change the subject when cornered
c. always turn it around and claim Obama or Hillary did it even though they didnt

Rump and team are killing this country, separating babies from their mothers breasts, and not only will glen and the other cons not do anything to stop it, they are enjoying it. Big problems ahead, inevitable confrontation one way or another.

_________________
I dont criticize other liberals, even when I disagree with them. United fronts work better! But that is just me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
Will the NRA hire anti-gun activists? Should they? Yes or no?

But the bottom line is this: You are just throwing this out to distract. That has NOTHING to do with this thread.


well, that didn't take long kudos for admitting that Union's won't hire republicans. as well as showing how you believe that all republicans are anti union. You must be one of those open minded progressives who are accepting of everything and everybody........as long as they agree with you.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

well, that didn't take long kudos for admitting that Union's won't hire republicans. as well as showing how you believe that all republicans are anti union. You must be one of those open minded progressives who are accepting of everything and everybody........as long as they agree with you.

I note that you didn't answer my question about the NRA. Of course not.

But let's be clear: If you're a Republican, the only way you'd work for a Union is to infiltrate it. O'Keefe got someone into a Chicago Teacher's Union as an intern, and now they have all kinds of video the intern secretly took.

So, somehow, you think that Unions should hire people that want to destroy the Union. Not surprising, YOU want to destroy all the Unions, too.

Unions do and have hired Republicans. But let's be clear: I don't know of any Republican in national office that would vote for Unions. Do you?

The Republican Party is not the party of old. It is a far-right white supremacist party.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Once again, freedom of association doesn't enter into it, as you aren't required to be a member. But you are paying the fee for real and tangible monetary benefits. The Union is required to represent you, so the costs should be shared among all the workers getting those benefits.

If freedom of association has nothing to do with it then why bring it up in your previous post? As for the payment for services, if I indicate to you that I don’t want the service nor do I want to be represented by you. Why should I be required to pay for services I clearly do not want and may not need. I am perfectly capable of deciding on my own representation. If the union is required to represent me against my wishes, that is the unions problem. Why should I have to pay for the unions problem? Show me a document I signed that obligates me to the union or authorizes a deduction from my paycheck? Why should this be treated any differently that any other voluntary deduction?

I understand your point of view. I really do. But I don’t think it is right to force a worker into an arrangement with another third party and force him to pay for that relationship. I have never been told I HAVE to belong to a group or pay fees to a group unless I make a willing conscious decision to do so. I don’t call that Freedom of Association and if you are forcing me to pay for the service against my will you are forcing me to pay for a service I do not desire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
I note that you didn't answer my question about the NRA. Of course not.

But let's be clear: If you're a Republican, the only way you'd work for a Union is to infiltrate it. O'Keefe got someone into a Chicago Teacher's Union as an intern, and now they have all kinds of video the intern secretly took.

So, somehow, you think that Unions should hire people that want to destroy the Union. Not surprising, YOU want to destroy all the Unions, too.

Unions do and have hired Republicans. But let's be clear: I don't know of any Republican in national office that would vote for Unions. Do you?

The Republican Party is not the party of old. It is a far-right white supremacist party.


Your question about the NRA is a non-starter. Nobody said the Union should hire people who are anti-union. By stating that you arte admitting that you believe all republicans are anti union. We also are not talking about a GOP office holder, we are talking about a rank and file member in good standing and qualified. who would never be hired because they preferred the overall GOP message more than the DNC message.

Lastly about the GOP being the white supremacist party, that is a statement to fucking stupid to even comment on. BTW which of our two major parties is the preferred party of socialist and communist?

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
If freedom of association has nothing to do with it then why bring it up in your previous post? As for the payment for services, if I indicate to you that I don’t want the service nor do I want to be represented by you.

Then get another job, because you get services from a union when you work there - better pay, better benefits and rights on the job.
Quote:
Why should I be required to pay for services I clearly do not want and may not need.

Because you receive them. Look, Unions are down to, what, six percent of the working people of the nation? So go get another damned job! Don't work a union job! It's that easy!
Quote:
I am perfectly capable of deciding on my own representation. If the union is required to represent me against my wishes, that is the unions problem. Why should I have to pay for the unions problem? Show me a document I signed that obligates me to the union or authorizes a deduction from my paycheck? Why should this be treated any differently that any other voluntary deduction?

More bullshit. It's the law, and again, if the company makes paying something a condition of your employment, what's your problem?
Quote:
I understand your point of view. I really do. But I don’t think it is right to force a worker into an arrangement with another third party and force him to pay for that relationship. I have never been told I HAVE to belong to a group or pay fees to a group unless I make a willing conscious decision to do so. I don’t call that Freedom of Association and if you are forcing me to pay for the service against my will you are forcing me to pay for a service I do not desire.

Again, it's all bullshit, Joe. I pointed out that it's hypocrisy, considering how HOA's are set up in this nation. Where are you screaming for THEIR rights? Do YOU belong to an HOA?

Freedom of Association is about belonging to a group. Since they aren't forced to belong, just pay fees, your argument fails miserably. YOU ARE NOT FORCED, AS YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE! IF YOU TAKE THE JOB, YOU ACCEPT THE FEES THAT GO WITH IT!

Again, where you work, where you live, is your freedom. If you don't like that a company forces you to pay fees, then you have the freedom to go to work somewhere else.

Look, the right doesn't give a shit about worker rights. That's simply the fact. The right doesn't want workers to have rights, they are simply trying to destroy the labor movement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

Your question about the NRA is a non-starter.

Meaning you don't want to answer it. Gutless.
Quote:
Nobody said the Union should hire people who are anti-union. By stating that you arte admitting that you believe all republicans are anti union. We also are not talking about a GOP office holder, we are talking about a rank and file member in good standing and qualified. who would never be hired because they preferred the overall GOP message more than the DNC message.

The problem, glen, is that the GOP message is to destroy unions! So, you ARE saying the Union must hire people who are anti-union!
Quote:
Lastly about the GOP being the white supremacist party, that is a statement to fucking stupid to even comment on. BTW which of our two major parties is the preferred party of socialist and communist?

Donald Trump on the racist white supremacists at Charlottesville: "There were fine people on both sides".

Another Neo-Nazi got nominated for the Senate in Virginia, Corey Stewart. That proves my point. It's surprising you defend the indefensible.

So instead of dealing with it, you start red-baiting again.

Two Communist Nations, China and Russia, prefer the Republicans. That should answer your question!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
Then get another job, because you get services from a union when you work there - better pay, better benefits and rights on the job.

Because you receive them. Look, Unions are down to, what, six percent of the working people of the nation? So go get another damned job! Don't work a union job! It's that easy!

More bullshit. It's the law, and again, if the company makes paying something a condition of your employment, what's your problem?

Again, it's all bullshit, Joe. I pointed out that it's hypocrisy, considering how HOA's are set up in this nation. Where are you screaming for THEIR rights? Do YOU belong to an HOA?

Freedom of Association is about belonging to a group. Since they aren't forced to belong, just pay fees, your argument fails miserably. YOU ARE NOT FORCED, AS YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE! IF YOU TAKE THE JOB, YOU ACCEPT THE FEES THAT GO WITH IT!

Again, where you work, where you live, is your freedom. If you don't like that a company forces you to pay fees, then you have the freedom to go to work somewhere else.

Look, the right doesn't give a shit about worker rights. That's simply the fact. The right doesn't want workers to have rights, they are simply trying to destroy the labor movement.


I understand your point if I make a decision to take an union job. I take issue with your logic if I already have a job and 51% of my coworkers decide they want to hire a union and compel me to pay for it whether I like it or not. I should not have to leave a job to keep a third party out of my paycheck. Other people are free to do as they please. That’s freedom. Forcing me to pay for something against my will or “get another damn job” is not freedom. In fact if an employer used such language towards one of your members I doubt you would be quite so understanding. This is no different from any other benefit. I decide what benefits I allow to be deducted from my pay. Not you. Not 51% of my coworkers. It should be my choice. I do not have a problem with unions. I do have a problem being told who to associate with and I have a problem being compelled to pay for other people’s choices.

Being free doesn’t mean you get to make personal decisions for me without my consent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
On your get a different job point. as I have said in the past if you apply and get hired at a workplace that is already union then you should have to join or at least pay dues.

However, if you are working at a place that votes to go union after you are already working there. It should be your right to say no thank you.

that is the only fair choice there is. the only or main reason you would want people to quit is so you could guarantee only union supporters were working there. Meaning no worries about ever being decertified and it would also guarantee no republicans need apply. Not unlike what has happened in other countries where to get a job you have to be a party member.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 343 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hottentot venus and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group