Author Topic: and the unions squeeeeell... (Read 1818 times)

Sixpence · « **Reply #45 on:** October 11, 2005, 04:31:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
But they use their money.

Unions force members to contribute from their own paychecks.

A fundamental difference.

They use shareholder money, should they get written permission from every shareholder?

Here you are not forced to join a union, you can choose not to. And the union still must represent you even though you are not paying dues. We have scabs, and they are usually the first ones to call for a steward, go figure.

Can one person prevent a whole union from contributing? Seems like they are just try to tie the unions hands to me.

I tell ya what, let's make it so it applies to everyone. Any politician must get written permission from every person he represents before he can take a contribution, deal?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 11, 2005, 04:46:02 PM »

Sixpence, this ain't a frickin IQ test.

The unions get money from the people. They then donate to democratic politicians, sometimes against the will of the union workers.

If you think about it (I know it's tough), each person contributes a certain amount. As it is now, they really have no say what happens to this money.

This proposition would make it so that if the Unions want to use anybody's money towards political contributions of any party, they need to get the consent of the worker.

For example. Let's say one union has 10 workers. Each pays 100 dollars in Union fees.

Let's say the union wants to contribute all of this money to a Republican. That's 1000 dollars. But wait, 5 of those workers are democrats. Why do they want the money they paid to go to a republican without their consent?

Sixpence · « **Reply #47 on:** October 11, 2005, 04:49:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Sixpence, this ain't a frickin IQ test.

The unions get money from the people. They then donate to democratic politicians, sometimes against the will of the union workers.

If you think about it (I know it's tough), each person contributes a certain amount. As it is now, they really have no say what happens to this money.

This proposition would make it so that if the Unions want to use anybody's money towards political contributions of any party, they need to get the consent of the worker.

For example. Let's say one union has 10 workers. Each pays 100 dollars in Union fees.

Let's say the union wants to contribute all of this money to a Republican. That's 1000 dollars. But wait, 5 of those workers are democrats. Why do they want the money they paid to go to a republican without their consent?

Did it take a majority vote to elect the union pres?

lol, 5 out of ten. Let's say a union has 3000 members, but does not get written permission from 200 of them, then what?

LePaul · « **Reply #48 on:** October 11, 2005, 05:10:32 PM »

Aye, when I worked for UPS for 2 years, it was required you were part of the Union. And they were very prompt at raising dues and always taking their cut...but seldon, if ever, addressed our calls, questions or even greivances.

Quite a racket. Paid to serve the members, yet never quite doing so.

Oh wait, where's Airhead rant about how beautiful the union is?

Sixpence · « **Reply #49 on:** October 11, 2005, 05:15:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Aye, when I worked for UPS for 2 years, it was required you were part of the Union. And they were very prompt at raising dues and always taking their cut...but seldon, if ever, addressed our calls, questions or even greivances.

Quite a racket. Paid to serve the members, yet never quite doing so.

Oh wait, where's Airhead rant about how beautiful the union is?

An ex girly worked for UPS, union supplied free health, eye care and dental. That union has one of the best benefits for members.

Greivances? Didn't they risk alot to strike to keep from more jobs going to part time?

How much would you have made and what would your benefits have been if there was no union?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 11, 2005, 05:21:27 PM »

You make the assumption that the unions are directly responsible for all the worker's benefits, not the people themselves.

lazs2 · « **Reply #51 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:27:26 AM »

six... I called my union because they sent a flyer saying that we could opt out of the political contribution.... what they meant was that I could opt out of contributing any EXTRA money to them for political funding.

I then explained that no, I did not want my regular dues to go to socialist candidates and they said that.... I had a choice... I got to vote for a representitive in the elections. I said.... Please tell me which of the candidates was a libertarian or even a Repulican.

Point being... there is no choice. No matter who you vote for they will spend the money on finesteins and boxers next run...

All 75 says is.... if the union spends 5% of each persons dues for example on direct political contributions and you do not wish your money to go to that... you can opt out... I would either take a reduction or let them support the libertarian with it or .... simply put it in the widows and orphans fund.

If prop 75 is defeated I will leave the union. I have felt that it was right to contribute because most all others do and it did not seem right to reap the benifiets of the barganing without contributing but... It is morally wrong for me to contribute to the likes of boxer or finestein or klinton or all the other big government socialists they (the union) support who would try to take away my freedom at every chance.

lazs

LePaul · « **Reply #52 on:** October 12, 2005, 10:11:16 AM »

The Healthcare was thru CIGNA. Any place you used your card, medical staff would groan. CIGNA was very slow to pay and would try to squirm out of paying. I was having surgery on my hand and wound up going thru my fulltime job healthcare plan since the co-pay wouldve been a lot more. As my Dr's office told me, CIGNA is worse than Medicaid.

Did they negotiate a good contract? Sure. UPS was trying very hard to avoid a strike.

But what we gained in the contract in wages would go out the window if we voted for the liberal super spenders these guys insisted we vote for.

Hug that Union Propoganda, Sixpence. If the union was that confident it was offering the best deal in town, why require union membership?

You want me to be impressed by the Teamsters? Have them return a call someday, or respond to a greivance or on the job injury issue. They sure couldnt when myself and others were in that situation. But they certainly were around the first week of November, insisting who we vote for

oboe · « **Reply #53 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:00:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
water and wastewater were allmost 100% publicly owned at one time... the trend seems to be for privatization.... it is a tossup for most cities at this time.

I would also like to point out that I was a private licenced contractor for 15 years... that does not make me a self made capitalist success story but you have to admit that it could give me perspective by working in both the public and private sector and being in charge of opperations in both venues?

socialism is evil.... I know in minn. that is like balsphemy but.... in every case... competition from private companies improves things... if we took the money we are spending on taxes for roads say and used it to bid out construction and maintenance.... we would have the best roads in the world with a huge and embarassing surplus of funds.

Public schools? please... is there anyone left in the country who still buys the teachers unions excusses and guilt trips? They are outperformed.... no.... spanked by the religious schools who offer no excuses... just value.

The only thing that government does well is raise an army to protect the borders... that is pure waste no matter who does it and the only waste we should put up with... The founders had this stuff all figured out allmost 250 years ago.

lazs

Thanks, I wanted to see if Funked1 knew what he was talking about when he said your industry has been taken over by government monopolies. My impression, confirmed by you, is that they all started as government monopolies and have been moving to private ownership, not the other way around. I imagine after enough of them privatize we'll get to see firsthand the shortcoming of that method of ownership.

Sure I give you credit for being on your own as a private contractor. Actually I feel kind of bad for you, holding the libertarian/anti-union/anti-socialist views you do but depending on the government for a job and being a union member. It must get pretty frustrating.

Minnesota had traditionally been a high tax/high service state, with resulting excellent public education and healthcare systems, and generally high quality of life. In the 70s Time magazine did a feature article on the "Minnesota Miracle". All that has been eroding with the cultural shift toward selfishness and individualism and away from community values. Now our state government is divided and has trouble accomplishing anything except partisan bickering.

Thomas Jefferson was a founder who believed in the value of public education to a democracy. Minnesota has been experimenting with privatizing education through the creation of charter schools, with several spectacular bankruptcies and frauds.

Regarding Prop 75, in general I like Cali's method of getting legislation out there to vote on from the grass roots level, so we'll see what happens.

J_A_B · « **Reply #54 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:36:39 AM »

"if we took the money we are spending on taxes for roads say and used it to bid out construction and maintenance.... we would have the best roads in the world with a huge and embarassing surplus of funds."

I just noticed that one.

We already have the best roads in the world. Try going to Italy or Mexico or pretty much anywhere else sometime.

For every private contractor that makes an honest bid, there's 3 or 4 that bid low and save money by cutting corners and using sub-standard materials. I don't trust private corporations to do public works one bit. I'd rather put up with a job well done with wasted money, than a cheap poorly-done job.

J_A_B

lazs2 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 12, 2005, 02:43:38 PM »

jab... the same people who inspect public works building projects would and do inspect any private contractor...

If there is a problem with poor construction you need to look at the inspection.... the government end of it.... see how it works?

lazs

ASTAC · « **Reply #56 on:** October 12, 2005, 07:30:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy

It is pretty much up to the states.

Not really....some companies will give preference to unions when hiring (why I don't know)...and since the union concept is a shady concept, non union workers are bullied into joining..ask anyone who worked at Jacksonville Shipyards (before they went under) who refused to join the unions there...slashed tires and all sorts of general meyham...It's a concept of the old days that has no place in todays USA. They are nothing but trouble.

Here's an example..back in late 97 the teamsters went on strike against UPS..I didn't work for UPS so you think "no big deal" right?

I worked at a Sears Auto Center at the time.....our paychecks were delivered by a company called Airborne Express, from the main office somewhere in Georgia.

Well because of the stoppage of UPS deliveries, the smalled companies took up that slack..so it was good for the competitors.

However, because of the extra load on Airborne express, when a few of their aircraft broke down, there were no ready replacements.

All of the sudden no one in the southeast who worked for Sears could get paid on time. Someone like me, fresh out of the Navy (the one year I got out) who had afamily to support, could not afford to have a paycheck be late. It put me behind on a few things and that delay effected me for more than a month.

Do I blame Airborne ERxpress? No. I blame the teamsters. Especially since the crap they were striking about at the time was stupid little crap.

lazs2 · « **Reply #57 on:** October 13, 2005, 08:30:21 AM »

It really boils down to...

If you like the commie candidates that the union supports and feel that everyone should be forced to help them win then prop 75 will infuriate you..

If you think that people should have a choice on who to contribute to with money they are being forced to pay then you will love the fairness of prop 75

No matter what... prop 75 exposes more of the union lies and corruption... the unions are on the way out and this just helps.... like most bad things... the more light you shine on em the worse they look.

and oboe... Jefferson was right (as usual) we do need to educate Americans.... We are not doing so right now... we have a monopoly that is doing an abysmal job and costing a fortune. The American people are being cheated by the public schools... Only vouchers will save or redeem tax based funding for education.

If the military was turning out soldiers who couldn't fight or behave then we would be right in looking for someone else to train our soldiers right?

lazs

Torque · « **Reply #58 on:** October 13, 2005, 02:15:33 PM »

unions are govn'ts without a nation, add them to the public servant arena and it becomes a breeding ground for inept and lazy workers. thrown into the private sector most public servants would wither on the vine.

teacher, what a great bunch. ask them to work more than 165 days a year or more than 4.5 hours a day, the first thing they do is hold the children hostage.

lazs2 · « **Reply #59 on:** October 13, 2005, 02:44:09 PM »

damn... I am agreeing with torque on something?

maybe there really is something to this global warming thing and it's effects on all of us. Better get my ozone level checked or whatever.

lazs