17 FACTs about Scott Walker

[Conservative]

Ok go ahead link for us the proof the Union had a vote on what to do and how to spend the Union dues.

There's a FEDERAL LAW that allows union members to opt out of paying the part of their dues that are used for political purposes, dumbass.

As for expenditures they are voted on in every union meeting.

And in case you want to take issue with union members donating their personal funds it's none of your damned business what they do with their personal money.

link please?

here... let me save you the trouble. It is precedent set in the 1998 Supreme Court case of Beck v. Communication Workers of America.

Giving Union Members a Choice: How to Get Union Dues Refunds

In 1988, after battling through twelve years of red tape and legal appeals, a telephone lineman named Harry Beck took his case to the Supreme Court. His request was simple: that the court reaffirm his right to keep his hard earned wages, rather than have them confiscated by union officials and spent to promote a political agenda with which he did not agree. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in Beck v. Communication Workers of America that unions could not force workers to pay dues to support political causes and matters unrelated to the normal union duties of collective bargaining and union representation. The court ruled that political contributions must be voluntary. In Mr. Beck's case, the union spent 79 percent of his money for purposes other than ‘normal union duties.' Steve Havas, another union member, sued and got $8,877.48 back in dues that he had paid for years.

Unfortunately, this decision was ignored by the Democratically controlled Congresses of the ‘80s. Advancing the agenda of organized labor, President Clinton decided that workers should not be informed of this right. On February 1, 1995, President Clinton rescinded an Executive Order from President Bush requiring all federal contractors to post notices in the workplace informing workers of their rights under the Beck decision. The problem is that the law requires no one to tell the workers that their contributions to political causes are supposed to be voluntary. Thus, union leaders can continue to dock money from workers' paychecks for their own political use. Only when a union member objects does the union stop collecting , and even then it is only from that single member.

the law doesn't allow them to opt out. It allows them to recoup dues used for those political purposes they disagree with...IF THEY ASK.

They are not informed of this right.

 

[Amelia]

Ok go ahead link for us the proof the Union had a vote on what to do and how to spend the Union dues.

There's a FEDERAL LAW that allows union members to opt out of paying the part of their dues that are used for political purposes, dumbass.

As for expenditures they are voted on in every union meeting.

And in case you want to take issue with union members donating their personal funds it's none of your damned business what they do with their personal money.

link please?

I think he's right, that there is a law.

I think we're supposed to believe that when people are forced to pay money into unions, whether they are members of the union or not, that the money is only ever used for nonpolitical purposes.

Which of course is total bull.

But those in favor of states such as Wisconsin requiring people to pay money to unions whether they agree with union agendas or not, find it comforting to hide behind that pleasant fiction.





Edit: I see you tracked down some related legislation. Even when people get back a portion of their money, that doesn't stop the rest of the money from being used for political purposes. Money is fungible but we're not supposed to think of things like that. When people are forced to pay money to unions even though they don't belong to the union, that is especially offensive.

 

[Conservative]

There's a FEDERAL LAW that allows union members to opt out of paying the part of their dues that are used for political purposes, dumbass.

As for expenditures they are voted on in every union meeting.

And in case you want to take issue with union members donating their personal funds it's none of your damned business what they do with their personal money.

link please?

I think he's right, that there is a law.

I think we're supposed to believe that when people are forced to pay money into unions, whether they are members of the union or not, that the money is only ever used for nonpolitical purposes.

Which of course is total bull.

But those in favor of states such as Wisconsin requiring people to pay money to unions whether they agree with union agendas or not, find it comforting to hide behind that pleasant fiction.





Edit: I see you tracked down some related legislation. Even when people get back a portion of their money, that doesn't stop the rest of the money from being used for political purposes. Money is fungible but we're not supposed to think of things like that. When people are forced to pay money to unions even though they don't belong to the union, that is especially offensive.

My point was simply to point out to Goose that while they have the option to opt out of dues earmarked for political purposes, they are not required by law to be informed of this right, or of their right to recoup any dues spent on political activities they disagree with. The only way they get the money back, is if they ask.

 

[Big Fitz]

There's a FEDERAL LAW that allows union members to opt out of paying the part of their dues that are used for political purposes, dumbass.

As for expenditures they are voted on in every union meeting.

And in case you want to take issue with union members donating their personal funds it's none of your damned business what they do with their personal money.

link please?

I think he's right, that there is a law.

I think we're supposed to believe that when people are forced to pay money into unions, whether they are members of the union or not, that the money is only ever used for nonpolitical purposes.

Which of course is total bull.

But those in favor of states such as Wisconsin requiring people to pay money to unions whether they agree with union agendas or not, find it comforting to hide behind that pleasant fiction.





Edit: I see you tracked down some related legislation. Even when people get back a portion of their money, that doesn't stop the rest of the money from being used for political purposes. Money is fungible but we're not supposed to think of things like that. When people are forced to pay money to unions even though they don't belong to the union, that is especially offensive.

As a former member of the ATU, I can tell you the 'savings' you get from union dues when you choose to not join is a friggen joke. I paid on average 60 bucks a month. I had to pay in for the amount that was used to negotiate contracts, right? You know how much I saved off of a full membership? 3 dollars and change. That's right. around 2%.

Then when I saw my union rep's salaries (all 6 figures for the upper management and not inconsiderable chump change for the union and shop stewards) I really wondered how much of my 'negotiation share' was going in their pockets.

Yes, that was a public sector union who badgered the governments (local, state and federal) for funds and rammed through a state constitutional amendment requiring at LEAST 40% of the budget go to mass transit and bike trails. Of course, that could be set higher... like 100% if they so chose.

MN is fucked up and the unions make it worse.

 

[Amelia]

link please?

I think he's right, that there is a law.

I think we're supposed to believe that when people are forced to pay money into unions, whether they are members of the union or not, that the money is only ever used for nonpolitical purposes.

Which of course is total bull.

But those in favor of states such as Wisconsin requiring people to pay money to unions whether they agree with union agendas or not, find it comforting to hide behind that pleasant fiction.





Edit: I see you tracked down some related legislation. Even when people get back a portion of their money, that doesn't stop the rest of the money from being used for political purposes. Money is fungible but we're not supposed to think of things like that. When people are forced to pay money to unions even though they don't belong to the union, that is especially offensive.

My point was simply to point out to Goose that while they have the option to opt out of dues earmarked for political purposes, they are not required by law to be informed of this right, or of their right to recoup any dues spent on political activities they disagree with. The only way they get the money back, is if they ask.

I think that's missing the most important point though. Even if they all were allowed to opt out in advance of paying for what was designated as the political part, that would not be sufficient. It would still be just a ruse. The fact that people are forced to pay money to unions at all is an offense. The reason that Wisconsin's public service unions want Wisconsin to go back to forcing people to pay money to the unions whether they belong or not is purely for political power. Any pretense that the money is not being used for political purposes is just that - pretense.

 

[Conservative]

I think he's right, that there is a law.

I think we're supposed to believe that when people are forced to pay money into unions, whether they are members of the union or not, that the money is only ever used for nonpolitical purposes.

Which of course is total bull.

But those in favor of states such as Wisconsin requiring people to pay money to unions whether they agree with union agendas or not, find it comforting to hide behind that pleasant fiction.





Edit: I see you tracked down some related legislation. Even when people get back a portion of their money, that doesn't stop the rest of the money from being used for political purposes. Money is fungible but we're not supposed to think of things like that. When people are forced to pay money to unions even though they don't belong to the union, that is especially offensive.

My point was simply to point out to Goose that while they have the option to opt out of dues earmarked for political purposes, they are not required by law to be informed of this right, or of their right to recoup any dues spent on political activities they disagree with. The only way they get the money back, is if they ask.

I think that's missing the most important point though. Even if they all were allowed to opt out in advance of paying for what was designated as the political part, that would not be sufficient. It would still be just a ruse. The fact that people are forced to pay money to unions at all is an offense. The reason that Wisconsin's public service unions want Wisconsin to go back to forcing people to pay money to the unions whether they belong or not is purely for political power. Any pretense that the money is not being used for political purposes is just that - pretense.

I completely agree. I just hate it when people say 'it's a law' or 'it's whatever', without citing the source, making us look it up.

 

[Papageorgio]

The recall election in Wisconsin is getting outside money from pro and anti union groups. While I am all for unions, I am against collective bargaining for public unions. The collective bargaining straps states to taxes and as such the people of the state are now at the mercy of the employees.
TruthMatters and her double standards and purposely not answering direct question exposes her as just a partisan who cares little for fairness or facts, just a mouthpiece for whatever she is told to say.