Do Democrats know...

[RadiomanATL]

1) First of all you said "workers" in the plural sense. If they were all united I would say they could "negotiate a compensation contract". One the other hand, someone in a group that went in and did it on his or her own would be a sniveling suck-ass.

2) They have a choice much like we all do in a democracy. They can vote out the ones they feel don't represent their best interests.

3) I don't live in a Right To Work state but this is from Wiki...."Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

Sounds to me like they can......

1. Plural, but not collectively plural. Big difference.

2. But still do not have the option to represent their own interests.

3. You conveniently left out this part "The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;"

The very definition of a distinction without a difference. So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?

Damn you're thickheaded.

"So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?"

Question: If I work in a Right to Work state, can I resign my union membership and cut off any further dues collections from my salary?

Answer: If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, you have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.

No, you don't:

employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;

This is from your very own source. Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about thick-headed.

 

[DaGoose]

1. Plural, but not collectively plural. Big difference.

2. But still do not have the option to represent their own interests.

3. You conveniently left out this part "The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;"

The very definition of a distinction without a difference. So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?

Damn you're thickheaded.

"So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?"

Question: If I work in a Right to Work state, can I resign my union membership and cut off any further dues collections from my salary?

Answer: If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, you have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.

No, you don't:

employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;

This is from your very own source. Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about thick-headed.

I think where you're confused is that individual states can tailor their own labor laws. Had you bothered to read further in my link you would have read....

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions.

Now if you need further proof check out THIS link which will give you links to the individual state laws......

Right to Work States | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Texas Law......

101.053. Contract Requiring or Prohibiting Labor Union Membership Void

A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment:

(1) must be or may not be members of a labor union; or

(2) must remain or may not remain members of a labor union. (Enacted 1993.)

Georgia Law........

34-6-21. Membership in or resignation from labor organization as condition of employment or continuation of employment.

No individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to be or remain a member or an affiliate of a labor organization or to resign from or to refrain from membership in or affiliation with a labor organization. (Enacted March 27, 1947.)

Anyhow, you get my drift.

So....the bottom line....... an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job.

 

[RadiomanATL]

"It's going to go broke, unless something is done" is far removed from what you were stating. You see, that's called a "qualifier" my friend. Hell, EVERYBODY agrees with that!!! That's a "DUH".

So you say that everyone agrees with that, which is what I said, and then want to argue that this wasn't implied with my original statement?

Logic and you don't get along to well, do you?

Nope. You changed the goal posts my friend. Stop trying to deny it.

Yeah, not so much. But nice try

It's always implied that a course of action will result in xxx unless a yyy happens.

 

[DaGoose]

So you say that everyone agrees with that, which is what I said, and then want to argue that this wasn't implied with my original statement?

Logic and you don't get along to well, do you?

Nope. You changed the goal posts my friend. Stop trying to deny it.

Yeah, not so much. But nice try

It's always implied that a course of action will result in xxx unless a yyy happens.

No, it's not. Where did you come up with THAT crap?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Damn you're thickheaded.

"So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?"

Question: If I work in a Right to Work state, can I resign my union membership and cut off any further dues collections from my salary?

Answer: If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, you have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.

No, you don't:

employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;

This is from your very own source. Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about thick-headed.

I think where you're confused is that individual states can tailor their own labor laws. Had you bothered to read further in my link you would have read....

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions.

Now if you need further proof check out THIS link which will give you links to the individual state laws......

Right to Work States | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Texas Law......

101.053. Contract Requiring or Prohibiting Labor Union Membership Void

A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment:

(1) must be or may not be members of a labor union; or

(2) must remain or may not remain members of a labor union. (Enacted 1993.)

Georgia Law........

34-6-21. Membership in or resignation from labor organization as condition of employment or continuation of employment.

No individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to be or remain a member or an affiliate of a labor organization or to resign from or to refrain from membership in or affiliation with a labor organization. (Enacted March 27, 1947.)

Anyhow, you get my drift.

So....the bottom line....... an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job.

So we have one source which you provided, saying that they can't. When thats pointed out to you, you provide another source which gives only ~20 states that allow opt outs. Coincidentally, these states do not have a majority union presence. Which means that the majority of union workers live in states that do not allow an opt out.

So you have a complete failure the first time, and not even half a pie the second time.

But I'll concede that there are a minority of union workers who are allowed to opt out due to state laws.

Now, you care to explain how that minority of union workers somehow means that union workers as a whole, across the nation, can opt out? Oh....they can't.

So the point still stands, with some minority exceptions. Congrats, you scored a field goal while I've been running touchdowns.

 

[asterism]

And for you it's a swing and a miss (as usual). You can continue to run around like all of your right wing buddies and cry "The sky is falling"!!!! When you finally learn who the biggest voting bloc is and which lobby is the most powerful in Washington you'll begin to open your eyes and see you're crying for nothing.

You also claim to have paid into a 401k for 15 years. Yet you argue politics like a teenager. For supposedly being at least in your 30's (which I highly doubt) you sure haven't learned much, have you?

You especially showed your immature ignorance when you implied that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone that they cannot overcome. You called them "idiots who had no idea how to prepare for the future". What a sheltered life you must lead!! Are you still living with mommy and daddy?

You have also shown you know about as much about unions as you do about how the SS system works, which sure isn't much.

Game? I've got plenty of it and will give you all you can handle. But I don't think you're old enough to waste my time with because you know so little about life. Come back when you've grown up a bit, son.

Arguing the fiscal "wisdom" of Social Security by pointing to the voting bloc that doesn't see what a ponzi scheme it is but are really only concerned for themselves not really supporting the point you are trying to make about the viability of Social Security as a wise place to put money.

That "voting bloc really only concerned for themselves " are your parents and grandparents that have held up their end of the bargain. They are the ones who raised you and cared for you. Now they only ask to grow old with dignity and SS has helped MILLIONS do that. And now you call them stupid and selfish. How sad.

Ponzi scheme????

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009

Our parents and grandparents have nothing to fear, I don't want to take away their benefits and never have advocated anything even approaching that. BTW, my parents don't need government to grow old with dignity (and I thank them for raising and caring for me in such a way to teach me that). I want my generation to be the one that stops this unsustainable program.

It's unsustainable according to their own report, which states:

"Based on the Trustees' best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2017 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security's combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2041."

That was in 2007. 2007 Trustees Report:

Their latest report isn't any better:

"Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period."

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf

 

[RadiomanATL]

Nope. You changed the goal posts my friend. Stop trying to deny it.

Yeah, not so much. But nice try

It's always implied that a course of action will result in xxx unless a yyy happens.

No, it's not. Where did you come up with THAT crap?

Logic.

Learn to use it sometime.

If you're driving and heading for a tree, you will hit it UNLESS a course correction is made.

 

[asterism]

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly. I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.

 

[DaGoose]

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly. I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.

I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security.

Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08...-cuts-prefers-progressive-economic-solutions/

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".

 

[DaGoose]

Yeah, not so much. But nice try

It's always implied that a course of action will result in xxx unless a yyy happens.

No, it's not. Where did you come up with THAT crap?

Logic.

Learn to use it sometime.

If you're driving and heading for a tree, you will hit it UNLESS a course correction is made.

Or in your case....move the tree (or goal posts) to make your point.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, it's not. Where did you come up with THAT crap?

Logic.

Learn to use it sometime.

If you're driving and heading for a tree, you will hit it UNLESS a course correction is made.

Or in your case....move the tree (or goal posts) to make your point.

Like I said, logic and you don't get along real well, do y'all?

 

[DaGoose]

Logic.

Learn to use it sometime.

If you're driving and heading for a tree, you will hit it UNLESS a course correction is made.

Or in your case....move the tree (or goal posts) to make your point.

Like I said, logic and you don't get along real well, do y'all?

Not when someone considers it logical to make one point and then, when getting beat up too bad, changes their position completely while trying to maintain that they didn't.

That takes some dancing, son.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Or in your case....move the tree (or goal posts) to make your point.

Like I said, logic and you don't get along real well, do y'all?

Not when someone considers it logical to make one point and then, when getting beat up too bad, changes their position completely while trying to maintain that they didn't.

That takes some dancing, son.

Repeating the same claim doesn't make it true.

Just so ya know

You may now continue obfuscating and being devoid of logic.

 

[MaggieMae]

About #2, do you have statistics on the likelihood of recipients getting out more than they pay in? If so, post them. If not, retract your point.

When Social Security was instituted, life expectancy was only estimated to reach 63, and beneficiaries would not be able to collect unless and until they reached 65. Today, life expectancy is 78 (varying a few points between men and women) due to huge medical and scientific advancements. Therefore, it is not unusual for a recipient to get far more out of their Social Security fund than they actually paid in.

Valid concepts, but those aren't statistics. All you're showing is the structural problems with how it was created.

Who would ever voluntarily contribute to a system they would most likely not benefit from?

The statistics are there, but Congress never wants to do anything about them. They continue to pass along the problem to the next Congress. It's long been recognized that the biggest problem is that people are living longer.

I'm sure the company I've had my life insurance with for 30 years HATES the fact that I've outlived the benefit initially offered at an extremely low premium. Statistics show I probaby should have died several years ago. Now when I do die, the payout will be at face value but the low premiums paid over the years still haven't added up to that amount.

 

[asterism]

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly. I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.

I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security.

Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

Poll: Public Rejects Any Social Security or Medicare Cuts, Prefers Progressive Economic Solutions | FDL News Desk

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".

Time will tell, but good to see you can't refute the point about it being fiscally unsustainable.

 

[asterism]

When Social Security was instituted, life expectancy was only estimated to reach 63, and beneficiaries would not be able to collect unless and until they reached 65. Today, life expectancy is 78 (varying a few points between men and women) due to huge medical and scientific advancements. Therefore, it is not unusual for a recipient to get far more out of their Social Security fund than they actually paid in.

Valid concepts, but those aren't statistics. All you're showing is the structural problems with how it was created.

Who would ever voluntarily contribute to a system they would most likely not benefit from?

The statistics are there, but Congress never wants to do anything about them. They continue to pass along the problem to the next Congress. It's long been recognized that the biggest problem is that people are living longer.

I'm sure the company I've had my life insurance with for 30 years HATES the fact that I've outlived the benefit initially offered at an extremely low premium. Statistics show I probaby should have died several years ago. Now when I do die, the payout will be at face value but the low premiums paid over the years still haven't added up to that amount.

I doubt the insurance company hates your situation. If anything, you are but a factor in their own actuarial procedures. Their business model is built on being able to adjust while still paying out. However, Social Security is not an insurance program and certainly isn't run like one.

It's run like a typical government program where predictable cost overruns are ignored and then bureaucrats form alliances with politicians to arbitrarily force every worker to pay more. The Social Security Tax is the most regressive of all taxes imposed by the federal government. And the statistics to support that payers into the system will most likely receive more in benefits do not exist.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly. I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.

I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security.

Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

Poll: Public Rejects Any Social Security or Medicare Cuts, Prefers Progressive Economic Solutions | FDL News Desk

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".

Actually, I was right on both. Your dancing, obfuscating and goalpost moving was a bit transparent.

SS will be gone unless something changes.
Union members, for the most part, do not have the option to opt out of a union and still retain their job.

You have yet to refute either point. You've just been throwing bullshit up against the wall to see what sticks.

 

[DaGoose]

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly. I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.

I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security.

Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

Poll: Public Rejects Any Social Security or Medicare Cuts, Prefers Progressive Economic Solutions | FDL News Desk

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".

Actually, I was right on both. Your dancing, obfuscating and goalpost moving was a bit transparent.

SS will be gone unless something changes.
Union members, for the most part, do not have the option to opt out of a union and still retain their job.

You have yet to refute either point. You've just been throwing bullshit up against the wall to see what sticks.

It's hard to make something "stick" against a continously moving target. You've changed your position on both SS and Unions when you realized that you were wrong. But then you turned around and say that's what you "meant" all along!!!

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security.

Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

Poll: Public Rejects Any Social Security or Medicare Cuts, Prefers Progressive Economic Solutions | FDL News Desk

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".

Actually, I was right on both. Your dancing, obfuscating and goalpost moving was a bit transparent.

SS will be gone unless something changes.
Union members, for the most part, do not have the option to opt out of a union and still retain their job.

You have yet to refute either point. You've just been throwing bullshit up against the wall to see what sticks.

It's hard to make something "stick" against a continously moving target. You've changed your position on both SS and Unions when you realized that you were wrong. But then you turned around and say that's what you "meant" all along!!!

Nice try.

My position has been the same all along.

So the question is, are you a liar, or just stupid?

 

[DaGoose]

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly. I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.

I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security.

Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

Poll: Public Rejects Any Social Security or Medicare Cuts, Prefers Progressive Economic Solutions | FDL News Desk

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".

Time will tell, but good to see you can't refute the point about it being fiscally unsustainable.

Whether or not it is "fiscally unsustainable" has never been the question. I only made the point that yes, it will be fixed. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans want it fixed and to allow it to go bankrupt and stop paying out benefits would be the worst nightmare imaginable for the politicians and Washington.

Of course, RadiomanATL says it's going bankrupt and he'll never see a dollar from it so I guess we should all just stop trying to do what it takes to fix it.