Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel

[AmericanGirl05]

According to Republicans, it's NOT OK for an auto deduction which costs nothing, but IT IS OK to use your cell phone to pay, and PAY A FEE.

I LOVE IT.....screw workers and suck your contributors all at once! YOU GO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel News The Advocate Baton Rouge Louisiana

Anyone who thinks that Federal employee unions help employees is an ignorant fool.

Should we just take your word for it?

I'm a retired Federal employee -- 38 years of service -- married to another retired Fed -- 40 years of service.

Good enough for ya?

You should thank your Union every time you receive a direct deposit of your retirement pay.

Why? They had nothing to do with it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

According to Republicans, it's NOT OK for an auto deduction which costs nothing, but IT IS OK to use your cell phone to pay, and PAY A FEE.

I LOVE IT.....screw workers and suck your contributors all at once! YOU GO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel News The Advocate Baton Rouge Louisiana

Welcome to Louisiana. I am surrounded by morons.



Funny how they have no problem deducting money into my deferred compensation fund.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why? They had nothing to do with it.

Unions working in private industry pushing for better pay and benefits for jobs similar to yours had no effect on your pay and retirement?

Think about that long and hard before you answer.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Why? They had nothing to do with it.

Unions working in private industry pushing for better pay and benefits for jobs similar to yours had no effect on your pay and retirement?

Think about that long and hard before you answer.

They are prohibited by law from collective bargaining. Congress sets pay and benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

No, I didn't. They actually made my work life worse.

How did your collective bargaining compensation make your work life worse?

Federal employee unions are prohibited by law from bargaining for compensation and benefits.

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

 

[AmericanGirl05]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

No, I didn't. They actually made my work life worse.

How did your collective bargaining compensation make your work life worse?

Federal employee unions are prohibited by law from bargaining for compensation and benefits.

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

 

[danielpalos]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

No, I didn't. They actually made my work life worse.

How did your collective bargaining compensation make your work life worse?

Federal employee unions are prohibited by law from bargaining for compensation and benefits.

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

 

[AmericanGirl05]

No, I didn't. They actually made my work life worse.

How did your collective bargaining compensation make your work life worse?

Federal employee unions are prohibited by law from bargaining for compensation and benefits.

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

 

[danielpalos]

How did your collective bargaining compensation make your work life worse?

Federal employee unions are prohibited by law from bargaining for compensation and benefits.

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

Are those pay and benefits fixed in a political a vacuum or in a market where other unions have established some metrics in our market based political-economy regarding compensation. And, you receive that compensation instead of non collectively bargained compensation.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Federal employee unions are prohibited by law from bargaining for compensation and benefits.

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

Are those pay and benefits fixed in a political a vacuum or in a market where other unions have established some metrics in our market based political-economy regarding compensation. And, you receive that compensation instead of non collectively bargained compensation.

As I said, the retirement system under which I am paid was established in the 1920s. The salary system, the GS system, was established in the 40s. The minimal changes made to it were to the management and executive ranks in the 70s and 80s.

So unions had nothing to do with either.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you say that? Is that why the post office has to has fund compensation liabilities, decades in advance?

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

Are those pay and benefits fixed in a political a vacuum or in a market where other unions have established some metrics in our market based political-economy regarding compensation. And, you receive that compensation instead of non collectively bargained compensation.

As I said, the retirement system under which I am paid was established in the 1920s. The salary system, the GS system, was established in the 40s. The minimal changes made to it were to the management and executive ranks in the 70s and 80s.

So unions had nothing to do with either.

why are wage scales usually different for union labor than for non union labor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

The Hostess unions drove the company under and themselves out of a job. How'd that work out for the union members?

Nice try Mr. Deceiver, but the truth is the private-equity owners had loaded the company down with debt,

And unions were the nail in the coffin. The new, non-union Hostess is doing very well.

 

[danielpalos]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

The Hostess unions drove the company under and themselves out of a job. How'd that work out for the union members?

Nice try Mr. Deceiver, but the truth is the private-equity owners had loaded the company down with debt,

And unions were the nail in the coffin. The new, non-union Hostess is doing very well.

dude, the Teamsters cut management some slack and they still couldn't be better capitalists than their compensation increases justified; they probably just have better management.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

The Hostess unions drove the company under and themselves out of a job. How'd that work out for the union members?

Nice try Mr. Deceiver, but the truth is the private-equity owners had loaded the company down with debt,

And unions were the nail in the coffin. The new, non-union Hostess is doing very well.

dude, the Teamsters cut management some slack and they still couldn't be better capitalists than their compensation increases justified; they probably just have better management.

Cut them so much slack, they went bankrupt. Yes, they have better management and no unions.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Because it's true, for regular Feds in the competitive service in appropriated agencies.

The Post Office is different as they are an independent corporation.

My retirement program was established by Congress in the 1920s. Federal employee unions were given limited bargaining rights for the first time (and not for salaries and benefits) in the JFK Administration.

What Federal employee unions do is protect the slackers and manage office space moves and allocation.

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

Are those pay and benefits fixed in a political a vacuum or in a market where other unions have established some metrics in our market based political-economy regarding compensation. And, you receive that compensation instead of non collectively bargained compensation.

As I said, the retirement system under which I am paid was established in the 1920s. The salary system, the GS system, was established in the 40s. The minimal changes made to it were to the management and executive ranks in the 70s and 80s.

So unions had nothing to do with either.

why are wage scales usually different for union labor than for non union labor?

They aren't, in the Federal government. There are people graded GS-15 (highest GS grade) who are in the bargaining unit. There is no compensation difference.

The Senior Executive Service had a different system established by the Carter Administration. None of those positions could be in the bargaining unit because by definition they are management.

 

[danielpalos]

are y'all claiming you received no benefit from union membership with the public sector? how did that work for the teamsters and the bakers at Hostess?

The Hostess unions drove the company under and themselves out of a job. How'd that work out for the union members?

Nice try Mr. Deceiver, but the truth is the private-equity owners had loaded the company down with debt,

And unions were the nail in the coffin. The new, non-union Hostess is doing very well.

dude, the Teamsters cut management some slack and they still couldn't be better capitalists than their compensation increases justified; they probably just have better management.

Cut them so much slack, they went bankrupt. Yes, they have better management and no unions.

dude; why should the bakers have lost money on bad management, too?

 

[danielpalos]

If Congress can do what you claim; why any need for unions at all? shouldn't our federal Congress be able to merely legislate a capitalist Utopia from the federal district?

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

Are those pay and benefits fixed in a political a vacuum or in a market where other unions have established some metrics in our market based political-economy regarding compensation. And, you receive that compensation instead of non collectively bargained compensation.

As I said, the retirement system under which I am paid was established in the 1920s. The salary system, the GS system, was established in the 40s. The minimal changes made to it were to the management and executive ranks in the 70s and 80s.

So unions had nothing to do with either.

why are wage scales usually different for union labor than for non union labor?

They aren't, in the Federal government. There are people graded GS-15 (highest GS grade) who are in the bargaining unit. There is no compensation difference.

The Senior Executive Service had a different system established by the Carter Administration. None of those positions could be in the bargaining unit because by definition they are management.

Here is something more along the lines of what i am referring to:

When you join the union, you have access to these AFGE benefits. These benefits are backed by the collective strength of over 10-million members of AFL-CIO unions. By using one or two of the programs, many members save as much as their annual dues. Source: https://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=MemberBenefits&FuseAction=Info&BenefitID=12

 

[AmericanGirl05]

I'm talking about Federal employee unions, not private sector unions, which I agree that in many cases are needed.

Federal employee unions are worthless. Congress sets pay and benefits and the unions support loser employees and deal with stupid issues.

Are those pay and benefits fixed in a political a vacuum or in a market where other unions have established some metrics in our market based political-economy regarding compensation. And, you receive that compensation instead of non collectively bargained compensation.

As I said, the retirement system under which I am paid was established in the 1920s. The salary system, the GS system, was established in the 40s. The minimal changes made to it were to the management and executive ranks in the 70s and 80s.

So unions had nothing to do with either.

why are wage scales usually different for union labor than for non union labor?

They aren't, in the Federal government. There are people graded GS-15 (highest GS grade) who are in the bargaining unit. There is no compensation difference.

The Senior Executive Service had a different system established by the Carter Administration. None of those positions could be in the bargaining unit because by definition they are management.

Here is something more along the lines of what i am referring to:

When you join the union, you have access to these AFGE benefits. These benefits are backed by the collective strength of over 10-million members of AFL-CIO unions. By using one or two of the programs, many members save as much as their annual dues. Source: https://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=MemberBenefits&FuseAction=Info&BenefitID=12

So? That's not pay and benefits.

And AFGE is the WORST. Totally useless organization. Does nothing but degrade productivity and protect the worthless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Hostess unions drove the company under and themselves out of a job. How'd that work out for the union members?

Nice try Mr. Deceiver, but the truth is the private-equity owners had loaded the company down with debt,

And unions were the nail in the coffin. The new, non-union Hostess is doing very well.

dude, the Teamsters cut management some slack and they still couldn't be better capitalists than their compensation increases justified; they probably just have better management.

Cut them so much slack, they went bankrupt. Yes, they have better management and no unions.

dude; why should the bakers have lost money on bad management, too?

Or the workers on stupid unions?

 

[Skull Pilot]

According to Republicans, it's NOT OK for an auto deduction which costs nothing, but IT IS OK to use your cell phone to pay, and PAY A FEE.

I LOVE IT.....screw workers and suck your contributors all at once! YOU GO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Plan to ban automatic deduction of public employee union dues clears House panel News The Advocate Baton Rouge Louisiana

What's that matter you too lazy to write a check?

Why the fuck should a business owner take on the expense of collecting union dues?

let the fucking union draft them right from your checking account