Yet Another Reason I'm Not Fond of Unions

[Harry Dresden]

They can claim that it's not used for political purposes. But that doesn't make it so.

They are desperate to keep forcing nonmembers to pay them because it benefits them politically.

People should not have to pay money to unions for the privilege of working for government.

Public employee unions are a terrible conflict of interest. If you think they aren't abusing their political power then you are unbelievably naive.

where do you have to do that?....

 

[IndependntLogic]

We supplement our income by playing a little Texas Hold 'em. The casinos on The Strip are probably easiest because the tourist get drunk and loose up there. But we prefer the local casinos here, in Henderson. The Strip is owned by Fortune 500's nowadays and the service etc... just aren't what they used to be. Neither are the bonuses. That's why we like playing the local casinos out here - like Station casinos. We won over five grand just in bonuses last December. They give us a couple hundred bucks in free dinners and rooms all the time. We have friends who work there and they like it a LOT better than at Ceasar's Entertainment or Harrah's. The other thing we like is the people we meet. The owner of Zappo's is there all the time. He's always in the local news for donating to charities and stuff. Plus his company is known as like, the single coolest place to work in the world - here in Henderson. So when he has guest come to Henderson, he puts them up in the local Station Casinos - which is non-union.
So now, everywhere he goes, he gets shet from leaders in the local culinary union. Why? Because he does business with Station Casinos. He's constantly hassled at the poker tables, in restaurants etc... by those azzholes.
I've never been a fan of private sector unions anyway but this bs is just irritating as hell. This guy brings jobs and revenues to a city that desperately needs both. Shut up union thugs...

It's not that I am not Fond of Unions. I know they have done a lot of good for America workers. What I am not fond of is Corrupt Union Leadership, 90% of Union workers never getting asked if they want to join, or having any say at all in how the Union Spends their money, and Unions that ignore Economic Realities in favor of holding on to their Benefits.

What has been really bad since Obama took office is watching the Blatant Favoritism, and Pay offs of Unions the Democrats engage in. I used to think people on the right that called it Money Laundering were just being Dramatic, but Now I see they are 100% correct. The Democrats can almost bank on a certain % of any Tax Break, or Hand out they give that Unions Workers benefit from, will come right back to them in Donations, and Super Pac Adds.

The Spending of Stimulus Money for Example, Heavily favored Union workers, and Union Shops, When only 20% of American workers are Unionized.

And just think, Romney wants to give unions permanent Personhood!

 

[Harry Dresden]

union bosses abuse their power? What about the abuse of power on the management side?

So, Unions are Ok if they mind their place, but management can do whatever they want? Seems like your no "right or wrong" is severely one sided.

i can only speak for the PO.....but this is big time here...... the abuse of power on the management side
........

So you don't think unions like The Teamsters, Longshoremen, UAW or in this case, Culinary Workers ever abuse their power?

I do.

Unions are important when they prevent wrongful terminations, harrassment, wage-fixing, unsafe conditions etc...
But many of them have gone WAY beyond those functions for decades. While I hold both the government and execs culpable for their part in costing Americans jobs, I also recognize the onus that lays squarely on the shoulders of union abuse.
The UAW from the 70's - 90's is a classic example of union abuse of power.

sure they do....but in the PO if it wasnt for the Union, workers would get treated like shit....... the only ones standing between the worker and the Assholes ....is the Union.....

 

[The T]

i can only speak for the PO.....but this is big time here...... the abuse of power on the management side
........

So you don't think unions like The Teamsters, Longshoremen, UAW or in this case, Culinary Workers ever abuse their power?

I do.

Unions are important when they prevent wrongful terminations, harrassment, wage-fixing, unsafe conditions etc...
But many of them have gone WAY beyond those functions for decades. While I hold both the government and execs culpable for their part in costing Americans jobs, I also recognize the onus that lays squarely on the shoulders of union abuse.
The UAW from the 70's - 90's is a classic example of union abuse of power.

sure they do....but in the PO if it wasnt for the Union, workers would get treated like shit....... the only ones standing between the worker and the Assholes ....is the Union.....

Does that also hold true for the rest of the Government workers' unions?

 

[Amelia]

They can claim that it's not used for political purposes. But that doesn't make it so.

They are desperate to keep forcing nonmembers to pay them because it benefits them politically.

People should not have to pay money to unions for the privilege of working for government.

Public employee unions are a terrible conflict of interest. If you think they aren't abusing their political power then you are unbelievably naive.

where do you have to do that?....

In Wisconsin, people had to. Up until this July. Now they don't.

 

[The T]

They can claim that it's not used for political purposes. But that doesn't make it so.

They are desperate to keep forcing nonmembers to pay them because it benefits them politically.

People should not have to pay money to unions for the privilege of working for government.

Public employee unions are a terrible conflict of interest. If you think they aren't abusing their political power then you are unbelievably naive.

where do you have to do that?....

In Wisconsin, people had to. Up until this July. Now they don't.

I don't belive in having to pay anyone to be able to work. It's UNAMERICAN as it comes.

 

[Steelplate]

where do you have to do that?....

In Wisconsin, people had to. Up until this July. Now they don't.

I don't belive in having to pay anyone to be able to work. It's UNAMERICAN as it comes.

But I bet you'd take the Union pay scale and benefits, wouldn't you? You see, here in PA...State workers have the choice to be full union members, or be a "fair share" employee who pays 1/2 of the regular union dues. Those fair share dues give them every benefit as a full union member, except they can't vote on contracts and for officers.

 

[California Girl]

Yet more right wing hating on actual humans who walk the earth being allowed to have some power over their own lives.

Were you not the poster who called the idea of having control over one's own life an 'outdated, failed, conservative idea'? I think so... in fact, I know so.

Hypocrite.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I just did. You just didn't like the answer.

Actually all one has to do is look at the number of current battles that unions are waging with the NLRB defending workers rights and safety laws that the GOP is hell bent on taking away.

Saying that unions have outlived their usefulness is like saying the Constitution has outlived it's usefulness.

No you didnt.

All you did was tell us that unions are responsible for the possible recall of a democratically elected governor.
The question was...

"Why can't you come up with anything the unions have done recently to help improve working conditions"

You can not cite one sigle thing...and you still havent.

You got two choices here. Either look up cases before the NLRB or remain ignorant.

Bet I can guess what you're gonna do....

The only thing I hear concerning unions are with regard to collective bargaining rights. That doesn't speak about improving "working conditions". An example would be electricians being forced to work in unsafe conditions that resulted in high fatalities. Henry Miller organized the men to push for better SAFER working conditions. SAFETY is dealing with "working conditions", the right to unionize for higher pay and so the AFL-CIO can collect more dues to pay for its political lobbying in Congress, isn't. Sorry. Now tell me what union has actually DONE recently to improve working "conditions" that effects the workers' environment on the job - all politics B.S. aside.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

They can claim that it's not used for political purposes. But that doesn't make it so.

They are desperate to keep forcing nonmembers to pay them because it benefits them politically.

(Now you're simply grabbing for straws.)

People should not have to pay money to unions for the privilege of working for government.

(They don't. If you think that then you haven't a clue as to what dues are for or used for.)

Public employee unions are a terrible conflict of interest. If you think they aren't abusing their political power then you are unbelievably naive.

You actually have a LOT of say over public employee unions. Wisconsin and Walker proves that. And if you believe everything you hear on Rush's show then YOU are terribly naive and misinformed.

Actually, taxpayers that pay the salaries of public employees, are in fact also paying a portion of these union employees' paychecks towards contributions for the Democrat candidates unions support.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Not fond of Unions?

Don't join one.

Easy-peazy, dude.

Bull shit. In PA and I am sure other states that are pro union . If your a teacher you have to pay dues . You dont have to join the union but you still have to pay the dues because you may benefit from them. I say that is pretty much forcing you into the union. Another thing they give your union dollars for elections. Even if you dont agree with the candidate which is 99.9 percent a democRAT candidate .. So your dues go to someone who is pro choice and you are a conservative and is pro life you are pretty much donating to a candidate that you would never would have.

I want you to prove what I put in bold. I know that my Union, AFSCME does not use our dues money for election donations...at least in the state of PA. We have a Voluntary PAC that we CAN pay into... but it is strictly voluntary. It's called AFSCME VIP. I looked it up and SEIU also has one called COPE. Here is the information on that.

https://action.seiu.org/page/share/ftscope

You are correct, and I believe in COPE you have a select number of choices geared towards how much you desire to contribute. The problem is when it's taxpayer dollars that pays for their salaries and filters its way to election contributions (as is the case with Wisconsin). I'm sure if taxpayer dollars were being used in efforts to push laws or legislation that makes it harder for clinics to support or perform Abortions, the left would be outraged!! The issue is the use of taxpayer dollars for politics that benefits funding a specific party.

 

[The T]

They can claim that it's not used for political purposes. But that doesn't make it so.

They are desperate to keep forcing nonmembers to pay them because it benefits them politically.

(Now you're simply grabbing for straws.)

People should not have to pay money to unions for the privilege of working for government.

(They don't. If you think that then you haven't a clue as to what dues are for or used for.)

Public employee unions are a terrible conflict of interest. If you think they aren't abusing their political power then you are unbelievably naive.

You actually have a LOT of say over public employee unions. Wisconsin and Walker proves that. And if you believe everything you hear on Rush's show then YOU are terribly naive and misinformed.

Actually, taxpayers that pay the salaries of public employees, are in fact also paying a portion of these union employees' paychecks towards contributions for the Democrat candidates unions support.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

It's called legalized Money Laundering.

 

[Mr.Nick]

If their are no unions business will walk all over the workers. All workers will be making low wages, no benefits. That is just business. Unions must work with business in times of TRUE need, not for increased profits. If a president of a corporation gets a million dollar bonus ans so on and so forth, I would not work with them as a union to cut labor costs. If labor costs are causing a company to lose market shares and management is cutting their wages and benefits then the union needs to jump on board and share the burden. In no case should a union defend people who violate the companies safety and drug policies as well as any federal regulation. Cost of living increases are only fair also. It is a marriage of the management protecting the business and the investors and the unions protecting the workers from companies who fail to recognize the value of their employees.

Look at the Right to Work states. They seem to be doing quite well. More companies go there than other states and the chance of losing the jobs to overseas lessens.

So because we have retarded trade treaties, we should happily give up our rights.

Hey, let's dump all the worker safety laws/ I Mean, why not, those third world countries don't have them. So what if we lose some fingers.

Let's get rid of the child labor laws, too. I mean, those third world countries use child labor, look how competitive they are. Whooops, little Molly got sucked into a thresher. Guess we have to go down to the orphanage and get another one.

Hey, and those silly environmental laws. Yeah, let's get rid of those. Who needs clean drinking water? Just the rich. Suck it, peasants.

Come on, get real. We are not better off because we are forcing our workers to live in third world conditions.

I love the progressive dramatics...

In progressive land anyone who opposes unions wants to push 3-year-olds into slavery.

Progressives are retarded....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Look at the Right to Work states. They seem to be doing quite well. More companies go there than other states and the chance of losing the jobs to overseas lessens.

So because we have retarded trade treaties, we should happily give up our rights.

Hey, let's dump all the worker safety laws/ I Mean, why not, those third world countries don't have them. So what if we lose some fingers.

Let's get rid of the child labor laws, too. I mean, those third world countries use child labor, look how competitive they are. Whooops, little Molly got sucked into a thresher. Guess we have to go down to the orphanage and get another one.

Hey, and those silly environmental laws. Yeah, let's get rid of those. Who needs clean drinking water? Just the rich. Suck it, peasants.

Come on, get real. We are not better off because we are forcing our workers to live in third world conditions.

I love the progressive dramatics...

In progressive land anyone who opposes unions wants to push 3-year-olds into slavery.

Progressives are retarded....

If you look to either fighting unions or more government regulations, the left will attempt to introduce plenty of drama. I'm sure one small piece of legislation would allow progressives to paint a picture that would have us all wondering around the set of another Mad Max film.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So you don't think unions like The Teamsters, Longshoremen, UAW or in this case, Culinary Workers ever abuse their power?

I do.

Unions are important when they prevent wrongful terminations, harrassment, wage-fixing, unsafe conditions etc...
But many of them have gone WAY beyond those functions for decades. While I hold both the government and execs culpable for their part in costing Americans jobs, I also recognize the onus that lays squarely on the shoulders of union abuse.
The UAW from the 70's - 90's is a classic example of union abuse of power.

sure they do....but in the PO if it wasnt for the Union, workers would get treated like shit....... the only ones standing between the worker and the Assholes ....is the Union.....

Does that also hold true for the rest of the Government workers' unions?

i have no idea T......like i said earlier,i can only speak for where i work.....

 

[Steelplate]

Bull shit. In PA and I am sure other states that are pro union . If your a teacher you have to pay dues . You dont have to join the union but you still have to pay the dues because you may benefit from them. I say that is pretty much forcing you into the union. Another thing they give your union dollars for elections. Even if you dont agree with the candidate which is 99.9 percent a democRAT candidate .. So your dues go to someone who is pro choice and you are a conservative and is pro life you are pretty much donating to a candidate that you would never would have.

I want you to prove what I put in bold. I know that my Union, AFSCME does not use our dues money for election donations...at least in the state of PA. We have a Voluntary PAC that we CAN pay into... but it is strictly voluntary. It's called AFSCME VIP. I looked it up and SEIU also has one called COPE. Here is the information on that.

https://action.seiu.org/page/share/ftscope

You are correct, and I believe in COPE you have a select number of choices geared towards how much you desire to contribute. The problem is when it's taxpayer dollars that pays for their salaries and filters its way to election contributions (as is the case with Wisconsin). I'm sure if taxpayer dollars were being used in efforts to push laws or legislation that makes it harder for clinics to support or perform Abortions, the left would be outraged!! The issue is the use of taxpayer dollars for politics that benefits funding a specific party.

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.

 

[Lovebears65]

I want you to prove what I put in bold. I know that my Union, AFSCME does not use our dues money for election donations...at least in the state of PA. We have a Voluntary PAC that we CAN pay into... but it is strictly voluntary. It's called AFSCME VIP. I looked it up and SEIU also has one called COPE. Here is the information on that.

https://action.seiu.org/page/share/ftscope

You are correct, and I believe in COPE you have a select number of choices geared towards how much you desire to contribute. The problem is when it's taxpayer dollars that pays for their salaries and filters its way to election contributions (as is the case with Wisconsin). I'm sure if taxpayer dollars were being used in efforts to push laws or legislation that makes it harder for clinics to support or perform Abortions, the left would be outraged!! The issue is the use of taxpayer dollars for politics that benefits funding a specific party.

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.

People in the public sector should NEVER be allowed to join the union because it is with Tax dollars they are paid. I am sorry but if you are being paid with tax dollars and are police officers, fire chief, teachers ect you should not be allowed to strike because it will not be in the best interest of the community which is paying your wages.

 

[Jarhead]

You are correct, and I believe in COPE you have a select number of choices geared towards how much you desire to contribute. The problem is when it's taxpayer dollars that pays for their salaries and filters its way to election contributions (as is the case with Wisconsin). I'm sure if taxpayer dollars were being used in efforts to push laws or legislation that makes it harder for clinics to support or perform Abortions, the left would be outraged!! The issue is the use of taxpayer dollars for politics that benefits funding a specific party.

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.

People in the public sector should NEVER be allowed to join the union because it is with Tax dollars they are paid. I am sorry but if you are being paid with tax dollars and are police officers, fire chief, teachers ect you should not be allowed to strike because it will not be in the best interest of the community which is paying your wages.

I believe they are NOT allowed to strike.

There are usually wildcat strikes that take place instead...

I may be wrong though.

 

[Lovebears65]

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.

People in the public sector should NEVER be allowed to join the union because it is with Tax dollars they are paid. I am sorry but if you are being paid with tax dollars and are police officers, fire chief, teachers ect you should not be allowed to strike because it will not be in the best interest of the community which is paying your wages.

I believe they are NOT allowed to strike.

There are usually wildcat strikes that take place instead...

I may be wrong though.

teachers strike all the the time!!!

 

[Steelplate]

You are correct, and I believe in COPE you have a select number of choices geared towards how much you desire to contribute. The problem is when it's taxpayer dollars that pays for their salaries and filters its way to election contributions (as is the case with Wisconsin). I'm sure if taxpayer dollars were being used in efforts to push laws or legislation that makes it harder for clinics to support or perform Abortions, the left would be outraged!! The issue is the use of taxpayer dollars for politics that benefits funding a specific party.

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.

People in the public sector should NEVER be allowed to join the union because it is with Tax dollars they are paid. I am sorry but if you are being paid with tax dollars and are police officers, fire chief, teachers ect you should not be allowed to strike because it will not be in the best interest of the community which is paying your wages.

Last State wide strike in Pennsylvania was 1976. The only public employees that tend to strike more often is teachers.... and that's against local government. In fact, it would be interesting to see how often general public sector employees across the nation actually went on strike. I've been in the service of Pennsylvania since 1987(minus a three year break in service when I worked in the private sector), and we've never even threatened to go on strike... we've given ground in every contract since I've started... in wages and in benefits.

BTW... in 1976... the strike lasted three days.. until the workers were court ordered back by the PA Supreme Court... which is standard operating procedure in a general strike.