Florida Leads The Way...

[bripat9643]

Shareholders of corporations. If union members should be able to withhold monies used by union leaders, why shouldn't shareholders also be able to withhold monies used by corporate leaders?

They can. They can vote on that at every shareholder's meeting, or sell their stock.

 

[Toro]

Shareholders of corporations. If union members should be able to withhold monies used by union leaders, why shouldn't shareholders also be able to withhold monies used by corporate leaders?

They can. They can vote on that at every shareholder's meeting, or sell their stock.

No they cannot. Shareholders cannot vote on where their money is spent politically.

And union members can quit their jobs.

 

[Harry Dresden]

and these measures for the WORKER'S union should be made by big gvt, instead of the union members themselves?

please explain WHY you think government should make the rules for them, and their group?

Really, Care to name one Union that has EVER giving it's members a choice about Auto Paid Dues, or asked them what they think of the Candidate their Union Backs?

I can't wait for you to show me the Union that gives it's members a choice.

Ill hold my breath, Hurry back.

my Union did..(N.A.L.C.)...but they backed who they wanted to anyway....which did not surprise anyone....

 

[bripat9643]

I believe the ruling on the boyscouts that they can keep Gay scoutmasters from joining their group was decided already.

True, but all you libs think that decision was incorrect.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh what BULLCRUD Charles....

the share holders OWN THE CORPORATION, for goodness sakes.....!

sheesh!

that's right, and if they don't like how the corporation is run, they can vote out the management or sell their shares. Can a union employee choose not to be a member of the union in a union state?

Nope.

 

[Toro]

Oh what BULLCRUD Charles....

the share holders OWN THE CORPORATION, for goodness sakes.....!

sheesh!

that's right, and if they don't like how the corporation is run, they can vote out the management or sell their shares. Can a union employee choose not to be a member of the union in a union state?

Nope.

Of course they can. There are no states where all the jobs are union jobs. They can go work somewhere else that is non-union. They can also vote out their union leaders.

 

[bripat9643]

that's right, and if they don't like how the corporation is run, they can vote out the management or sell their shares. Can a union employee choose not to be a member of the union in a union state?

Nope.

Of course they can. There are no states where all the jobs are union jobs. They can go work somewhere else that is non-union. They can also vote out their union leaders.

Bull. If a pipe fitter wants to get a job he's qualified for in a union state, he has to join the union. He doesn't have a choice. Saying he can work at Burger King if he doesn't want to join the union is Stalinist horse squeeze. According to that definition of "voluntary," paying protection money to Guido the local leg breaker is "voluntary" because you can close your business and move if you don't like it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh, him...you actually like that guy? He'd be okay if he never opened his mouth but he is seriously one of the worst actors on the planet. I guess he's not gay, it was just the costume in T's avi.

IDIOT...Nevermind the character portrayed...

AGAIN Florida is leading the NATION to tell the unions to **** off...BACK ON TOPIC...Ravi> **** OFF.

Hey, if you're going to go prancing around with a gay looking avatar don't get mad if you are questioned.

There is no reason people can't form unions...maybe there should be a reason that politicians can't vote for their own raises though.

Mel Gibson looks Gay?......

 

[Toro]

that's right, and if they don't like how the corporation is run, they can vote out the management or sell their shares. Can a union employee choose not to be a member of the union in a union state?

Nope.

Of course they can. There are no states where all the jobs are union jobs. They can go work somewhere else that is non-union. They can also vote out their union leaders.

Bull. If a pipe fitter wants to get a job he's qualified for in a union state, he has to join the union. He doesn't have a choice. Saying he can work at Burger King if he doesn't want to join the union is Stalinist horse squeeze. According to that definition of "voluntary," paying protection money to Guido the local leg breaker is "voluntary" because you can close your business and move if you don't like it.

So why do I have to sell my stock, then? If I really like Apple's products and I think they are going to make a lot of money, why should I be forced to have Apple spend my money that I have contributed to the company in ways I think are politically inappropriate? Why should I have to miss out earning a boatload of money because you think I should sell my stock because I don't like Steve Jobs's politics? How is that any different than the pipe fitter who has to miss out earning money as a pipe fitter and instead has to work at Wal-Mart?

I'm not necessarily pro or anti-union. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument. If you think that union members should have the right to dictate to the union where their money should go politically, why do shareholders not have the same rights with their money in a corporation? Why should shareholders have less say over their money than union members? Why are shareholders less worthy than union members?

Oh, and your argument is wrong on another level. If your only choices in a 401k plan are mutual funds, the shareholder cannot sell his stock. He has to own it. If he is part of a defined benefit pension plan, he cannot sell his stock. He has to own it. And of course, not every shareholder can sell stock.

 

[Care4all]

bripat is a bit behind the times and his supposed facts are not facts in Florida, which is a ''right to work'' state.

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

no one is Forced to join the union in Florida in order to work in their field.

no union member's dues goes to political parties, PAC money, outside of dues, goes towards political causes in the state of Florida.

And PAC donations are strictly voluntary.

i can go on and on.....

nothing he has said is true for the state of florida and their unions....they are not even accurate for Massachusetts, the numero uno union state anymore....maybe 20 years ago it was as he said, but not now....

 

[Article 15]

OK PLASMADORK...time has COME...

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I love this post so much.

 

[Douger]

The only good thing about Floridastan is the Cubans are finally out numbering the *******, Jews and brain dead rednecks(republicans).
Them there Cubanos are some hard working, hard playing sumbitches.

 

[WillowTree]

bripat is a bit behind the times and his supposed facts are not facts in Florida, which is a ''right to work'' state.

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

no one is Forced to join the union in Florida in order to work in their field.

no union member's dues goes to political parties, PAC money, outside of dues, goes towards political causes in the state of Florida.

And PAC donations are strictly voluntary.

i can go on and on.....

nothing he has said is true for the state of florida and their unions....they are not even accurate for Massachusetts, the numero uno union state anymore....maybe 20 years ago it was as he said, but not now....

So why did they need this legislation in Florida? doyathink?

 

[Harry Dresden]

The only good thing about Floridastan is the Cubans are finally out numbering the *******, Jews and brain dead rednecks(republicans).
Them there Cubanos are some hard working, hard playing sumbitches.

i find it hard to believe that anyone here has actually repped you....they must be the ones who are as stupid as you are......

 

[editec]

'Bout what I'd expect from FLA, really.

 

[WillowTree]

'Bout what I'd expect from FLA, really.

I love Fla. Yes, I do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

bripat is a bit behind the times and his supposed facts are not facts in Florida, which is a ''right to work'' state.

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

no one is Forced to join the union in Florida in order to work in their field.

no union member's dues goes to political parties, PAC money, outside of dues, goes towards political causes in the state of Florida.

And PAC donations are strictly voluntary.

i can go on and on.....

nothing he has said is true for the state of florida and their unions....they are not even accurate for Massachusetts, the numero uno union state anymore....maybe 20 years ago it was as he said, but not now....

So why did they need this legislation in Florida? doyathink?

"So why did they need this legislation in Florida?" seems to be the wrong question. The Florida Constitution (Article 1 Section 6) makes Florida a Right-To-Work State meaning that people have to voluntarily join a union, they cannot be forced to do so as a condition of employment.


The correct question is why did Florida Republicans in the Legislature feel the need to take action based on a voluntary decision?

1. Please don't say it's because of the "burden" to state payroll workers. One, payrolls are processed by computers, the deductions come out automatically and are transferred electronically. In our system, people can even make such voluntary elections themselves online via a self-service option. Secondly there is actually going to be a cost as policies will have to be updated and IT staff will now have to reprogram the payroll system to remove the availability of such a voluntary option.

2. The law is written to target voluntary union deductions, yet those for charities, personal insurance options and Florida State Football Tickets are left unaffected.​

So the answer to the real question is pretty obvious, they didn't need to remove the payroll deduction option. The answer is that Republicans in power wanted to make it more difficult for Democrats to support a union.



>>>>

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course they can. There are no states where all the jobs are union jobs. They can go work somewhere else that is non-union. They can also vote out their union leaders.

Bull. If a pipe fitter wants to get a job he's qualified for in a union state, he has to join the union. He doesn't have a choice. Saying he can work at Burger King if he doesn't want to join the union is Stalinist horse squeeze. According to that definition of "voluntary," paying protection money to Guido the local leg breaker is "voluntary" because you can close your business and move if you don't like it.

So why do I have to sell my stock, then? If I really like Apple's products and I think they are going to make a lot of money, why should I be forced to have Apple spend my money that I have contributed to the company in ways I think are politically inappropriate? Why should I have to miss out earning a boatload of money because you think I should sell my stock because I don't like Steve Jobs's politics? How is that any different than the pipe fitter who has to miss out earning money as a pipe fitter and instead has to work at Wal-Mart?

I'm not necessarily pro or anti-union. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument. If you think that union members should have the right to dictate to the union where their money should go politically, why do shareholders not have the same rights with their money in a corporation? Why should shareholders have less say over their money than union members? Why are shareholders less worthy than union members?

Oh, and your argument is wrong on another level. If your only choices in a 401k plan are mutual funds, the shareholder cannot sell his stock. He has to own it. If he is part of a defined benefit pension plan, he cannot sell his stock. He has to own it. And of course, not every shareholder can sell stock.

Shares, not share holders, have the same rights as union members. If I own 51% of the shares of a corporation, what I say goes. In a union, every member essentially holds one share. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Toro]

Shares, not share holders, have the same rights as union members. If I own 51% of the shares of a corporation, what I say goes. In a union, every member essentially holds one share. What's so hard to understand?

I'm not saying all shareholders should have an equal vote. If you have 51% of the shares, and you want the company to donate $1000, then the company should be able to donate $510 of the company's money. If the other 49% wants to donate $2000, then the company can donate $1490. If on the other hand the 49% wants to donate $0, then the most a company can donate is $510.

At least this is the way it should be if you are going to give union members the right to have a say over where their dues go for political purposes. If you give the right to dictate how one's money is spent to union members, you should give that right to shareholders too. Why should shareholders have less rights than union members?

On the other hand, if you think the union can spend money on political activities without consulting their membership, then corporations don't need to consult with shareholders either. Just be consistent.

 

[bodecea]

I believe the ruling on the boyscouts that they can keep Gay scoutmasters from joining their group was decided already.

True, but all you libs think that decision was incorrect.

And....?