If someone doens't want a union job they should....

[HereWeGoAgain]

What's "free market" about forcing people to pay for services they don't want?

No one is. If you don't want a union job don't apply for one. No one forces anyone to take a job at a union shop.

Wow. The twisted illogic it takes to construct this kind of statement is simply breathtaking to behold!

.

Exactly what I was thinking. Twisted logic indeed.

 

[Jarhead]

That is no longer necessary, oompoop.

The law now says a worker has the choice.


Oh. and big letters, small dick.

SHOW ME THE LAW that has ever required someone to apply to work at a union shop.

SHOW ME THE LAW that has ever required someone to apply to work at Walmart....but that doesnt stop the left from complaining and picketing against Walmart.

SHOW ME A LAW that requires someone to take a job ANYWHERE....yet the left is all wrapped up in how business owners are taking advantage of their employees.

Your argument is weak.

I agree with you but I agree ON ALL FRONTS...both Walmart AND union shops...

However, this legislation has nothing to do with taking way ones right to join a union. It has to with with offering one the right to not have to take a job with a union....and the bottom line is this....if it results in unions losing their membershipo, then maybe those unions are doing something wrong?

 

[zeke]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

The point your missing and most of you are missing is that it isn't so much as whether or not you have to join a union, it's the dues you have to pay. If you are a non-union worker you have to pay what amounts to union dues to the union because they claim they set up the contracts, pensions...etc. And if you as a worker wants to work then you have to pay for the privilige.

Workers can negotiate their own wages when they hire on. The unions has no part in that.

 

[blastoff]

Teachers' union, Bay City, MI. You will be fired if you are found to be drunk in the classroom, but only if it's your FIFTH drunk in the classroom offense. And a teacher will be fired if caught selling drugs to students, if it's the SECOND time they've been caught selling drugs to students.

I imagine folks are just flocking to Bay City so they can have their kids educated by the city's unionized teachers.

 

[Bern80]

If someone doens't want a union job they should....

I would love to answer what I think you're asking, but the question as phrased now doesn't make much sense. If someone doesn't want a union job.....uhhh what exactly does that mean? What is the premise? Are you trying to say if a person wants to do a job that employs union workers but the individual just doesn't want to be a part of the union? That person just doesn't want to be a member of any union? Or perhaps you mean some person who is dead set on a career in which most/all individuals are union members. To me that is such a narrow segment of people as to make the qeus

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes and mindset of this fictitious individual. Like if my passion in life was to be a teacher and I want to teach but I don't want to be a member of a union. I suppose what I would do is try to find a teaching gig that didn't require me to be in a union. Simple enough. The problem with your question that your trying to trap people into, is that it would require a person to have such specific unbending career goal in life that the question no longer is realistic because most people just aren't that way. Unless you think there's this huge group of people who will settle for nothing less than teaching 8th grade science at a public school in only in town x.

 

[zeke]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

The point your missing and most of you are missing is that it isn't so much as whether or not you have to join a union, it's the dues you have to pay. If you are a non-union worker you have to pay what amounts to union dues to the union because they claim they set up the contracts, pensions...etc. And if you as a worker wants to work then you have to pay for the privilige.

Workers can negotiate their own wages when they hire on. The unions has no part in that.

Would it be fair if the non union worker was paid 2/3rds of the union workers hourly wage?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The idea that you think people should be forced to join a union as a condition of employment is absurd.

Try reading these English words:

No one is forced to join a union. If you don't want a union job, you're free to not take one.

Now do you understand those English words?

It's disgusting that you think you have the right to tell people they have to belong to a group that doesn't represent them and force them to pay those groups money to have them spend it against their best interests just tells us how big a robber you are.

Last time I checked, I'm not a union or a business with a union-shop agreement, so no, I don't have that right. What's disgusting is that you think you have the right to tell business and labor what kinds of deals they can make because you think you know better than they do.

What's so hard to understand? If you don't think the wages a union has negotiated at a union-shop are worth the dues, then seek employment elsewhere.

How does that work for a trade union? Is a plumber or electrician going to be able to find work in a union state without joining the union?

Hint: No.

Once again, the union position is anti-freedom.

not all trades require union membership.

 

[Jarhead]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

OK....fine.

Then why the uproar over Walmart? Who made those people work there?
Why the uproar over how business owners treat their employees? Who makes those people work for tyrant bosses?

Why do you so quickly apply your premise to this topic, but so quick to argue that Walmart employees are not fairly treated? .

And the irony?

This legislation simply allows an employee to decide if he wants to pay union dues or not....it has nothing to do with taking a job...heck...one on the job now has the chopice to decide that MAYBE his dues are a waste of his money....or another to decide....hecki, I like the union, so I will continue as a member.

Man...you are way off base with your thinking.

 

[Jarhead]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

The point your missing and most of you are missing is that it isn't so much as whether or not you have to join a union, it's the dues you have to pay. If you are a non-union worker you have to pay what amounts to union dues to the union because they claim they set up the contracts, pensions...etc. And if you as a worker wants to work then you have to pay for the privilige.

Workers can negotiate their own wages when they hire on. The unions has no part in that.

Would it be fair if the non union worker was paid 2/3rds of the union workers hourly wage?

If that is all he is offered, he has the right to turn it down...and if the business owner has trouble hiring people becuase they dont like the salary, he will likely offer higher salaries....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

The point your missing and most of you are missing is that it isn't so much as whether or not you have to join a union, it's the dues you have to pay. If you are a non-union worker you have to pay what amounts to union dues to the union because they claim they set up the contracts, pensions...etc. And if you as a worker wants to work then you have to pay for the privilige.

Workers can negotiate their own wages when they hire on. The unions has no part in that.

Would it be fair if the non union worker was paid 2/3rds of the union workers hourly wage?

Yes if that's the wage he negotiated for and agreed to.

Fair is a subjective term. What's fair to me may not seem fair to you.

But here's a little secret. Life isn't fair and there is no way in hell you, the government or anyone else can guarantee fairness to everyone.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Of only the right wing whack jobs would be truthful.

You all could give fuk less about unions. And like ohhpoo says; you don't want to pay union dues, don't apply to work at that company.

And if those none union jobs are so fuking good, why would anyone want to work in a union shop?

Of course if the companies got the ok to hire and not honor the union contract they entered into, and the new hires (non union) got paid half what the union guys got paid, would that be ok? Sure it would.

But really, the only problem with the rethugs and the unions is that union members tend to vote, and vote for Democrats.

And that is the problem they are trying to "fix". They could give a shit about "wages" and "benefits" and "workplace safety" and all that.

Union dues supporting Dems is the problem. The only problem. Just that the rethugs can't be honest enough to admit it.

The job itself has absolutely nothing to do with the union.

If i want to be a welder because I love it why should I be forced to pay union dues if I don't want union representation?

If I want to teach....

etc etc.

The job is the job and the union has nothing to do with the job.

There is no such thing as a union job.

You hit that nail on the head. Unions do not create jobs. Rather, they exist as parasites, deriving their power by controlling the jobs created and provided by others, and by sucking out their pound of flesh from the workers they profess to represent.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

OK....fine.

Then why the uproar over Walmart? Who made those people work there?
Why the uproar over how business owners treat their employees? Who makes those people work for tyrant bosses?

Why do you so quickly apply your premise to this topic, but so quick to argue that Walmart employees are not fairly treated? .

And the irony?

This legislation simply allows an employee to decide if he wants to pay union dues or not....it has nothing to do with taking a job...heck...one on the job now has the chopice to decide that MAYBE his dues are a waste of his money....or another to decide....hecki, I like the union, so I will continue as a member.

Man...you are way off base with your thinking.

this interjects the governments into the relationship between the employer and employee. if an employer has already come to an agreement with a union to make his shop or business union run then why does the government feel the need to change that relationship? if the owner of the business chooses to, he can refuse to renew the union contract once it expires. now this could be a terrible business decision, but it is his decision nonetheless. but at the same time, if that business owner chooses to continue with that union contract that is his choice as well. why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

no one has ever been forced to join a union, or in your example work at walmart. the issue i see with walmart is that they have openly fought against labor trying to unionize, when the ability to unionize is a protected right. the smarter thing walmart workers could have done was simply mass strike for better wages and benefits. this would not have taken a union. but then again those workers also could have sought employment elsewhere. its a double edged sword for low skilled workers. but again, why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Of only the right wing whack jobs would be truthful.

You all could give fuk less about unions. And like ohhpoo says; you don't want to pay union dues, don't apply to work at that company.

And if those none union jobs are so fuking good, why would anyone want to work in a union shop?

Of course if the companies got the ok to hire and not honor the union contract they entered into, and the new hires (non union) got paid half what the union guys got paid, would that be ok? Sure it would.

But really, the only problem with the rethugs and the unions is that union members tend to vote, and vote for Democrats.

And that is the problem they are trying to "fix". They could give a shit about "wages" and "benefits" and "workplace safety" and all that.

Union dues supporting Dems is the problem. The only problem. Just that the rethugs can't be honest enough to admit it.

The job itself has absolutely nothing to do with the union.

If i want to be a welder because I love it why should I be forced to pay union dues if I don't want union representation?

If I want to teach....

etc etc.

The job is the job and the union has nothing to do with the job.

There is no such thing as a union job.

You hit that nail on the head. Unions do not create jobs. Rather, they exist as parasites, deriving their power by controlling the jobs created and provided by others, and by sucking out their pound of flesh from the workers they profess to represent.

got anything else to add beside right wing talking points?

 

[Bern80]

You hit that nail on the head. Unions do not create jobs. Rather, they exist as parasites, deriving their power by controlling the jobs created and provided by others, and by sucking out their pound of flesh from the workers they profess to represent.

A good point that should make people look at this from a different perspective. Life is not so much about getting a job to make a living, it's about establishing a cash flow to meet your needs and wants. If you think about working for a union, as in managing one, it's pretty ingenious gig. Someone basically says to themselves; 'I'm not going to establish a cash flow by acquiring a skill that generates income by selling that skill to someone. Instead what I'm gonna do is collect money from people that are doing that and being productive and instead spend my time arguing that people deserve even more despite the fact their productivity remains unchanged.' Like I said, pretty ingenious. Sleazy too, but still ingenious.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The job itself has absolutely nothing to do with the union.

If i want to be a welder because I love it why should I be forced to pay union dues if I don't want union representation?

If I want to teach....

etc etc.

The job is the job and the union has nothing to do with the job.

There is no such thing as a union job.

You hit that nail on the head. Unions do not create jobs. Rather, they exist as parasites, deriving their power by controlling the jobs created and provided by others, and by sucking out their pound of flesh from the workers they profess to represent.

got anything else to add beside right wing talking points?

this interjects the governments into the relationship between the employer and employee. if an employer has already come to an agreement with a union to make his shop or business union run then why does the government feel the need to change that relationship? if the owner of the business chooses to, he can refuse to renew the union contract once it expires. now this could be a terrible business decision, but it is his decision nonetheless. but at the same time, if that business owner chooses to continue with that union contract that is his choice as well. why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

no one has ever been forced to join a union, or in your example work at walmart. the issue i see with walmart is that they have openly fought against labor trying to unionize, when the ability to unionize is a protected right. the smarter thing walmart workers could have done was simply mass strike for better wages and benefits. this would not have taken a union. but then again those workers also could have sought employment elsewhere. its a double edged sword for low skilled workers. but again, why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

You got anything better than your left-wing hypocrisy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How does that work for a trade union? Is a plumber or electrician going to be able to find work in a union state without joining the union?

Hint: No.

Once again, the union position is anti-freedom.

This was a comedy of errors for the ruling Communists here in California. On the one hand, they pander to the unions, on the other hand they promote illegal immigration. The illegals work non-union on construction jobs, shutting the unions out. The Communists had to offend one side or the other. In the end, they supported the illegals.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

You hit that nail on the head. Unions do not create jobs. Rather, they exist as parasites, deriving their power by controlling the jobs created and provided by others, and by sucking out their pound of flesh from the workers they profess to represent.

got anything else to add beside right wing talking points?

this interjects the governments into the relationship between the employer and employee. if an employer has already come to an agreement with a union to make his shop or business union run then why does the government feel the need to change that relationship? if the owner of the business chooses to, he can refuse to renew the union contract once it expires. now this could be a terrible business decision, but it is his decision nonetheless. but at the same time, if that business owner chooses to continue with that union contract that is his choice as well. why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

no one has ever been forced to join a union, or in your example work at walmart. the issue i see with walmart is that they have openly fought against labor trying to unionize, when the ability to unionize is a protected right. the smarter thing walmart workers could have done was simply mass strike for better wages and benefits. this would not have taken a union. but then again those workers also could have sought employment elsewhere. its a double edged sword for low skilled workers. but again, why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

You got anything better than your left-wing hypocrisy?

thanks for adding nothing to conversation. typical conservative.

 

[Jarhead]

There must be something seriously wrong with those of you who identify yourselves as Repugs.

What could be easier to understand than this;

If you don't want to work for a unionized company, don't apply for work at that company.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Evidentally not.

Must be mostly rethugs bitiching about paying union dues. They don't mind getting paid the wages negotiated by the union. But don't want to pay the dues.

Sounds like a typical rethug to me. Gimme gimme. But, don't ask me to give something back.

OK....fine.

Then why the uproar over Walmart? Who made those people work there?
Why the uproar over how business owners treat their employees? Who makes those people work for tyrant bosses?

Why do you so quickly apply your premise to this topic, but so quick to argue that Walmart employees are not fairly treated? .

And the irony?

This legislation simply allows an employee to decide if he wants to pay union dues or not....it has nothing to do with taking a job...heck...one on the job now has the chopice to decide that MAYBE his dues are a waste of his money....or another to decide....hecki, I like the union, so I will continue as a member.

Man...you are way off base with your thinking.

this interjects the governments into the relationship between the employer and employee. if an employer has already come to an agreement with a union to make his shop or business union run then why does the government feel the need to change that relationship? if the owner of the business chooses to, he can refuse to renew the union contract once it expires. now this could be a terrible business decision, but it is his decision nonetheless. but at the same time, if that business owner chooses to continue with that union contract that is his choice as well. why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

no one has ever been forced to join a union, or in your example work at walmart. the issue i see with walmart is that they have openly fought against labor trying to unionize, when the ability to unionize is a protected right. the smarter thing walmart workers could have done was simply mass strike for better wages and benefits. this would not have taken a union. but then again those workers also could have sought employment elsewhere. its a double edged sword for low skilled workers. but again, why does the right feel the need to legislate this issue?

I do not see how government is interjecting itself in the relationship between an employer and an employee.

All they are doing is saying that a UNION can not force an employee to pay them duies if they opt to NOT want to be part of a union.

They are serving the people they were elcted to serve and ensuring that those people will ALWAYS have the right to choose..

Sorry if it affects unions....but the people come first.

And an FYI....if it has an adverse affect on unions, then unions are doing something wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

I will never ever knowingly buy anything that is union made. I have had this policy since about 1990s or so. Any time I see a union label, I opt out.

so buy Chinese.....im sure that's quality....

I'm with PredFan. I see a union label and get something else. I'll buy Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Guatemalan, ANYTHING but made by a union shop. There has to be literally no alternative for me to spend my money to support unions. Now that the union forced Chrysler to hire back 13 drug addict drunks to build Jeeps, I feel even MORE strongly about my no union policy.