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

[danielpalos]

thank you; i knew you didn't have a clue or a Cause.

Why should a Firm have any say in how union funds are collected or spent?

They shouldn't so long as the firm isn't being forced to collect them.

Firms are already forced to collect.

That's wrong also, but it's worse when the firm collects for some third party rather than for the government.

it is not wrong; you only have an appeal to ignorance, not a valid rebuttal. want to try and cite some facts, this time; Person on the (habitually disingenuous) Right.

Is there some secret probationary moral regarding false witness bearing for a Lord God or a Lord Satan?

It is right. Union organizing is where unions impose a labor monopoly on an employer. It's not voluntary on the part of the employer and a lot of the employees.

You obviously don't know jack shit about unions and how they operate.

It requires a democracy of Labor to accomplish; not just an arbitrary and capricious decision by an owner or management for some bottom line factor or political equivalent.

 

[bripat9643]

We also need to get rid of withholding income taxes...that is the best tool the politicians have for raising taxes...if you don't see it...you don't get mad...and they just keep raising those taxes....

the right doesn't have a problem with that right now; their passion of the moment is to "screw over" unions.

That's sort of like "screwing over" a thief by taking away his stolen loot.

unions have more Informed Consent than Firms.

The firm doesn't consent to anything the union imposes on it, except in the sense that a the victim of a mugging consents to turning over his wallet to the mugger.

Collective bargaining is a form of democracy in action; only the Right objects to representation for Labor as the least wealthy.

It doesn't matter who objects or who approves, democracy and collective bargaining are both coercive. All laws are ultimately enforced with guns, and so is collective bargaining.

 

[bripat9643]

They shouldn't so long as the firm isn't being forced to collect them.

Firms are already forced to collect.

That's wrong also, but it's worse when the firm collects for some third party rather than for the government.

it is not wrong; you only have an appeal to ignorance, not a valid rebuttal. want to try and cite some facts, this time; Person on the (habitually disingenuous) Right.

Is there some secret probationary moral regarding false witness bearing for a Lord God or a Lord Satan?

It is right. Union organizing is where unions impose a labor monopoly on an employer. It's not voluntary on the part of the employer and a lot of the employees.

You obviously don't know jack shit about unions and how they operate.

It requires a democracy of Labor to accomplish; not just an arbitrary and capricious decision by an owner or management for some bottom line factor or political equivalent.

Democracy isn't voluntary. It's compulsory. How are the decisions of management any more arbitrary or capricious than the decisions of the union?

 

[bripat9643]

Why should the corporation collect it? What it is actually doing is stealing it from the worker for the benefit of the union management.

Why shouldn't a Firm collect it if it is in charge of payroll and other deductions?

Pay is a contractual arrangement between the firm and its employees. Why should it be forced to do the bidding of a third party?

You really don't have a clue what freedom or property rights are about, do you?

Not with collective bargaining; Person on the Right who is habitually, with only a lost clue and a lost Cause. No honest Injuens available for your Cause; it shows in your arguments.

Collective bargaining is not a voluntary arrangement for the firm or even a lot of the employees. The government forces it on them. If the firm was able to contract with who it liked, it would tell the union to get the fuck out and never come back. Collective bargaining is being forced to do the bidding of a third party.

Collective bargaining involves more Informed Consent than simply getting hired on an allegedly at-will basis.

It isn't consented to by the firm and a large percentage of the employees.

 

[danielpalos]

the right doesn't have a problem with that right now; their passion of the moment is to "screw over" unions.

That's sort of like "screwing over" a thief by taking away his stolen loot.

unions have more Informed Consent than Firms.

The firm doesn't consent to anything the union imposes on it, except in the sense that a the victim of a mugging consents to turning over his wallet to the mugger.

Collective bargaining is a form of democracy in action; only the Right objects to representation for Labor as the least wealthy.

It doesn't matter who objects or who approves, democracy and collective bargaining are both coercive. All laws are ultimately enforced with guns, and so is collective bargaining.

So too can be decisions of management; why whine about it, Person o the Right--not enough moral fortitude?

 

[bripat9643]

That's sort of like "screwing over" a thief by taking away his stolen loot.

unions have more Informed Consent than Firms.

The firm doesn't consent to anything the union imposes on it, except in the sense that a the victim of a mugging consents to turning over his wallet to the mugger.

Collective bargaining is a form of democracy in action; only the Right objects to representation for Labor as the least wealthy.

It doesn't matter who objects or who approves, democracy and collective bargaining are both coercive. All laws are ultimately enforced with guns, and so is collective bargaining.

So too can be decisions of management; why whine about it, Person o the Right--not enough moral fortitude?

You're spewing gibberish again.

 

[danielpalos]

Firms are already forced to collect.

That's wrong also, but it's worse when the firm collects for some third party rather than for the government.

it is not wrong; you only have an appeal to ignorance, not a valid rebuttal. want to try and cite some facts, this time; Person on the (habitually disingenuous) Right.

Is there some secret probationary moral regarding false witness bearing for a Lord God or a Lord Satan?

It is right. Union organizing is where unions impose a labor monopoly on an employer. It's not voluntary on the part of the employer and a lot of the employees.

You obviously don't know jack shit about unions and how they operate.

It requires a democracy of Labor to accomplish; not just an arbitrary and capricious decision by an owner or management for some bottom line factor or political equivalent.

Democracy isn't voluntary. It's compulsory. How are the decisions of management any more arbitrary or capricious than the decisions of the union?

If democracy isn't voluntary, why do you prefer the outright command economics of management; (Person on the cognitively dissonant) Right.

 

[danielpalos]

Why shouldn't a Firm collect it if it is in charge of payroll and other deductions?

Pay is a contractual arrangement between the firm and its employees. Why should it be forced to do the bidding of a third party?

You really don't have a clue what freedom or property rights are about, do you?

Not with collective bargaining; Person on the Right who is habitually, with only a lost clue and a lost Cause. No honest Injuens available for your Cause; it shows in your arguments.

Collective bargaining is not a voluntary arrangement for the firm or even a lot of the employees. The government forces it on them. If the firm was able to contract with who it liked, it would tell the union to get the fuck out and never come back. Collective bargaining is being forced to do the bidding of a third party.

Collective bargaining involves more Informed Consent than simply getting hired on an allegedly at-will basis.

It isn't consented to by the firm and a large percentage of the employees.

how does that work when they vote for unionizing?

 

[danielpalos]

unions have more Informed Consent than Firms.

The firm doesn't consent to anything the union imposes on it, except in the sense that a the victim of a mugging consents to turning over his wallet to the mugger.

Collective bargaining is a form of democracy in action; only the Right objects to representation for Labor as the least wealthy.

It doesn't matter who objects or who approves, democracy and collective bargaining are both coercive. All laws are ultimately enforced with guns, and so is collective bargaining.

So too can be decisions of management; why whine about it, Person o the Right--not enough moral fortitude?

You're spewing gibberish again.

i can always tell when the Right starts to lose their clue and their Cause; now that I am on the left, i merely have political fun and political practice at their expense, whenever possible.

 

[bripat9643]

Pay is a contractual arrangement between the firm and its employees. Why should it be forced to do the bidding of a third party?

You really don't have a clue what freedom or property rights are about, do you?

Not with collective bargaining; Person on the Right who is habitually, with only a lost clue and a lost Cause. No honest Injuens available for your Cause; it shows in your arguments.

Collective bargaining is not a voluntary arrangement for the firm or even a lot of the employees. The government forces it on them. If the firm was able to contract with who it liked, it would tell the union to get the fuck out and never come back. Collective bargaining is being forced to do the bidding of a third party.

Collective bargaining involves more Informed Consent than simply getting hired on an allegedly at-will basis.

It isn't consented to by the firm and a large percentage of the employees.

how does that work when they vote for unionizing?

How does the firm consent to it? The employees who voted "no" certainly didn't consent to it, did they?

 

[bripat9643]

The firm doesn't consent to anything the union imposes on it, except in the sense that a the victim of a mugging consents to turning over his wallet to the mugger.

Collective bargaining is a form of democracy in action; only the Right objects to representation for Labor as the least wealthy.

It doesn't matter who objects or who approves, democracy and collective bargaining are both coercive. All laws are ultimately enforced with guns, and so is collective bargaining.

So too can be decisions of management; why whine about it, Person o the Right--not enough moral fortitude?

You're spewing gibberish again.

i can always tell when the Right starts to lose their clue and their Cause; now that I am on the left, i merely have political fun and political practice at their expense, whenever possible.

More gibberish.

 

[bripat9643]

That's wrong also, but it's worse when the firm collects for some third party rather than for the government.

it is not wrong; you only have an appeal to ignorance, not a valid rebuttal. want to try and cite some facts, this time; Person on the (habitually disingenuous) Right.

Is there some secret probationary moral regarding false witness bearing for a Lord God or a Lord Satan?

It is right. Union organizing is where unions impose a labor monopoly on an employer. It's not voluntary on the part of the employer and a lot of the employees.

You obviously don't know jack shit about unions and how they operate.

It requires a democracy of Labor to accomplish; not just an arbitrary and capricious decision by an owner or management for some bottom line factor or political equivalent.

Democracy isn't voluntary. It's compulsory. How are the decisions of management any more arbitrary or capricious than the decisions of the union?

If democracy isn't voluntary, why do you prefer the outright command economics of management; (Person on the cognitively dissonant) Right.

Employees are free to leave if the don't like the way the company they work for is run. It's a voluntary arrangement.

 

[Flash]

[

only the cognitively dissonant Right wants to keep our silly wars on silly abstractions to practice financing them with our Tax monies via direct forms of taxation. rodnim.

only the cognitively dissonant Left wants to keep our destructive welfare state on silly abstractions to practice financing them with our Tax monies via direct forms of taxation. rodnim

 

[zeke]

How does the firm consent to it? The employees who voted "no" certainly didn't consent to it, did they?

Whats the matter dude. Can't the person who voted "no" on a union contract just quit their job and go find a new one that they will like? Why sure they can. So that's what they need to do. Don't like that the majority of a shop voted in a union? To fucking bad, go get another job then. Right briar patty?

 

[zeke]

Employees are free to leave if the don't like the way the company they work for is run. It's a voluntary arrangement.

That's just what I was saying. An employee doesn't like it that a union was voted in, they can quit and go get another job. It always a voluntary arrangement who they work for.

 

[bripat9643]

How does the firm consent to it? The employees who voted "no" certainly didn't consent to it, did they?

Whats the matter dude. Can't the person who voted "no" on a union contract just quit their job and go find a new one that they will like? Why sure they can. So that's what they need to do. Don't like that the majority of a shop voted in a union? To fucking bad, go get another job then. Right briar patty?

Why should someone have to quit because of decisions made by third parties? The union isn't the party supplying the job, the firm is. I know turds like you think a majority vote justifies anything, that is unless the GAYstapo or some other Democrat interest group objects. Then it's a crime against humanity!

The question here is why the union should have any say in the matter whatsoever? Why should an employer have to do business with a union if it chooses not to?

 

[Flash]

It requires a democracy of Labor to accomplish; not just an arbitrary and capricious decision by an owner or management for some bottom line factor or political equivalent.

Talk about arbitrary and capricious decision but back int eh 1970s my wife belonged to a teacher's union.

The filthy ass Libtard leadership of the union made a arbitrary and capricious decision to use my wife's money to support that idiot Jimmy Carter for President.

Thank goodness Florida is a right to work state because then she was able to tell the union to go fuck themselves and quit.

Liberals hate the idea of freedom. She was free once she quit the union.

By the way, there is no democracy in business. Business in not a welfare state or social justice experiment. Business exist solely to make a profit. Labor is a commodity just like anything else and should be controlled by market forces and not government protection.

 

[Flash]

[



That's just what I was saying. An employee doesn't like it that a union was voted in, they can quit and go get another job. It always a voluntary arrangement who they work for.

Not if they live in a non right to work state. Then they are forced to belong to the filthy greedy union.

 

[bripat9643]

Employees are free to leave if the don't like the way the company they work for is run. It's a voluntary arrangement.

That's just what I was saying. An employee doesn't like it that a union was voted in, they can quit and go get another job. It always a voluntary arrangement who they work for.

The union is a third party to the negotiations. It has no right to be involved in the first place, moron.

 

[danielpalos]

Not with collective bargaining; Person on the Right who is habitually, with only a lost clue and a lost Cause. No honest Injuens available for your Cause; it shows in your arguments.

Collective bargaining is not a voluntary arrangement for the firm or even a lot of the employees. The government forces it on them. If the firm was able to contract with who it liked, it would tell the union to get the fuck out and never come back. Collective bargaining is being forced to do the bidding of a third party.

Collective bargaining involves more Informed Consent than simply getting hired on an allegedly at-will basis.

It isn't consented to by the firm and a large percentage of the employees.

how does that work when they vote for unionizing?

How does the firm consent to it? The employees who voted "no" certainly didn't consent to it, did they?

Why should the actual manner of association matter to the employer, but for Labor costs? 70k could be a good wage for labor. why does management believe they are worth multi-million dollar bonuses?