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

[bripat9643]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation offers free legal representation to workers whose unions refuse to let them resign and become partial-dues, financial-core represented workers. It can be reached on the Internet at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation An amendment to the NLRA currently under consideration in Congress would extend right-to-work protections to workers in every state. If that were to become law there could be no compulsory union dues for any purpose in any state.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions.

Andy, who forces a person to apply for a union job? Who keeps a person working a union job who wants to quit that job? No one is the correct answer.

You don't want to work for a union shop, don't apply there. But what I hear is that some workers don't mind working in a union job for the pay and protections. They just happen to be mooches who don't want to pay for the benefits extended to them by the union.

But NO ONE is forced to apply and work for a union shop. NO ONE. And NO ONE is stopped from quitting a union job. NO ONE.

So what is the problem with unions. They are duly elected organizations. Legal. And serve a good purpose for many workers. What is the problem with unions?

And why are the Republican so intent on union busting. What threat does a union represent to Republicans?

There is no such thing as a Union Shop. There are jobs, that have unions. But the Union doesn't own the shop.

That is a key point.

Because when I apply for a job... I apply to work for an employer.

Say General Motors for example. I want to work for General Motors. *IF* I want to work for General Motors, the Unions have FORCED me to work for them as well.

I never applied to work for the Union. Yet I am FORCED to do so, or I can't work for whom I do want to, namely General Motors.

you are only "forced" to "work" for the union due to the collective bargaining already in place that labor can only freeload off of if they don't participate.

The collective bargaining "agreement" is forced on the employer.

 

[danielpalos]

i am not the one who has Only diversion for his Cause; Person on the Right.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

I never said they weren't voluntary, you really need to comprehend what is written, it's not that difficult.

The union and labor are agreeing to a contract between them to allow the union to represent labor. The employer has nothing to do with the their contract. The employer cannot nullify nor reject their working relationship. The employer is out of the transaction, so the employer doesn't need to be in the monetary exchange.

Banks will write checks to the unions every month for free. It cost the business time and money to process the union payroll deduction.

What reason is there to have the employer use payroll deduction, when other methods are cheaper and leave the employer out of the transaction.

so what. the employer has rules that the union has nothing to do about. it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I'm sorry you gave two reasons earlier, that 1) The union employee was a freeloader and 2) the union employee is dumb when it comes to money.

You have a poor opinion of union employees.

it is your opinion not mine. i still believe the right has nothing but fallacy for their arbitrary and capricious Cause.

No, it is your opinion, because their is no other reason for you to insist on the employer taking out the union dues and giving the money to the union. None whatsoever.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

 

[danielpalos]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation offers free legal representation to workers whose unions refuse to let them resign and become partial-dues, financial-core represented workers. It can be reached on the Internet at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation An amendment to the NLRA currently under consideration in Congress would extend right-to-work protections to workers in every state. If that were to become law there could be no compulsory union dues for any purpose in any state.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions.

Andy, who forces a person to apply for a union job? Who keeps a person working a union job who wants to quit that job? No one is the correct answer.

You don't want to work for a union shop, don't apply there. But what I hear is that some workers don't mind working in a union job for the pay and protections. They just happen to be mooches who don't want to pay for the benefits extended to them by the union.

But NO ONE is forced to apply and work for a union shop. NO ONE. And NO ONE is stopped from quitting a union job. NO ONE.

So what is the problem with unions. They are duly elected organizations. Legal. And serve a good purpose for many workers. What is the problem with unions?

And why are the Republican so intent on union busting. What threat does a union represent to Republicans?

There is no such thing as a Union Shop. There are jobs, that have unions. But the Union doesn't own the shop.

That is a key point.

Because when I apply for a job... I apply to work for an employer.

Say General Motors for example. I want to work for General Motors. *IF* I want to work for General Motors, the Unions have FORCED me to work for them as well.

I never applied to work for the Union. Yet I am FORCED to do so, or I can't work for whom I do want to, namely General Motors.

you are only "forced" to "work" for the union due to the collective bargaining already in place that labor can only freeload off of if they don't participate.

The collective bargaining "agreement" is forced on the employer.

so what? employers force things on labor.

 

[Papageorgio]

I never said they weren't voluntary, you really need to comprehend what is written, it's not that difficult.

The union and labor are agreeing to a contract between them to allow the union to represent labor. The employer has nothing to do with the their contract. The employer cannot nullify nor reject their working relationship. The employer is out of the transaction, so the employer doesn't need to be in the monetary exchange.

Banks will write checks to the unions every month for free. It cost the business time and money to process the union payroll deduction.

What reason is there to have the employer use payroll deduction, when other methods are cheaper and leave the employer out of the transaction.

so what. the employer has rules that the union has nothing to do about. it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I'm sorry you gave two reasons earlier, that 1) The union employee was a freeloader and 2) the union employee is dumb when it comes to money.

You have a poor opinion of union employees.

it is your opinion not mine. i still believe the right has nothing but fallacy for their arbitrary and capricious Cause.

No, it is your opinion, because their is no other reason for you to insist on the employer taking out the union dues and giving the money to the union. None whatsoever.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

Nice way to avoid the issue. Person on the Left.

You have no reason to insist on the employer taking out union dues and giving it to the union, other than a fear the union won't be able to collect and lose members. Non whatsoever. Person on the Left.

 

[bripat9643]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation offers free legal representation to workers whose unions refuse to let them resign and become partial-dues, financial-core represented workers. It can be reached on the Internet at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation An amendment to the NLRA currently under consideration in Congress would extend right-to-work protections to workers in every state. If that were to become law there could be no compulsory union dues for any purpose in any state.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions.

Andy, who forces a person to apply for a union job? Who keeps a person working a union job who wants to quit that job? No one is the correct answer.

You don't want to work for a union shop, don't apply there. But what I hear is that some workers don't mind working in a union job for the pay and protections. They just happen to be mooches who don't want to pay for the benefits extended to them by the union.

But NO ONE is forced to apply and work for a union shop. NO ONE. And NO ONE is stopped from quitting a union job. NO ONE.

So what is the problem with unions. They are duly elected organizations. Legal. And serve a good purpose for many workers. What is the problem with unions?

And why are the Republican so intent on union busting. What threat does a union represent to Republicans?

There is no such thing as a Union Shop. There are jobs, that have unions. But the Union doesn't own the shop.

That is a key point.

Because when I apply for a job... I apply to work for an employer.

Say General Motors for example. I want to work for General Motors. *IF* I want to work for General Motors, the Unions have FORCED me to work for them as well.

I never applied to work for the Union. Yet I am FORCED to do so, or I can't work for whom I do want to, namely General Motors.

you are only "forced" to "work" for the union due to the collective bargaining already in place that labor can only freeload off of if they don't participate.

The collective bargaining "agreement" is forced on the employer.

so what? employers force things on labor.

Nope. That's a totally voluntary arrangement. Employers, by definition, are the ones who provide the job, not the union.

 

[Papageorgio]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation offers free legal representation to workers whose unions refuse to let them resign and become partial-dues, financial-core represented workers. It can be reached on the Internet at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation An amendment to the NLRA currently under consideration in Congress would extend right-to-work protections to workers in every state. If that were to become law there could be no compulsory union dues for any purpose in any state.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions.

Andy, who forces a person to apply for a union job? Who keeps a person working a union job who wants to quit that job? No one is the correct answer.

You don't want to work for a union shop, don't apply there. But what I hear is that some workers don't mind working in a union job for the pay and protections. They just happen to be mooches who don't want to pay for the benefits extended to them by the union.

But NO ONE is forced to apply and work for a union shop. NO ONE. And NO ONE is stopped from quitting a union job. NO ONE.

So what is the problem with unions. They are duly elected organizations. Legal. And serve a good purpose for many workers. What is the problem with unions?

And why are the Republican so intent on union busting. What threat does a union represent to Republicans?

There is no such thing as a Union Shop. There are jobs, that have unions. But the Union doesn't own the shop.

That is a key point.

Because when I apply for a job... I apply to work for an employer.

Say General Motors for example. I want to work for General Motors. *IF* I want to work for General Motors, the Unions have FORCED me to work for them as well.

I never applied to work for the Union. Yet I am FORCED to do so, or I can't work for whom I do want to, namely General Motors.

you are only "forced" to "work" for the union due to the collective bargaining already in place that labor can only freeload off of if they don't participate.

The collective bargaining "agreement" is forced on the employer.

so what? employers force things on labor.

No not according to other People on the Left. Just as a person that does not want to work for a union can leave, if you don't like the employer, you can leave. Person on the Left.

 

[Papageorgio]

Daniel which union do you belong to?

 

[danielpalos]

so what. the employer has rules that the union has nothing to do about. it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I'm sorry you gave two reasons earlier, that 1) The union employee was a freeloader and 2) the union employee is dumb when it comes to money.

You have a poor opinion of union employees.

it is your opinion not mine. i still believe the right has nothing but fallacy for their arbitrary and capricious Cause.

No, it is your opinion, because their is no other reason for you to insist on the employer taking out the union dues and giving the money to the union. None whatsoever.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

Nice way to avoid the issue. Person on the Left.

You have no reason to insist on the employer taking out union dues and giving it to the union, other than a fear the union won't be able to collect and lose members. Non whatsoever. Person on the Left.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right. why Only a problem with unions.

 

[danielpalos]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation offers free legal representation to workers whose unions refuse to let them resign and become partial-dues, financial-core represented workers. It can be reached on the Internet at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation An amendment to the NLRA currently under consideration in Congress would extend right-to-work protections to workers in every state. If that were to become law there could be no compulsory union dues for any purpose in any state.


Andy, who forces a person to apply for a union job? Who keeps a person working a union job who wants to quit that job? No one is the correct answer.

You don't want to work for a union shop, don't apply there. But what I hear is that some workers don't mind working in a union job for the pay and protections. They just happen to be mooches who don't want to pay for the benefits extended to them by the union.

But NO ONE is forced to apply and work for a union shop. NO ONE. And NO ONE is stopped from quitting a union job. NO ONE.

So what is the problem with unions. They are duly elected organizations. Legal. And serve a good purpose for many workers. What is the problem with unions?

And why are the Republican so intent on union busting. What threat does a union represent to Republicans?

There is no such thing as a Union Shop. There are jobs, that have unions. But the Union doesn't own the shop.

That is a key point.

Because when I apply for a job... I apply to work for an employer.

Say General Motors for example. I want to work for General Motors. *IF* I want to work for General Motors, the Unions have FORCED me to work for them as well.

I never applied to work for the Union. Yet I am FORCED to do so, or I can't work for whom I do want to, namely General Motors.

you are only "forced" to "work" for the union due to the collective bargaining already in place that labor can only freeload off of if they don't participate.

The collective bargaining "agreement" is forced on the employer.

so what? employers force things on labor.

No not according to other People on the Left. Just as a person that does not want to work for a union can leave, if you don't like the employer, you can leave. Person on the Left.

drugs tests are an egregious example of capitalists wanting exceptions to the rules based solely on capital considerations in our at-will employment States. having to pass a drug test for employment is for-Cause criteria not at-will employment.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm sorry you gave two reasons earlier, that 1) The union employee was a freeloader and 2) the union employee is dumb when it comes to money.

You have a poor opinion of union employees.

it is your opinion not mine. i still believe the right has nothing but fallacy for their arbitrary and capricious Cause.

No, it is your opinion, because their is no other reason for you to insist on the employer taking out the union dues and giving the money to the union. None whatsoever.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

Nice way to avoid the issue. Person on the Left.

You have no reason to insist on the employer taking out union dues and giving it to the union, other than a fear the union won't be able to collect and lose members. Non whatsoever. Person on the Left.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right. why Only a problem with unions.

You are dense, disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Left. I want all payroll deductions to end, not just unions.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel which union do you belong to?

none; which capitalist do you shill for?

 

[danielpalos]

it is your opinion not mine. i still believe the right has nothing but fallacy for their arbitrary and capricious Cause.

No, it is your opinion, because their is no other reason for you to insist on the employer taking out the union dues and giving the money to the union. None whatsoever.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

Nice way to avoid the issue. Person on the Left.

You have no reason to insist on the employer taking out union dues and giving it to the union, other than a fear the union won't be able to collect and lose members. Non whatsoever. Person on the Left.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right. why Only a problem with unions.

You are dense, disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Left. I want all payroll deductions to end, not just unions.

that is unrealistic under our current regime.

 

[paulitician]

It's a start. Next up, ban Public Unions all-together.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no such thing as a Union Shop. There are jobs, that have unions. But the Union doesn't own the shop.

That is a key point.

Because when I apply for a job... I apply to work for an employer.

Say General Motors for example. I want to work for General Motors. *IF* I want to work for General Motors, the Unions have FORCED me to work for them as well.

I never applied to work for the Union. Yet I am FORCED to do so, or I can't work for whom I do want to, namely General Motors.

you are only "forced" to "work" for the union due to the collective bargaining already in place that labor can only freeload off of if they don't participate.

The collective bargaining "agreement" is forced on the employer.

so what? employers force things on labor.

No not according to other People on the Left. Just as a person that does not want to work for a union can leave, if you don't like the employer, you can leave. Person on the Left.

drugs tests are an egregious example of capitalists wanting exceptions to the rules based solely on capital considerations in our at-will employment States. having to pass a drug test for employment is for-Cause criteria not at-will employment.

And you don't have to work there, you can go somewhere else, maybe a union job. Sorry but many unions want their members drug free. Hell of a deal.

 

[Papageorgio]

Daniel which union do you belong to?

none; which capitalist do you shill for?

None, and you?

 

[Papageorgio]

No, it is your opinion, because their is no other reason for you to insist on the employer taking out the union dues and giving the money to the union. None whatsoever.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

Nice way to avoid the issue. Person on the Left.

You have no reason to insist on the employer taking out union dues and giving it to the union, other than a fear the union won't be able to collect and lose members. Non whatsoever. Person on the Left.

non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right. why Only a problem with unions.

You are dense, disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Left. I want all payroll deductions to end, not just unions.

that is unrealistic under our current regime.

Doesn't mean I can't be for it. Disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Left.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's a start. Next up, ban Public Unions all-together.

If a person wants a union I am all for it. I side with FDR and no collective bargaining for public employees. Public unions are fine.

 

[paulitician]

It's a start. Next up, ban Public Unions all-together.

If a person wants a union I am all for it. I side with FDR and no collective bargaining for public employees. Public unions are fine.

I oppose Public Sector Unions. However, i'm fine with Private Sector Unions.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's a start. Next up, ban Public Unions all-together.

If a person wants a union I am all for it. I side with FDR and no collective bargaining for public employees. Public unions are fine.

I oppose Public Sector Unions. However, i'm fine with Private Sector Unions.

Fair enough.

 

[OnePercenter]

See how the far left can only accept their religious narrative..

What fee are they paying other than the Union fee?

The union can come up with pother means to collect their money at no cost to anyone. Yet the far left mantra here is pushing an agenda based on a far left religious narrative..

See how the far left can only accept their religious narrative..

Nothing to do with 'religious narrative', it's common sense. It's known fact that Republicans hate the American worker, and the middle class that keeps them in power are the old sociopaths like you.

What fee are they paying other than the Union fee?

If the employee writes a check, that costs the employees money. If the employee pays on-line, that costs the employee money. We know, because I've proven it, the cost for an employer to deduct and pay for the employee, costs the employer NOTHING. Republican bashing of American workers.