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

[danielpalos]

it is the Right that is complaining about that form of Informed Consent.

It's not consent when the government forces you, numskull.

it is arbitrary and capricious when you only complain about unions, skullnum.

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's not consent when the government forces you, numskull.

it is arbitrary and capricious when you only complain about unions, skullnum.

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

 

[danielpalos]

it is arbitrary and capricious when you only complain about unions, skullnum.

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not consent when the government forces you, numskull.

it is arbitrary and capricious when you only complain about unions, skullnum.

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

It's absolutely true. Compulsion is a fundamental property of unions.

 

[zeke]

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

You think that unions force people to come work for a particular company then force that employee to join that union? Really? Is that what you think.

You think unions force people to work for a company?

What's next? You think employees who work for a unionized company aren't allowed to quit and find work elsewhere for lower pay? Unions stop employees from quitting a union job?

Will that be your next claim?

Fucking weird dude.

 

[Andylusion]

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

You think that unions force people to come work for a particular company then force that employee to join that union? Really? Is that what you think.

You think unions force people to work for a company?

What's next? You think employees who work for a unionized company aren't allowed to quit and find work elsewhere for lower pay? Unions stop employees from quitting a union job?

Will that be your next claim?

Fucking weird dude.

He didn't say company. He said union.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions. This is absolutely true. In college I worked for a grocery store. My manager came from Krogers, which was Unionized. He was forced to quit, because he refused to join the Union. Under the Union contract he was forced to join the Union after a certain time frame, or he had to quit.

So he quit, and worked at another company that didn't have unions.

I think that is what he's talking about Zeke. You are FORCED to work for the UNIONS or you are fired.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

You think that unions force people to come work for a particular company then force that employee to join that union? Really? Is that what you think.

You think unions force people to work for a company?

What's next? You think employees who work for a unionized company aren't allowed to quit and find work elsewhere for lower pay? Unions stop employees from quitting a union job?

Will that be your next claim?

Fucking weird dude.

He didn't say company. He said union.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions. This is absolutely true. In college I worked for a grocery store. My manager came from Krogers, which was Unionized. He was forced to quit, because he refused to join the Union. Under the Union contract he was forced to join the Union after a certain time frame, or he had to quit.

So he quit, and worked at another company that didn't have unions.

I think that is what he's talking about Zeke. You are FORCED to work for the UNIONS or you are fired.

You're not forced to take any job where you don't agree with the conditions of employment. If I don't want to wear a uniform to work, and it is a condition of employment, I'm not forced to wear the uniform...I choose to wear it if I want the damn job.

 

[zeke]

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?

 

[Papageorgio]

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

 

[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?

I agree, now let the union collect directly from labor and leave the employer out of it.

 

[danielpalos]

it is arbitrary and capricious when you only complain about unions, skullnum.

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

It's absolutely true. Compulsion is a fundamental property of unions.

no, it isn't. non voluntary deductions are just that; disingenuous and arbitrary and capricious Person on the Right.

 

[danielpalos]

in other words, anything non-voluntary; why Only complain about unions.

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Hmmm, because belonging to a union and agreeing to be unionised are non-voluntary.

not true, Person on the Right.

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

not true, Person on the Right.

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

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.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Go ahead prove him wrong, I don't think you can.

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

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.

 

[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.

 

[danielpalos]

it doesn't matter if you only have an arbitrary and capricious reason for Only denying and disparaging unions.

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Unions are based on compulsion, not voluntary transactions.

You think that unions force people to come work for a particular company then force that employee to join that union? Really? Is that what you think.

You think unions force people to work for a company?

What's next? You think employees who work for a unionized company aren't allowed to quit and find work elsewhere for lower pay? Unions stop employees from quitting a union job?

Will that be your next claim?

Fucking weird dude.

He didn't say company. He said union.

You are forced by unions, to work for the unions. This is absolutely true. In college I worked for a grocery store. My manager came from Krogers, which was Unionized. He was forced to quit, because he refused to join the Union. Under the Union contract he was forced to join the Union after a certain time frame, or he had to quit.

So he quit, and worked at another company that didn't have unions.

I think that is what he's talking about Zeke. You are FORCED to work for the UNIONS or you are fired.

Zeke knows all this. He's just pretending to be stupider than he really is.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't mind unions at all, they have a good reason to be around. I have never stated otherwise. The fact the you can't prove what you say, is or even try is very telling.

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.