Check Out the Scumbag Dem's In WI - Page 14

stereocuuple · #**131** 02-21-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonereal

they'd eat the sharks for breakfast

poor sharks.

noonereal · #**132** 02-21-2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stereocuuple

poor sharks.

exactly

stereocuuple · #**133** 02-21-2011, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonereal

exactly

we know what you mean GO RAHM!

BlueStreak · #**134** 02-21-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Employees of course can assemble and petition. But, how does that apply to FORCING every employee there to join - and pay? Don't those who don't wish to join have the same freedom the union demands?

Pete,

What you refer to is the "Right to Work" laws that states can choose to adopt. (I'm sure you already know that.) Virginia is a right to work state, and I have worked both union and non-union jobs here.

You may be surprised to know that I agree that it is not right to force someone to join a union if they do not wish to. However, are you aware that "Right to Work" laws force the unions to represent employees who refuse to pay for the service? Is that right? I've seen it, and I'm sure D-ray might have the specifics, but I know with certainty this is true. I have seen fellow employees file grievances with the union on many occasions, in some instances going all the way to arbitration---While refusing to pay a single penny in dues. And then have the nerve to bitch about how useless the union is if they lose, or continue to refuse to pay even if they win.

Imagine someone walking into your place of business and demanding that you provide your services---for free. And, if you refuse, they can drag you into court---and win. Is that just?

If the "Right to Work" laws were written so that the union could refuse to represent people who refuse to pay, I would support them. But, they're not, so I don't. Once you have seen them in action, you quickly realize they have no other purpose but to knock the teeth out of organized labor. They don't have a dang thing to do with what's "right" or what's "fair".

Dave

d-ray657 · #**135** 02-22-2011, 01:49 AM

In the states that do not require the unions to provide services to free riders, represented employees are not required to join the union - they are simply assessed a service fee - that represents the cost of representation. If the employees object to a full service fee, they can pay one is only the proportion of the union expenditures overall that are directed to representational activities. They are not required to be union members, but they the union is not required to put up with free riders.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete · #**136** 02-22-2011, 08:23 AM

Ah so, thanks guys.

Thinking about this last night, it may be a watershed issue of this age. How can government be reformed if you can't do anything with the bureaucracy? If we can't even do it on a state level, how on earth will we ever remake the feds?

Pete

BlueStreak · #**137** 02-22-2011, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

In the states that do not require the unions to provide services to free riders, represented employees are not required to join the union - they are simply assessed a service fee - that represents the cost of representation. If the employees object to a full service fee, they can pay one is only the proportion of the union expenditures overall that are directed to representational activities. They are not required to be union members, but they the union is not required to put up with free riders.

Regards,

D-Ray

Something must have changed since the late 80's then. Or maybe there are variances between states? I really haven't kept up with these things. So, at least it is a good thing that unions can send free riders a bill. Should have always been that way. I do recall at one time, word coming down in our union that if a free rider tried to demand representation that the local was to refuse unless the free rider agreed to join, and the international would back them up if it went to court. Because dirtbags were doing this all of the time. They would refuse to join, then demand to be represented when management stepped on their toes. Jerkoffs.

Dave

BlueStreak · #**138** 02-22-2011, 09:15 AM

Back on topic. Watching Fox during my lunchbreak last night, one of the Fox Team balloonheads said in reference to Gov. Walker;

"When the people elect a leader they choose the agenda he represents. You don't assemble an angry mob and send them to the capital to shout him down, you respect the will of the people."

I almost crapped my pants.

Tea Party? Angry mobs shouting down the discussion at Town Hall meetings?
My, my, how quickly we forget.................

Dave

CarlV · #**139** 02-22-2011, 09:24 AM

They conceded what the the gov wanted except the union busting. Setting the union busting precedent is what this is really all about and he has proven it. F' him, them and whoever. Oh, I forgot, party before country.

Carl

finnbow · #**140** 02-22-2011, 09:24 AM

One issue that has gone unmentioned is that through collective bargaining, the State of Wisconsin agreed to high benefits in lieu of high compensation (i.e., pension benefits are, in effect, deferred compensation). Now that the cost of this deferred compensation has become apparent, the Governor wants to reduce it as well as knock down salaries that were consciously deflated to account for the deferred compensation - sort of a double whammy IMHO.