NRTW: Statement of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Regarding DOL announcement that it will seek to improve union disclosure requirements
litehouse1776
December 20, 2002
======================================================
STATEMENT OF NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE
FOUNDATION REGARDING DOL ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IT WILL
SEEK TO IMPROVE UNION DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
......................................................
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=173
......................................................
Springfield, Va. (December 20, 2002) -- Stefan
Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation, an organization that defends
employees suffering from the abuses of compulsory
unionism, issued the following statement regarding
this afternoon's announcement by the Department of
Labor (DOL) that it will promulgate new LM-2 union
disclosure requirements.
"Employees deserve to know how union officials spend
their compulsory union dues, and the 40 year old
disclosure forms have failed to provide any meaningful
information. However, although providing more
functional and thorough financial disclosure to
rank-and-file workers would be a small step forward,
much more needs to be done before rampant union
corruption is deterred.
"If the proposed LM-2 reforms do not include an
independent audit requirement or an itemization
requirement for expenses beyond simply incidental
expenses, then this entire DOL exercise will be
meaningless.
"Currently, unions have no requirement that they
conduct an independent audit of union books and
records, and we fear that the proposed LM-2 reforms do
not change this pathetic fact.
"But ultimately, only ending compulsory unionism will
force union officials to be accountable. Elimination
of compulsory union dues will return power to
employees to discipline their unions by withholding
dues that underwrite the all-expense-paid lifestyles
and political activism of union bosses.
"As Senator John McClellan (D-AR), key architect of
the original Landrum-Griffith Act more than 40 years
ago, said, 'compulsory unionism and corruption go hand
in hand.'"
======================================================
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
8001 Braddock Road | Springfield, VA 22160
http://www.nrtw.org | (800) 336-3600
======================================================
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is
a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free
legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The
Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees
in more than 300 cases nationwide. Its web address is:
http://www.nrtw.org/
.......................................................
To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to:
http://www.nrtw.org/listinfo.php3
.......................................................
(C) 2002, NRTWLDF
tmurph2
they 99% funded by anti union corporations? Follow the money.
"litehouse1776" <Em...@REMOVE.INVALID> wrote in message
news:ftdN9.73248$Hs2.8...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Mr Magoo
> If the nrtw foundation is so helpful to the poor downtrodden workers why are
> they 99% funded by anti union corporations? Follow the money.
Who cares how they are funded. They are providing a useful service to
those affected by illegal union activities.
Wdivekw
And keeping non-union workers wages low so the CEO's salaries and perks are not
affected.
tmurph2
some guys dues money back and by weakening the union they give the whole
local a big pay cut. They don't care one bit about the workers they want
lower pay for workers.
"Mr Magoo" <mr_m...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%ZoN9.114677$Vz2.27...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Mr Magoo
> And keeping non-union workers wages low so the CEO's salaries and perks are not
> affected.
My non-union, non-management, non-executive job pays very well thank you.
Just an average workerbee, living the high life.
Wdivekw
well in my retirement. All with no money put into my pension by me. I also
continue to enjoy company paid healthcare.
Now of these benefits, or high pay are available to non-union workers in the
job I was in.
If you're making what you feel is excellent money doing non-union work, great.
I just don't understand why you feel that the other guy isn't entitled to form
a union and raise his pay.
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
Mr Magoo
> If you're making what you feel is excellent money doing non-union work, great.
> I just don't understand why you feel that the other guy isn't entitled to form
> a union and raise his pay.
>
> Bill Estes
> CWA1118(retired)
I wouldn't mind if they just had their union and left me out of it. But
unions have a way of forcing everyone to pay union dues, like it or not.
That's when they cross the line, and why right to work laws are justified.
JETman
There's something here that you do not understand... First, when a union
first organizes the only one's that have to join the union are those
that signed cards authorizing the union to represent them. Later, a
"closed" shop might be declared by a vote of the membership except in
right to work states.
If you are offered employment by a closed shop, yes you should pay dues
since you are reaping benefits worked for and earned by the membership.
There's no such thing as a free lunch...
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
jslater
> The funding indicates the true reason for their existence. They may win
> some guys dues money back and by weakening the union they give the whole
> local a big pay cut. They don't care one bit about the workers they want
> lower pay for workers.
> "Mr Magoo" <mr_m...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%ZoN9.114677$Vz2.27...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > tmurph2 wrote:
> > > If the nrtw foundation is so helpful to the poor downtrodden workers why
> are
> > > they 99% funded by anti union corporations? Follow the money.
Exactly. Also note the fact that they care nothing about enforcing
workers' rights to organize unions, a right that is much more in
jeopardy than the Beck rights which the NRTWC is obsessed with. NLRB
figures show that one in six employees who try to organize a union is
fired illegally for that purpose, but does the NRTWC care about this
infringement on the basic legal rights of workers? No, they just hate
unions. They have a right to be knee-jerk anti-union ideologues, but
they shouldn't pretend to be anything else, and they especially
shouldn't pretend that they care about the rights of workers.--Joe
Mr Magoo
> There's something here that you do not understand... First, when a union
> first organizes the only one's that have to join the union are those
> that signed cards authorizing the union to represent them. Later, a
> "closed" shop might be declared by a vote of the membership except in
> right to work states.
So those who signed cards get to vote whether those who didn't sign
cards are required to pay union dues and those who didn't sign union
cards have no say. Talk about unfair practices.
>
> If you are offered employment by a closed shop, yes you should pay dues
> since you are reaping benefits worked for and earned by the membership.
> There's no such thing as a free lunch...
And if I'm employed by the company before it is voted a closed shop, I
should have the right to not pay the union a penny. After all I was
there first and did not ask for the union.
JETman
Mr Magoo wrote:
>
> JETman wrote:
> > There's something here that you do not understand... First, when a union
> > first organizes the only one's that have to join the union are those
> > that signed cards authorizing the union to represent them. Later, a
> > "closed" shop might be declared by a vote of the membership except in
> > right to work states.
>
> So those who signed cards get to vote whether those who didn't sign
> cards are required to pay union dues and those who didn't sign union
> cards have no say. Talk about unfair practices.
No... Only those that signed cards are obligated to follow through on
joining the union. The membership can later declare a "closed" shop but
non-signers at the time of union certification are not bound to join.
The "closed" shop only applies to new employees.
> >
> > If you are offered employment by a closed shop, yes you should pay dues
> > since you are reaping benefits worked for and earned by the membership.
> > There's no such thing as a free lunch...
>
> And if I'm employed by the company before it is voted a closed shop, I
> should have the right to not pay the union a penny. After all I was
> there first and did not ask for the union.
That is what I said. You took it a step further...
Boomerlake
>And if I'm employed by the company before it is voted a closed shop, I
>should have the right to not pay the union a penny. After all I was
>there first and did not ask for the union.
>
And so there you have it, a person who absolutely believes he must have the
right to freeload off of a union.
Boomerlake
>Exactly. Also note the fact that they care nothing about enforcing
>workers' rights to organize unions, a right that is much more in
>jeopardy than the Beck rights which the NRTWC is obsessed with. NLRB
>figures show that one in six employees who try to organize a union is
>fired illegally for that purpose, but does the NRTWC care about this
>infringement on the basic legal rights of workers? No, they just hate
>unions. They have a right to be knee-jerk anti-union ideologues, but
>they shouldn't pretend to be anything else, and they especially
>shouldn't pretend that they care about the rights of workers.--Joe
Isn't it true that the NRTWC is funded by corporate intertests, anyway. If
not, would someone from the NRTWC describe where your funding to run the
organization mainly comes from?
Thomas Murphy
MARKETING. They have named their anti worker organization to appeal to
workers. How ironic is that? Unfortunately it has worked because "the
right to work " sounds good on the surface. It is a Wolf in sheeps clothing
and The Big business men keep cranking stuff out like "Patriot Act" If you
are against it you are not a patriot. A more accurate name might be the Big
brother act. How about Compassionate conservative. What a joke
Lets see how many false but effective names They have for their programs to
hurt workers.
"jslater" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
news:b4bed0cf.02122...@posting.google.com...
JETman
If one is employed by any company during the charter period and did NOT
sign a authorization card for union representation during the organizing
process, he does NOT have to join the union. He is grand fathered...
Those that are employed later MAY have to join if the employer has been
declared a closed shop.
JETman
I would be interested in this as well. I doubt that they would be fully
forthcoming though...
Jon Noring
> This is where the nrtw and the conservatives beat us all the time.
Better
> MARKETING. They have named their anti worker organization to appeal to
> workers. How ironic is that? Unfortunately it has worked because "the
> right to work " sounds good on the surface. It is a Wolf in sheeps
clothing
> and The Big business men keep cranking stuff out like "Patriot Act" If
you
> are against it you are not a patriot. A more accurate name might be the
Big
> brother act. How about Compassionate conservative. What a joke
> Lets see how many false but effective names They have for their programs
to
> hurt workers.
Irrelevant. The fundamental issue is that any worker should have the right
to
join or not join a union as part of his work. I consider this a true moral
right.
Thus, the term "right to work" is not a marketing ploy, but accurately
reflects
this moral viewpoint.
Forced unionism and forced dues paying are immoral under ALL circumstances.
The so-called "good" this accomplishes does not outweigh the moral right
choice
of a worker to join or to not join a union. In my view, of course.
By and large, union supporters still have this weird 19th century mindset
which
perpetuates the "evilness" of companies and corporations, perpetuates and
tries
to artificially separate workers from management, etc. The 21st century view
is
that workers strive to become an integral part of the company they work for,
to
become part-owners, and gain a say in its management. This will only work
when unions view management and company as friends and allies working for a
common goal for mutual benefit. This, unfortunately, is impossible so long
as
unions hold on to this flawed 19th century antagonistic viewpoint as sacred,
which only works to create an equal and oppositive reaction from management
and the ownership (whatever it may be) of companies.
Obviously, some would say that companies and corporations have no interest
in this. Well, if they don't, then the workers should form their own
companies
and compete. (Another result of the 19th century view of the "evilness" of
corporations and the Free Enterprise system is that workers should not band
together to form their own competitive companies, such as cooperatives --
thus
union philosophy has actually emasculated workers, rather than helping them
to take charge of their own futures -- they become like sheep, like cogs in
the
machinery as we see in the classic silent movie "Metropolis". During the
20th
Century when unions were negotiating with corporations for higher wages and
more worker benefits, etc., did they ever think about stock options for the
workers? Why isn't >50% of the stock of an industrial company like GM now
owned by its rank-and-file work force? Now that's True Power. It could have
been had the unions not had, and still have, such weird and silly 19th
century
Marxist views.)
Jon Noring
(p.s., I am a libertarian and a Libertarian, not a conservative, for those
who wish
to try to pin on me a "conservative" label. I hate conservatism as much as
the
"liberals" do.)
cnho...@worldnet.att.net
:
:
Not quite like that at all. First of all, a closed shop is illegal in the
U.S. Canada has closed shops, but we do not. A closed shop means that the
employer can only hire union members.
What we have that is closest to that is a union shop. This means that as a
condition of employment, a new employee must join the union within 30 or 90
or some other amount of days after employment.
An agency shop is one that requires that all employees pay the dues to
operate the union but they do not have to become members.
Now, I have never heard of this:
:> And if I'm employed by the company before it is voted a closed shop, I
:> should have the right to not pay the union a penny. After all I was
:> there first and did not ask for the union.
It is not up to the individual in a shop. It is up to the unit, the shop,
to vote whether they want a union shop clause or not. Just like I have no
option but to accept George W as the president whether I voted for him or
not. It is up to the individual to opt out of paying more dues than those
needed to conduct union business.
First of all, you have to be in a state that does not have the so-called
right to work law in existence to have a union shop at all.
You have to remember that there is a basic difference between an ordinary
labor agreement with a manufacturer, say, and a contractor. The law differs
in how employees may be chosen and whether the union has a right to refer
all potential employees to the employer. (The employer does not have to
hire those sent over by the union, but he or she cannot refuse employment
out of hand with no explanation. At least, in my experience they cannot.)
Carroll
Wdivekw
>Irrelevant. The fundamental issue is that any worker should have the right
>to
>join or not join a union as part of his work. I consider this a true moral
>right.
>Thus, the term "right to work" is not a marketing ploy, but accurately
>reflects
>this moral viewpoint.
>
>Forced unionism and forced due
Do you think it is the "moral viewpoint" for the union to be forced to
represent the non dues paying worker in his dealings with management? Or for
that worker to accept the benefits that were negotiated by the union?
Do you feel if the non dues paying worker is fired unjustly the union should
just sit back and do nothing? They couldn't if they wanted to because the law
is written that they have to represent everyone, including the freeloaders.
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
jslater
> "Thomas Murphy" wrote:
>
> > This is where the nrtw and the conservatives beat us all the time.
> Better
> > MARKETING. They have named their anti worker organization to appeal to
> > workers. How ironic is that? Unfortunately it has worked because "the
> > right to work " sounds good on the surface. It is a Wolf in sheeps
> clothing
Agreed that the conservatives often do better marketing and that it's
absurd that the NRTWC tries to clothe itself in the language of
individual rights when the key right under attack is the right to
organize. Fortunately, the NRTWC is still pretty marginal.
>
> Irrelevant. The fundamental issue is that any worker should have the right
> to
> join or not join a union as part of his work. I consider this a true moral
> right.
As you know or should know, no worker has to join a union. Read Beck.
The most a worker has to do is pay that portion of his or her dues
that go to activities related to collective bargaining. And that's
only if the union and the company have agreed to a union security
clause so providing.
> Thus, the term "right to work" is not a marketing ploy, but accurately
> reflects
> this moral viewpoint.
No, workers have a much stronger "right to work" if they are covered
by union collective bargaining agreements. Practically all such
agreements provide that workers can only be fired for "just cause."
Very few private sector workers outside unions have such rights--they
are "at will." So, workers in union bargaining units have the right
to continue to work as long as they don't provide just cause for their
firing. Workers outside union bargaining units generally can be fired
for almost any reason or no reason at all.
> Forced unionism and forced dues paying are immoral under ALL circumstances.
> The so-called "good" this accomplishes does not outweigh the moral right
> choice
> of a worker to join or to not join a union. In my view, of course.
You are entitled to your view. Again, there is no such thing as
"forced unionism," but you are correct to the extent that in some
cases workers in union bargaining units can be required to pay that
portion of their dues that go to activities related to collective
bargaining. This is to avoid the "free rider" problem. Union workers
generally get higher wages, benefits, and better working conditions
(safety, e.g.). It would be unfair, in a bargaining unit where the
majority of workers have voted to be in a union, to allow some workers
to get the benefit of unionism for free.
> By and large, union supporters still have this weird 19th century mindset
> which
> perpetuates the "evilness" of companies and corporations.
No, unions exist to increase the bargaining power of individual
workers so they can negotiate fairly with management. Very few
workers on the line at Ford, Boeing, etc. become part owners of the
company, but they can have a say in their wages, hours, and working
conditions through a union.
> Jon Noring
>
> (p.s., I am a libertarian and a Libertarian, not a conservative, for those
> who wish
> to try to pin on me a "conservative" label. I hate conservatism as much as
> the
> "liberals" do.)
Libertarians should understand that unions are not inconstent with
their philosophy. Unions simply facilitate private bargaining--the
realistic alternative to unions is greater government regulation of
the workplace, something libertarians should think about. Sure,
unions are entities authorized to act on behalf of a group of
people--but so are corporations.--Joe
JETman
Heh... Sounds like he's a clone of the NRTW organization. Nothing new
or startling there...
Ryan Lankford
wrote:
>Wdivekw wrote:
>> And keeping non-union workers wages low so the CEO's salaries and perks are not
>> affected.
>
>My non-union, non-management, non-executive job pays very well thank you.
Same here...the best part is, the harder I work, the more money I
make. I don't have to wait for a socialist labor union leader to
decide I am worthy of more money.
Rev. Ryan Lankford
http://mma_fan_iowa.tripod.com
Wdivekw
Congratulations on making good money. Now would you please inform all of us
which union leader belongs to the Socialist Party?
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
Boomerlake
>Jon Noring
>
>(p.s., I am a libertarian and a Libertarian, not a conservative, for those
>who wish
>to try to pin on me a "conservative" label. I hate conservatism as much as
>the
>"liberals" do.)
>
To me you're just another person who feels quite passionately that a worker
must have the right to free load off a union if he or she feels like it. It
must be the Libertarian way.
Ryan Lankford
>Congratulations on making good money. Now would you please inform all of us
>which union leader belongs to the Socialist Party?
Notice that I used the small "S." Someone doens't have to belong to a
party to espouse their beliefs. Surely you can do better than that?
tmurph2
WORLDCOM, ADELPHI,etc, etc, etc, I always get a kick out of anti-union
folks advising unions on how to run things.
Wdivekw
>>Congratulations on making good money. Now would you please inform all of us
>>which union leader belongs to the Socialist Party?
>
>Notice that I used the small "S." Someone doens't have to belong to a
>party to espouse their beliefs. Surely you can do better than that?
>
OK. exactly what beliefs are these union officials espousing to make them a
small "S" socialist?
Maybe the right to join their fellow workers in negotiating better pay and
benefits.
If joining together with others who share your beliefs and goals is socialist
then I guess the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Libertarians,
to name just a few, are really socialist front organizations.
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
tmurph2
are behind all these RTW laws being pushed in the individual states and on
the national level. They are extremely well funded and spend millions on
lobbying and political donations. I have gotten some of their letters asking
for donations and the lies and filth they spread unions would make you sick.
Believe me they are far from marginal.
jslater
> I don't know where you get the idea that the NRTW is only marginal. They
> are behind all these RTW laws being pushed in the individual states and on
> the national level. They are extremely well funded and spend millions on
> lobbying and political donations. I have gotten some of their letters asking
> for donations and the lies and filth they spread unions would make you sick.
> Believe me they are far from marginal.
Fair enough. What I meant was that their ideas--when expressed
accurately and fully--are out of synch with what the vast majority of
Americans think. But you are correct that because of their funding,
they more influence than they should.--Joe
tmurph2
off. They misrepresent everything about unions and union workers. They try
to find discontented union members and get them to file cases against their
unions under the guise of helping the worker when they are working
exclusively for the benefit of the employers in the long run. If your union
is like mine then you will agree, the guys who complain the most are guys
who have never been to a union meeting in their lives. The NRTW people are
the worst kind of hypocrites in the world because they claim to be helping
the "poor worker forced to pay dues to a big fat union leader" when in fact
they are getting fat at the expense of all the workers.
ActualGeek
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater) wrote:
> "tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:<Y1uO9.1122$fc3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> > I don't know where you get the idea that the NRTW is only marginal. They
> > are behind all these RTW laws being pushed in the individual states and on
> > the national level. They are extremely well funded and spend millions on
> > lobbying and political donations. I have gotten some of their letters
> > asking
> > for donations and the lies and filth they spread unions would make you
> > sick.
> > Believe me they are far from marginal.
>
> Fair enough. What I meant was that their ideas--when expressed
> accurately and fully
EG, when you LIE.
>--are out of synch with what the vast majority of
> Americans think.
No, americans want fair pay for a fair days work. They enjoy watching
the Sopranos, but they don't like paying protection money to the mob,
er, union.
Boomerlake
>No, americans want fair pay for a fair days work. They enjoy watching
>the Sopranos, but they don't like paying protection money to the mob,
>er, union.
You are foolishly wrong on that notion. Because, no, I don't feel I'm paying
protection money to a mob when slightly over 1% of my $20 an hour paycheck goes
to the union and a small portion of that comes back in the form of free meals
at the quarterly meetings along with the $100 Christmas bonus check from the
union.
ActualGeek
"tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> the worst kind of hypocrites in the world because they claim to be helping
> the "poor worker forced to pay dues to a big fat union leader" when in fact
> they are getting fat at the expense of all the workers.
That's hilarious! Unions have their hands in workers pockets, but the
NRTW doesn't.
My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
loose her job.
That's bullshit.
Maybe you enjoy paying taxes to mafia thugs, but she didn't, and most
americans don't.
This will never be a free country as long as unions are in business.
You do have the RIGHT to work, without a third parties approval.
Unions were a good idea, but they have turned into oppressive thugs who
engage in nothing more noble than EXTORTION.
JETman
I would love to know the source(s) of their income and they should have
to disclose their books in the same way unions have to.
Just follow the money trail...
JT
--
TakeThisOut
>NRTW doesn't.
Translation: Unions get dues.
>My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
>loose her job.
Bullshit, unless she had to pay a set dues amount instead of a %, and only
worked 8 hours a week at that job.
Union dues are not 15% anywhere.
>That's bullshit.
You got that right.
>Maybe you enjoy paying taxes to mafia thugs, but she didn't, and most
>americans don't.
Maybe you enjoy having your employer pick your pocket for thousands every year,
but many Americans don't and must form worker's coalitions (unions) to balance
the power in the employer/employee bargaining relationship.
>This will never be a free country as long as unions are in business.
This will never be a free country as long as there is such a thing as a
corporation.
>You do have the RIGHT to work,
You DON'T have the right to work. There is no such thing as a guranteed job.
> without a third parties approval.
It is the employer who does the hiring and the firing.
>From: ActualGeek Actua...@no.real.address
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TAKETHISOUT budysbackagain(@)THAT TOO a-oh-ell dot com
jslater
> I did not mean to "jump all over you" but these guys(NRTW) really piss me
> off.
No offense taken; I agree with you 100%.--Joe
jslater
> In article <b4bed0cf.02122...@posting.google.com>,
> jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater) wrote:
>
> > "tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Y1uO9.1122$fc3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > I don't know where you get the idea that the NRTW is only marginal. They
> > > are behind all these RTW laws being pushed in the individual states and on
> > > the national level. They are extremely well funded and spend millions on
> > > lobbying and political donations. I have gotten some of their letters
> > > asking
> > > for donations and the lies and filth they spread unions would make you
> > > sick.
> > > Believe me they are far from marginal.
> >
> > Fair enough. What I meant was that their ideas--when expressed
> > accurately and fully
>
> EG, when you LIE.
Brilliant response, even by your standards. My point--which you don't
respond to--is that the NWTWC claims to care about workers rights, but
in fact they only exist to attack unions.
> >--are out of synch with what the vast majority of
> > Americans think.
>
> No, americans want fair pay for a fair days work.
Which is why they try to join unions, to increase their bargaining
power to get better wages, hours, and conditions.
They enjoy watching
> the Sopranos,
Yeah, me too!--Joe
jslater
> In article <1mnP9.259$PS6.25...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > the worst kind of hypocrites in the world because they claim to be helping
> > the "poor worker forced to pay dues to a big fat union leader" when in fact
> > they are getting fat at the expense of all the workers.
>
>
> That's hilarious! Unions have their hands in workers pockets, but the
> NRTW doesn't.
Unions charge dues because they provide services. Union workers
almost always have better wages, hours, and working conditions than
non-union workers in the same industry. The NRTW, on the other hand,
exists merely as a pawn of big business to attack unions.
>
> My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
> loose her job.
We've been through this before on another thread. Could you provide
some actual proof of the the 15% figure? I'm not saying that's
impossible, but it would be unusually high. Further, if she had to
pay some portion of union dues--which some workers are required to
do--then it was because the company and union entered into a contract
providing for that. Plus, since union workers on average make about
17% more than comparable non-union workers, she was still coming out
ahead.
> This will never be a free country as long as unions are in business.
To the contrary, every free, democratic, industrial democracy allows
gives similar rights to free trade unions. You are again allying
yourself with countries that deny unions rights--invariably
dictatorships of the right or left.
> You do have the RIGHT to work, without a third parties approval.
Without a union, workers have no "right to work"--private sector
non-union employees are almost always "at will," meaning the employer
can fire the employee for almost any reason or no reason. On the
other hand, workers in unions almost always have "just cause"
discharge provisions, meaning they have a real "right to work": the
right not be fired unless there is a good reason for them to be fired.
Those are the type of rights workers really care about, but the NRTW
doesn't.--Joe
tmurph2
conversation.
I have been in many many labor negotiations in my time and never heard any
threats from the union side of the table. I have heard a lot of threats
from management such as "We will close down and move to Mexico". Or "We
can open a non-union shop". Nobody has ever signed a labor contract with a
gun at his head. They sign union contracts because it is in the best
interest of the company to get the best workers and the best want to be paid
the best. It's as simple as that.
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-EEFAF...@corp.supernews.com...
Mr Magoo
> I love it when people use the word extortion when unions are the subject of
> conversation.
> I have been in many many labor negotiations in my time and never heard any
> threats from the union side of the table.
Union extortion does not take place at the negotiating table. It takes
place on the job, where employees are forced to pay union dues or lose
their jobs.
Boomerlake
>Union extortion does not take place at the negotiating table. It takes
>place on the job, where employees are forced to pay union dues or lose
>their jobs.
>
And as I keep asking over and over again without getting an answer what is so
horribly bad about paying union dues when the alternative is going from say a
$20.00 an hour union job to a $10.00 an hour non-union job?
JETman
Extortion???
Mr Magoo
>
> Mr Magoo wrote:
>>Union extortion does not take place at the negotiating table. It takes
>>place on the job, where employees are forced to pay union dues or lose
>>their jobs.
> Extortion???
It's just as much extortion when the threat is that you lose your job if
you don't pay union dues as when a company threatens to take actions if
the union doesn't give in.
ActualGeek
JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The NRTW group is nothing more than a pawn of corporations.
You guys are like those idiots who think jews control everything. Oh,
wait, maybe you are the same guys, since you think jews control all the
corporations.
Is "corporations" the new slang term for "international jewish
conspiracy"?
Either way, you sure are paranoid. But that's ok. Opposition to Human
Rights, on the other hand, makes you unamerican. Go live in russia,
comrade.
TakeThisOut
>Mr Magoo wrote:
>>
>> tmurph2 wrote:
>> > I love it when people use the word extortion when unions are the subject
>of
>> > conversation.
>> > I have been in many many labor negotiations in my time and never heard
>any
>> > threats from the union side of the table.
>>
>> Union extortion does not take place at the negotiating table. It takes
>> place on the job, where employees are forced to pay union dues or lose
>> their jobs.
>
>
>
>Extortion???
Well then, that "extortion" is 100% tax deductable!
>
>
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
.
TakeThisOut
Is it extortion when the company demands you wear a uniform you must pay for?
Is it extortion when the company sets your hours, or can approve or deny your
chosen vacation dates?
Mr Magoo
> Well then, that "extortion" is 100% tax deductable!
It most definitely is not 100% tax deductible. That is a myth promoted
by the unions to make the union extortion fees more palatable to the
blind sheep.
Union dues get reported in a category of miscellaneous deductions
including professional association fees, and such. Then of that
category, only the amount that exceeds 2% of your gross income is even
eligible for deduction.
Besides which, a deduction does not give you credit in full for what you
paid out. If your incremental tax bracket is for instance 28%, then you
in essence only get back 28% of what you claim as a deduction.
Mr Magoo
> Is it extortion when the company demands you wear a uniform you must pay for?
No
>
> Is it extortion when the company sets your hours, or can approve or deny your
> chosen vacation dates?
No
JETman
When one take employment in a union shop he/she agrees to the terms of such.
Why should anyone reap benefits without being a contributor?
Sorry, but your contention doesn't wash...
JETman
TakeThisOut wrote:
>
> >
> >Mr Magoo wrote:
> >>
> >> tmurph2 wrote:
> >> > I love it when people use the word extortion when unions are the subject
> >of
> >> > conversation.
> >> > I have been in many many labor negotiations in my time and never heard
> >any
> >> > threats from the union side of the table.
> >>
> >> Union extortion does not take place at the negotiating table. It takes
> >> place on the job, where employees are forced to pay union dues or lose
> >> their jobs.
> >
> >
> >
> >Extortion???
>
> Well then, that "extortion" is 100% tax deductable!
Yeah, but the amount on an annual basis probably doesn't amount to a hil
of beans for many...
For sure, it ain't extortion...
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
ActualGeek
I've caught you in many lies, so pointing it out is legitimate.
But your second statement is true-- they represent workers rights, and
the only way to do that is to to either eliminate unions or eliminate
union corruption.
If you cared about workers rights, you'd wish them well. But you
adovcate oppression, so of course you hate them.
>
> > >--are out of synch with what the vast majority of
> > > Americans think.
> >
> > No, americans want fair pay for a fair days work.
>
> Which is why they try to join unions, to increase their bargaining
> power to get better wages, hours, and conditions.
At a cost of %15 of more of their pay, and no better wages, hours or
conditions.
If you guys would bother to look around you, you'll notice non union
industries have much better pay.
I've never been in a union, and I've never met a union member who has
made anywhere close to what I make. I have a relative who's had more
education than I have, is union, and makes significantly less.
And still has to kick up a cut to the union boss.
Some people like being in the mafia.
ActualGeek
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-EEFAF...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <1mnP9.259$PS6.25...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > the worst kind of hypocrites in the world because they claim to be
> > > helping
> > > the "poor worker forced to pay dues to a big fat union leader" when in
> > > fact
> > > they are getting fat at the expense of all the workers.
> >
> >
> > That's hilarious! Unions have their hands in workers pockets, but the
> > NRTW doesn't.
>
> Unions charge dues because they provide services.
IF that were the issue, I wouldn't complain.
Unions FORCE peopel to pay them a cut of their salary. They call it
"Dues" but it really is extortion.
> Union workers
> almost always have better wages, hours, and working conditions than
> non-union workers in the same industry. The NRTW, on the other hand,
Bullshit. Not in my experience. My friend who had to pay %15 got a
much better non-union job in the same industry. So, not only is her
gross pay higher, she doesn't have to kick up %15 in extortion money!
Hell, Home Depot checkout people have gotten stock options worht
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is home depot unionized? My
friends hardware store was, and she got no options, lower pay, AND had
to kick up %15 to the bosses every pay check.
She paid more in union extortion than in federal taxes!
> exists merely as a pawn of big business to attack unions.
> >
> > My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
> > loose her job.
>
> We've been through this before on another thread. Could you provide
> some actual proof of the the 15% figure?
Im not going to post her paystub online.
>I'm not saying that's
> impossible, but it would be unusually high. Further, if she had to
So you claim. But when I was forced to join a union way back when, the
cut was about the same. (%13-%18 depending on hours worked.)
Funny how you guys have to LIE about how high the dues are. If you're
providing such a good service, peopel would be happy to pay it...
and you wouldn't have to FORCE people to pay it against their will.
> do--then it was because the company and union entered into a contract
> providing for that. Plus, since union workers on average make about
A contract entered into under threat of violence is not a contract, its
just agreed to extortion.
> 17% more than comparable non-union workers, she was still coming out
> ahead.
Bullshit. She got another job ad a non-union competitor and got a big
pay boost AND didn't have to pay extortion.
> > You do have the RIGHT to work, without a third parties approval.
>
> Without a union, workers have no "right to work"
Yes, in other words, you endorse extortion, violence and corruption.
> non-union employees are almost always "at will," meaning the employer
> can fire the employee for almost any reason or no reason. On the
> other hand, workers in unions almost always have "just cause"
This is a lie. More propaganda. Of course, if you guys were offering
anything worth paying for, you wouldn't have to FORCE peopel to join
your "unions".
ActualGeek
"tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I love it when people use the word extortion when unions are the subject of
> conversation.
> I have been in many many labor negotiations in my time and never heard any
> threats from the union side of the table. I have heard a lot of threats
> from management such as "We will close down and move to Mexico". Or "We
> can open a non-union shop". Nobody has ever signed a labor contract with a
> gun at his head.
I'll beleive this when I hear of a union strike or other action that
doesn't invovle some sort of force-- either fraud, or violence goes hand
in hand.
The threat is well known and very real.
> They sign union contracts because it is in the best
> interest of the company to get the best workers and the best want to be paid
> the best. It's as simple as that.
No, they sign because they think it is better to be bled dry over a
couple decades than shjut down completely right then and there.
Anyone who demands a cut of your pay under penalty of losing your job is
an extortionist. Ok, "protection racket" might be the more politically
correct term.
ActualGeek
Mr Magoo <mr_m...@nomail.com> wrote:
Or endure harrassment, dangerous working conditions made by the union
members, and often outright violence at their hands for not conforming.
ActualGeek
Mr Magoo <mr_m...@nomail.com> wrote:
No, there is an important difference between those two situations.
One, an outside party is threatening someone who wants to make a deal
with a party that also consents to the deal.
In the other, one person is just chosing not to consent to a deal.
Unions extorting a kickback from workers are the moral equivilent of
prostitutes demanding payment from boyfriends for the sex they get from
their girlfriends.
ActualGeek
JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Mr Magoo wrote:
> >
> > JETman wrote:
> > >
> > > Mr Magoo wrote:
> > >>Union extortion does not take place at the negotiating table. It takes
> > >>place on the job, where employees are forced to pay union dues or lose
> > >>their jobs.
> >
> > > Extortion???
> >
> > It's just as much extortion when the threat is that you lose your job if
> > you don't pay union dues as when a company threatens to take actions if
> > the union doesn't give in.
>
>
> When one take employment in a union shop he/she agrees to the terms of such.
No they don't.
> Why should anyone reap benefits without being a contributor?
What benefits? The "Benefit" of not being forced out of your job?
That's like saying people should be paying muggers for the benefit of
the mugger not killing them.
> Sorry, but your contention doesn't wash...
Sorry, but your logic doesn't work.
jslater
> In article <3E0E47BB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > The NRTW group is nothing more than a pawn of corporations.
>
> You guys are like those idiots who think jews control everything. Oh,
> wait, maybe you are the same guys, since you think jews control all the
> corporations.
>
> Is "corporations" the new slang term for "international jewish
> conspiracy"?
What a load of BS. Saying the NRTW is a pawn of corporations is
nothing like the anti-semitism. For what it's worth, the union
movement has always had a decent number of Jews in it, which is a good
thing. What's the old debating rule that says if you start comparing
your opponent to the Nazis, you lose? You just lost.
On the other hand, the original poster was correct. The NRTW *is* a
pawn of corporations. It exists only to attack unions.
> Either way, you sure are paranoid. But that's ok. Opposition to Human
> Rights, on the other hand, makes you unamerican. Go live in russia,
> comrade.
Great comparison. Russia = no free trade unions = YOUR position. On
the other hand, the U.S., western democracies, and international human
rights organizations, have all agreed that unions rights such as the
one we are discussing are fundamental human rights necessary in a
democracy. That's my position. But you should feel free to live in a
country that doesn't allow free trade unions.--Joe
jslater
> > > > > They
> > > > > are behind all these RTW laws being pushed in the individual states and
> > > > > on
> > > > > the national level. They are extremely well funded and spend millions
> > > > > on
> > > > > lobbying and political donations. I have gotten some of their letters
> > > > > asking
> > > > > for donations and the lies and filth they spread unions would make you
> > > > > sick.
> > > > > Believe me they are far from marginal.
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough. What I meant was that their ideas--when expressed
> > > > accurately and fully
> > >
> > > EG, when you LIE.
> >
> > Brilliant response, even by your standards. My point--which you don't
> > respond to--is that the NWTWC claims to care about workers rights, but
> > in fact they only exist to attack unions.
>
> I've caught you in many lies, so pointing it out is legitimate.
No. In the past, I tried to explain how Beck and union security rules
actually worked. It took you about 10 posts to finally figure it out.
I don't know whether that's because you are ideologically blinded,
because you don't pay attention, or because you just aren't that
smart. But in any case, I never lied.
> But your second statement is true-- they represent workers rights, and
> the only way to do that is to to either eliminate unions or eliminate
> union corruption.
You still don't understand--or are intentionally ignoring--what I say.
The NRTW doesn't care at all about workers rights, they just want to
attack unions. I understand that you hate unions, and it's your right
to do so. My point is that neither you nor the NRTW should try to
disguise your opinions under the false cloak about caring about
workers rights. If you actually cared about workers rights, you would
also worry about the right to organize--which you obviously don't care
about.
> If you guys would bother to look around you, you'll notice non union
> industries have much better pay.
Again, false. In comparable industries for comparable jobs, union
workers generally get much better wages, hours, and working
conditions. You anti-union types can't even get your lies straight:
remember, you're supposed to believe that union wages are driving
companies overseas. --Joe
jslater
> > > > the worst kind of hypocrites in the world because they claim to be
> > > > helping
> > > > the "poor worker forced to pay dues to a big fat union leader" when in
> > > > fact
> > > > they are getting fat at the expense of all the workers.
> > > > >
>
> IF that were the issue, I wouldn't complain.
>
> Unions FORCE peopel to pay them a cut of their salary. They call it
> "Dues" but it really is extortion.
It is the issue. Dues prevent the "free rider" problem. Unions
improve wages, hours, and conditions, represent workers in grievance
hearings, etc. They can't do this for free.
> > Union workers
> > almost always have better wages, hours, and working conditions than
> > non-union workers in the same industry. The NRTW, on the other hand,
>
> Bullshit. Not in my experience.
Your experience does not reflect all of reality. Nobody who studies
labor relations thinks that unions don't raise wages, and improve
hours and conditions. The anti-union argument generally is that they
raise wages too much, and thus hurt competitiveness. I don't buy that
argument either, but that's the argument that anti-union types who
have a clue about reality make.
> > > My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
> > > loose her job.
> >
> > We've been through this before on another thread. Could you provide
> > some actual proof of the the 15% figure?
>
> Im not going to post her paystub online.
>
> >I'm not saying that's
> > impossible, but it would be unusually high. Further, if she had to
>
> So you claim. But when I was forced to join a union way back when, the
> cut was about the same. (%13-%18 depending on hours worked.)
Again, I won't call you a liar because I don't have any hard evidence.
But I can tell you--and you can believe me or not--that this would be
unusually high.
> A contract entered into under threat of violence is not a contract, its
> just agreed to extortion.
Unions and companies do not enter into contracts under "threat of
violence."
> >
> > > You do have the RIGHT to work, without a third parties approval.
> >
> > Without a union, workers have no "right to work"
>
> Yes, in other words, you endorse extortion, violence and corruption.
No, I endorse contractual rights, including the right to be fired only
for just cause, that are enforced peacefully, via arbitrations.
>
> > non-union employees are almost always "at will," meaning the employer
> > can fire the employee for almost any reason or no reason. On the
> > other hand, workers in unions almost always have "just cause"
>
> This is a lie. More propaganda. Of course, if you guys were offering
> anything worth paying for, you wouldn't have to FORCE peopel to join
> your "unions".
What I say above is 100% true and there is no way anybody that knows
anything about labor relations could dispute it. Almost all union
contracts contain "just cause" dismissal clauses, and almost all
non-union workers in the private sector are "at will." That's just a
fact.
When you deny basic facts such as this, it makes all your other claims
even less credible.--Joe
Shane Yeager
snip
> Unions charge dues because they provide services. Union workers
> almost always have better wages, hours, and working conditions than
> non-union workers in the same industry. The NRTW, on the other hand,
> exists merely as a pawn of big business to attack unions.
> >
> > My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
> > loose her job.
>
> We've been through this before on another thread. Could you provide
> some actual proof of the the 15% figure? I'm not saying that's
> impossible, but it would be unusually high. Further, if she had to
> pay some portion of union dues--which some workers are required to
> do--then it was because the company and union entered into a contract
> providing for that. Plus, since union workers on average make about
> 17% more than comparable non-union workers, she was still coming out
> ahead.
>
--->Sorry to be a math geek, but you are wrong, assuming both your numbers are accurate. 85% of 117% of a normal salary
is 99.45% of the non-union salary. The additonal benefit of union contracts with the company may even out that other half
a per cent, but on a cash-only basis, based on the presented numbers, non-union workers make more.
>
> > This will never be a free country as long as unions are in business.
>
> To the contrary, every free, democratic, industrial democracy allows
> gives similar rights to free trade unions. You are again allying
> yourself with countries that deny unions rights--invariably
> dictatorships of the right or left.
>
> > You do have the RIGHT to work, without a third parties approval.
>
> Without a union, workers have no "right to work"--private sector
> non-union employees are almost always "at will," meaning the employer
> can fire the employee for almost any reason or no reason. On the
> other hand, workers in unions almost always have "just cause"
> discharge provisions, meaning they have a real "right to work": the
> right not be fired unless there is a good reason for them to be fired.
> Those are the type of rights workers really care about, but the NRTW
> doesn't.--Joe
--->Most of my experience with unions has been the union getting workers to agree to cutbacks in pay or benefits, in order
to keep the plant running. Not only would everyone lose their jobs if the plant closed, but the union president would
lose her vastly improved pay (about 2x,) over her pay if she were still a regular worker. This opens the door for
corruption. (Anecdote based on circa 1990 PA auto part plant.)
Shane Yeager
Research Assistant
Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research
Views expressed not indicative of the views of WIBR, the WIBR/CGR or MIT
Wdivekw
>
>snip
>
>> Unions charge dues because they provide services. Union workers
>> almost always have better wages, hours, and working conditions than
>> non-union workers in the same industry. The NRTW, on the other hand,
>> exists merely as a pawn of big business to attack unions.
>> >
>> > My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
>> > loose her job.
>>
>> We've been through this before on another thread. Could you provide
>> some actual proof of the the 15% figure? I'm not saying that's
>> impossible, but it would be unusually high. Further, if she had to
>> pay some portion of union dues--which some workers are required to
>> do--then it was because the company and union entered into a contract
>> providing for that. Plus, since union workers on average make about
>> 17% more than comparable non-union workers, she was still coming out
>> ahead.
>>
>
>--->Sorry to be a math geek, but you are wrong, assuming both your numbers
>are accurate. 85% of 117% of a normal salary
>is 99.45% of the non-union salary. The additonal benefit of union contracts
>with the company may even out that other half
>a per cent, but on a cash-only basis, based on the presented numbers,
>non-union workers make more.
>
Try to follow this:
Union worker makes $100
Non-union 17%less 83
Union worker makes $17 more.
If the union worker really paid 15% dues then he would get. $100
minus 15%dues 85
now follow this 85 (union pay) minus 83 ( non-union pay) makes a $2 loss to
the non-union worker.
I used $100, since it is an easy figure to demonstrate with. The most I ever
got paid on a union job was $64.50 an hour, not including benefits.
Damn uniuon bastards....ROTFLMAO
I've got an anecdote for you. In the 1990's the CEO and all the Board of
Directors got a 15% pay riase, then proceeded to demand the union workers take
a cut in pay since the company wasn't doing that well. We went on strike, got a
large pay raise and increased benefits.
This NYNEX at the time.
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
JETman
jslater wrote:
>
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4706C...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <3E0E47BB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The NRTW group is nothing more than a pawn of corporations.
> >
> > You guys are like those idiots who think jews control everything. Oh,
> > wait, maybe you are the same guys, since you think jews control all the
> > corporations.
> >
> > Is "corporations" the new slang term for "international jewish
> > conspiracy"?
>
> What a load of BS. Saying the NRTW is a pawn of corporations is
> nothing like the anti-semitism. For what it's worth, the union
> movement has always had a decent number of Jews in it, which is a good
> thing. What's the old debating rule that says if you start comparing
> your opponent to the Nazis, you lose? You just lost.
>
> On the other hand, the original poster was correct. The NRTW *is* a
> pawn of corporations. It exists only to attack unions.
>
I just had to jump in here, (lucky shot too), since ActualGeek is on my
killfile list along with several other idiots.
I appreciate your comments as they are reflective of exactly what I said.
> > Either way, you sure are paranoid. But that's ok. Opposition to Human
> > Rights, on the other hand, makes you unamerican. Go live in russia,
> > comrade.
>
> Great comparison. Russia = no free trade unions = YOUR position. On
> the other hand, the U.S., western democracies, and international human
> rights organizations, have all agreed that unions rights such as the
> one we are discussing are fundamental human rights necessary in a
> democracy. That's my position. But you should feel free to live in a
> country that doesn't allow free trade unions.--Joe
Exactly.
My opinions are ISSUE driven, not based on hysteria. I am not a union
support as I am not a corporation supporter as well. I is no doubt that
the NRTW gang are nothing but puppets of corporate interests which most
of the time don't give a rip about human rights.
TakeThisOut
just like any other, if you fail to meet the conditions of employment, you're
fired.
TakeThisOut
>But your second statement is true-- they represent workers rights, and
>the only way to do that is to to either eliminate unions or eliminate
>union corruption.
What about when workers rights are being trampled by the company they work for?
>If you cared about workers rights, you'd wish them well. But you
>adovcate oppression, so of course you hate them.
>
>At a cost of %15 of more of their pay,
LOL - What is that, your standard? There isn't a union member here who pays
anywhere near 15% and you've YET to supply us with a union name and local #
that is supposedly assessing 15% of a worker's wages.
In short, Geeky, you're a liar. In order to bolster your claim, you're making
up false claims. Back up your 15% claim. You can't.
>and no better wages, hours or
>conditions.
I can attest that my union base wages are 39.00 an hour, while those working in
the same region, doing the same work, nonunion, make less than 1/2 that. I
won't even get into the benefits.
>If you guys would bother to look around you, you'll notice non union
>industries have much better pay.
That's a blanket statement if I ever saw one. Of course, you'll find a nonunion
nucler scientists earning more than the union shopping cart keepers at the
local Home Depot. But that isn't proof nonunion workers earn more. You gotta
compare apples to apples, not pineapples.
Nonunion workers earn far less, even after taking the dues payments into
consideration, than their union counterparts.
>I've never been in a union,
That in and of itself is proof positive you don't have clue #1 about unions.
> and I've never met a union member who has made anywhere close to what I make.
Well, I'm union and I've never met a nonunion worker in my same field who
earned anywhere close to what I make.
> I have a relative who's had more
>education than I have, is union, and makes significantly less.
And I have relatives who went to college, work nonunion, and earn less than I
do. SO what?
>And still has to kick up a cut to the union boss.
Compared to the additional pay and benefits I get by being union, the dues
payment is spit in the ocean.
>Some people like being in the mafia.
So tell us, Geeky, which union kicked you out, or which one wouldn't accept
you, or both?
TakeThisOut
>TakeThisOut wrote:
>> Well then, that "extortion" is 100% tax deductable!
>
>It most definitely is not 100% tax deductible. That is a myth promoted
>by the unions to make the union extortion fees more palatable to the
>blind sheep.
OK let's clarify then, your "friend" is paying 15% in dues, correct? It would
seem 13% of that would be tax-deductable.
>Union dues get reported in a category of miscellaneous deductions
>including professional association fees, and such. Then of that
>category, only the amount that exceeds 2% of your gross income is even
>eligible for deduction.
OK, so anything over 2% dues is deductable.
>Besides which, a deduction does not give you credit in full for what you
>paid out. If your incremental tax bracket is for instance 28%, then you
>in essence only get back 28% of what you claim as a deduction
jslater
> jslater wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Unions charge dues because they provide services. Union workers
> > almost always have better wages, hours, and working conditions than
> > non-union workers in the same industry. The NRTW, on the other hand,
> > exists merely as a pawn of big business to attack unions.
> > >
> > > My friend was forced to pay %15 of her salary to the union, lest she
> > > loose her job.
> >
> > We've been through this before on another thread. Could you provide
> > some actual proof of the the 15% figure? I'm not saying that's
> > impossible, but it would be unusually high. Further, if she had to
> > pay some portion of union dues--which some workers are required to
> > do--then it was because the company and union entered into a contract
> > providing for that. Plus, since union workers on average make about
> > 17% more than comparable non-union workers, she was still coming out
> > ahead.
> >
>
> --->Sorry to be a math geek, but you are wrong, assuming both your numbers are accurate. 85% of 117% of a normal salary
> is 99.45% of the non-union salary. The additonal benefit of union contracts with the company may even out that other half
> a per cent, but on a cash-only basis, based on the presented numbers, non-union workers make more.
No problem, facts and figures are good. The 17% figure is an average
(from Bureau of Labor Statistics), and the 15% figure is something
ActualGeek asserts happened to someone he knew, so this wasn't an
actual case. But your point is fair.
>
> --->Most of my experience with unions has been the union getting workers to agree to cutbacks in pay or benefits, in order
> to keep the plant running.
Unions are put in an awkward position when managment says "accept pay
cuts or we're moving the plant to Mexico." There have been enough
moves to Mexico (and similar places that it's a realistic threat.
Not only would everyone lose their jobs if the plant closed, but the
union president would
> lose her vastly improved pay (about 2x,) over her pay if she were still a regular worker.
Union presidents do make more than line workers, but they are elected
to that position by their fellow line workers.
This opens the door for> corruption. (Anecdote based on circa 1990 PA
auto part plant.)
Can't respond without knowing what you're referring to. And maybe even
not then ....--Joe
jslater
> jslater wrote:
> >
> > ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4706C...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <3E0E47BB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > > JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The NRTW group is nothing more than a pawn of corporations.
> > >
> > > You guys are like those idiots who think jews control everything. Oh,
> > > wait, maybe you are the same guys, since you think jews control all the
> > > corporations.
> > >
> > > Is "corporations" the new slang term for "international jewish
> > > conspiracy"?
> >
> > What a load of BS. Saying the NRTW is a pawn of corporations is
> > nothing like the anti-semitism. For what it's worth, the union
> > movement has always had a decent number of Jews in it, which is a good
> > thing. What's the old debating rule that says if you start comparing
> > your opponent to the Nazis, you lose? You just lost.
> >
> > On the other hand, the original poster was correct. The NRTW *is* a
> > pawn of corporations. It exists only to attack unions.
> >
>
> I just had to jump in here, (lucky shot too), since ActualGeek is on my
> killfile list along with several other idiots.
>
> I appreciate your comments as they are reflective of exactly what I said.
>
> > > Either way, you sure are paranoid. But that's ok. Opposition to Human
> > > Rights, on the other hand, makes you unamerican. Go live in russia,
> > > comrade.
> >
> > Great comparison. Russia = no free trade unions = YOUR position. On
> > the other hand, the U.S., western democracies, and international human
> > rights organizations, have all agreed that unions rights such as the
> > one we are discussing are fundamental human rights necessary in a
> > democracy. That's my position. But you should feel free to live in a
> > country that doesn't allow free trade unions.--Joe
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> My opinions are ISSUE driven, not based on hysteria. I am not a union
> support as I am not a corporation supporter as well. I is no doubt that
> the NRTW gang are nothing but puppets of corporate interests which most
> of the time don't give a rip about human rights.
We do indeed agree.--Joe
Boomerlake
>Unions extorting a kickback from workers are the moral equivilent of
>prostitutes demanding payment from boyfriends for the sex they get from
>their girlfriends.
Just how far are you going to go with this nonsense against the unions. Just
get over it and get a life.
Thomas Murphy
of the NRTW group? It is funded by major corporations whose only interest
is in destroying unions in America. They are insidious liars and they use
MARKETING STRATEGIES to gain support for ideas that sound good but actually
hurt the people they profess to help.
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-4706C...@corp.supernews.com...
Thomas Murphy
union dues in America and that is the truth. Some may resent paying and
lack the balls to say so but they are not forced.
"Mr Magoo" <mr_m...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%TLP9.160824$Vz2.38...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
tmurph2
When I was organizing I talked to a Bricklayer on a non-union job and told
him if he was working for a union contractor he would be making $23 per
hour as opposed to the $10.50 he was getting paid non-union. (maybe 6 or 7
yr. ago) The union dues was $12 /mo. On top of the pay we had the best
healthcare package around and A pension and an annuity at the time worth
over $11 /hrfor a total package near $35/hr. You know what he said to me?
"Well I don't have to pay any union dues". I thought about this for a
little bit and decided he was way to stupid to be in my union. . And the
funny thing is a lot of guys feel that way but you can't help people like
that. Those are the folks who work for some guy for 25 yrs and when they
start to slow down a little the guy lays them off and puts his nephew in the
job. In the construction industry only dopes work non-union.
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
JETman
JT
--
JETman
but you might be able to enlighten the ignorant.
Sad but true... There are lots of stupid people in the world.
JT
--
Mr Magoo
> You don't know what you are talking about Magoo. No person is forced to pay
> union dues in America and that is the truth. Some may resent paying and
> lack the balls to say so but they are not forced.
no choice in a union shop. Pay up or be fired.
I've seen sufficient claims of this personally to know it's you who
doesn't know what you are talking about.
TakeThisOut
>Thomas Murphy wrote:
>> You don't know what you are talking about Magoo. No person is forced to
>pay
>> union dues in America and that is the truth. Some may resent paying and
>> lack the balls to say so but they are not forced.
>No? You obviously work in a right to work state. If you don't, you have
>no choice in a union shop. Pay up or be fired.
You do have a choice. You don't have to accept employment under the terms the
employer has presented to you at the time you're hired.
>I've seen sufficient claims of this personally to know it's you who
>doesn't know what you are talking about.
>
Mr Magoo
> You do have a choice. You don't have to accept employment under the terms the
> employer has presented to you at the time you're hired.
For people who can find no other job, that's no choice at all. Union
extortion at its finest.
JETman
That argument is bogus... There are long waiting lines to gain
employment in most union shops...
Wdivekw
Now let's see if I have this correct. You've said previously that most jobs in
the US are non-union. Which is true.
Now if we just use an easy percentage of say 20% union jobs to 80% non-union,
it would seem that there are more job openings in non-union jobs.
The only reason I can see for anyone to take a union job, and pay that awful
union "extortion" you rant about, is for higher wages and benefits.
I can see your point though. That damn union made me pay them $15 a week, and
only got me $25 an hour plus full company paid medical benefits. Those rotten
union SOB's.
ROTFLMAO
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
Living the good life in Key West on my union negotiated company pension. :-)
TakeThisOut
For people who can find no other job at all, "extortion" is the least of their
problems.
Mr Magoo
> For people who can find no other job at all, "extortion" is the least of their
> problems.
So people like teachers, police and firemen, all of which have
significant union presence all have problems? What would those problems be?
JETman
TakeThisOut wrote:
>
> >From: Mr Magoo
>
> >TakeThisOut wrote:
> >> You do have a choice. You don't have to accept employment under the terms
> >the
> >> employer has presented to you at the time you're hired.
> >
>
> >For people who can find no other job, that's no choice at all. Union
> >extortion at its finest.
>
> For people who can find no other job at all, "extortion" is the least of their
> problems.
>
Heh heh... Well said!
JETman
Uh, you're drifting off the subject now...
Boomerlake
>tmurph2 wrote:
>>
>> Geek your example of 15% higher wages is nonsense.
>> When I was organizing I talked to a Bricklayer on a non-union job and told
>> him if he was working for a union contractor he would be making $23 per
>> hour as opposed to the $10.50 he was getting paid non-union. (maybe 6 or 7
>> yr. ago) The union dues was $12 /mo. On top of the pay we had the best
>> healthcare package around and A pension and an annuity at the time worth
>> over $11 /hrfor a total package near $35/hr. You know what he said to me?
>> "Well I don't have to pay any union dues". I thought about this for a
>> little bit and decided he was way to stupid to be in my union.
Yes, I can see such poster as Geek and Mr. Magoo responding the exact same way
if asked to join a union. People who respond like that are probably only worth
$10.50 an hour instead of $23 an hour, anyway.
Mr Magoo
> Yes, I can see such poster as Geek and Mr. Magoo responding the exact same way
> if asked to join a union. People who respond like that are probably only worth
> $10.50 an hour instead of $23 an hour, anyway.
Try $55/hr, which is why I don't want anything to do with a union.
ActualGeek
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater) wrote:
> > > > > > I don't know where you get the idea that the NRTW is only marginal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They
> > > > > > are behind all these RTW laws being pushed in the individual states
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > the national level. They are extremely well funded and spend
> > > > > > millions
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > lobbying and political donations. I have gotten some of their
> > > > > > letters
> > > > > > asking
> > > > > > for donations and the lies and filth they spread unions would make
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > sick.
> > > > > > Believe me they are far from marginal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair enough. What I meant was that their ideas--when expressed
> > > > > accurately and fully
> > > >
> > > > EG, when you LIE.
> > >
> > > Brilliant response, even by your standards. My point--which you don't
> > > respond to--is that the NWTWC claims to care about workers rights, but
> > > in fact they only exist to attack unions.
> >
> > I've caught you in many lies, so pointing it out is legitimate.
By the way, cutting the attribution when you quote someone is pretty
lame.
> No. In the past, I tried to explain how Beck and union security rules
> actually worked. It took you about 10 posts to finally figure it out.
Ha! You kept lying about what it said. You said it said one thing,
then you said it said another. I caught you in one post saying both
things! It was amazing.
Course you're a lawyer, right? Doublespeak and lies are your stock in
trade/
> > But your second statement is true-- they represent workers rights, and
> > the only way to do that is to to either eliminate unions or eliminate
> > union corruption.
>
> You still don't understand--or are intentionally ignoring--what I say.
Well , since most of what you say is pointless assertions, I do ignore
it.
You claim things that happened to people never happen-- you insist that
YOU wherever you live-- know for a fact, what happeend to people you
have never met in incidents you knew nothing about until I brought them
up.
Pretty stupid.
> workers rights. If you actually cared about workers rights, you would
> also worry about the right to organize--which you obviously don't care
> about.
So you assert, yet again. Of course, this is YET ANTOHER LIE. I have
stated many times that workers have the right to organize.
That you must attribute to me strawman statements shows that all you are
capable of is ignoring the facts-- unions extort money-- an insist that
I'm opposed human rights.
When, in fact, you call extortion "organization".
If you really supported workers rights to organize you wouldn't insist
that they HAD to join a union that worked AGAINST their interests.
>
> > If you guys would bother to look around you, you'll notice non union
> > industries have much better pay.
>
> Again, false. In comparable industries for comparable jobs, union
> workers generally get much better wages, hours, and working
> conditions.
This is a lie.
> You anti-union types can't even get your lies straight:
> remember, you're supposed to believe that union wages are driving
> companies overseas. --Joe
Ah, now you insist that I am a liar because I don't say what you think I
should say?
Pathetic.
ActualGeek
> > > >
> > > > > the worst kind of hypocrites in the world because they claim to be
> > > > > helping
> > > > > the "poor worker forced to pay dues to a big fat union leader" when
> > > > > in
> > > > > fact
> > > > > they are getting fat at the expense of all the workers.
> > > > > >
> > > Unions charge dues because they provide services.
> >
> > IF that were the issue, I wouldn't complain.
> >
> > Unions FORCE peopel to pay them a cut of their salary. They call it
> > "Dues" but it really is extortion.
Again you cut the attributions of the quote you provide. Basic
dishonesty- you want to respond without having your idiocy called for
what it is.
Well, fine, I'm going to only selectively respond-- there's no point in
arguing with someone who doesn't have the basic honesty to stand behind
what he says.
> It is the issue. Dues prevent the "free rider" problem. Unions
There is no free rider problem. You just want to extort people for
things that happened in the past-- but those things were ALREADY PAID
FOR. by the dues of the members of the time.
In other word,s you think that becuase a union has done something in the
past, it owns the job, and thus any new employee is a "Free rider" if
they don't pay the union.
Just like mafia scum demanding the new shop owner pay protection because
the one they just bled dry and put out of business was paying
protection. Otherwise the new guys is a "Free rider".
Notice that Boeing, and the airlines are going out of business. Notice
that the car companies barely make any money. Heavily unionized
businesses are bled dry by criminals such as yourself, and they go under.
> Again, I won't call you a liar because I don't have any hard evidence.
> But I can tell you--and you can believe me or not--that this would be
> unusually high.
Yes you insist this because you don't want to admit that unions engage
in extortion every day.
> > A contract entered into under threat of violence is not a contract, its
> > just agreed to extortion.
>
> Unions and companies do not enter into contracts under "threat of
> violence."
Can you name a contract negotiation or strike that didn't involve
violence or fraud? Look at the recent dockworkers strike-- they shut
down the docks cause the fraud was so bad.
> > Yes, in other words, you endorse extortion, violence and corruption.
>
> No, I endorse contractual rights, including the right to be fired only
> for just cause, that are enforced peacefully, via arbitrations.
And entered during periods of violence and under the threat of more
violence.
> > > non-union employees are almost always "at will," meaning the employer
> > > can fire the employee for almost any reason or no reason. On the
> > > other hand, workers in unions almost always have "just cause"
> >
> > This is a lie. More propaganda. Of course, if you guys were offering
> > anything worth paying for, you wouldn't have to FORCE peopel to join
> > your "unions".
>
> What I say above is 100% true and there is no way anybody that knows
> anything about labor relations could dispute it.
You're an idiot. I have worked many jobs with contracts, with no union
involved, where I could not be denied compensation if fired without
cause.
More propaganda-- you make people so scared that they will loose their
jobs if they don't unionize (Which is fraud) and then you force them to
join the union whether they want to or not, afterwards- which is
extortion.
ActualGeek
Shane Yeager <sye...@genome.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> --->Most of my experience with unions has been the union getting workers to
> agree to cutbacks in pay or benefits, in order
> to keep the plant running. Not only would everyone lose their jobs if the
> plant closed, but the union president would
> lose her vastly improved pay (about 2x,) over her pay if she were still a
> regular worker. This opens the door for
> corruption. (Anecdote based on circa 1990 PA auto part plant.)
This conflict of interest occurs in EVERY union negotiation-- even when
closing the plant isn't on the table. The union officials negotiate
great pay for them, the company agrees to it because is cheaper for
them to screw everyone else and double the union reps pay.
This is why unions DEMAND (and get) the requirement that everyone join
the union-- not only do they get bonus pay for every worker hired, the
workers are a lot less likely to form their own union or join another
union that actually takes their interest into account.
ActualGeek
JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> jslater wrote:
> >
> > ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> > news:<ActualGeek-4706C...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <3E0E47BB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > > JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The NRTW group is nothing more than a pawn of corporations.
> > >
> > > You guys are like those idiots who think jews control everything. Oh,
> > > wait, maybe you are the same guys, since you think jews control all the
> > > corporations.
> > >
> > > Is "corporations" the new slang term for "international jewish
> > > conspiracy"?
> >
> > What a load of BS. Saying the NRTW is a pawn of corporations is
> > nothing like the anti-semitism. For what it's worth, the union
> > movement has always had a decent number of Jews in it, which is a good
> > thing. What's the old debating rule that says if you start comparing
> > your opponent to the Nazis, you lose? You just lost.
> >
> > On the other hand, the original poster was correct. The NRTW *is* a
> > pawn of corporations. It exists only to attack unions.
> >
>
>
> I just had to jump in here, (lucky shot too), since ActualGeek is on my
> killfile list along with several other idiots.
Good, I can call you names with impunity, you fucking idiot dipshit,
pigfucker, treehugging, oh gee, I'm not very good at calling people
names. Oh well.
The protestation about how many people are in your killfile is a pretty
weak form of insult-- its basically an admission that you can't handle
my arguments.
>
> I appreciate your comments as they are reflective of exactly what I said.
>
>
>
> > > Either way, you sure are paranoid. But that's ok. Opposition to Human
> > > Rights, on the other hand, makes you unamerican. Go live in russia,
> > > comrade.
> >
> > Great comparison. Russia = no free trade unions = YOUR position. On
> > the other hand, the U.S., western democracies, and international human
> > rights organizations, have all agreed that unions rights such as the
> > one we are discussing are fundamental human rights necessary in a
> > democracy. That's my position. But you should feel free to live in a
> > country that doesn't allow free trade unions.--Joe
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> My opinions are ISSUE driven, not based on hysteria. I am not a union
> support as I am not a corporation supporter as well. I is no doubt that
> the NRTW gang are nothing but puppets of corporate interests which most
> of the time don't give a rip about human rights.
So you oppose human rights because you think others oppose them?
Brilliant.
ActualGeek
"Thomas Murphy" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> You don't know what you are talking about Magoo. No person is forced to pay
> union dues in America and that is the truth.
Tell that to the acquaintence of mine who was laid off becuase he failed
to join the union. His wife and kids would be glad to hear it hever
happened.
Hell, even I have been laid off simply because I didn't join the union
FAST enough. I was not allowed to join the union for a period, and then
I had to join the union, and was told the wrong date- so I got fired.
Everyone in union shops is paying dues because if they don't, they loose
their jobs.
>Some may resent paying and
> lack the balls to say so but they are not forced.
Nope, you don't pay, you get fired.
Hell, people get fired all the time for being politically incorrect and
running afoul of the union bosses.
They're like little KGB political correctness agents in every company.
Actually, they're exactly the same- there for the same reason- to keep
people in line.
This idea that nobody is forced to pay union dues is downright stupid--
clearly you've never worked in a union shop.
ActualGeek
"Thomas Murphy" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Let's get back to the point Geek. Who provides the money to fund the work
> of the NRTW group? It is funded by major corporations whose only interest
> is in destroying unions in America. They are insidious liars and they use
> MARKETING STRATEGIES to gain support for ideas that sound good but actually
> hurt the people they profess to help.
You know, someone who uses marketing strategies to gain support has a
lot more respect than organizations that regularly go around breaking
kneecaps, or putting fathers of three out on the street for not paying
protection money.
ActualGeek
"tmurph2" <tmu...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Geek your example of 15% higher wages is nonsense.
Nope, its a stone cold fact. My partner had to pay %15 in extortion
money out of every pay check to keep her job.
And still she got fired WITHOUT CAUSE. (Which lays slaters other lie
out there- union people get fired all the time, and the union doesn't do
SHIT about it.)
A mutual friend of ours, who refused to pay the %15, was fired.
> When I was organizing I talked to a Bricklayer on a non-union job and told
Ah, so you're an admitted extortionist. Of course you're goign to lie
about what you do. All criminals do.
> him if he was working for a union contractor he would be making $23 per
> hour as opposed to the $10.50 he was getting paid non-union. (maybe 6 or 7
Too bad it wasn't true.
> "Well I don't have to pay any union dues". I thought about this for a
> little bit and decided he was way to stupid to be in my union. . And the
IOW, he was a free man, and you want slaves.
Some unions don't charge as much as my friend was paying, apparently-- I
suspect those are situations where people make more money.
But my friend was making just over MINIMUM WAGE and still having to pay
%15 to the union.
What EXACTLY did the union deliver to make it worth her paying %15?
Health care? Nope. A great salary? Hell no-- she was making almost
minimum wage! Keepign her working hours down? Well, that's true-- she
wasn't able to work full time because only the people who'd been with
the union for a couple years got to work full time.
ITs an extortion racket. They took more of her money than the IRS and
gave her NOTHING in return.
ActualGeek
JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Heh... It has often been said that you can't do anything for the stupid
> but you might be able to enlighten the ignorant.
>
> Sad but true... There are lots of stupid people in the world.
Yep, and the supidest pay a cut of their salary to the mob every
paycheck and are PROUD of it!
Now that's DUMB!
You know "Union made" is a joke, right?
People who have pride in their work don't belong to unions.
Wdivekw
>Tell that to the acquaintence of mine who was laid off becuase he failed
>to join the union. His wife and kids would be glad to hear it hever
>happened.
>
>Hell, even I have been laid off simply because I didn't join the union
>FAST enough. I was not allowed to join the union for a period, and then
>I had to join the union, and was told the wrong date- so I got fired.
>
Ok Geek, now you've stated what happened to you PERSONALLY, it's time to put up
or shut up.
What union? What local? What company?
You're refusal to answer will be proof enough that you are lying.
Bill Estes
CWA1118(retired)
JETman
"johmy@." wrote:
> Then you don't need a union do you? Why does it piss you off that Union
> members make 23 dollars an hour?
>
> I will make 23 to 30 dollars and hour anytime I change jobs and go
> anywhere in this country. When you lose your job, you have to negotiate
> your salary again, and you may not get 55 dollars an hour, you might not
> even find a job.
>
> What about your retirement. When I retire, I will have more money
> coming in than I do now working forty hours a week. Our younger members
> starting today will also have this, plus over one million dollars in
> their individual retirement accounts.
>
The only people that I know of making over $50 per hour are "jobbers"
who are usually contract engineers that travel the country for different
free lance projects and are basically self employed working on 1099's.
About the best technician level positions in private industry for
regular full time employees tops of at about $35 per hour. Engineers
are almost always salaried thus the hourly quotes are bogus as they
often have to give more than forty hours a week to the company except
possibly in unionized shops having contracts for professional employees.
I have worked 1099 a number of times but living out of a suitcase gets
old after a while. Now, I prefer getting contracts through agencies
that at least supply minimal benefits depending on the quality of the
their customer.
If Magoo is *really* getting a true hourly wage of $50 per hour as a
RFT, he is a distinct minority in this country...
JETman
Sounds like a closed shop to me and he didn't want to join. It was
*his* choice and tough shit I say...
Skeptical Cynic
14(b) of the LMRA ( which was written in its entirety by lawyer/lobbyists of
the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Congress
gives states the right to pass Right To (Freeload) Laws. However, The LMRA
requires, i.e., mandates the union's must negotiate for and represent every
member of the bargaining unit regardless whether that bargaining unit member
pays dues or not. Don't confuse the term bargaining unit member with the
term union member. A bargaining unit member is any person who is a member
of any classification which the National Labor Relations Board or National
Mediation Board has certified as the bargaining unit for which the union is
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. That representation obligation
encompasses the processing of grievances filed by the non dues paying
members up to including arbitration which can be very costly. The union is
obligated to process such grievances in a non discriminatory manner which
means the union must be as diligent in the processing those grievances as it
would be if processing the grievance for a dues paying union member. This
results in dissension among employees because DUES PAYING MEMBERS' DUES
MONEY IS BEING USED TO DEFEND THE "RIGHTS" OF THE FREELOADERS. WHERE'S THE
JUSTICE IN THAT???
"Mr Magoo" <mr_m...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:IVAN9.3284$fE.3...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Wdivekw wrote:
> > If you're making what you feel is excellent money doing non-union work,
great.
> > I just don't understand why you feel that the other guy isn't entitled
to form
> > a union and raise his pay.
> >
> > Bill Estes
> > CWA1118(retired)
>
> I wouldn't mind if they just had their union and left me out of it. But
> unions have a way of forcing everyone to pay union dues, like it or not.
> That's when they cross the line, and why right to work laws are justified.
>
Skeptical Cynic
Don't confuse the term "closed shop" with Union shop. Closed shops which
required an employee to be a member of the union to be hired was outlawed by
Taft-Hartley Act 1947. Even in a Union shop, the Supreme Court has
determined that one not is not required to become a union member but can be
required to pay the equivalent of dues requires for representation and
collective bargaining.
The RTWF even fights to make those arrangement illegal. Their agenda has
nothing whatsoever to do with helping workers - it's merely a front for
every anti labor legislation that ever comes up in any state and is another
tool of anti worker corporations.
"JETman" <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3E06F9B5...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Mr Magoo wrote:
> >
> > Wdivekw wrote:
> > > If you're making what you feel is excellent money doing non-union
work, great.
> > > I just don't understand why you feel that the other guy isn't entitled
to form
> > > a union and raise his pay.
> > >
> > > Bill Estes
> > > CWA1118(retired)
> >
> > I wouldn't mind if they just had their union and left me out of it. But
> > unions have a way of forcing everyone to pay union dues, like it or not.
> > That's when they cross the line, and why right to work laws are
justified.
>
>
>
> There's something here that you do not understand... First, when a union
> first organizes the only one's that have to join the union are those
> that signed cards authorizing the union to represent them. Later, a
> "closed" shop might be declared by a vote of the membership except in
> right to work states.
>
> If you are offered employment by a closed shop, yes you should pay dues
> since you are reaping benefits worked for and earned by the membership.
> There's no such thing as a free lunch...
Skeptical Cynic
The fact of the matter as a wage slave the harder you work the more money
you make for your employer. You are totally dependent upon the employer's
largesse for your "reward". Since the primary and principal goal of a
publicly traded corporation is to earn money for its stockholders your place
in line for your reward for all your hard work is way at the end of the
line.
You've got to wake up and smell the manure.
"Wdivekw" <wdi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021224173949...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> >From: Ryan Lankford
>
> >On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 02:14:22 GMT, Mr Magoo <mr_m...@nomail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Wdivekw wrote:
> >>> And keeping non-union workers wages low so the CEO's salaries and
perks
> >are not
> >>> affected.
> >>
> >>My non-union, non-management, non-executive job pays very well thank
you.
> >
> >Same here...the best part is, the harder I work, the more money I
> >make. I don't have to wait for a socialist labor union leader to
> >decide I am worthy of more money.
> >
> >
> >Rev. Ryan Lankford
> >http://mma_fan_iowa.tripod.com
> >
>
> Congratulations on making good money. Now would you please inform all of
us
> which union leader belongs to the Socialist Party?
>
> Bill Estes
> CWA1118(retired)