The Cellar
Page 5 of 7 1234 5 67
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24600)

Fair&Balanced 03-30-2011 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719686)
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

You may not be required to join, but you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.
Again, you ignore the fact that dues for workplace related activities and voluntary contributions for political purposes are separate and distinct.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 01:25 PM
Quote:
What is the Taylor Law?
The Public Employees Fair Employment Act (Taylor Law), passed in 1967, oversees public employee labor relations
in New York State, and has had a profound effect on the way that public school districts and their employees interact.
Changes in the Taylor Law since 1967 have consistently provided more negotiating power for bargaining units.
What are the Taylor Law’s major provisions?
All NYS public employees may organize into units and negotiate employment agreements with their public employers,
who are obligated to bargain with them on conditions of employment.
Employee units may vote to be members of state or national unions.
Employees cannot be forced to join a union, but the union must
represent them. Any contract negotiated between the unit and
its employer includes all employees, even non-union members.
Even employees who choose not to belong to a union have
a union fee (agency fee) deducted from their pay. Public
employers must deduct this fee from paychecks for the union.
http://www.mcsba.org/reports/FAQs_fi...0for%20web.pdf

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 719689)
Again, you ignore the fact that dues and voluntary contributions for political purposes are separate and distinct.
But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.

Fair&Balanced 03-30-2011 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719692)
But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.
The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719679)
Obviously this is a big issue or why would the Unions try to fight so hard to defeat prop 75 in Calif?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_n...f/entire75.pdf
I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.

Pico and ME 03-30-2011 01:53 PM
I don't know it public sector is different from the UAW, but political contributions and union dues deductions are separate on my husbands checks. And the political contribution is totally voluntary.

And, of course unions support the political party that supports workers. If the republicans would consider it, then they could get some of that money too.

glatt 03-30-2011 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719686)
you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.
True, but this article, and you, and I are specifically talking about Florida, which is a right to work state, and these dues are voluntary. For Republicans to place burdens in the way of voluntary contributions to unions in Florida is a dirty trick. Plain and simple.

Republicans on the Supreme Court worked hard to open the floodgates of unlimited corporate donations to the Republican party, and now they are trying to shut down the Florida union donations to the Democratic party. (And everywhere else.) It's dirty politics.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pico and ME (Post 719698)
I don't know it public sector is different from the UAW, but political contributions and union dues deductions are separate on my husbands checks. And the political contribution is totally voluntary.

And, of course unions support the political party that supports workers. If the republicans would consider it, then they could get some of that money too.
And so really tell us... if your husband suddenly said, no longer will I give monies to the political arm would anyone care?

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt (Post 719704)
.... and now they are trying to shut down the Florida union donations to the Democratic party. (And everywhere else.) It's dirty politics.
And I completely support that. I do not, however, consider it "dirty" politics anymore than those who support the idea the taxpayer dollars should be diverted to a single party.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 719693)
The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.


I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.
Again, reflux, you are trying to make a case against something that is a well known fact. Certainly through your Lobbying efforts you know that "card check" is a hugely controversially issue. I understand that you may not want to bring it up at this point, but it really is important to the issue at hand. But as a former Lobbyist you owe it to the rest of us to own up to the real issues at hand. Taxpayer dollars are being funneled to a single party... in this case the Demoncrats, without the general consensus of the group.

Please explain how "Card Check" works in the UAWA and how the employee has complete control to opt out of "Card Check"... Thanks

Bullitt 03-30-2011 09:22 PM
SB 5 passed the house and senate here in Ohio tonight. Up for signing into law on Friday it looks like.

infinite monkey 03-30-2011 09:33 PM
Yep. Glad I'm not in a public union. Bullit, didn't they make SOME concessions for police officers and firefighters?

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 719865)
Yep. Glad I'm not in a public union. Bullit, didn't they make SOME concessions for police officers and firefighters?
I thought all you college workers were in the Union....

infinite monkey 03-30-2011 09:39 PM
Nope. State college. No union. Not even faculty. In fact, where I used to work the faculty was union but not administrative personnel. It's up to the institution.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 719871)
Nope. State college. No union. Not even faculty. In fact, where I used to work the faculty was union but not administrative personnel. It's up to the institution.
Well just let me :lol2: at that comment. Well done Shaw!

infinite monkey 03-30-2011 09:44 PM
Gee thanks. I think. ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.
Page 5 of 7 1234 5 67
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.