Yes - it shows me I was never confused and was right all along


Originally posted by Spanky:

This may not be true of public employee unions, but there are many unions that are close shopped. In other words, you have to be a member of the union to work there.

The you said:

"Sorry Spanky, but this is incorrect. Whether you are a public sector employee (see Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)) or a private sector employee (see Pattern Makers v. NLRB , 473 U.S. 95 (1985)), NO employee can be required to be a union member.

The bottom line is that employees can be forced to pay money, but they cannot be forced to be "members" of a union."

The I stated that as long as someone is forced to pay your dues (your or your employer) that pretty much means you are forced to be a union member

The you said:

In non right to work states, unless you can qualify for a religious exemption, that same widget maker will be required to pay either union dues (and be a member) or pay a fair share amount (and not be a member).

So I stand by my original statement that there are closed shopped unions where one has to be member (technically one does not have to be a member but if the company is forced to pay dues on your behalf then you are in reality being forced to be a member).

What is the problem?
 

And you never answered my question, I don't think, apologies if yoiu did, what do lawyers in Indonesia make? Transactional lawyers to be specific? I want to compare apples with apples.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Really? Kudos.

You've just identified the title of the next thread named by a Democratic poster on this Board. Seems only fair.

Penske and Paigow -- Now THERE is a moral and intellectual equivalency.

S_A_M

OK. You are arguing that because an employee (again, not the Company, the employee) has to pay a fair share fee, then it is the same as being forced to be a member of the union. Fine. That's your opinion. However, it is not factually correct, regardless of whether you want to call it a technicality or not.

aV

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

I thought you would.

See, a post that made everyone on the Board happy. it can be done.

S_A_M

What is the problem?
 

Had a bad day?

I do both. But here in California the biggest political problem is the unions and the public employees are the worst of the unions. They are the ones that have pushed our budget out of control (the prisoner guard union has made is so they can retire after twenty years with a full pension and it is almost impossible to investigate prison guards even when a prisoner dies), it is the teacher's unions that have prevented any real education reform, and it is the policies the unions in general have pushed that have been driving businesses out of this state (like workers comp before Arnold reformed it).

They are some Dems that are not slaves to the unions and I don't mess with them. I target the Dems and sometimes the Repubs that are union controlled.

Most of California's problems can be laid at the feet of union lobbying.

What is the problem?
 

Baiting like this will NOT bring Tyrone back any quicker.

If I am a member of the union, I have to pay dues and what the union does effects me.

If I am not a member of the union, I have to pay dues and what the union does effects me.

What the hell is the difference? The only difference I can see if I join I can actually influence the union I am forced to pay into. So in reality I really have no choice in being a union member.

What is the problem?
 

You would be more successful if you specified that it is CA's public employee unions that you see as a problem, rather than saying "Unions bad. Ugh. Me no like union."

I would argue that the bizarro property-tax restrictions y'all have are at least as much to blame for economic (and probably educational) woes. I really need to learn more about state economy stuff here. Totally different from TX, but just as irrational. From what little I've seen, y'all have the most fucked-up tax and state employee systems ever. Are all teachers employees of the state, and not local school districts?

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

The thing is, what Wonk and the other haters fail to realise is that I inspire this board. It was my creation. Without me it will look like the Infirm PB of today. Sad.


Yes, go for it. You have to be in it to win it.

Why the hate? We were so close to the elusive common ground.......

What is the problem?
 

Ahem. My grandfather was a coalminer for a few months when he came over on the boat. He guaged very quickly that only a dope would stick it out in such work, so he opened a store. And things went from there. He despised unions because he saw them as bastion of what he called "Shanty Irish," who didn't work hard enough. He also claimed income tax ruined the country and wouldn't do business with people who wouldn't have a drink with him, so maybe my views come from a damaged source...

Deal toys. It's all about the deal toys.
 

I don't know. I did a quick google search, and didn't find anything that answers your question.

What is the problem?
 

The biggest opponents of free trade agreements are Unions. In addition, the unions always support quotas and any other trade restrictions. They are also almost always against any environmental initiative. So they wreck havoc on the national and international level.

Again, I have no problem with what the unions do internally, but I have rarely seen unions on the right side of any public policy issues (except when it comes to minimun wage increases, which I support, or workers safety).

And thus, by arriving at this conclusion, you have now made a rather insightful comment on this issue.

aV

What is the problem?
 

If there had been no one working at the mine, who would have bought his wares?

And, god spanky, you bitch about the unions when your property tax system, which is what funds schools and local stuff, is described like this:

On June 6, 1978, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13, a property
tax limitation initiative. This amendment to California’s Constitution was the taxpayers’
collective response to dramatic increases in property taxes and a growing state revenue
surplus of nearly $5 billion. Proposition 13 rolled back most local real property, or real
estate, assessments to 1975 market value levels, limited the property tax rate to 1 percent
plus the rate necessary to fund local voter-approved bonded indebtedness, and
limited future property tax increases.
After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in
1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal
crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition
13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year
stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly
aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the
state $4.85 billion.
Prior to 1978, real property was appraised cyclically, with no more than a five-year
interval between reassessments. Since property values were systematically reviewed
and updated, assessed values were usually kept at or near current market value levels.
In contrast, Proposition 13 generally limits annual increases in the assessed value of
real property to no more than 2 percent, except when property changes ownership or
undergoes new construction. Essentially, Proposition 13 converted the existing market
value-based property tax system to an acquisition value-based system.

ETA they are hamstrung. Hamstrung!