Vote no on Proposition 73
 

good answer, good answer. Survey says, YES. Remember, Burger, I am all about the principle.

True. I had a couple of union cards from summer jobs, back when I was young and carefree. However, this proposition doesn't apply to unions other than those of the public employees - hence my skepticism.

Stupidly, I had not noticed that it didn't apply across the board to unions. I guess that maybe state public employee unions are not subject to NLRB or something? Interesting.

Not really. No offence. The only good union is a busted union.

the old mean hank would have asked if this wasn't redundant.

Being good really does feel better!

okay- time to vote
 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/222033/148

Okay, Ty would use this blog as "evidence." it now blames the France islamic republic birth pains on Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
problem: MSM has been trying to say the riots are not tied to religion but only to the rioters being poor. Can we please pick whether the riots are simply poor people who happen to be Islamic, or Islamic jihadis acting out against the war.

SHP, Gat, all you- VOTE for your choice please.

what is sort of funny is that the riots started in suburbs where lots of Airport workers lived- the rioters are the kids of baggage handlers etc. The riots will KILL french tourism so its sort of ironic that kids rioting for more money wil actually be poorer because their dads will be laid off.

okay- time to vote
 

It is one more battle in the global crusade. thank the babyjesuschristsuperstar W has taken the battle to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than let them take it to us. And good riddance to the Fifth Republic.

Hey Frenchies, va t'faire enculer chez les Jihadis!

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/paro...gotiations.jpg

Liberals: the party of Tolerance
 

Liberal leader and demo spiritual guide Al Francken apparently is a major league homophobic racist.......who'd have thunk it from such a thoughtful tolerant lib:

Of course, I’m not really calling Al Franken a racist. Relying on solid logic and indisputable facts would constitute “unfair meanness.” And, who knows, Al might challenge me to a fistfight.

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.

Even if a contract requires union membership as a condition of employment (the closed shop clause), all that can be required is that the employee pay a fair share fee to the union. These "fair share fee payers" are not members of the union, do not have the right to attend meetings or vote on contracts, but they do enjoy all of the rights of the terms of the contract. The fair share fee usually ends up being around 93-94% of the total dues amounts.

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

aV

what does the fair share fee go to? can you make sure none goes to politicing?

When I worked for the United States Dept of Commerce as a quasi-judicial employee, there was a union that represented me. We were completely free to not join. It wasn't really seen as a stigma not to be a member. I beleive about half the workers were members. We were a lean union that picked it's fights.

I wonder whether places like UAW shops have a similar "No stigma" atmosphere to non-membership. Kind of doubt it.

Do people actually do this? It seems like the union guys would kick his/her ass or at least consistently threaten to do so.

Exactly. That shit is not going to fly with any construction union.

Depends on the area of the country. Depends on how strong the union is. Depends on how often the employee may get "visits" at home. But yes, employees make the choice not to be a member of the union all the time.

aV

That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

What does that mean?

I've disliked unions ever since my Labor Economics class in college.