The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by andViolins
It is certainly not my goal to confuse you. However, to clarify, it depends on the state that you live in. If you live in a right to work state, then yes, even if there is a union representing all of the widget makers, and you are hired to be a widget maker, then you cannot be required to pay union dues, be a member, or even pay fair share fee payer amounts. 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).

Of course, this is thrown out the window if employees file a deauthorization petition with the NLRB and the employee vote to deauthorize (or "turn off" the dues check-off language).

Does that help?

aV

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).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
No, I didn't. Here's what penske said and here's my reply. http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...965#post222965

• Originally posted by Penske_Account
  They inefficiently add costs and distort markets. Let the free market for labour decide. People can share info and join together as they choose but employers are free to ignore those "unions".

• Originally posted by Not Bob
  I think that every person who spouts off on the "free market" as the be-all and end-all should try to live as a worker in such a "free market" system.
  
  I'm sure that you will have a new appreciation for the worker's freedom of job choice after a period of time making Nike sneakers for $2 a day in Indonesia.

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.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is the same type of relentless harassment, PoPD and hate that drove Paigow off of the boards.

Really? Kudos.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
"FUCK BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS".

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

Originally posted by Penske_Account
.......making Paigow's offer of a position with her blog look more and more attractive at this point . . . .

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

S_A_M

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Spanky
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).

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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Given her high level of positive achievement, I take that as a compliment. thanks.

I thought you would.

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

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Based on where you give money and support and vote, you should focus your efforts on discouraging the corporate crap. You have no pull with the politicians who vote to keep unions powerful, but you do have pull with those who pass shit like that corporate tax bullcrap handout from last year. That is, if you really want to do anything to make the situation better.

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.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky


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

Baiting like this will NOT bring Tyrone back any quicker.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by andViolins
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

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Really? Kudos.

S_A_M

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.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

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

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

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

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

S_A_M

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Re: your first paragraph, I think you may have a point as to recent developments with unions, but at the outset, I think unions were a natural outgrowth of industrialization/mass production. With large employers, especially those who dominate the industry in a particular area, workers have very little bargaining power (even more so a bazillion years ago when communications and transportation were so much more primitive) and factory owners really were exploiting them and getting ridiculously rich. I think the choice at that point was between unions and socialism, and unions seem more market-y than socialism. It's people banding together to bargain. I don't think that bringing in armed guards to force people back to work has a role in a free market. I don't think that "company towns" where the mill or mine or factory owner controls the price of food and housing -- keeping them artificially high -- so that workers have no way to save etc. to leave and get a better life is part of a free market.

Re: your second paragraph, I wasn't saying "we can't have winners without losers." I was saying, we can't develop a modern, industrialized society if everyone is an entrepreneur and does the bootstrap thing. Small businesses may drive growth, but hugenormousgantic businesses (not as much industrial anymore) are the backbone of the economy. And, for some people, becoming what you see as a drone is a big step up and is challenging.

Go suck on that silver spoon you've had since birth. Your forebears would be ashamed of you.

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...

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
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.

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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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."

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).

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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

aV

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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...

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!