- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Prove to me that - a business agent - makes that much money.
They don't undermine any case at all except the anti union one.
Union due are not free speech
they are money due for the maintenance of representation.
1) I was talking about Lee Saunders, Richard Trumka, Lily Garcia, Randi Weingarten, and Mary Kay Henry. I don't know why you're talking about "a business agent" or why you think I need to "prove" to you what "a business agent" makes. The salaries of those people I named are easily accessible with an internet search. I linked an article earlier that disclosed that information in its narrative.
You really are not grasping the basics here. The argument against these dues is that they're political. The union response is affirming exactly that. They are outright claiming that to be deprived of these coercive dues which are supposedly not supposed to be political, that they would be losing political influence and that the ruling would be a "gift to the GOP." That doesn't even just undermine their own supposed position, it directly agrees with the the plaintiff.
No one claimed "union due (sic) are free speech." That isn't anyone's argument.
They are not merely for whatever benign thing you wish to say they are for. They are for influencing political decision-making. The AFSCME counsel admitted as much in front of the Supreme Court Justices.
WaPo published this article by Shaun Richman, a union organizing director. So you know the slant from the get-go.
If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next
The article goes on to remind us of the early days of unions and how much unrest there was. It references multiple unions competing for members, industry-wide strikes, "rival anarchist and Communist unions," predicts unions will abandon exclusive representation, become "more left wing or crankier," and so on and so forth. But here is the claim on which this entire argumentum ad baculum depends:
"Although Janus vs. AFSCME applies to public-sector unions, this same logic applies..."
That's the thing. No, the same logic does not apply.
The chaos of the early days of unions during world wars did not involve workers being militant against their own government. More than half of the states in this country have Right To Work laws, and we have seen basically nothing remotely like the catastrophizing this union organizer is threatening. This court case would simply cause what's already the law in a majority of states to be the law in all states.
The threatening from this guy about what workers are going to do to the United States Government and its political subdivisions if unions don't get their way on this issue is shameful and should not be tolerated by anyone. He claims "no-strike clauses" will become unenforceable. What do you mean "unenforceable?" They are most definitely enforceable. Do you know why? Because government makes the law, and can make laws that say there will be no strikes.
This argument that all the chaos of the early days of labor unions in American history will come flooding in to the governmental sector ignores the fundamental differences between the private sector of the early 20th century and the powers of government then and now. Government can pass laws that simply say "oh no you don't," and that is the end of it.
You were entering the “union boss” into it, of which there is no such thing and we whittled it down to “business agents”.
None of the people you mentioned make $600k a year.
As for politics; you’re not grasping it at all: politics have become the fighting ground as politics represents both sides. “Dues” are not political, but are made such in right to work environments because of the rights of representation to dues paying members.
Janus is making fallacious argument that dues are political/ free speech, when they are not.
They are fees for service and group maintenance; the group being the entire local.
This is a union busting case wholly designed to pull the financial rug out from underneath a union local and thereby bankrupt it.
That’s what right to work laws are solely designed to do
and this coming decision could bring that about on a nationwide level
it’s happened before in labor history but people always wind up coming back to organized labor because it works.
Unions made/make sense in the private sector. If a business owner is driven by greed, he may short change his employees.
Unions never made sense in the public sector since the government is not a greedy business, since is spends other people's money and not its own. Government also has al types of rules and procedures for the work place already in affect, that are more liberal than the private sector.
The real problem being addresses is public sector unions have become a way for the left to money launder tax payer money and give it to leftist politicians. This is not chump change but is a lot of tax payer money laundering. For example, the NRA spent $57million in 2016 politics, while unions spend $1.7 Billion. Recently, wasn't the NRA consider evil, with its 1/40 the amount of union spending on lobbying?
wellwisher said:]Relative to public sector unions, the goal of the union is more tax payer money being spent on union employee wages and benefits. The way the money laundering works is a percent of this future earnings, will become a donation to Democrat politicians, who will then push for the increase. The math adds up as all the tax payers, paying unions, to pay Democrats. The doom and gloom of the democrat party is real but is it connected this money laundering drying up.
The Supreme Court case is really connected to a Republican who has to pay union dues that will go to Democrats candidates who will lobby for higher wages. The plaintiff does benefit by the wager increase but he does not think he should have to pay only Democrats a kickback. He should be able to give his share of the money laundering to the Republicans. The Democrats do not wish to share the money laundering scam. The result may be nobody will be able to play.
WaPo published this article by Shaun Richman, a union organizing director. So you know the slant from the get-go.
If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next
The article goes on to remind us of the early days of unions and how much unrest there was. It references multiple unions competing for members, industry-wide strikes, "rival anarchist and Communist unions," predicts unions will abandon exclusive representation, become "more left wing or crankier," and so on and so forth. But here is the claim on which this entire argumentum ad baculum depends:
"Although Janus vs. AFSCME applies to public-sector unions, this same logic applies..."
That's the thing. No, the same logic does not apply.
The chaos of the early days of unions during world wars did not involve workers being militant against their own government. More than half of the states in this country have Right To Work laws, and we have seen basically nothing remotely like the catastrophizing this union organizer is threatening. This court case would simply cause what's already the law in a majority of states to be the law in all states.
The threatening from this guy about what workers are going to do to the United States Government and its political subdivisions if unions don't get their way on this issue is shameful and should not be tolerated by anyone. He claims "no-strike clauses" will become unenforceable. What do you mean "unenforceable?" They are most definitely enforceable. Do you know why? Because government makes the law, and can make laws that say there will be no strikes.
This argument that all the chaos of the early days of labor unions in American history will come flooding in to the governmental sector ignores the fundamental differences between the private sector of the early 20th century and the powers of government then and now. Government can pass laws that simply say "oh no you don't," and that is the end of it.
Conservatives would love to see unions weakened or eliminated because they interfere with the efficiency of capitalism.
That might be the way some people think about it, but government isn’t capitalistic, and unions predominately monopolize labor in the government sector.
govt is not capitalist must try to be as much as possible in order to be efficient. Do you understand?
If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next.
"We" did nothing of the sort. I named the specific people I was talking about. I don't care what silly alternative label you want applied to them.
What they have been paid annually over the past couple of years ranges from the $300,000s per year up into the $500,000s per year.
This is not a coherent interpretation of what Janus is claiming. Janus is claiming mandatory dues (agency fees, or financial core dues) are spent politically. The fact that these union bosses and their allies in the media come right out and say that to deprive unions of these dues harms them politically confirms the Janus argument.
All dues are spent influencing politics. You declaring "they are not" is the AFSCME argument in front of the SCOTUS right now, and it is weak.
So unions argue. What we're watching happen though is unions as entire organizations working furiously to influence politics. They are going so far as to admitting that these dues (which you allege are not spent trying to influence politics) would decrease their ability to influence politics if they couldn't continue to enjoy security clauses in their contracts in 23 states. They are cannibalizing themselves with this argument.
Typical union catastrophizing. Are unions all bankrupt in the 27 states that are already Right To Work?
If that were true, it would mean the mission has failed, as Right To Work laws have not done what you claim, and you should not be so worried about them because they haven't done what you say they were designed to do.
It would make national a rule that is already in effect in a majority of the states, correct.
Actually it doesn't. It has destroyed itself in the private sector, membership cannot sustain itself for long when the actual people do not actually want any part of it, unions won't even let their bargaining units vote to recertify, even when a minority have ever had the privilege of doing so, union-managed pensions are commonly complete bankrupt failures, and numerous states where unions have had the most political influence for the longest amount of time have experienced or are currently experiencing inability to fund their pensions and by extension their state government (Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan). It doesn't "work" in general. It only "works" to squeeze more money out of taxpayers, for a while. It is a slowly closing chapter in American history. We will still hear about union-fueled disorganization and unrest in developing countries for the next couple generations, but it is time to put unions out to pasture and start looking at more modern political solutions to our problems.
As for political spending, I’ve already said that unions do spend money on campaign issues and candidates. Corps do the very same thing. So what’s your point?
And no, not “All dues” are spent on politics; you’re showing your ignorance again.
You don’t belong to any union so you have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Membership rates in right to work states are low compared to closed shop states: MO 8%, KY 11% AK 5%, ID 6.1% compared to California 15.9% and NY 23%.
As for what works, again, you have to read your history and sty up on what’s been going on. I can tell you that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Western Conference pension fund has over 30 billion and is 90% funded; a pension rom which I draw.
Central States is low because membership contributions are low, and so it goes for a lot of pension funds these days. When contributions go down, the ability to remain funded goes down as well. It’s not because pension funds don’t work, it’s because powers of monied interest...
Both unions and corporations directly spend money on campaigns, candidates, PACs, et cetera, and neither spends money that was forcibly taken from anyone. Neither can force someone to contribute to that expenditure involuntarily.
It is not ignorant to inform you what the case in front of the Supreme Court right now is arguing. What it is arguing is that all government union dues are spent politically, because bargaining with the government over massive labor contracts that fundamentally affect virtually all areas of government, including both spending and taxing policy, is inextricably political.
I am informing you of the very basics of what the Supreme Court Justices of the United States are looking at and considering right now with Janus v. AFSCME. This is entirely and fundamentally factual. I am just telling you what Janus is arguing. You can shout your disagreement with it all you like, I'm just telling you what the case is examining.
LOL for someone who keeps saying I don't know what I'm talking about, you sure don't. Alaska for example is not only not a Right To Work state, it is the second most unionized state in the country, behind only New York. Alaska is even more unionized than California.
Your anecdote doesn't refute the fact that a huge number of union pensions are well below the threshold that federal law considers "healthy."
You grasping for excuses as to why union pension funds are failing doesn't somehow change the fact that they're failing. Unions should be requiring higher contributions from their members to keep their pensions solvent. They're not. They appear to be planning to just consume what's left and then demand taxpayers generally finance the rest via a pension bailout.
Janus is arguing over $45 bucks a month dude. The entire case is a set up.
You're right. I won't like it....I'll love it.
Unions were never necessary. There were already numerous legal actions wending their way through the court system at the State and federal level, which would have accomplished nearly everything the early unions did.
Well, let's look at history and what's happening right now in W. Virginia. History shows us that the disenfranchised always resort to fighting back, quite literally and that the disenfranchised always win in the end: pick any country where that has not happened... Secondly, those teachers in W Virginia are getting plenty of support and doing quite well, which only means that strikes are definitely going to be on the rise, and since striking is a right, said strikes will have the desired effect gathering support as they go.
The thirties will return; they always do.
China, Tienanmen Square.
American revolution...
Read your history.
What's American Revolution got to do with China? You said:
"History shows us that the disenfranchised always resort to fighting back, quite literally and that the disenfranchised always win in the end: pick any country where that has not happened."
I showed you a country where that has not happened.
:lamo
The disenfranchised rose up against the emperor there too dude.
And yet they still live in squalor, get paid pennies a day, and are even occasionally harvested for organs for "important people". yeah...they sure showed them!.....not.
Report: China still harvesting organs from prisoners at a massive scale <---in case you didn't believe me about the organ harvesting.
People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies, so what's your point?
The disenfranchised in this country always win.
People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies, so what's your point?
The disenfranchised in this country always win.
:lamo
The disenfranchised rose up against the emperor there too dude.
Nothing related to this topic involves anyone being "disenfranchised." Union members are disenfranchised by their unions in that they are prevented from being able to routinely vote to recertify or decertify their representation (some ridiculously small percentage of union workers, like 6%, have ever even had the privilege of voting for or against that representation). Proposed laws like the Employee Rights Act would address this abuse by unions.
But that's a different topic. Janus v. AFSCME doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchisement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?