Should and employee in a union be forced to contribute to politcal parties?

[Navy Pride]

I wonder if anyone would like to complain about the deathgrip the lack of unions has on the American economy?

Your going to have to explain that one since the present ecnomy is one of the strongest in history......

 

[EAGLE1]

No problem with seeing your manufacturing jobs being moved overseas then?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Your going to have to explain that one since the present ecnomy is one of the strongest in history......

More untruths old friend? Care to back up your inaccurate statement with some facts?

Why not shock the entire community and actually validate one of your one sentence claims this time? Show us all how this economy is "one of the strongest in history."

Betcha you can't do it...would you like to debate me one on one in front of the entire Forum on this subject, you know, how the economy in 2007 is one of the strongest in history?

Wanna compare it to the Clinton years, for example?

Do you accept my challenge Navy Pride, I've tossed down the glove for you to accept...or will you cut and run again?

 

[aquapub]

Last I heard it's a free country. You are not forced to pay union dues, you can choose to pay union dues OR you can choose to go down the road and not pay union dues. Freedom of choice.

If you're in a field within the union stranglehold, which many are, you have the choice of being forced to fund the DNC or not having a job.

THAT IS a violation of Freedom of Assembly

 

[aquapub]

versus borrowing more and more to add to the debt?

Desperate times, desperate measures. Ever heard of Katrina, corporate scandals, 9/11, war, rampant outsourcing?

 

[aquapub]

Not sure who you're talking about here (unions or Democrats) but it doesn't matter, can you show how either one is driving up health care costs?

Democrats keep protecting frivolous lawsuits from being reformed, regardless of what concessions conservatives make...that drives up health care costs.

Democrats protect illegal aliens from being treated as illegal...every time one of them goes to the hospital for free health care, our health care costs go up.

Democrats, with the help of unions, strong arm ridiculous concessions out of employers until they make up for their losses by covering less of their employees health care.

Let me know if you need any sources on any of this.

 

[Iriemon]

Desperate times, desperate measures. Ever heard of Katrina, corporate scandals, 9/11, war, rampant outsourcing?

And that's why its OK to borrow $3+ trillion dollars.

The pass the buck generation.

 

[aquapub]

And that's why its OK to borrow $3+ trillion dollars.

The pass the buck generation.

Rescue the economy from a recession or go into debt?

The damage done by recessions can't be as easily fixed as the national debt can.

This is not passing the buck, it's responding to extreme situations with common sense.

 

[aquapub]

Again, not sure who you're talking about here, so there are two questions. Are Democrats entirely responsible for sending jobs overseas?

Whether it be tax hikes on fuel, wages, artificial wage hikes, protections for frivolous lawsuits, protections for illegals who bottom out people's wages, NAFTA, or supporting unions while they frivolously drive up the cost of hiring American employees, Democrats make the vast majority of job losses and outsourcing necessary.

 

[Iriemon]

Rescue the economy from a recession or go into debt?

The damage done by recessions can't be as easily fixed as the national debt can.

This is not passing the buck, it's responding to extreme situations with common sense.

OK. I'll bite. What is your proposal for "easily fixing" the $9 trillion debt run up mostly by our last three Republican presidents.

The biggest and only surplus run in the past 50 years or so was in 2000 during Clinton's last year. The surplus was $86 billion, according the the CBO.

It would take 104 years of that record level surplus to pay off the debt. It would take over 30 years just to pay off the debt run up since W became president. And that is assuming that the Govt stopped borrowing immediately.

 

[BWG]

If you're in a field within the union stranglehold, which many are, you have the choice of being forced to fund the DNC or not having a job.

THAT IS a violation of Freedom of Assembly

What stranglehold? Looks like non-union has the stranglehold
(this information was already provided in post #49)
Source
And you still have the FREEDOM to work elsewhere.

Desperate times, desperate measures. Ever heard of Katrina, corporate scandals, 9/11, war, rampant outsourcing?

So the solution is to cut taxes and borrow more? Brilliant!!

Democrats keep protecting frivolous lawsuits from being reformed, regardless of what concessions conservatives make...that drives up health care costs.

Rising insurance premiums are not a result of increased tort litigation. Rather they are caused by a combination of economic factors: the collapse of the stock market; record low long-term interest rates; the recession and rising medical costs. Indeed, premiums are now declining because these economic factors have shifted in the past year or two.
Source
From the Congressional Budget Office,
In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency.
Source

Democrats protect illegal aliens from being treated as illegal...every time one of them goes to the hospital for free health care, our health care costs go up.

What exactly have the Republics done concerning illegals the past 12 years?

Democrats, with the help of unions, strong arm ridiculous concessions out of employers until they make up for their losses by covering less of their employees health care.

Perhaps you've never been in on bargaining sessions, but BOTH sides present proposals and BOTH sides give and take until they come to an agreement satisfactory to BOTH.

Whether it be tax hikes on fuel, wages, artificial wage hikes, protections for frivolous lawsuits, protections for illegals who bottom out people's wages, NAFTA, or supporting unions while they frivolously drive up the cost of hiring American employees, Democrats make the vast majority of job losses and outsourcing necessary.

Are you saying that in the last 12 years that the Republics have controlled The White House AND Congress NO jobs have been outsourced?

 

[aquapub]

OK. I'll bite. What is your proposal for "easily fixing" the $9 trillion debt run up mostly by our last three Republican presidents.

The biggest and only surplus run in the past 50 years or so was in 2000 during Clinton's last year. The surplus was $86 billion, according the the CBO.

It would take 104 years of that record level surplus to pay off the debt. It would take over 30 years just to pay off the debt run up since W became president. And that is assuming that the Govt stopped borrowing immediately.

Cut the federal government back to what it was intended to be, keep taxes low so revenues will stay high.

 

[aquapub]

1) What stranglehold? Looks like non-union has the stranglehold
(this information was already provided in post #49)
Source

2) And you still have the FREEDOM to work elsewhere.

1) Yes, the National Right to Work Act and those who support it have dealt several major blows to unions, which liberals are now seeking to undo by stripping the very workers they claim to care about of their rights.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/18679-democrats-screw-workers-help-unions-again.html

That doesn't mean there isn't still a labor union stranglehold on several entire professions.

2) If liberals can argue that somebody not being hired because they are Muslim violates their constitutional rights...If liberals can stretch the Constitution to claim that letting God be mentioned on our money violates their 1st Amendment right to not have Congress pass any laws respecting an establishment of religion...

Then it is most certainly a violation of Free Assembly to refuse to let someone work in an entire field without giving money to Democrats.

 

[aquapub]

So the solution is to cut taxes and borrow more? Brilliant!!

As opposed to letting a recession cripple the economy and make things 10x worse?

Absolutely.

 

[aquapub]

Rising insurance premiums are not a result of increased tort litigation. Rather they are caused by a combination of economic factors: the collapse of the stock market; record low long-term interest rates; the recession and rising medical costs. Indeed, premiums are now declining because these economic factors have shifted in the past year or two.

The doctors who have to pay the insane malpractice insurance disagree with you.

Doctors Protest Rising Medical Liability Insurance Rates -- FreedomWorks.org


And the malpractice premiums SHOULD BE finally dropping now that many states have taken matters into their own hands and passed some of the tort reforms Democrats always block at the federal level.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

:thumbdown :naughty :2brickwal :no:

In a word - No Way In Hell :3oops: that's four. It ludicrous even to suggest such a thing in the first place.

 

[aquapub]

From the Congressional Budget Office,
In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency.
Source

From your own source:

The available evidence suggests that premiums have risen both because insurance companies have faced increased costs to pay claims (from growth in malpractice awards) and because of reduced income from their investments and short-term factors in the insurance market. Some observers fear that rising malpractice premiums will cause physicians to stop practicing medicine, thus reducing the availability of health care in some parts of the country.

 

[BWG]

1) Yes, the National Right to Work Act and those who support it have dealt several major blows to unions, which liberals are now seeking to undo by stripping the very workers they claim to care about of their rights.

In your own words "dealt several major blows to unions". Do you expect labor to just say 'OK, I give up'?... LOL...

That doesn't mean there isn't still a labor union stranglehold on several entire professions.

There wouldn't be a union in that workplace if a majority didn't vote to have it there. You do believe in Democracy, right?

Then it is most certainly a violation of Free Assembly to refuse to let someone work in an entire field without giving money to Democrats.

Again, no one is FORCING you to work there.

Desperate times, desperate measures. Ever heard of Katrina, corporate scandals, 9/11, war, rampant outsourcing?

So, if you had unexpected expenses (medical, legal, whatever) your solution would be to ask your boss for a pay cut?

The doctors who have to pay the insane malpractice insurance disagree with you.

No, the doctors are complaining about high malpractice insurance CHARGED by the INSURANCE companies. The insurance companies are charging high premiums because of the factors I previously cited. I live in one of those tort reform states and my medical premiums have doubled since tort reform was passed.

Rising insurance premiums are not a result of increased tort litigation. Rather they are caused by a combination of economic factors: the collapse of the stock market; record low long-term interest rates; the recession and rising medical costs. Indeed, premiums are now declining because these economic factors have shifted in the past year or two.

And the malpractice premiums SHOULD BE finally dropping now that many states have taken matters into their own hands and passed some of the tort reforms Democrats always block at the federal level.

No, it's been shown in study after study that tort reforms have little, to nothing, to do with rising costs.

American Insurance Association:
“The insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.” (American Insurance Association Press Release, March 13, 2002)

More Comments from insurance executives, lawmaker, universities.
Source

From your own source:...because insurance companies have faced increased costs to pay claims...

Of course you cherry-picked one small statement out of the whole report, while I posted the conclusion of the report, that takes in consideration, your chosen statement, along with the many other reasons.

From the Congressional Budget Office,
In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency.

 

[aquapub]

In your own words "dealt several major blows to unions". Do you expect labor to just say 'OK, I give up'?... LOL...

Actually, I fully expect unions to trample workers' Constitutional rights as they always have, being the self-serving economy-raping mafias that they are.

And you can tell yourself that denying someone a job for being unwilling to give money to Democrats doesn't violate their right to free assembly and that they can just find a job elsewhere all you want.

But nobody is going to take that for anything but hypocrisy until you say it is also Constitutional and fine to not hire people on the basis of their religion or their unwillingness, for instance, to contribute to the Klan.

:liar2

This argument of yours contradicts everything liberals pretend to stand for and exemplifies why I say conservatives are the only friends the Constitution has.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well of course this question have many detailse that can differs ecpecially between this country. But can first try to make a general point. That unions in many case support left wing candidates. But if you don't like it you have the possibility as a member to democraticly try to stop it. That you can lay a motion to stop the funding, find others that have the same view and also vote to stop it. Also you can have a change to choose a union that is not supportive of a goverment.

If you as a consumer by a product their changes are that you support right wing partys. Because companies in most cases tend to support rightwing candidates. Then you don't have any democratic possibility to change things. That it's the stock owners not the consumer that have any power of the company. That the same thing is if you are worker that it's likely that you company is supporting a rightwing candidate. But yes you can have the option of working at a company that don't support a rightwing candidate or buy product from it but it can hard both to get the information if they do and in many case the choice is limited if you want to support a "none righ wing company".

So unions atleast in Sweden have a democratic structure that company doesn't have. So in that sens unions supporting political candidates is more ok then company do it. Because if you contribute to a company as consumer or worker you have little choise of directly and democratcly influence it's decision of what to do with the money.

Then it comes to choice it of course different between countries. But atleast in Sweden you have choice between joining the big union that support the biggest leftwing party, non political unions and not be a member of a union. Then it comes to companies in Sweden almost all of them are part of the company acosiation that gives money to the right wing parties. So in many case it's hard that you choice of a products not indirectly leads to a support of economical donation to the rightwing parties.