rabbitcaebannog
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 10,933
- Reaction score
- 2,274
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
if the people in the union don't like the people that the money is going to then why should they have to support it with part of their union dues.
You're fighting a red herring. That already is the case. With that said, that doesn't apply to stockholders in a company. There is your uneven playing field. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. The only time that rule doesn't apply is when an advantage is wanted.
You mean unions use part of their dues to effect legislation in favor of workers? How horrible!
Name me an organization that doesn't pay the president differently than those who work under him/her. Good luck.
then why is it union shops that are having so much trouble compared to others? the amount of money being poured in is nothing compared to the money that unions are spending to try and get people to join.
the fact is people aren't interested in joining a union. the people in TN saw the destruction that the UAW caused on the American car companies and that seemed to be the number 1 reason they voted against it.
others want a work council but don't want the UAW involved.
Name me an organization that pays the president out of their own salaries and then we can have a discussion. Good luck.
up until recent ruling by the SCOTUS companies couldn't contribute to campaigns.
you don't have to invest in a company that you don't like. you don't have the choice in a union you have to pay the dues. so you are not correct.
If you think that's what they do, God love you and I hope you pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a year to a union.
Perhaps, other than getting Obama elected and having many employees lose their employer paid or subsidized health insurance coverage, just what has the hundreds of millions of union dues pumped into the Democrat party and Democrat candidates actually gotten for workers? I have one answer - Obama sold the bond holders and other creditors of Chrysler down the river in order to give controlling interest of Chrysler to the union. But what has that gotten for other workers in the country who's union dues went to support overpaid Chrysler workers who make a **** product, get paid far too much to do it and lots of union workers can't afford to buy the cars they subsidized building?
Your information is very dishonest. ... None of the officers or employees at the UAW headquarters in Detroit earn over $200,000 a year.
No hyperbole. Detroit was a source of wealth, jobs a place to stand in awe of industry. Look at it now.
Did "Unions" do that to Detroit? No, they were just the best supporting actors in the destruction of a modern wonder of the 20th Century. The good folks in Tenn. Looked at many things, and you can bet for damned sure the slow death of the big three automakers played into their thinking.
it isn't dishonest at all. why is the head of a labor union getting paid more than the people he represents. more so his wages come at the expense of the people that he is suppose to be fighting for.
But what has that gotten for other workers in the country who's union dues went to support overpaid Chrysler workers who make a **** product, get paid far too much to do it and lots of union workers can't afford to buy the cars they subsidized building?
if the people in the union don't like the people that the money is going to then why should they have to support it with part of their union dues.
up until recent ruling by the SCOTUS companies couldn't contribute to campaigns.
Unions serve a purpose. They get paid through dues to serve this purpose but I'm sure you know this:roll:
What?
I see you didn't answer the question - not surprising since you couldn't.
Unions do serve a purpose - unfortunately, much of what they spend the dues they collect has no relationship whatsoever to that purpose. It's why many people in unions want out and why many people looking for work don't apply at unionized employers.
That's the response most union stewards and those in union leadership positions most love from their membership.
It's not a conspiracy, it is reality. The amount of money being poured in for anti union policies is huge. It's to uneven the playing field.
Except non-union shops have excellent conditions and JOBS. :roll:
Think before you say these things. Its just lefty dogma you are spouting.
VW doesn't seem to care if they organize; why do you? It's mostly just the Tennessee anti labor movement and fox news that is freaking out. Why not just stay out of it and let the parties involved settle it?
Volkswagen does not fear unions. They work very well with unions in Germany. Its the Republicans and the South that fear the boogeyman.
Volkswagen: Union vote won't affect U.S. plans
They did! Right?
You mean unions use part of their dues to effect legislation in favor of workers? How horrible!
Why do you think conservatives like the Kochs and Norquist want to weaken unions and spend tons of money doing it? They don't want labors voice competing against their own when it comes to policy. It's quite simple.
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?