Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 90 of 90
Thanks Tree10Thanks

Thread: What should be next for unions if Janus prevails vs. AFSCME?

  1. #81
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,898
    Thanks
    4498

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Go back and read my posts. I painstakingly explained to you exactly how it works.
    I know how it worked in the 1980's. I have refused to be part of a union since then. Unions do not help the people they are now a democrat fund raising machine

  2. #82
    New Member gamewell45's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    25

    From
    Upstate New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Right to work means all are individuals, join, don't join.
    Health care is cheaper for LARGE groups.
    Idivididuals are on their own !
    Really the point is, conservative can vote any way they want in the union but the appointments at the head of union will support whom they believe will support them in return.
    We don't hear Republicans cheering unions.
    Most republican's are out to kill the labor movement in this country; Therefore the reason being is why support someone who wants to hurt you? Democrats and independents tend to support the aims and goals of unions and working class people.

  3. #83
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,898
    Thanks
    4498

    Quote Originally Posted by gamewell45 View Post
    Most republican's are out to kill the labor movement in this country; Therefore the reason being is why support someone who wants to hurt you? Democrats and independents tend to support the aims and goals of unions and working class people.
    No they want real laws not laws that only help democrats money supporters

  4. #84
    Senior Member vikingbeast's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks
    6532

    From
    Banned Camp Segregation Unit
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    I know how it worked in the 1980's. I have refused to be part of a union since then. Unions do not help the people they are now a democrat fund raising machine
    Spamming forum jobs aren't unionized?

  5. #85
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    88,187
    Thanks
    24674

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Media then...

    Donald Trump tweeted immediately after the decision that "non-union workers...are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them."

    His tweet is wrong: Unions were already not permitted to use funding from non-members for political activity, an arrangement that was in place for 41 years.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...ay-2018-06-27/

    Media now.
    The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.

    Some of these groups work for immigrants and civil rights; others produce economic research; still others turn out voters or run ads in Democratic campaigns. Together, they have benefited from tens of millions of dollars a year from public-sector unions — funding now in jeopardy because of the prospective decline in union revenue.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/b...political.html


    They seamlessly went from claiming that money wasn't used for political causes to bemoaning the loss of funding for political causes.
    Thanks from Neomalthusian

  6. #86
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,449
    Thanks
    4149

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Media then...

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...ay-2018-06-27/

    Media now.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/b...political.html

    They seamlessly went from claiming that money wasn't used for political causes to bemoaning the loss of funding for political causes.
    Great observation. Yes indeed. And you want to know something amazing? The union's side admitted the loss of political influence derived from these agency fees in front of the Supreme Court (oral arguments):

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: "I'm asking you whether or not in your view, if you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence; yes or no?"

    MR. FREDERICK (AFSCME Attorney): "Yes, they will have less political influence."

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: "Isn't that the end of this case?"
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 2nd July 2018 at 01:35 PM.
    Thanks from Macduff

  7. #87
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,388
    Thanks
    3994

    From
    East coast USA
    As usual, the people not in a union want a say.
    Just like education, birth rates, alcohol.
    This ruling affects public unions.
    Private unions not affected.
    I wonder now the ruling over, will conservates shut the hell up ?
    Of course not, it's a trait they carry, constant complaint.

  8. #88
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,449
    Thanks
    4149

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Media then...

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...ay-2018-06-27/

    Media now.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/b...political.html

    They seamlessly went from claiming that money wasn't used for political causes to bemoaning the loss of funding for political causes.
    Or as I said in this thread a little while back: Public-Employee Unions: Only a Lousy Right-Winger Would Call Us Political

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    All the railing against this Supreme Court case by unions and their allies is just feeding into the plaintiff's case. I don't understand why unions feel so compelled to scream about how politically damaged they will be if they can't force dues out of workers that are allegedly not spent politically.

    The noise about it right now is off the charts. A recent NYT Op-Ed, "Right-to-Work Laws Have Devastated Unions — and Democrats" works furiously to prove that Right To Work laws (which make agency fees that are allegedly only for representation and bargaining [illegal]) directly result in worse outcomes for Democrats. This observation should be seen as super detrimental to unions' case in Janus v. AFSCME. So why do they keep saying things like this? They might as well be arguing on behalf of Janus.

  9. #89
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,449
    Thanks
    4149

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    As usual, the people not in a union want a say.
    What people not in a union want what say?

    This ruling affects public unions.
    Private unions not affected.
    I wonder now the ruling over, will conservates shut the hell up?
    About what? Compulsory government union dues? Yes, they will. Because they're illegal now.

  10. #90
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,449
    Thanks
    4149

    From
    Boise, ID
    Some of the pro-union crowd out there are embracing the Court case as basically a sigh of relief that they no longer have to uphold pretenses that there's ever been any real difference between public unions' politics and their collective bargaining, and that now that it's settled, they can now unabashedly be their pure, political selves.

    Example? From the Socialist pro-union magazine Jacobin: UNIONS ARE POLITICAL

    The ending quote is an apt description of what unions want, which is class war:

    Abood was largely justified as an effort to preserve “labor peace.” Unions must recognize that the opposite of labor peace is class war, and that their only hope is to wage it in earnest.


    While others seem to think they can just apply a simple accounting trick and continue the flow of money into unions' coffers. A New York union puppet has introduced a "workaround" whereby, somehow or another, money will still go to unions "to cover their collective bargaining costs." It's almost certainly illegal, but that'll never stop a unionist from trying. Dem lawmaker has ‘workaround’ to SCOTUS unions decision

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 25th April 2018, 12:40 PM
  2. Police Unions astonished Republicans hate Unions.
    By thrilling in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th February 2018, 06:22 PM
  3. Prayer Prevails in the U.S. House
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 29th October 2017, 02:18 PM
  4. AFSCME distorts the truth to attack right-to-work laws
    By Neomalthusian in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th July 2017, 06:06 PM
  5. Democrat Hochul prevails in NY-26 race
    By Politico in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24th May 2011, 07:40 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed