What it was all about to begin with
19 Responses to “What it was all about to begin with”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 29th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Florida is about to do the same. Currently, members who choose to join a union are permitted to have their union dues taken from their pay and forwarded to the union by their employer. The new Florida law will stop that.
This is an entirely political operation whose intent is to destroy the unions, so that they cannot support Democrats.
To all Republicans who will inevitably think this is a good idea, remember this: When the Democrats retake these offices as the pendulum swings the other way, don’t cry when they use the same dirty tricks to cut off Republican funding.
Disclosure: I am not a union member.
March 29th, 2011 at 9:58 am
If people want to join the Union, why can’t they write their membership checks manually?
Is it because they would think it through and decide on its merits just like any other purchase?
Taxes should be paid the same way BTW. If folks had to write out their tax withholding checks weekly, I wonder what would happen?
Government employees should not be able to unionize because taxpayers have no choice but to pay their taxes. As I said before, if I don’t want to support a private company who is unionized, then I can choose not to do business with them. If the government is unionized, taxpayers don’t get that choice. We still have to pay our taxes.
March 29th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Hey Divemedic,
Cut off what funding? I’m pretty sure the GOP doesn’t have a symbiotic relationship with anything resembling the union. All GOP donations are already made by free choice, opposed to being forced to join a union and pay dues that are used for political donations.
All this does is level the playing field.
March 29th, 2011 at 11:01 am
“Government employees should not be able to unionize because taxpayers have no choice but to pay their taxes.”
All the problems in business that caused the development of labor unions also exist in government. Often worse because government is the most bureaucratic “industry” there is. The government always has grounds to regulate itself. Couple that with senior managers who are political appointees far removed from corrective popular market forces (elections). Often far removed from competence as well.
March 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
1 HL: I was once in the Union. No more. However, asking the treasurer, who is an employee of the same employer as the other members, to track down each member and ask for money, takes time and effort. This is intended to kill the unions.
2 Steven: just like this: http://www.newser.com/story/78807/high-court-rips-up-corporate-campaign-donation-limits.html Explain why a union is any different than a corporation.
3 Steven: People are not FORCED to be in the union. I work for a union shop. I am not in the union. At least get your facts straight before running your gator.
4 HL: your ‘logic’ about government employees being union makes no sense whatsoever. How is a government employee being union or not going to change your taxes? Once I earn my paycheck, it is none of your business what I do with that money. That money isn’t yours, it is mine. I earned it.
March 29th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Trying to get similar laws here in Ohio, but there are a couple of RINOS who think they can make their Union Member Constituents happy by watering it down. This, they hope, will get them re-elected. They also seem to be carrying Black Umbrellas everywhere they go, so come next Election, they might be surprised to find that THEY ( the RINO’s) will be unable to feed from the Public Trough any more. That’s how Republitards lose their money nowadays.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
“3 Steven: People are not FORCED to be in the union. I work for a union shop. I am not in the union. At least get your facts straight before running your gator.”
Only in the 22 states with right to work laws. In 28 states people ARE forced to be in a union as a term of employment.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Boy I wish I could force my employer to deduct the dues for all my private clubs and hobbies….
March 29th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Smith and Wesson caved to the anti-second amendment folks and added some goofy damn features to thier product, some people didn’t like what they did and stopped giving them money and Smith and Wesson lost money because of an unpopular choice.
WI teachers threw a temper tantrum and stopped going to thier jobs, some people didn’t like what they did. If those people who don’t agree with the teachers/teachers union stop giving them money, they will lose thier house or possibly thier lives. See public unions are the only labor union with a built in LEGAL thug brigade/collection arm.
And don’t even get me started on people with no kids in school having to pay for schools.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Only in the 22 states with right to work laws. In 28 states people ARE forced to be in a union as a term of employment.
My mother, a teacher in MN, had the “choice” of paying X union dues or X*.85 (or whatever ridiculous %) to not be in the union. The rational was that the union was benefiting her even if she wasn’t a member. Nice racket if you can get it.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Divemedic,
Why does the treasurer have to hunt them down? If the worker wants to be in the union, couldn’t they write the check themselves and mail it? In your world, do people have to hunt you down and force you pay for a service you requested?
On your second point, let me ask you this. If the city workers of your town unionize and negotiate a higher wage for themselves, would that not result in you being forced to pay higher taxes, penalties, or fees to fund those higher wages?
If your answer is “no” then there is a real problem either in your understanding of how governments are funded, or the town is going bankrupt. When they pay employees more, they have to raise more money to pay them. Unions force employers (in this example “the city”) to pay more in wages than market value. Where does that money come from?
If Walmart has to raise their prices to afford a higher wage negotiated for their union employees, I can shop elsewhere rather than pay those higher prices.
If my government has to tax more to pay union wages, I have to pay those taxes, or face prosecution.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Taking money out of your paycheck before you get it? That’s the government’s racket, and it hates competition.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
“If the city workers of your town unionize and negotiate a higher wage for themselves, would that not result in you being forced to pay higher taxes, penalties, or fees to fund those higher wages?”
Yes but government workers don’t just unionize for wage controls. The fed workers I know unionized to force Uncle Sam to pay them a regular salary instead hourly on a highly unstable schedule. The net difference in pay wasn’t much, but union members got it every pay period instead of making nothing one pay period and then making 2x pay the next.
Also, if the lower wage is not an equitable wage compared to the cost of living, work required, and the established free market prices for such labor, shouldn’t the government and the taxpayer be paying more? If the workers have to unionize to force them, ok.
March 29th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Jeff, then we need a law that states Government employees can unionize, but they can’t negotiate on wage and fringe benefits.
Wait, why don’t we just make a system where the government has to compete with other employers for the best employees? That way they would have to pay competitive wages AND the employees would be better performers! We could call it “the job market”…the key word being “market”.
Seriously though, I don’t know how far you can get with the argument that Government workers aren’t being paid more than market value. Federal workers are typically paid about 50% more than their private sector counterparts I believe. I admit that I am not sure about state and local workers.
I mean,the government pays more for toilet seats and light bulbs so it is reasonable to assume they pay more for employees as well. Its not their money they are spending, its tax payer money, so they don’t care.
Look, its this simple. If you think companies who sell office supplies and other equipment to government shouldn’t increase the piss out of their prices to gouge them, then I don’t see how you can be for government unionization because it is the same thing.
Similarly If you are against Monopolies because it takes away consumer choice and competition, then you should feel the same way about Unions because what are they if not a “workforce monopoly”?
March 29th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Public employee unions use their members dues to donate to political campaigns.
This creates the situation where the unions get to pick their own bosses and the conflict of interest should be obvious.
March 29th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
In Russia, the Union pays you dues!
March 29th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
People are not FORCED to be in the union. I work for a union shop. I am not in the union. At least get your facts straight before running your gator.
Consider yourself lucky to live in a “right to work” state. In Wisconsin, there is no choice. If you want to be a public school teacher, you pay union dues whether or not you support the left-wing agenda of the union’s political activities.
March 30th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Ha ha, unions are for shitheads.
March 30th, 2011 at 1:29 am
It’s a lovely notion, and it won’t work. Most people never see their “paycheck” if they work for a large company or department. It’s electronically transmitted, presumably with some Mark of The Beast on it. Financial institutions accept all sorts of orders to deduct amounts automatically and route them elsewhere; they’ve done it for decades now.
Union members will simply be handed one of those authorizations along with their membership application. The state employer will save, perhaps, a fraction of a cent for each re-direction done downstream. No union member will be asked, or allowed, to divvy up individually. To disallow unions from doing what utilities or mortgage-holders are allowed would be discriminatory in a whole different way, and that case would take decades to reach the Supreme Court. There will be a brief flurry of paperwork, and the whole symbolic gesture will be over.