Goonions Told to Sit Down, Shut Up

[Hobbit]

The Supreme Court has upheld a Washington state law that forbids unions from using dues for political purposes without the consent of their members.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/state-law-restricting-use-of-union-dues-for-politics-found-constitutional/

[glockmail]

Good decision; common sense. The libs must be fuming.:laugh2:

[Yurt]

The Supreme Court has upheld a Washington state law that forbidsunions from using dues for political purposes without the consent of their members.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/state-law-restricting-use-of-union-dues-for-politics-found-constitutional/

What case is this? The link does not say. The one I skimmed today was about nonmembers:

Davenport v. Wash. Ed. Assn.

Are we talking about the same case? If so, I want to talk about the holding and the unions attempt to actually say that the first amendment actually defends them.

[Yurt]

Hobbit?

[Hobbit]

Hobbit?

Sorry, been busy lately. No, I have no idea. The article doesn't say, and I haven't exactly been scouring the news for other stories on it.

[Pale Rider]

The Supreme Court has upheld a Washington state law that forbids unions from using dues for political purposes without the consent of their members.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/state-law-restricting-use-of-union-dues-for-politics-found-constitutional/

Damn good. I hope this spills into other states. When I worked for the State of Wisconsin, I had no choice in whether or not to even belong to the union. You either belonged to the union and paid the dues, or you didn't work for the state, and I KNEW with Wisconsin being the bastion of liberal shit cakes it is, my dues was being used for the democrat party. So I pitched a fit and made them donate my dues to the local church. I was an outcast from then on. I didn't give a damn.

[Joe Steel]

Not much news in this story. The US Supreme Court is dominated by rightwing hacks who got the job because they're reliable.

[OCA]

Not much news in this story. The US Supreme Court is dominated by rightwing hacks who got the job because they're reliable.

So its cool with you for unions to take your dues and give them to whatever political organization they wish even though you might not support saiod organization?

Unions are unneccessary anyway, they are a throwback to a bygone era....dinosaurs.

[Joe Steel]

So its cool with you for unions to take your dues and give them to whatever political organization they wish even though you might not support saiod organization?

Yes. The membership elects the officers. If they do what the members want, they should be replaced. Making the union get permission to spend for political purposes is just a rightwing attemp to blunt one of the best tools the unions have.


Unions are unneccessary anyway, they are a throwback to a bygone era....dinosaurs.

That's absurd. Unions are as necessary, perhaps more so, as ever before.

[Gunny]

Yes. The membership elects the officers. If they do what the members want, they should be replaced. Making the union get permission to spend for political purposes is just a rightwing attemp to blunt one of the best tools the unions have.

Did you actually read this tripe before you hit "submit?"



That's absurd. Unions are as necessary, perhaps more so, as ever before.

Wrong. Unions have and continue to price themselves out of business, and when union employees the union can't keep employed are forced to work with us "low-rent," non-union-types, they're worthless. The spend more time whining about the rights they think they have and taking coffee breaks than doing any work.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong. Unions have and continue to price themselves out of business, and when union employees the union can't keep employed are forced to work with us "low-rent," non-union-types, they're worthless. The spend more time whining about the rights they think they have and taking coffee breaks than doing any work.

Nonsense.

Union workers are as good as, probably better than, non-union losers.

Yes. That's right. Losers. If they weren't losers they wouldn't be working for far less than they're worth.

[Gunny]

Nonsense.

Union workers are as good as, probably better than, non-union losers.

Yes. That's right. Losers. If they weren't losers they wouldn't be working for far less than they're worth.

Right. How about I make as much or more than some union slug after he's done paying his dues, so you can sell the smoke-n-mirrors elsewhere.

And sorry, but union employess have a "you woe me, cradle-to-grave" mentality, , and an overall overly-inflated opinion of their value that makes them utterly worthless when it comes to busting your ass to get a job done.

I'm paid to produce results, not show up and collect a check.

[Joe Steel]

Right. How about I make as much or more than some union slug after he's done paying his dues, so you can sell the smoke-n-mirrors elsewhere.

I doubt you're earning more than a unionized worker in the same occupation.


And sorry, but union employess have a "you woe me, cradle-to-grave" mentality, , and an overall overly-inflated opinion of their value that makes them utterly worthless when it comes to busting your ass to get a job done.

I'm paid to produce results, not show up and collect a check.

Working is about money. Your employer pays you to make money for him. If you "bust your ass" to make money for him without getting as much as you can for yourself, you're a fool. Unions help workers avoid being foolish.

[Hobbit]

I doubt you're earning more than a unionized worker in the same occupation.

After union dues are factored in, he probably is.


Working is about money. Your employer pays you to make money for him. If you "bust your ass" to make money for him without getting as much as you can for yourself, you're a fool. Unions help workers avoid being foolish.

No, unions make it impossible for anyone not in the union to compete with union labor by forbidding the company to hire non-union labor. Then, they cripple the company by forcing higher pay than the workers are worth, violating anti-trust laws. All of this forces the company under, putting all of those lazy swine on welfare.

[Gunny]

I doubt you're earning more than a unionized worker in the same occupation.

I make the same as they do, and I don't have to give any of it to "Big Brother."



Working is about money. Your employer pays you to make money for him. If you "bust your ass" to make money for him without getting as much as you can for yourself, you're a fool. Unions help workers avoid being foolish.

Unions allow people to slug off the clock and has them believing crap your next sentence.

I have absolutely NO problem with the employer-employee relationship. He's doing all the paperwork and taking the risk. If I want those headaches, I can certainly go out on my own. Nothing foolish about that at all.

[Gunny]

After union dues are factored in, he probably is.



No, unions make it impossible for anyone not in the union to compete with union labor by forbidding the company to hire non-union labor. Then, they cripple the company by forcing higher pay than the workers are worth, violating anti-trust laws. All of this forces the company under, putting all of those lazy swine on welfare.


The unions here priced themselves out of business and got broken. The IBEW local has over a thousand riding the pine right now.

[5stringJeff]

This is a great ruling. It forces union officials to be responsive to its members. And oh, by the way, in 28 states, employees are FORCED to join the union to get certain jobs. That is the biggest travesty. If unions were so great, then people would join them voluntarily.

[Joe Steel]

I make the same as they do, and I don't have to give any of it to "Big Brother."

No offense intended. I just don't believe it.

I don't believe you can hold an identical job and not pay union dues except under some kind of unusual circumstances.

Can you explain further?

The only way I can see this happening is in a heavily unionized occupation and with your employers trying to keep you from joining the union.

[Joe Steel]

This is a great ruling. It forces union officials to be responsive to its members. And oh, by the way, in 28 states, employees are FORCED to join the union to get certain jobs. That is the biggest travesty. If unions were so great, then people would join them voluntarily.

Maybe we should try something like it with our taxes. We could make Bush ask every taxpayer if he can use tax money to bomb stuff.

[5stringJeff]

Maybe we should try something like it with our taxes. We could make Bush ask every taxpayer if he can use tax money to bomb stuff.

Except union membership ought not be mandatory, while paying taxes to your government, unfortunately, is mandatory.

[Joe Steel]

Except union membership ought not be mandatory, while paying taxes to your government, unfortunately, is mandatory.

As long as every worker benefit from union activity he should pay the costs of the activity.

[5stringJeff]

As long as every worker benefit from union activity he should pay the costs of the activity.

Since all Americans benefit from, say, the work of the NRA, which helps to protect Second Amendment rights, or the ACLU, which helps protect First Amendment rights, should all Americans be forced to pay dues to them as well?

Freedom of association is clearly defined in the First Amendment. Mandatory union membership goes against freedom of association, and should therefore be outlawed.

[Gunny]

No offense intended. I just don't believe it.

I don't believe you can hold an identical job and not pay union dues except under some kind of unusual circumstances.

Can you explain further?

The only way I can see this happening is in a heavily unionized occupation and with your employers trying to keep you from joining the union.

Actually, just the opposite is true. It once was a heavily unionized area. The way you break the union is offering comparable wages. I get paid fro what I produce, and since I DO produce, the employer pays me to not go to another company. Whether or not it is union is irrelevant to him. We (the journeymen) in my company also get bonuses based on profit percentage.

It's rather easy for an employer to match union wages. His overhead is about a quarter if that of what the union's is.

The only benefit I can see to the union is retirement benefits. Since I am a retired Marine, I already have better than what the union can offer.