|
|
Post by ktpelec on Feb 4, 2011 13:36:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 4, 2011 14:33:06 GMT -5
The sky is falling!!!....they already have a foot hold here.....where have you been....
Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Feb 4, 2011 14:44:58 GMT -5
The sky is falling!!!....they already have a foot hold here.....where have you been.... Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. You can twist it any way you want but it is and always has been a Union busting tactic. Rand Pauls version of the Tea Party is all about taking Government control away and giving back to large anti-worker big Business, wolves in sheeps clothing. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Feb 4, 2011 21:58:58 GMT -5
How does this law bust a union?I dont know enough about this yet myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave7293 on Feb 4, 2011 22:22:30 GMT -5
Who is doing the twisting here. I wish I had the right to stop paying union dues when they stopped representing me about ten years ago. I would have an extra $6,000 now. This is the only way we can tell them we don`t like the job they are doing. We can`t vote in or out anybody at the IUAW level. Why do you think that is  If you take their money away then you take their power away. I have no problems paying union dues if they do their jobs. But shouldn't`t that be my choice not the governments ?? Giving them self's that fat raise in 2009 would of been hard to do if we didn't`t give them the money to do it . |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Feb 4, 2011 23:24:04 GMT -5
I do think we should elect our Iuaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Feb 5, 2011 9:41:22 GMT -5
I don't always like the outcome of issues voted on by the other thousands of people in my Union either Dave, but I don't want to take my ball and go home either.  People have different values and concerns, not everyone in the UAW is an ole boy from Kentucky.  Its a UNION, thats the whole point, would you stop paying dues, then start again if something changed down the road and you wanted to re-join? That would be disasterous.  The UAW does represent a lot more people than just autoworkers, we need the numbers, thats where the strength is.  Is our union perfect? No, and never will be, but we are a lot better off than we would be alone. Lets change the way the IUAW officers are put in place, run for a position the next election, thats where you start. Ranting on this small Forum isn't going to get it done. The "Right to Work" law was put into place in 1935, and yes it was needed in those days. Over the years though big business, and the politicians they influence (Rep & Dem) have used this very law against unionization. Union membership has been on a steady decline for 30+ years. Thats just my take. I mean no malice.  Enjoy the Superbowl my UAW peeps.  |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 5, 2011 11:44:09 GMT -5
......It is the nature of most institutions originally founded for a purpose to eventually become focused not on “the cause,” .....but merely on self-aggrandizement.
Examples :........The leaders of certain megachurches may measure their success by the size of their congregations rather than their theological rigor. The “establishment” .....factions of both political parties cut pork-laden deals to get re-elected. Some corporate executives are more concerned with signing big, glorious mergers than making profits for the stockholders. Many union bosses are more interested in building up their organizations than in improving worker safety,some benifits, etc... — the original, and worthy, purpose of labor unions.
These empire-building tendencies cause all kinds of harm: Religious organizations lose sight of their faith, politicians raise taxes to cover their vote-buying, CEOs fail to deliver a good return to the owners of the company, ....and union bosses extort employers to the point of ruin, destroying the jobs of the workers they were supposed to help.
There are mechanisms, however flawed, that rein in the first three examples I have given. Churches and faiths compete for congregants, politicians can be unseated by movements like the leftist net roots or the right-wing tea partyers, and inefficient companies fall behind more-focused competitors. In all three cases, “new blood” can rise up to defeat those who have lost sight of their original purpose.
But what of the unions? What keeps them in check?....... Union bosses, unlike ministers, politicians or corporate executives, are creatures of monopoly and coercion; their very existence depends on it. Unions force workers to join and pay dues while forcing employers to deal with them. No feedback mechanism exists to rein them in.
With all its flaws, I still love my union and I beleive it can change. Everyone has a choice and I decided to be part of a private Union(UAW)......if one doesn't like it.....with plenty of none union jobs out there, the choice is yours...
Unions, not just UAW need to stay focus....
|
|
|
|
Post by dave7293 on Feb 5, 2011 13:52:36 GMT -5
If the choice is mine then I choose to work at Ford and I choose not to be in the union....oh that`s not my choice is it? ? |
|
|
|
Post by dave7293 on Feb 5, 2011 13:55:48 GMT -5
They`ve got us where they want us. That`s how they get away with giving them selfs a BIG FAT PAY RAISE in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by javajoe on Feb 5, 2011 16:29:00 GMT -5
If the choice is mine then I choose to work at Ford and I choose not to be in the union....oh that`s not my choice is it? ? Then you will just be a freeloader...getting the same benefits as your union brother, but not supporting the union.  |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2011 16:53:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Feb 5, 2011 18:07:06 GMT -5
If this right to work state law means that you dont have to pay union dues and still get the benifits of the uaw,they im 100 percent agaisnt this right to work crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2011 18:37:11 GMT -5
That is correct. The right to work means unions are required to provide their services for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 5, 2011 21:19:02 GMT -5
Come on guys, this sky is falling mentality is making me sick.....
Right to Work Laws makes the union represent all non-union members, BUT,BUT,BUT,and a big ( | ) BUT ....and what the union doesn't want you to know is)......NON-union members will be required to pay a fee that reimburses the union for what the union can prove it spent for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment. Nonmembers who invoke their rights cannot be forced to pay for several of the union's expenses, including its political and ideological expenses.......fuck,,, I would add blacklake in the that motherf@#ker!
We pay about $700 union dues per year....if you are a non union member, the union would have to reimburse you what ever pecentage it used for political and ideological expenses.....thats it!.....its not that complicated....just people on both sides are using this bull shit to scare people.....Ihate typing on my fucking cell!...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 6, 2011 3:44:18 GMT -5
The right to work act reduces funding for union political interests, quick question for you… Can you explain why corporations receive citizen rights of free speech, in the form of campaign contributions, while politicians put extra effort into drying up union funds in order to remove our influence from politics as much as possible? If this is really a free speech issue, the republicans have publicly admitted intent to hinder a group’s ability to practice free speech… read it here www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html?hp I personally feel there should be no special interest money funding campaigns, but if we are going to allow it for some entities then we need to allow it for all. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 6, 2011 13:27:34 GMT -5
First of all .....corporations and unions are still barred under a 1907 law from making donations directly to federal candidates.... the court's decision not too long ago(Citizens United) allows organizations to run ads in direct support of or opposition to specific candidates; it also overturns 2002 McCain-Feingold restrictions on how close to elections corporate-sponsored ads can run. Bottom Line Prior to the sepreme court ruling, while corporations and unions could run issue-based ads, they could not spend a penny on candidates, except through political action committees. Now that they can run such ads, the country could be in store for major changes in the way campaigns are conducted. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU....so let me try again.... lets say Ford makes ads that I (as an investor) don't like.....I can(choice) sell my stock and not give my money to Ford....(I will get my money back).....I have a CHOICE ....If UAW(union) makes ads that I (as a union dues paying employee) don't like.....I do not have a choice(not yet) to get my money used for political purposes.... |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 6, 2011 18:26:08 GMT -5
You have a choice; do not work for Ford or any other company with a union. The choice here is to pay the dues or work for another company like Toyota. This is a quote from you concerning workers choice of where to work… “"CHOICE" ....everyone has a choice... ...if one does not like the set up set forth by the company' then one can quit and make no money and die......, work or die...,its cruel but its the nature of game...i don't care how much regulations the goverment imposes on you or your employer....(whether in the 1900's or today)...you will always have a CHOICE....” scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=election&action=display&thread=8225 I am not suggesting anyone needs to die, but there are plenty of non-union companies out there. Anyone that doesn’t like paying dues feel free to turn in your 2 weeks notice… I will pitch in for pizza at your farewell party. “NON-union members will be required to pay a fee that reimburses the union for what the union can prove it spent for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment.” The day you hire in you receive the benefits of collective bargaining in the form of pay, health ins., retirement, personal, vacation days… you get the idea. Therefore, the reimbursement should begin when you hire in and collected each month. If unions are required to provide services for free so should every other group that influences politics. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 7, 2011 16:17:16 GMT -5
I was taliking about choice within the company(UAW) when it comes to how money is used........ everyone has to make choices they don't like.....I hate my fucking neighbor but chose not to move(we put up with his bull shit, he's old and we'll just wait him out...)....and guess what....we put up with UAW bull shit like my union dues going to support retards like Obama.....but like my neighbor....I'll wait it out!(thats where Right to work laws come in)....but you just don't get it or don't want/never to get it.... if Unions(UAW) would stop getting into politics, I would be more than happy to pay twice my union dues!
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofberl on Feb 11, 2011 21:39:20 GMT -5
President Barack Obama, looking for ways to attack high unemployment, has set a goal of doubling the nation's exports in five years, a goal private analysts believe is achievable. He recently pledged to move forward this year to win approval of a free trade pact with South Korea... HHHHHmmmmmmmmmmm I think Obama is a rep. now didnt we fight bush on this and lets see what the union says about this ?
|
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Feb 15, 2011 20:55:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Feb 15, 2011 22:40:23 GMT -5
It would be a sad day for KY and the UAW, Teamsters, and all the other union shops in KY if Rand Paul gets his way.
For you UAW members who support this try looking at the big picture, this is a long held tool of the Republican party to weaken unions, nothing more.
The UAW members who cant wait to stop paying your dues so you can be represented by the UAW for free! Try to remember all the UAW members who paid the REAL Dues by walking picket lines at the risk of losing there jobs, so you could have a better future.
|
|
People have different values and concerns, not everyone in the UAW is an ole boy from Kentucky. 
Its a UNION, thats the whole point, would you stop paying dues, then start again if something changed down the road and you wanted to re-join? That would be disasterous. 
