1. Boy, you really had to stretch on this one. The article is mostly about the fact that the anti-union people have not been able to get enough signatures to challange the unions, and a few freaks who claim that unions in general are against their religion, even if their church has no position on the matter. So they are trying to have the Evergreen Fraud Foundation sue just to mess things up. Good Conservatives, always turn to the courts when they are not happy with the results. Trust the lawyers, not the people.

And, let's not forget, the reason for the state employee's union was that we got rid of civil service protection. I guess if you all are religiously opposed to unions, we could go back to the civil service..., or is there some religious problem with that that the Evergreen Fraud Foundation would sue over?

Posted by: JDB on April 26, 2005 11:21 AM

2. "freaks"

Real nice. Class act.
Certainly helps get your point across, doesn't it.

Posted by: jimg on April 26, 2005 11:35 AM

3. Let me see if I understand the union: "State employees who don't want to pay us can go to hell and take their religion with them."

WFSE shill didn't even address the real issue in the article.

Posted by: rabblerouser on April 26, 2005 11:40 AM

4. JDB,
First of all, there is this little thing called the "Beck Statement". In it Unions are suppose to state, in plain english, where and what the dues collected are going towards by that union.

Second, by both state and federal law, Union dues are NOT to be used for political activities without prior approval of the member. The current union stance is, "you pay your dues, we decide for you".

Third, Unions are suppose to allow the member to opt out of that percentage used for political purposes but, so far, the unions have refused to this as well.

So JDB, let me see if I get this right, you support taking money from someone and then using that money for purposes that same person would not support in the first place?

At what point did that person surrender his/her personal choice on what he/she would choose to support?

Oh. thats right he/she joined a union and it knows better!

Posted by: mike P on April 26, 2005 12:03 PM

5. My sister, who is a teacher in California, sued the California Teachers Assn (similar to the WEA) over a related issue to this AND WON!

Because of her actions, thousands of California teachers can now give their dues to charity instead of the union, thanks to new and more fair rules put into place due to her lawsuit. I don't know how many thousands or millions of dollars her fine efforts will have cost the CTA, but it's awesome just thinking about the dent she put into their hides.

Don't give up, state employees! Keep going!

Posted by: Michele on April 26, 2005 12:04 PM

6. JDB,

I find it amazing that you have no issue with people having to contribute to the union against their will, but if a company asks for political "voluntary" contributions you get all upset? I feel both are wrong.

Why do you feel that in order to work at a job you are required to pay an entity with whom you have zero common values? If it were a right leaning organization the company required you to make contributions you rightfully complain bitterly. But it has to go as a priciple, not on leanings of the organization.

Posted by: Fred on April 26, 2005 12:31 PM

7. These EFFers can't go after John Kerry for his support of her, they cannot go after Howard Dean for his support of her, but they can go after us," Welch said.

Class act.

Sounds like the sort of mealy-mouth drivel that one would expect from the likes of JDB....

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 26, 2005 01:34 PM

8. JDB:

" Trust the lawyers, not the people." - JDB

You are one to talk. The PEOPLE voted against Safeco Field, DEMOCRAT Mike Lowry overruled the people and crammed it down their throats. The PEOPLE voted for a supermajority to raise taxes in I-601, DEMOCRATS smashed it and raised taxes.

Posted by: VCRW on April 26, 2005 01:52 PM

9. JDB, you're not paying attention.

It's been fed option for awhile now. So, does the union contract outweigh federal statues? The unions know the score, that's why the contract was written specifically to cover the Adventists.

Now that more detailed info has to be filed by the unions, there are more "freaks" out there than you know.

Ohio had a case like this re: the teacher's union for the same thing. Too many hoops to jump thru to prove you go to church, etc., so they were sued and they lost.

And as more union members become aware of it, the more money the union will lose.

I want to say Title VII, but it's been a long time.

Posted by: Sandy P on April 26, 2005 02:39 PM

10. VCRW,

A slight correction - the people of King County voted against Safeco Field - albeit by a small margin.

The Mariners then went on their famous 1995 run - and I can tell you from personal experience - that people from the entire state were coming unhinged at the prospect that state leaders were going to "let the Mariners leave." Absolutely unhinged, to the point of threatening violence.

The Legislature was called into a special session and a package was crafted - by both parties, as the House was GOP and the Senate D - to "keep the Mariners from leaving."

It was not a general tax increase, but a combination of sales taxes on restaurants in King County, car rental tax, lottery scratch tickets, license plates and forgiveness of sales tax on construction. However, it was a bi-partisan gift for the Mariner brass to have (still) the most expensive stadium ever built.

And in case you're curious to my opinion on the whole incident? I have never set foot in that thing, and never will.

Posted by: jimg on April 26, 2005 02:46 PM

11. State workers, unite! Cast off your chains!

"The article is mostly about the fact that the anti-union people have not been able to get enough signatures to challange the unions"

All union member wanting to work for minimum wage sign up now.

Posted by: Erik on April 26, 2005 04:37 PM

12. The PEOPLE voted against Safeco Field, DEMOCRAT Mike Lowry overruled the people and crammed it down their throats.

Second correction, the republicans voted for Safeco field as well.

Posted by: Erik on April 26, 2005 04:40 PM

13. As a state worker, I have never had a choice as to whether I wanted this union to "represent" me. For many years it has existed solely to line the pockets of the union fat cats and the Democratic Party. Gary Locke granted collective bargaining to this greedy and corrupt criminal enterprise in return for many years of hefty campaign donations. As a result the union can now steal from all state workers. Most state workers just want an annual COLA so we don't continue to fall behind most other workers in Washington. We would trust a legislative committee to make decisions for us rather than the scum running the union. Give us a vote and we will vote to decertify.

Posted by: Robin on April 26, 2005 05:06 PM

14. Well, I'm a state worker and prior to 'the vote' on ratifying the union contract, it was not possible to get any info on other points of view. All attempts to spread info within state offices is quickly quashed as being political and so unallowed. Why is the union able to contribute to ANY political group or person but the state employees can't discuss whether or not they want the union in place? A lot of state workers have gone for several years without any Cost of Living Increases which have left the pay levels WAY below that of the private sector.

Posted by: JM on April 26, 2005 06:34 PM

15. There's a word for people who stay at a job with pay below market level:

Lazy.

Yes, it's hard work and often inconvenient to find another job. But those of us in the private sector didn't get our jobs or our pay handed to us; we earned it by putting it that work.

Posted by: Bostonian on April 26, 2005 07:11 PM

16. One of the main reasons that agencies have not been able to get the required number of signatures is because the Union members did everything they could to prevent the gathering of the signatures. In my agency, the signature collectors had to collect the signatures out of the building and off the grounds. The one time they tried to collect them in a common area of the building, the union members formed a chail around the table so no one could get past or even see the table.

Posted by: Gil on April 26, 2005 07:14 PM

17. JM, rethinking what I wrote... I didn't mean to pick a fight. Sorry if I p!ssed you off.

I should have only pointed out that the reason the market salaries are higher is because of the competition for employees. This competition exists because of individual efforts, not group bargaining.

Work in the private sector. You'll never go back.

Posted by: Bostonian on April 26, 2005 07:17 PM

18. Bostonian:
I just finished working in the private sector for 30 years. The work I'm doing for the state is necessary work that someone needs to do. I'm paying back some of what i've benefited from over the years. Many of the workers started their jobs when the pay was about equal with the private sector. It has not kept up - and it needs to. Not all state workers sit around picking their noses - any more than what I've seen in the private sector.
No, you didn't tick me off. But you did show your ignorance as to how much you know about what you're espousing.

Posted by: JM on April 27, 2005 07:17 AM

19. I'm quite aware that many government workers consider their jobs to be extremely important and useful.

The point is that when you expose those jobs to a market, the market disagrees with that value.

Posted by: Bostonian on April 27, 2005 11:34 AM

20. I crunched the numbers and it looks like non-represented state employees will come out ahead of union represented state employees with this raise. A state employee earning $48,000 or more who is not represented by a union will end up with almost $1,000 more dollars in his pocket than a union represented state employee despite the four month penalty.

Over the two years, union represented employees will get about a $2,329 increase in pay while non-union represented employees will get only a $1,940 increase. However, when you take into account the $1,320 in dues an employee will owe the union, the non-represented employee comes out $931 ahead.

Note: this does not take health benefits into account because the many variables make it difficult to predict.

Posted by: rbedford on April 29, 2005 05:54 PM

21. I crunched the numbers and it looks like non-represented state employees will come out ahead of union represented state employees with this raise. A state employee earning $48,000 or more who is not represented by a union will end up with almost $1,000 more dollars in his pocket than a union represented state employee despite the four month penalty.

Over the two years, union represented employees will get about a $2,329 increase in pay while non-union represented employees will get only a $1,940 increase. However, when you take into account the $1,320 in dues an employee will owe the union, the non-represented employee comes out $931 ahead.

Note: this does not take health benefits into account because the many variables make it difficult to predict.

Posted by: rbedford on April 29, 2005 05:54 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?