The government will never, ever, ever fire its most incompetent employees, but it will fire its best employees who don't pay protection money. Today's Yakima Herald: "State workers fired for refusing to pay union dues"
Fortuitously, a statewide initiative to protect government employees from being forced to pay union dues has just been filed: I-926. It would not only protect good employees, it would protect our entire government from the overwhelming undue influence by the public employee unions.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 03, 2006 10:28 AM | Email This
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6644&year=2005
There are about six factors that are more important than the ones you claim.
Posted by: swatter on February 3, 2006 12:29 PMwe have more families with two people working because we have HIGHER TAXES. In my grandparents time only grandpa worked because he could easily support a large family on his pay; he wasn't having 46% of his income confiscated by the welfare state. Also, you can thank government for inflation--it's the gift that keeps on giving.
Anyhow, pro-moonbat King and Pierce counties are likely to vote against it, so I see this as having a big uphill battle.
Posted by: Steve_dog on February 3, 2006 01:08 PM
"A union needs a base of operations to conduct its affairs just as any organization, like a chamber of commerce, requires dues to effectively represent its members," Bussel said.
Bull$hit, Bob...membership in the Chamber is voluntary. This is a statement so stupid that only an intellectual or a professor could spout it.
On the contrary, it's the unions that are providing the "free ride" to incompetent, lazy, bottom of the heap workers who look to their union to protect them from what they deserve: getting fired.
In regards to I-926, I think this is great. However, I wish Eyman had included all workers in the state, not just state workers. There are lots of employees who are forced to pay union dues in private sector industries. Example: Boeing.
Posted by: LMK on February 3, 2006 01:56 PMThe public enforcement of union membership is what started fascism in Italy in the 1920's.
The words “fascism,” and “union,” are literally synonymous, Mussolini was a socialist, and formal “Fascism” was started by Mussolini with a group of union leaders. Mussolini combined partisan fascist symbolism with union leadership to secure obedience of the workforce through government control. That doesn't mean that unions in-themselves are fascist, only that merging government authority with union power is a fascist methodology with consequences demonstrated by history.
Mussolini distorted the reality of this seizure of power to consolidate a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Fascist symbolism using deliberate lies and deception is practiced by liberals like those legislators in our state who take every cynical opportunity to support total control over state workers. I’m not saying that Washington State will become like pre-war Italy, but that unhealthy conditions occur when we are complacent about the consequences of seizure of unwarranted political power.
Liberals love to say that fascism is an extension of conservative ideology, so that they can rant on about GW Bush and Hitler, but it is just more empty liberal progressive re-invention. Freedom in America is incrementally endangered by the ignorance of the left and the cause of fascism is alive and well in Washington State with consequences demonstrated by the need for I-926.
Unions used to be valuable in America but they have mostly outlived their usefullness. Now they are tools for partisan liberal hacks in the effort to seize and consolidate power.
Did you also know that the "closed shop" is considered a violation of human rights according to the United Nations?
You ARE for human rights, aren't you?
I'm fine with the idea of an honest union... in theory. However, in practice, they are not. They are as corrupt -- from top to bottom -- as Enron and the rest. And that doesn't even include any stereotypical mob ties.
Tell me, how can you follow a topcoat-wearing union leader who shows up at a freezing strike site, hops out of his heated Town Car, tells you to "keep up the fight" and then goes to the bank to deposit the $100K/yr. paycheck he STILL collects while you're getting strike pay?
Posted by: Mark on February 3, 2006 05:43 PMI apreciate your taking the time to make a thoughtful post to a hostile audience. I'll take the time to make a thoughtful answer.
Suppose a group started campaigning for better traffic control in neighborhoods (stop-signs, speed-bumps, etc.) They could point to evidence that accidents had decreased in neighborhoods in which they had campaigned. Now they want to start a campaign in your neighborhood. Should they have the right to force you to "donate" to their campaign? After all, if you don't contribute, they are still helping you, and you are getting a free ride.
I submit that, when you set out to contribute to the common good, you have to accept that others will get a free ride off your efforts. Whether free-riders act out of greed, ideology, or malace, you have no right to force their co-operation.
I submit that, when you set out to contribute to the common good, you have to accept that others will get a free ride off your efforts. Whether free-riders act out of greed, ideology, or malace, you have no right to force their co-operation.
Wright is wrong, of course:
The employer and the employees sign a labor agreement that contains the "union security" language. That contract lays down the terms of employment, and once signed and ratified, it has the force of law.
The employees decide there won't *be* any free riders. The boss agrees, and signs the contract.
Don't like it? Go down the road and get another job.
You guys are fine with the boss setting all the rules. The only difference here is that this time the boss *and* the employees are setting the rules.
Can't handle it, can you?
Posted by: Ivan on February 4, 2006 06:47 AMMy mother, who is a secretary in Olympia, actually lost money with her Union dues.
On my paycheck, Union dues are in the "voluntary" portion. How can they get away with this?
Posted by: A State Worker on February 4, 2006 11:20 AMMy mother, who is a secretary in Olympia, actually lost money with her Union dues.
On my paycheck, Union dues are in the "voluntary" portion. How can they get away with this?
Posted by: A State Worker on February 4, 2006 11:20 AMClearly from his statement Ivan supports the right of Walmart to continue its model of non-union organization because to quote Ivan if you "Don't like it?, go down the road and get another job."
Posted by: Jimmy "cement shoes" Hoffa on February 4, 2006 11:23 AMUnion members have to pay dues for the same reason you have to pay taxes: To support the union or the government that gives you something in return for those dues or those tax dollars.
Don't pay taxes, go to jail. Don't pay dues, get fired. Don't like it, run a slate in the next election.
And if you think "bad, lazy workers" exist only in unions, then obviously you have had no contact whatever with corporate management.
Posted by: Ivan on February 4, 2006 11:24 AMA few hundred years ago, we fought a war over taxation without representation. The unions are nothing more than King George III. The difference here is that I can't execute guerrilla war tactics against them with the help of the French Navy to overthrow them.
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 4, 2006 11:51 AMI work in a mixed shop. While most employees are free, there is a contingent of unionists. A unionist had just negotiated a promotion and was talking about it amongst his buddies. Chief among his stated benefits was that he was looking forward to "sh!t-canning the union". What was interesting was that a union business manager happened to overhear, entered the room, and began to harass the guy about his "ingratitude" and "betrayal". There was nothing about "union brother" or sticking together, or any of the crap that I've seen employed, but rather only vitriol. "You're a dumb-a$$ if you leave" was the stand-out line that the representative of this fine union said.
"I'm tired of all you f#cking parasites that do nothing but take take take!" was the response from the soon~to~be~free guy.
I couldn't have said it better! ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 4, 2006 12:00 PMWrong again, as usual. The union gives you plenty in return. If the boss doesn't like your face, and writes you up or worse, the union is required by federal law to represent you, whether you have paid your dues or not. If you choose not to use that representation, that's your problem.
To say you don't have a vote is pure malarkey. You can petition to decertify your union, just as the Evergreen Fascist Foundation is hoodwinking its gullible lackeys into doing.
Your union, like all unions, is required by law to hold periodic elections, and you can run against your union officials or support the candidate of your choice. You don't want to pay dues, quit your whining.
You don't like unions, that's your choice. But don't just make stuff up.
Posted by: Ivan on February 4, 2006 12:55 PMIf I want to keep my job, or lose my job, that is my choice, and my bosses choice. Unions should have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 4, 2006 01:17 PMThanks for your response to my post. As far as I can tell, you make two basic arguments. (1) If an employer agrees to require union membership as a condition of employment in his company, that's within his right as the owner of the business. (2) Just like its okay for the government to compel us to pay taxes for the common goood, its okay for unions to compel us to pay dues for the common good. Your arguments are insightful and good, but I do beleive I can answer them.
I am entirely prepared to agree with (1). (Are you? Are you willing to scrap minimum wage laws?) No law should prevent a private employer from contracting with a union to employ only union members. I just happen (along with a few million others) to be a member of the board of the particular company in question, and I am expressing my opinion that I find it morally repugnant for our company to impose this particular requirement on our employees.
Regarding (2), the governemnt does indeed have the power to compel contributions for its do-gooder schemes. But I think you would agree that it a very special power that we allow only the governemnt to have. A private organization like a union doesn't get that power just because it acts more or less democratically. You seem to be proposing some sort of syndicalism in which unions get some sort of special quasi-governmental status in society.
That means the labor agreements that your company signs have the force of federal law, and your company has agreed to that.
Nobody is asking you to like it. But that's what the law is. The majority of employees covered by a union contract vote to have dues deducted from their paychecks. The union, through the legal process of collective bargaining, gets the company to agree to it, the contract is signed, and both parties have the legal obligation to enforce that contract.
I don't think anyone here is claiming that the current arrangement isn't legal under current law. (If someone is, he is certainly wrong.) Instead, the general sentiment (certainly my sentiment) is that the state, for ethical as well as business reasons, shouldn't make this concession, and one way to force the state to act this way is with an initiative.
For me, ethics has everything to do with it. Would it be legal for an employer to demand that all his employees contribute to the Republican party? Certainly. Would it be ethical? Certainly not. If I had some influence over a company that made such demands, I would agitate to stop it. And I imagine that if a Republican-controlled state made such a demand on its employees, you would damn well see it as a ethical issue.
From your post, it appears you see this as a purely political struggle, with no ethical component at all. Since unions are a major source of Democratic funding, it certainly does have political aspects. But some of us like to stand back from such power politics and ask questions like: What are reasonable conditions to place on employment and what are not? How much power should a non-government organization have over non-members?
"The employer and the employees sign a labor agreement that contains the "union security" language. That contract lays down the terms of employment, and once signed and ratified, it has the force of law." The employees decide there won't *be* any free riders. The boss agrees, and signs the contract.
Ivan is wrong, of course (as always):
The "employer" (State and local government entities) and the "employees" (unions not employees) sign a labor agreement that contains the "union security" language because it is required by statute. The union is empowered by compulsory statutory requirement, not employee assent. Employees have no say about so-called “free riders,” or Cathy Munson would not have been forced to join the union or be terminated. Legally enforced union membership of public employment is fascism.
While Ivan says that ”this time the boss *and* the employees are setting the rules,” exactly the opposite is true. The state effectively precluded employees from setting any rules regarding any contractual relationship once they statutorily required union membership as a condition of employment.
The bosses — State and local government entities — in legally secured arrangements with unions are setting the rules.
Ivan, you are a fascist, and a very stupid one at that.
Thanks Ivan.
Posted by: Amused by liberal dimwits on February 4, 2006 05:15 PMIvan says, "I'm not proposing syndicalism. I'm telling you what the *law* is, *right now.*"
A "closed shop" enforced by law is in effect "syndicalism," and Ivan knows what he thinks the law is by listening to himself talk. The Constitutional right of "Freedom of Association," held that citizens had the right to make individual choices regarding organizations they joined, and it also held a countervailing "Right not to Associate." A law that is unconstitutional, while still a law is wrong because it ignores fundamental individual rights and should be overturned by appeal to higher courts. Better yet, it should be superseded by new and better legislation by a majority of state citizens.
The “Right not to Associate” protected individuals from being compelled to support or contribute to political parties or ideological interests. It particularly protected individuals from compelled union membership, especially where the union openly supports a political party. In 1919 Italy, labor unions were incorporated by law under the fascist socialist party by Benito Mussolini. The law required that workers were ALL members of the unions that directly supported the fascist party. In effect, today in Washington State, liberal Democrat partisans negotiate contracts between liberal Democrat partisan public employees unions, and a multi level liberal Democrat partisan government administration, through the force of law that is expressly unconstitutional.
Aside from the charismatic leadership of Mussolini, what is the fundamental difference between the syndicalism of 1920's Italy and the Gregoire et al, government lock of syndicalism on Washington State Public Employees' Unions of today?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 4, 2006 06:32 PMSo much for democracy.
The trouble with unions is their most fervent members, in my experience, are clowns who wouldn't last a day in any system where merit controlled pay or continued employment. The union system would devolve into communism in a heartbeat if they could manage it.
State admin, on the other hand, just loves to get in bed with Dems from Seattle. It's a cozy system now whereby the state administrators collect part of our salaries and transmit the funds to the union, which sends a cut of it to Dem legislators. And the incompetent clowns who cling to the union for protection get the real free ride.
I say, bring on Initiative 926.
Posted by: Minuteman on February 4, 2006 07:39 PMThanks, you are quite correct.
"Freedom of association is crucial to our existence in our society."
Liberals don't care because they lust for power, hate democracy, and they hate it when individuals are free to take care of themselves.
Minuteman, agreed, "bring on Initiative 926.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 4, 2006 08:34 PMGreat point, and no . . . you are not the only person bothered by this fact. You left out the most important step though. The money goes from your pocket, to finance the public sector, to pay public employees, to support the unions and finally to finance the partisan liberal Democrat perpetual motion machine.
These are the people who make all mail ballot voting laws and impossible illegal voter challenge laws that will make fraud easy to institutionally perpetrate. And who do you suppose will benefit from all of this?
It's no big deal--just a fascist seizure of state government control.
He is a jerk who thinks all security guards are goons. He also likes to blow air horn in people ears. I remember you Ivan.
Posted by: RennDawg on February 6, 2006 10:55 AMHating everyone who is not in a Union. I know Ivan hates me. He said as much when the newsparer "labor dispute" happened.
Posted by: RennDawg on February 6, 2006 01:39 PMWhoever you are, you are not important enough for me to hate.
Being called STUPID by a moron like you is a compliment.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on February 7, 2006 12:02 PMYou are not smart enough to spell my name right.
Posted by: RennDawg on February 8, 2006 03:38 PM