A group of state employees is filing a lawsuit over mandatory union dues
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 14, 2006 01:42 PM | Email ThisThe unions and the democrats collude to take more money out of my pocket. Oh, and 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot to back up a weak argument.
Posted by: Dan on March 14, 2006 02:31 PMWages may be higher in states that permit union strong arming people into the union, but how many people are working, or have they priced themselves out of jobs to other states/countries. And how much of that 15% for those that are working is actually kept by the employee instead of going to the union in the form of dues?
As an example in many fast food chains you are now talking to someone in South Dakota as it is less expensive to hire than and have the communications to any US location than to hire locally.
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2006 02:38 PMMaybe the Right to Work for Less Foundation should explain to these state employees why they should put their salaries, benefits, pensions, and level of representation at risk.
They won't, of course. They won't explain that they are funded, as I'm sure Stefan is, but won't admit, by billionaire employer groups who want everyone in society to have less so that they can have more.
Posted by: ivan on March 14, 2006 02:44 PMHow many of the workers at United/Delta/Northwest etc. are going to get their pension. How about Ford or GM is they don't make it, how about all those steel workers. With all these jobs exported, realistically how many are getting their medical and pensions without using taxpayers' money?
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2006 02:47 PMThere you go again telling these people what is best for them as you are the great sage! Why not let them make their choice? I thought libs were all pro-choice, or is that just a euphamism?
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2006 02:51 PMThere's nothing in right-to-work laws that prevents anyone from joining a union. They are instead designed to prevent compulsory unionization, which in fact limits rights.
Posted by: South County on March 14, 2006 03:41 PMThanks for being predictable. And wrong as usual.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 14, 2006 03:43 PMhttp://www.nilrr.org/bennett.htm
"This finding raises a critical issue: Are wages of unionized workers higher because of unionization, or do unions concentrate on organizing in industries where wages are high already?"
Answer: "Thus, it appears that high wages attract unions, not the other way around as much union publicity claims."
Wages are not higher because of unions. Unions target industries and states where wages are already high, and attach themselves like leeches to the host body.
L.O., you're an idiot, too. See if I'm wrong when this nuisance lawsuit gets thrown out of court.
South County, you, also, are an idiot. Why did the whopping majority of state employees vote to be unionized and for this contract?
Posted by: ivan on March 14, 2006 04:03 PMit would be nice if you would address remarks substantively. I don't know HOW MANY TIMES your faith-based belief in zero-sum economics has to be refuted before it sinks in. And you have the nerve to call other people idiots?
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 14, 2006 04:08 PMAlso, as Dr. Rush points out, 93% of those think that George Bush walks on water with 6% thinking that George Bush invented water and the other 3% think he is god.
Posted by: Jokesonu on March 14, 2006 04:22 PMperhaps you could spend your time over with the Kos kids, instead of hanging out here bothering the adults.
Thanks!
So unless you work for a comapny that can demand ever higher prices for its services, like governments, your nice union paycheck and pension is at risk. You need only look a the US car makers and airlines to see where over priced labor gets you.
Posted by: BornRight on March 14, 2006 04:29 PMHave you ever noticed how no matter how many times their socialist/redistributionist ideas are tried THEY NEVER WORK? It must suck to be devoted to a failed--and murderous!--ideology.
No wonder ivan is cranky.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 14, 2006 04:36 PMYour reply shows what a small place logic has in your daily life. I provided a link to a study that shows the effects of unions on wages, and wages on unions. You replied with a statement on union growth (with no link, study, nor reference). That's a non-sequitur (that's Latin for 'The idiot is actually YOU').
I had no idea that the National Institute for Labor Relations Research was a 'right-wing whack-job site'. Perhaps the Washington Education Association is more objective? Maybe we should look for study on the Longshoreman's Union website?
FYI - a family member of mine is the VP of the Management Council of United Airlines AFA. Perhaps you'd like to talk to her about her union's salaries, benefits, and pensions? You can tell her ALL ABOUT the fact that their salaries, benefits, and pensions were never at risk, given the fact that they had a contract in place! She might even appreciate your naiviete for a few seconds.
Ivan, you've always been an idiot. That's sad. The funny part is that you revert to your true self so quickly, over so little.
Larry: "Wages affect unionization more than unionization affects wages."
Ivan: "Idiot!"
I guess that says it all. Debating you is like playing tug-of-war with a dog - it's entertaining, but I'm bigger and stronger and I always win, unless I just want to humor the dog.
Posted by: Larry on March 14, 2006 04:57 PMInsanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 14, 2006 04:59 PMToday, what the hell does a public employee need to be protected against...the taxpayers?
Posted by: Shaun on March 14, 2006 05:18 PMunion dues = private junkets for lobby
union dues = no accounting for members' $$$
Posted by: Shaun on March 14, 2006 05:29 PMIn our business work is won or lost based on bidding against the competition. Gone are the days when the customers would pay a contract based on time and material. Now they want to know the exact cost up front. We are quickly becoming uncompetitive against non-union shops that have lower costs. Our profit margin continues to drop as we struggle to bring in work.
What happens if we go out of business as a result? Then they have no income whatsoever. What will the union do for them, when there are no union shops to work at?
Posted by: malamute552000 on March 14, 2006 05:42 PMYou sure, Ivan? Really, really sure? Or, are you just talking out of your ass. Again.
You are a union goon, Ivan. Pure and plain as day. You're an old, yellow-dog union hack who made his way on the backs of other, more-productive workers. And when people point out numbers contradicting your socialist mantra, you call them idiots because they don't buy into your crap.
And then you insult the owner of this blog by implying he's bought off somehow. As if goons like Stern, Johnson, Rolf and all the other 'heroes looking out for the little guys' aren't. Except those champions of labor extort their money out of the paychecks of workers.
There are good, union workers who do hard, manual labor - but the power structure of the unions rots from the head. And you defend it.
I'd rather quit my job, be unemployed, shirtless and on the street than to belong to a union. And yes, I've had that choice before. I made it and never looked back.
Posted by: jimg on March 14, 2006 05:43 PMA wopping majority of state employees did not vote to be unionized for this contract. 80% of the employees did not even know that a vote was taking place. Also, the 20% that did know about it were union members. The voting took place at location away from their work places at the most inconvenient places they could find. For example, the Olympia voting place was downtown Olympia where there is no parking.
It appears that you don't know much at all about the voting process that took place.
Does anyone else see the conflict of interest here?
And how can anyone defend this behavior? You know that it's your sales (sin, real estate, etc) taxes going to pay these people, right? You know they're trying to introduce a state income tax to ensure a steady stream of funds for this kind of crap, right?
Public Sector unions should be OUTLAWED, plain and simple. Public employee's employers are: the public. If public employees feel their services are worth more money, then they ought to bring that forth to the public and have the public grant them those higher wages. I kind of just don't see that happening.
(Man, maybe the military needs to get in on this union thing!)
Posted by: Aaron on March 14, 2006 07:02 PMIf enough people in the affected bargaining unit(s) sign the NLRB form asking for the SEIU (?) to be decertified, the NLRB will schedule a decertification vote.
This route might even be faster than a lawsuit.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 14, 2006 07:08 PMAnd you, sir, have limited verbal skills. Unfortunately, someone beat me to the explanation of why you were wrong.
Maybe next time.
Posted by: South County on March 14, 2006 07:38 PMWhen he isn't cleaning the toilets for the democraps, he's sniffing bicycle seats down at the union hall.
To call ivan an idiot would be to denigrate and demoralize idiots everywhere.
So ivan, do you know the meaning of putz? Look it up (preferably in an illustrated dictionary - that way you can see your picture ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 14, 2006 08:12 PMYes, I have two of them, a male and a female. They are both sable colored. They are great dogs, and I wouldn't have any other breed.
Posted by: malamute552000 on March 14, 2006 09:02 PMwww.unionfacts.com
Go read more. Unions have destroyed the auto industry which is bad enough. But unions can't destroy government since it is a monopoly, they can only make if more ineffective, more inefficient and more expensive.
If an employer when to the union member and demanded that money was to be collected and spent on "the employer's favored political party", the union would fight it tooth and nail. The same thinking should go for union towards its own members.
Yes, unions have done good, but they have also done evil.
My fellow union members can't understand a few basic tenets of capitalism.
If you pay the employee more, that cost is passed on to the consumer (and the union member).
A minimum wage raise, raises the price of everything. Including the amount of what is called a "living wage".
The union workers do not own the company.
If the company is not sucessful, the union member also loses.
And lastly. The Democratic party has done at least as much damage to the union member as the Republicains. All the while getting all that campaign cash from the unions. Go figure.
Posted by: Mike P on March 14, 2006 10:07 PMNice list of platitudes. Solidarity? Explain in detail if you can. And not with more platitudes like "workers of the world unite". And non-discrimination briefs well, but it's gone from not judging by the color of one's skin to not enforcing any standard of performance at all for fear of lawsuits. Just look at the women who sued Wal-Mart saying they were passed over for promotion because they were women. When asked on live TV what they had done to deserve promotion, they all said, "Well, we've been here longer than the guys who got promoted." What kind of business can thrive with that kind of mentality? None if it's in the private sector. Get over it man. There are certain rights we are guaranteed as Americans. Health care and inflated wages are not among them. And niether is the right to spend the weekend with your family. There are, however, plenty of places in the world who do "guarantee" those things. In fact there's one about 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Why don't you give it a shot and see how that works out for you.
Posted by: The Dude on March 14, 2006 10:12 PMUnions have done so much to make the airline and auto industries even more profitable.
Posted by: Andy on March 15, 2006 08:38 AMIf I went to work in a factory, the first thing I'd do would be to join a Union.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt
The fact that modern-day liberals still hang their hats on the policies of FDR and the ideas of Jimmy Carter is a perfect illustration of why they can't win an election outside of Washington State, and have to count three times to win one IN this state. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But at least they didn't look so foolish back then, like they do now.
Oh no, they're quoting FDR and Carter! Please don't throw me in the b'rer patch!
Posted by: Larry on March 15, 2006 10:42 AM"What whould are (sic) country look like if anyone could just decide to skip payments on cable and groceries but still demand that they get those things free?"
What would our country look like if everyone could buy and pay for only the groceries that they want? A capitalist country!
What would our country look like if everyone was forced to buy and pay for the same groceries, whether or not they wanted or needed them? A communist country!
Today's political science lesson is over.
Posted by: Larry on March 15, 2006 04:34 PMI bet the little hoodlums wish they could swing little cyber axe-handles.
By the bye, I wonder how many of these union-indoctrinated, inbred, slack-jawed, worthless private sector dropouts are posting from STATE GOVERNMENT domains? Hmmmmm?
Posted by: ERNurse on March 15, 2006 06:15 PMWhat you SHOULD have said was, "Unions have done more TO America than anyone can say.
And in addition to your history, you could use a little help with your spelling. Did you go to a school whose teachers were unionized?
Posted by: ERNurse on March 15, 2006 06:28 PMThe SEIU, Teamsters, SPEEA, whatever- just a bunch of greedy, Mafia-backed, bullying economic terrorist thugs. They are about as American as Trotsky. They have done more harm to American business in the last 40 years than all of the foreign competition put together.
Look for the union label, and boycott it!
Posted by: ERNurse on March 15, 2006 07:10 PMBy the time Sean Astin was making "Rudy", three quarters of the US steel plant's were already shut down.
Posted by: Mike P on March 18, 2006 07:00 PM