Yes, most states, even ones that are not Right to Work, will usually allow you to "opt out."

 

However, you are still forced to have a decent chunk of your paycheck ripped out and there's a big chance you will lose your job. Who wants a "scab" around?

 

But that wasn't the main point of my post you replied to. My point was that Big Labor uses the forced-dues cash they collect to elect politicians who will in return vote to give them more power. The amount of money that Big Labor spends on these elections far outweighs Corporate America and Big business, which twotoplace claimed.

 

No way that is true and no way is a decent chunk of your paycheck ripped out from you either. That's laughable. You should look deeper into what an average union employee makes and the union dues they pay. :lol2: :lol2:

 

As I stated multiple times in this thread, nobody forces anyone to apply for a union job. We tell folks here during the interview process that it is a union job they applied for and they make the choice to continue or look elsewhere for work.

You mean a job "Created" by a business, right? With workers represented by a Union.

 

 

No. Here at Corning the jobs that the union created have been here since day one. There are union jobs here and there are non union jobs here. At the Danville plant things will be the same. There will be union jobs there and there will be non union jobs there. The non union jobs include company jobs and temporary jobs.

Another thing that no one mentions is that manufacturing companies that aren't union companies threaten to fire employees if they make any attempts to organize. The anti-union slant from plenty of manufacturers in my area is a real thing and those companies go above and beyond to prevent organization from happening. Meanwhile their employees aren't in anywhere near as good as shape as we are and if they sneeze and fart at the same time they are fired. Oh well, Right-to-Work rules!!!!!!!!!

Because big business supports Republicans, and Republicans support big business. Corporate America outspends unions roughly 9-1 in national elections. Probably more than that now thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions. Where unions really make a difference is in get-out-the-vote organizing. No substitute for shoe leather and grit.

 

 

Amazing people don't understand this.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Looks like the 9-1 number was off. It's 15-1 business over labor. :lol2:

 

Glad to see those union dues taking a big chunk out of those paychecks. :lol2: :lol2:

No way that is true and no way is a decent chunk of your paycheck ripped out from you either. That's laughable. You should look deeper into what an average union employee makes and the union dues they pay. :lol2: :lol2:

 

As I stated multiple times in this thread, nobody forces anyone to apply for a union job. We tell folks here during the interview process that it is a union job they applied for and they make the choice to continue or look elsewhere for work.

 

In some states and specific job fields, the employees are required. Often, union bullies their way in. Don't act like they don't use violent, threatening tactics either. Earlier this month, they attacked cast and crew members of the show Top Chef. Told the host they were going to bash her face in and said things to her that I can't repeat on BGP.

 

Padma Lakshmi: Boston Teamsters Attack ?Top Chef? Host & Crew | Deadline

 

In Michigan, the recently enacted Right to Work law will allow teachers to keep approximately $650-$700 bucks more. Too a lot of people, that is a decent size of your paycheck. Do you know many teachers who would forfeit a $6-700 dollar raise?

 

Regardless, that much money from millions of people ends up being upwards of $14 billion dollars.

 

Labor unions receive $14 Billion in dues per year from CBAs - National Institute for Labor Relations Research

 

A big portion of that money is spent electing and reelecting liberal democrats who vote to give them more power to collect even more money. It's a racket.

Edited September 4, 201412 yr by PurplePride92
Rule 8

Looks like the 9-1 number was off. It's 15-1 business over labor. :lol2:

 

Glad to see those union dues taking a big chunk out of those paychecks. :lol2: :lol2:

 

Did you read the report?

 

"Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. "

 

I could work at a small town carpet cleaning company and it counts me as a "business" donation.

 

However, if I was a teacher and part of a union, it wouldn't count me for either.

 

Its skewed, and it plainly admits it. Also, OpenSecrets, in that report did't consider every kind of political contribution and benefit they can provide to a campaign.

 

When you take into other contributing factors unions actually spent roughly $1.7 billion dollars.

 

Big Labor Spent $1.7 Billion on Electioneering & Lobbying in 2011-2012 - National Institute for Labor Relations Research

 

Using data compiled from U.S. Department of Labor union financial disclosure (LM-2) forms, Political Action Committee (PAC) filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), 527 group reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and state campaign finance reports, NILRR researchers conservatively estimate that unions spent an estimated $1.7 billion on electioneering and lobbying during the 2012 election cycle.

 

Based on the cautious methods used to determine Big Labor’s political spending, NILRR’s researchers conclude that “on balance… the aggregate $1.7 billion in political and lobbying expenditures by labor unions in the 2012 election cycle reported here is undoubtedly an understatement.”

Looks like the 9-1 number was off. It's 15-1 business over labor. :lol2:

 

Glad to see those union dues taking a big chunk out of those paychecks. :lol2: :lol2:

 

I think what someone would need to do, is look at the amount spent by business and see how much of that is spent on labor legislation. It is safe to assume every single dollar from unions is spent on labor legislation but business is more difficult to tell. When I worked for Insight Communications, Insight and the entire cable industry spent a ton on lobbying but the lion's share of that was for rewriting regulations that were written back in the 70's and 80's and were so outdated that the made upgrading cable delivery a pain in the butt. The FCC (the major regulatory body of the cable industry) was wonderful at being about a decade or two behind the industry. Insight had no organized labor so I would have to think none or virtually none of their lobbying dollars went towards labor legislation lobbying.

 

I also worked for LG&E/KU and while both companies did have some unionized labor, the KY PSC pretty much allowed utilities to pass all labor expense on to customers so LG&E/KU really didn't care as much about unions as none utilities. Where LG&E/KU spent money lobbying was slowing down government mandates to shut down coal fire generating plants. So again, another company I worked for that spent little if any of their lobbying dollars on labor legislation.

 

So saying that, I would imagine if you were to able to strip away business lobbying that had nothing to do with labor legislation, unions probably do outspend businesses would be my guess.

Did you read the report?

 

"Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. "

 

I could work at a small town carpet cleaning company and it counts me as a "business" donation.

 

However, if I was a teacher and part of a union, it wouldn't count me for either.

 

Its skewed, and it plainly admits it. Also, OpenSecrets, in that report did't consider every kind of political contribution and benefit they can provide to a campaign.

 

When you take into other contributing factors unions actually spent roughly $1.7 billion dollars.

 

Big Labor Spent $1.7 Billion on Electioneering & Lobbying in 2011-2012 - National Institute for Labor Relations Research

 

Using data compiled from U.S. Department of Labor union financial disclosure (LM-2) forms, Political Action Committee (PAC) filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), 527 group reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and state campaign finance reports, NILRR researchers conservatively estimate that unions spent an estimated $1.7 billion on electioneering and lobbying during the 2012 election cycle.

 

Based on the cautious methods used to determine Big Labor’s political spending, NILRR’s researchers conclude that “on balance… the aggregate $1.7 billion in political and lobbying expenditures by labor unions in the 2012 election cycle reported here is undoubtedly an understatement.”

 

 

Yes I read the report. Here's the whole paragraph that you conveniently edited in an attempt to validate your argument.

 

An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor's occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized.

 

 

I get it. Unions spent 1.7 billion dollars to get some political favors. Can we get the total that big business spent now?

In some states and specific job fields, the employees are required. Often, union bullies their way in. Don't act like they don't use violent, threatening tactics either. Earlier this month, they attacked cast and crew members of the show Top Chef. Told the host they were going to bash her face in and said things to her that I can't repeat on BGP.

 

Padma Lakshmi: Boston Teamsters Attack ?Top Chef? Host & Crew | Deadline

 

In Michigan, the recently enacted Right to Work law will allow teachers to keep approximately $650-$700 bucks more. Too a lot of people, that is a decent size of your paycheck. Do you know many teachers who would forfeit a $6-700 dollar raise?

 

Regardless, that much money from millions of people ends up being upwards of $14 billion dollars.

 

Labor unions receive $14 Billion in dues per year from CBAs - National Institute for Labor Relations Research

 

A big portion of that money is spent electing and reelecting liberal democrats who vote to give them more power to collect even more money. It's a racket.

 

Yes, it's a racket. A racket that big business invented. Now the unions get good at the racket like big business does and now big business wants to shut them down. :lol2: I guess that's what happens when you get too good at the game, huh?

 

That dude is a punk and a bully but let's not act like the company lawyers aren't punks and bullies also. They don't care about us and they'll let us know that whenever they get an opportunity. We are nobodies to them. And always will be. But that's okay, isn't it?

 

 

I'm not going to defend every union member. Hell, I'm not going to defend other locals that are in the Corning circle. Every local is different and every union member is different. That dude you are talking about is a bully and a punk pure and simple. People like him are an embarrassment to what I stand for as a local union president. We don't operate like that. I will defend to death the right for my local to operate as a local union with the desire to be able to work in a safe environment with fair wages and affordable healthcare. I've made a great living and I'll be damned if my livelihood is threatened or taken away by some people who can't differentiate one union from the next.

Maybe wages are declining and healthcare is rising because they aren't unionized. I've gotten a 3% raise every year since 1999 and will continue to get that 3% raise through 2018. 4% raise in 2010. We also received affordable healthcare through 2018 and in 2014 and 2015 our healthcare will be cheaper than it was in 2012 and 2013. And that's for every union member that works for Corning. From Wilmington, Notth Carolina to Blacksburg, Virginia to Harrodsburg, Kentucky to multiple plants in upstate New York. We also look to add jobs at a Danville, Kentucky plant in the near future as well. We're talking thousands of union members receiving rasies and affordable healthcare. You have any data on what the Right-to-Workers are making, raises and healthcare?

 

Again, it doesn't my matter if a state is Right-to-Work. Those jobs can be organized. Texas is a huge state with a lot of people and land. What kind of tax benefits to companies get for moving their business to Texas? What kind of wages are these businesses paying? Are you saying the ONLY reason Texas is adding jobs is because they are a Right-to-Work state? Is that your claim?

 

How many manufacturing in Kentucky are unionized anyways? GM, Corning...who else? Is Ford unionized? Toyota isn't are they? Hitachi isn't. Lexmark? They unionized? I wasn't aware that unionized manufacturing plants were dominating the manufacturing landscape in Kentucky to cause people to want mistakingly want Right-to-Work so badly.

Unions do not create jobs in this country, the free market does. The freer it is, then the more jobs that are available for everybody. When the economy is free and booming, scarcity of labor drives its cost upward, just like the scarcity of products and services that are in high demand causes those costs to soar.

 

IT workers have never been widely represented by unions, yet six-digit salaries are fairly common. Our own government keeps salaries from being even higher for IT workers by importing labor from places like India through the H1B visa program. Why do you think a good programmer from India can command a higher salary than the great majority of union workers in this country, often with much less "seniority" in his or her field?

 

As I said, it is no accident that the economies of right to work states have outpaced those states where unions are stronger. States that have passed right to work laws are also less prone to place heavy taxes and regulation on businesses. It is a recipe for success that works.

Yes I read the report. Here's the whole paragraph that you conveniently edited in an attempt to validate your argument.

 

 

 

I get it. Unions spent 1.7 billion dollars to get some political favors. Can we get the total that big business spent now?

 

No. Here at Corning the jobs that the union created have been here since day one. There are union jobs here and there are non union jobs here. At the Danville plant things will be the same. There will be union jobs there and there will be non union jobs there. The non union jobs include company jobs and temporary jobs.

The Union Created those Jobs, not Corning? I understand those jobs have been unionized since day one.

 

The only job the Union "Creates" is the job of those working for the Union, right?

I still don't understand that logic. If you don't want to join a union then don't apply for that job. If a job is created by a union then you will need to join that union to get that job. That doesn't make sense. "I want this great job that was created by a union, maintained and reaping the benefits of being in a union but I don't want to join that union." That's asinine. To me that's no different that people wanting a handout for nothing. Yeah, you are right though. That's America in 2014.

Unions do not, and cannot create jobs. Have yet to see a Union start up a business.