Our elected officials at work. Oh my. This is exactly why I despise politics. I vote in every election because I believe it is my duty. But these bufoons in DC don't have a clue.

 

Oh they have a clue, a big clue. The supporters of this bill are being pushed to do so by the big unions; unions that contribute a lot of money, directly or indirectly,to primarily Democratic campaigns/issues and organize major get out the vote and registration efforts that benefit Democrats. Union membership is rapidly decreasing in most sectors in the U.S. This bill would allow it to become much, much easier for unions to be recognized as the bargaining representative (ie, unionize the work force); which means a huge increase in union dues, which means a huge increase in the amount of money that the unions have to support Democratic issues, causes and candidates. Yes Virginia, the "bufoons" in DC supporting this bill have a clue.

Anybody else take a big gulp at those numbers the unions are donating? Wow.

Oh they have a clue, a big clue. The supporters of this bill are being pushed to do so by the big unions; unions that contribute a lot of money, directly or indirectly,to primarily Democratic campaigns/issues and organize major get out the vote and registration efforts that benefit Democrats. Union membership is rapidly decreasing in most sectors in the U.S. This bill would allow it to become much, much easier for unions to be recognized as the bargaining representative (ie, unionize the work force); which means a huge increase in union dues, which means a huge increase in the amount of money that the unions have to support Democratic issues, causes and candidates. Yes Virginia, the "bufoons" in DC supporting this bill have a clue.

 

:thumb: Excellent points. What I really meant was that they don't have a clue how to do what is right by the people they represent. I can't dispute anything you stated. Well done!

I have been a member of a construction Union for 41 years now . It was my Choice to do so . If an election ( secret ballot ) is held and the majority are for the Union then I say you must join it and pay the dues . There should be no freeloaders If you get the rights and benefits of having a union in your work place then you should help finance the Union that won you those rights . Also I despise the term Union Bosses . The leaders of the union are elected by the members and are answerable to the membership that elected them . The only bosses that I ran into were the people that owned the companys that I worked for . Like President Harry Truman said " When a Leader is in the Democratic Party he is a boss , and when he is in the Republican Party he is a leader. " Semantics are a ..... !!

I have been a member of a construction Union for 41 years now . It was my Choice to do so . If an election ( secret ballot ) is held and the majority are for the Union then I say you must join it and pay the dues . There should be no freeloaders If you get the rights and benefits of having a union in your work place then you should help finance the Union that won you those rights . Also I despise the term Union Bosses . The leaders of the union are elected by the members and are answerable to the membership that elected them . The only bosses that I ran into were the people that owned the companys that I worked for . Like President Harry Truman said " When a Leader is in the Democratic Party he is a boss , and when he is in the Republican Party he is a leader. " Semantics are a ..... !!

 

I understand the first part of your post (and would expect nothing less from a long time, loyal and hard working union member), but I have to ask, what prompted the comment about the term "union bosses". I didn't see it used in the article (although I might mave missed it) or in any post.

 

By the way, as you are well aware, I have a lot of respect for your union and most of its workers. There can be many advantages to union labor particularly in the building trade areas where the need for labor ebbs and flows and the bench becomes very valuable to the workers and companies. Admittedly, as we both know, there are circumstances where the union's duty to "protect" its members has resulted in the union fighting for workers that the union itself knows aren't fulfilling their obligations to the companies. But that's pretty rare. I've actually been impressed with the cooperation I've seen between the union and the companies to become more competitive.

 

My biggest problem with unions is the use of union dues to support candidates that members may disagree with. For example, I would assume a devout Catholic union member opposed to abortion would be upset with the union using its funds (generated by union dues) to support a pro-abortion candidate/issue. Unfortunately, the devout Catholic union member does not have any right to tell the union not to use any part of his/her union dues to support such a candidateissue. I think that is wrong. I think a union member should have the right to tell the union that they don't have the right to demand he pay the portion of the union dues that is used for political purposes.

 

It would be like my law firm requiring every employee to pay money to the law firm to be used to support candidates/issues, whether the employees wanted to support that candidate/issue or not. Actually the union situation is worse than that because the employee of the law firm could leave and go to another law firm where they don't have any such program. In the case of the union member, he/she has no such option. His/her only option is to leave the union, which for most isn't a very practical option.

 

And with all the increased state and federal laws that have been enacted protecting employees, the mission of the unions has been dramatically supplanted.

I understand the first part of your post (and would expect nothing less from a long time, loyal and hard working union member), but I have to ask, what prompted the comment about the term "union bosses". I didn't see it used in the article (although I might mave missed it) or in any post.

 

By the way, as you are well aware, I have a lot of respect for your union and most of its workers. There can be many advantages to union labor particularly in the building trade areas where the need for labor ebbs and flows and the bench becomes very valuable to the workers and companies. Admittedly, as we both know, there are circumstances where the union's duty to "protect" its members has resulted in the union fighting for workers that the union itself knows aren't fulfilling their obligations to the companies. But that's pretty rare. I've actually been impressed with the cooperation I've seen between the union and the companies to become more competitive.

 

My biggest problem with unions is the use of union dues to support candidates that members may disagree with. For example, I would assume a devout Catholic union member opposed to abortion would be upset with the union using its funds (generated by union dues) to support a pro-abortion candidate/issue. Unfortunately, the devout Catholic union member does not have any right to tell the union not to use any part of his/her union dues to support such a candidateissue. I think that is wrong. I think a union member should have the right to tell the union that they don't have the right to demand he pay the portion of the union dues that is used for political purposes.

 

It would be like my law firm requiring every employee to pay money to the law firm to be used to support candidates/issues, whether the employees wanted to support that candidate/issue or not. Actually the union situation is worse than that because the employee of the law firm could leave and go to another law firm where they don't have any such program. In the case of the union member, he/she has no such option. His/her only option is to leave the union, which for most isn't a very practical option.

 

And with all the increased state and federal laws that have been enacted protecting employees, the mission of the unions has been dramatically supplanted.

I agree with what you say . We had , have a dues check off for a political fund but you did not have to subscribe to it and if you did you could have opped out when you wanted to. Now this was years ago . I'm not to conversant with the process now .

It wasn't in any post . It is just a pejorative term that anti -union forces use too often to create anti-union bias. It just gripes me to see it used .

The union I worked for and belonged to for many years had a PAC fund that was optional for the member if they wanted to contribute.

No but only because it takes away the option of a secret ballot election . That is an American tradition that we must not lose .

 

I completely agree with this.

For what it is worth BHO has said he will sign this as soon as it hits his desk if he is elected. With the house already passing the bill the senate is just waiting to make sure they won't have to get a super majority to over ride the veto that Bush has promised if this bill was presented to him. Senate is just waiting for a more "Labor Friendly" President in one BHO.

We need to bring this back up, since its rearing its ugly head again. This may be one of the most pro-union acts ever put together. If this passes, it will be a slam dunk for unionization of many work places. They should call this the Union Intimidation Bill. Can you imagine voting against a union when there's no secret ballot?

We need to bring this back up, since its rearing its ugly head again. This may be one of the most pro-union acts ever put together. If this passes, it will be a slam dunk for unionization of many work places. They should call this the Union Intimidation Bill. Can you imagine voting against a union when there's no secret ballot?

 

Nothing much we can do about it now. The lib dems have quite the relationship with the Unions.

Can you say filibuster? That is the only chance to defeat what may be one of the most harmful things to the economy that the dems will try to do.

Can you say filibuster? That is the only chance to defeat what may be one of the most harmful things to the economy that the dems will try to do.

It is hard for me to believe that many southern Democrats would support this marxist bill. If Republicans stand firm in the Senate, then the bill will not pass - unless Democrats change the rules. I would feel better if a few Democrats went on the record opposing this union organizer's dream bill.

I have worked since I was 16, and 22 of those years were Union work. I am an officer in our local and I don't or can't support this. Part of the freedoms we have in this country are due to free and secret ballots and elections and if you want to unionize your work place it should be by secret ballot. Not having union officials standing over you watching you sign a card.