Scott Walker's crusade continues

[Felch]

You mean like threatening to sack them if the 'right' candidate doesn't get elected?

You think I'm okay with that? I oppose sacking employees for political reasons. Show me where I said otherwise.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its better to have an uninformed electorate that gets surprised with their layoffs.

[kentonio]

It gets tricky to remember which handfull of pub policies you don't support man. Tricky.. Well apart from the weed thing obviously.

[kentonio]

Double post. Because Jon is an inspiration to us all.

[MRT144]

I am struggling to think of time when thousands of tea partiers forcibly broke into the governmental buildings as was the case in Madison Mar 2011 or anything resembling the 6800+ occupy arrests to date.

I usually reserve riot for when cars are overturned, fires are started, and people loot stores.

[Felch]

It gets tricky to remember which handfull of pub policies you don't support man. Tricky.. Well apart from the weed thing obviously.

I'm sorry. I know it would be more convenient if I just parroted Fox News or MSNBC like the rest of the people here.

[kentonio]

That would be helpful, thank you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm not a doctrinaire conservative, so comparing me to them just shows how out of touch you are.

Awww, weren't you whining about ad hominems a few posts ago? I don't care what you are - you're irrelevant. This is a national issue, e.g. California's Proposition 32 and about 15 other states, IIRC, and you're parroting the same crocodile tear concern for worker's rights as the doctrinaire economic conservatives who are behind this legislative movement. Since you're the one posting the position, you're the proxy for the people who actually count.

Republicans already pull in a decent percentage of the union vote - somewhere between a third and two fifths depending on the election. Which tells me that they seem to have plenty of positions the working man is comfortable with.

And if you look deeper at the splits, the differences are generally on things like gun rights and social conservative issues unrelated to employment and labor policy.

Maybe if unions bosses weren't just Democratic party stooges, they'd have an easier time convincing people to contribute without relying on coercion.

And people have no right to take things that don't belong to them.

There's no coercion. The dues-paying worker gets the benefits under the CBA - and if he doesn't like that, he can go elsewhere, just like the non-union worker who doesn't like the terms of his employment. Dues start when the CBA benefit starts, and they stop when the CBA benefit stops. It's simply a payment to a legally separate entity for services rendered - the benefits of the CBA.

Or they can go without a job and just lose their homes and starve. You really are a compassionate man, aren't you?

Nice strawman, They must have 'em on clearance where you are. If they decide "oh, I'd rather lose my home and starve than take that one specific job because I might not like them contributing some of my dues to a PAC which might support a candidate I don't like, and I have no intention of looking for or taking any other job" then they probably should starve.

Businesses fail all the time. Economic necessity is a real thing, and pretending like it doesn't exist just shows how shallow your thinking is.

Ah, more strawmen and ad hominems. Businesses fail all the time? You mean like Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia? Wanna 'splain how economic necessity factored in there?

If unions are so great, why do they need to coerce people to pay them?

They don't. I've never paid a dime in union dues in my life. If I wanted a union job, I'd go get one. It's not like all workers have to pay dues to some union whether they have representation or not.

you're on the side of the thugs and racketeers.

No, I'm not a Republican, sorry.

[Felch]

Awww, weren't you whining about ad hominems a few posts ago? I don't care what you are - you're irrelevant. This is a national issue, e.g. California's Proposition 32 and about 15 other states, IIRC, and you're parroting the same crocodile tear concern for worker's rights as the doctrinaire economic conservatives who are behind this legislative movement. Since you're the one posting the position, you're the proxy for the people who actually count.

Absolutely none of this makes sense. When did it become an ad hominem to point out that you're out of touch in lumping me in with people I oppose? If I'm irrelevant, why are you wasting all this time trying to prove me wrong? Who are you to say that my concern for worker's rights is false or hypocritical. Do you know anything about me? How does supporting a position make me a proxy for other supporters?

Let's put it this way. Obama (now) supports gay rights. MrFun supports gay rights. Obama has killed Americans with drone strikes without regard to their Constitutional right to due process. Does that mean that MrFun necessarily supports killing Americans without due process? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But lumping people together because they agree on one issue is superficial, and shows just how weak your arguments are.

And if you look deeper at the splits, the differences are generally on things like gun rights and social conservative issues unrelated to employment and labor policy.

Point being that the workers don't support the candidates. I'm a blue dog Democrat myself, and I hate the gun grabbing branch of my party.

There's no coercion. The dues-paying worker gets the benefits under the CBA - and if he doesn't like that, he can go elsewhere, just like the non-union worker who doesn't like the terms of his employment. Dues start when the CBA benefit starts, and they stop when the CBA benefit stops. It's simply a payment to a legally separate entity for services rendered - the benefits of the CBA.

If there's no coercion then there's no need to fear a right to work law.

Nice strawman, They must have 'em on clearance where you are. If they decide "oh, I'd rather lose my home and starve than take that one specific job because I might not like them contributing some of my dues to a PAC which might support a candidate I don't like, and I have no intention of looking for or taking any other job" then they probably should starve.

So it's okay to force people to support candidates they don't like? And if they don't like it then they should starve? You really are a friend of the working man.

Ah, more strawmen and ad hominems. Businesses fail all the time? You mean like Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia? Wanna 'splain how economic necessity factored in there?

Wanna explain what any of those have to do with the right to work issue? Your eagerness to change the subject shows me that you know you're wrong. It's evidence of a guilty conscience.

They don't. I've never paid a dime in union dues in my life. If I wanted a union job, I'd go get one. It's not like all workers have to pay dues to some union whether they have representation or not.

Why don't you contribute to their PACs? Put your money where your mouth is, and let other people do the same.

In the end, all I want is freedom, and all you want is control. I want people to be free in their political associations, and you want them to be forced into supporting candidates they don't agree with. Show me why freedom is wrong, or go back to whatever rock you've been hiding under all these years.

[Kuciwalker]

I think there are probably a few Cromwellian purists who would love to see unions dead as a matter or their own personal orgasmic joy. Bachmann would be one of those, so would Palin - the dimmest bulbs on the right-wing Christmas tree. I think the more Nixonian types would rather see crippled, ineffective unions instead of dead unions, because those would be more persuasive to the serfs how unions are ineffective at advancing their interests.

I think you underestimate just how much the Nixonians would share in the Palinite joy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Absolutely none of this makes sense. When did it become an ad hominem to point out that you're out of touch in lumping me in with people I oppose?

You're personalizing what is in fact a discussion related to a position (national campaign to limit union's political participation) promoted by a bunch of economic conservatives.[/quote]

If I'm irrelevant, why are you wasting all this time trying to prove me wrong?

I couldn't care less whether you're wrong. The position you're advocating is wrong.

How does supporting a position make me a proxy for other supporters?

You're pushing the same arguments used by the other supporters.

But lumping people together because they agree on one issue is superficial, and shows just how weak your arguments are.

I don't lump you together with anyone. For all I care, you can be a member of a peace and freedom party love-in. BTW, Awlaki was an enemy member of an unlawful combatant organization on an assymetric warfare battlefield. He got his due process. If you're promoting the same argument (every other right to work shill is parroting the same "worker's freedom" nonsense), you'll get painted by the same brush. Want to be treated differently? Advance a novel argument.

Point being that the workers don't support the candidates. I'm a blue dog Democrat myself, and I hate the gun grabbing branch of my party.

I'm green dawg myself, and I think gun control is properly achieved by using both hands.

If there's no coercion then there's no need to fear a right to work law.

Except the history of right to work laws demonstrates that they have been used and promoted strictly to weaken unions, and there's also a strong correlation between states' right to work laws and the relative employer-employee bias in state labor laws. Right to work laws are more symbolic of an overall anti-labor bias within the overall context of state labor law than they are a big bugaboo unto themselves.

So it's okay to force people to support candidates they don't like? And if they don't like it then they should starve? You really are a friend of the working man.

The mantra in every other situation is "if you don't like it, work elsewhere." Why should this be an exception?

Wanna explain what any of those have to do with the right to work issue? Your eagerness to change the subject shows me that you know you're wrong. It's evidence of a guilty conscience.

They relate to the "fluidity" of "economic necessity." Also to employer greed, rather than economic necessity, being a bigger factor in business decision making.

Why don't you contribute to their PACs? Put your money where your mouth is, and let other people do the same.

I'm on all sorts of candidate contributor lists.

In the end, all I want is freedom, and all you want is control. I want people to be free in their political associations, and you want them to be forced into supporting candidates they don't agree with. Show me why freedom is wrong, or go back to whatever rock you've been hiding under all these years.

"Freedom" to have even less power in an anti-labor state regime. Nobody's forced - it's not like the workers can't quit and go elsewhere or vote to decertify.

[Dinner]

If they're the good guys, then they have nothing to fear from right to work laws.

How wrong can someone be? When given a chance to free ride loads of people will free ride. The "agency fee" (which is about $25 per month in most cases but it does vary) is what non members pay to the union because the union negotiated the labor contract under which those non-members work. They benefit in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions but without the agency fee those people wouldn't have to pay for those things. Allowing more free riders will never improve a system and you know it just like you know this is all about defunding unions in a partisan attempt to harm the Democratic Party.

You're just not being honest enough to admit it.

[Dinner]

Democrats consistently get 60% of the union vote. Do you think they only get 60% of the union cash?

Your posts are so full of fail. Members have been able to opt out of political contributions for decades. All they have to do is fill out one 3"x5" card which is even pre-printed for them. Are you deliberately lying or just this ignorant?

[Felch]

How wrong can someone be? When given a chance to free ride loads of people will free ride. The "agency fee" (which is about $25 per month in most cases but it does vary) is what non members pay to the union because the union negotiated the labor contract under which those non-members work. They benefit in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions but without the agency fee those people wouldn't have to pay for those things. Allowing more free riders will never improve a system and you know it just like you know this is all about defunding unions in a partisan attempt to harm the Democratic Party.

You're just not being honest enough to admit it.

Why should the two fifths of union members who don't vote Democratic be forced to finance the Democratic Party?

[Felch]

Your posts are so full of fail. Members have been able to opt out of political contributions for decades. All they have to do is fill out one 3"x5" card which is even pre-printed for them. Are you deliberately lying or just this ignorant?

That's great news. If they can opt out of political contributions, then how is right-to-work defunding the Democratic Party?

EDIT: I am ignorant. I've never held a union job, and I had no idea that they could opt out of political contributions so easily.