Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #956335
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
18576 Re: Right to Work, and not pay a Union
   keystone ...you are remarkably intelligent except on those rare occai... 		ribit   FFFT3   13 Jan 2016
 7:30 AM
18572 Re: Right to Work, and not pay a Union
   Cut to the chase. OCU explained exactly what they have to pay for,... 		zzstar   FFFT3   13 Jan 2016
 4:02 AM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Right to Work, and not pay a Union

By: keystone in FFFT3
Wed, 13 Jan 16 3:55 AM
Msg. 18571 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 18570 by oldCADuser)
Jump to msg. #  

Your logic is circular OCU.

Dues? Membership fees? Administration fees?

All semantic nonsense.

The worker does not want to join or pay for a union and he is being forced to do so. At a minimum acceptance of the extortion is requisite to take the job.

There is absolutely no way for a union to attribute that percentage of their expenses attributable to negotiating on behalf of the non union member.

Is there the remotest possibility on Earth that the Union represents a non-member with the same diligence as a member?

The insidious problem here is the check off.
There is no way that a non union member would make a payment without the check off.

If the Union feels it has an ethical basis for charging non members, let them collect the money without government assistance. Let them make their ethical case to the worker they want the money from.

No law can make the government an agent of a union, which is exactly what the situation is here.
Without a check off Unions cannot possibly collect the funds.

If Unions performed such significant services it seems people would want to join a Union.

The problem is widespread across the nation.
Unions are being decimated and disappearing rapidly except in the public sector where they have become vested within the system.

Decertification is rare. Once attached the union representing government employees is there forever.


There is such a thing as a free lunch.
Workers don't want to have food jammed down their throats and then be told they have an ethical obligation to pay for the meal.

An American worker should have freedom of choice.

It is impossible to book keep a Union's expenses and to separate the costs of various activities.
Obviously Unions are run on a cash flow basis.
It is a reality that Unions are involved in political activities.

You can not grab an old lady walking across the street and on the other side give her a bill for guiding her.

American workers are not idiots, and they are not looking for a free lunch.

There is nothing self-evident here.
It is definitely a case or controversy that belongs to the Supreme Court.

Government should not be playing the roll of helping Unions to exist.

The work place is not Costco or Sam's Club and you don't have to pay strangers for the right to work.

The Justices will figure it out.