Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3832052 times)

aygart · « **Reply #21840 on:** July 02, 2018, 03:24:38 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 03:18:09 PM

Still not getting it. Member fees are taken right from paycheck. You always had a choice of being a member or not.

Is a non member required to pay?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21841 on:** July 02, 2018, 03:58:46 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 02, 2018, 03:24:38 PM

Is a non member required to pay?

No and it has always been that way for USPS.

avromie7 · « **Reply #21842 on:** July 02, 2018, 03:59:09 PM »

IMO the unions should not be required to provide the benefits to non members (some benefits can't be split like salary and benefits, but others can like legal defense). The issue I have with the way it was before this ruling is that the government compels the union to serve non members, and therefore the union has a compelling argument that the non members should pay too. What the unions should do now is fight that they should not be required to represent non members.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21843 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:02:34 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 02, 2018, 03:59:09 PM

IMO the unions should not be required to provide the benefits to non members (some benefits can't be split like salary and benefits, but others can like legal defense). The issue I have with the way it was before this ruling is that the government compels the union to serve non members, and therefore the union has a compelling argument that the non members should pay too. What the unions should do now is fight that they should not be required to represent non members.

What about contract raises, vacation, healthcare and a ton of other benefits? There is a simple solution. Fine unions if dues are used for political purposes.

avromie7 · « **Reply #21844 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:23:37 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 04:02:34 PM

What about contract raises, vacation, healthcare and a ton of other benefits? There is a simple solution. Fine unions if dues are used for political purposes.

I think that would be more like when I fix up the exterior of my house and put in a beautiful garden, I can't force my neighbor across the street to pay for some of it, because he gets to see it every day, and it increases the value of his home. The fact that the non members gain from something the union does without their consent doesn't give the union a right to charge them for it.

avromie7 · « **Reply #21845 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:28:32 PM »

The issue with your solution is that unions have a right to spend the money however they want, they just can't force me to finance it. Because the political arm of the union is a big part of the union (and they try to blur the line), there is no way to make sure that the non member fees are really not helping to cover the costs of the political arm.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21846 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 02, 2018, 04:23:37 PM

I think that would be more like when I fix up the exterior of my house and put in a beautiful garden, I can't force my neighbor across the street to pay for some of it, because he gets to see it every day, and it increases the value of his home. The fact that the non members gain from something the union does without their consent doesn't give the union a right to charge them for it.

Not even a close comparison.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21847 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:33:31 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 02, 2018, 04:28:32 PM

The issue with your solution is that unions have a right to spend the money however they want, they just can't force me to finance it. Because the political arm of the union is a big part of the union (and they try to blur the line), there is no way to make sure that the non member fees are really not helping to cover the costs of the political arm.

Political part is small if at all. They want you to think the opposite.
You are worried about non-members might having to pay for a small amount for political stuff. You complete ignore the documented monetary gains they are receiving.

aygart · « **Reply #21848 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:33:42 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 03:58:46 PM

No and it has always been that way for USPS.

That is what it means that there are no agency fees.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21849 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:38:36 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 02, 2018, 04:33:42 PM

That is what it means that there are no agency fees.

Never heard it that way.

avromie7 · « **Reply #21850 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:48:04 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 04:33:31 PM

Political part is small if at all. They want you to think the opposite.
You are worried about non-members might having to pay for a small amount for political stuff. You complete ignore the documented monetary gains they are receiving.

And you completely ignore the fact that they never asked for it.

aygart · « **Reply #21851 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:52:06 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 02, 2018, 03:59:09 PM

IMO the unions should not be required to provide the benefits to non members (some benefits can't be split like salary and benefits, but others can like legal defense). The issue I have with the way it was before this ruling is that the government compels the union to serve non members, and therefore the union has a compelling argument that the non members should pay too. What the unions should do now is fight that they should not be required to represent non members.

The unions fight very hard for exclusivity even where they cannot collect dues from non-members. This is pointed out in the Court's opinion.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21852 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:01:07 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 02, 2018, 04:48:04 PM

And you completely ignore the fact that they never asked for it.

I have a bridge to sell you. You start off making a valid point then digress into this non-sense.
The first thing a non-member does when he gets into trouble is he goes crying to a union steward. The second thing he does is he joins the union.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21853 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:02:08 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 02, 2018, 04:52:06 PM

The unions fight very hard for exclusivity even where they cannot collect dues from non-members.

History has shown us why that is a necessity.

avromie7 · « **Reply #21854 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:03:31 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 05:01:07 PM

The first thing a non-member does when he gets into trouble is he goes crying to a union steward. The second thing he does is he joins the union.

That's exactly my point, the unions should not be required to represent him.

aygart · « **Reply #21855 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:05:01 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 05:02:08 PM

History has shown us why that is a necessity.

Explain. How did history show us that it is a necessity for unions to represent non-members (exclusivity)?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21856 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:10:53 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 02, 2018, 05:05:01 PM

Explain. How did history show us that it is a necessity for unions to represent non-members (exclusivity)?

History has shown us business are blood-sucking scum. If they ever got their way to negotiate separately with the two groups they would destroy the unions then revert back to their blood-sucking ways unchecked.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21857 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:12:15 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 02, 2018, 05:03:31 PM

That's exactly my point, the unions should not be required to represent him.

Your point is meaningless. The point is they benefit all the time and want these benefits. They should have to pay for those benefits.

gozalim · « **Reply #21858 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:18:11 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 02, 2018, 04:02:34 PM

What about contract raises, vacation, healthcare and a ton of other benefits? There is a simple solution. Fine unions if dues are used for political purposes.

it's not about the outright political activity, it's about the the political implications of the benefits negotiations.
the unions can refuse to negotiate on behalf of non-members. it's worth their while not to do so. doesn't obligate the non-member to join and be coerced into the 'political speech' of the benefits negotiations

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #21859 on:** July 02, 2018, 05:21:44 PM »

Quote from: gozalim on July 02, 2018, 05:18:11 PM

it's not about the outright political activity, it's about the the political implications of the benefits negotiations.
the unions can refuse to negotiate on behalf of non-members. it's worth their while not to do so. doesn't obligate the non-member to join and be coerced into the 'political speech' of the benefits negotiations

Please explain to me how CBA is political? I am not buying negotiations with a government agency in itself is political.

Topic Wiki

Poll

Who are you voting for?

Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3832052 times)