Republican fat cats beg for money to conquer "fat cat labor bosses"

[RgrF]

I apologize for my previous misunderstanding.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Did they ever actually meet?

[rankandfile]

RgrF wrote:
I apologize for my previous misunderstanding.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Did they ever actually meet?

No apologies necessary. Sincere challenges are always welcome. If I'm really fortunate, I find out I'm wrong, or don't have a point just right.

FDR and Einstein met in 1933, when Einstein first moved to the US. The Einsteins stayed in the White House for a night, IIRC. I'm not certain if they met another time. If they did, I don't remember it.

[Grace62]

Dakota wrote:


You are playing with me, aren't you? You really don't see the parallels between the state withholding money from employees salaries on behalf of a private entity called a union? That you do or do not work for the state is immaterial.

Yes, a little, because you keep repeating this idea that unions "force" people to contribute through involuntary payroll deduction, when in fact they do not. Payroll deduction as a way to pay union dues is completely voluntary and requires written consent from the employee. Union members want this convenience and most choose it, since it's easier for most than getting one lump sum bill. Unions ask this service of the employer, and if the employer agrees then it's part of the bargaining agreement.

Have you ever donated to United Way or another charity via payroll deduction? There are all sorts of third party entities that can be paid through payroll deduction, this is not an unusual concept. The common denominator is that this is done with the employees written consent and can be stopped at any time.

I don't get what you're confused about, or why this concept is difficult. You wouldn't be manufacturing confusion to try and make unions look bad, now would you?

[Mac1337]

You are saying state withholding of union dues from the paychecks is voluntary. Little hard to believe when union membership itself is mandatory in many trades.

[Grace62]

Dakota wrote:
You are saying state withholding of union dues from the paychecks is voluntary. Little hard to believe when union membership itself is mandatory in many trades.

I've never heard of any union, public or private, that requires dues to be paid only by payroll deduction, or that can deduct dues without written consent of the employee.
Since you are convinced that this must exist, why don't you find us an example?

[Acer]

Never heard of Fair Share? Those who choose not to join the union MUST pay a reduced level of dues anyway, and it's a payroll deduct. I suppose you could pay it separately if you choose, but you have to pay it. IIRC, it's in the neighborhood of 80% of the full dues in the one place I ran into it personally, but that was years ago. You do, of course, get the benefits from the negotiated contracts, but not all other union services. And you don't get any voting power.

You can object on certain grounds, but it's pretty limited.

Here's one example
http://www.shr.illinois.edu/employment/Union.html

How and when are Dues and Fair Share paid?
You have thirty calendar days from your date of hire to decide whether you wish to join the union and pay dues or not join the union and pay Fair Share. If you decide to join the union, a Dues Authorization Card must be completed and turned in to the Payroll Service Center. This card is available at the Payroll Service Center or from your union representative. At the end of thirty days, deductions will be automatically withheld from your paycheck for dues or Fair Share, depending on the option you have chosen.

[Grace62]

Acer,
You still have to sign a payroll deduction authorization in order for the Uof I to deduct dues or "FairShare," and if you don't you have to pay in a different way. That's exactly what I was saying.

[Acer]

I'm not sure why that distinction is important. The mandatory fair share seems more controversial than the mechanism by which dues-or-fair-share are paid. I presume that's what Dakota is getting at, but perhaps not.

[seeing.the.unseeable]

hal wrote: Einstein did not work on the Manhattan project or los alamos and you have to be able to imagine a world before mushroom cloud pictures before you can judge anyone that worked on these projects. They were working to defeat hitler, to get the bomb before he did.

Agreed - my post was made in undue haste. Sorry to go OT again but, to be honest, I don't know exactly what my grandfather's role was in the project (it's not as though he described the specifics to my father, nor would he have been permitted to).

I only know that he was at the TVA site and in Chicago; he taught at a midwestern university at a central location between the two. Before going into the service, my father travelled to Chicago several times with my grandfather during this period but was never aware of the ulterior reasons for these visits; he only knew that my grandfather was guest-lecturing at Northwestern.

I really wish I knew more; there are so many other interesting events involving him and some of the other people around him during that time that they probably merit some historical novelization.

[Grace62]

Dakota has put his focus on the payroll deduction mechanism. If he wants to talk about the fairness of requiring people to pay a union to represent them, then he should bring that up.

Take a look at how things work in "right to work" states. Unions are effective because they represent all employees. Unions have regular meetings and elected officials. If you don't like how the union is handling something, you do have a voice.

An employer has no incentive to negotiate separately with thousands of individual employees over things like overtime, seniority, number of vacation days, etc., because one voice has no power. Collective voices have power, that's the point of unions. They work, and that's why they've lasted so long as important American institutions.