You just made SB5 supporter's heads explode, causing them to fall back on the only response they know "shut up and deal with it, it works in the private sector".

And I'd like to add that the only way I can rationalize support for "right to work" laws since union/agency shop laws permit employers and employees maximum freedom to contract is that either 1. they don't believe that people ought to have the freedom to contract to bargain together and really aren't sincere when they say freedom is their most fundamental value or 2. they hear "right to work" as a buzz phrase and just assume that open shop maximizes freedom to contract and it does not.

I love the lie about only that amount which covers the cost of collective bargaining will be taken out of someone's pay check if they decide not to become a union member.

When I worked for the state, the "fair share" (now THERE is a misnomer if ever one existed) was EXACTLY THE SAME as the union dues. There is no choice here; you either pay the dues or the equivalent of dues. You don't get a choice of not paying. And even if you wanted to opt out of the union collective bargaining and negotiate on your own behalf with your boss -- it's not allowed.

There is no freedom of choice once a union takes over the workplace. You pay one way or another for the union representation, even if you neither want nor need it.

Writerbuckeye;768407 wrote:There is no freedom of choice once a union takes over the workplace. You pay one way or another for the union representation, even if you neither want nor need it.

The bottom-line

LJ;768078 wrote:I know, everyone can keep their unions, but the taxpayers in that taxing district get to vote on every new contract.

As I understand the process, the taxpayers already have a vote on every new contract through the decisions of their duly elected representatives, the members of the Board of Education. If they do not agree with the decisions of the board members then they merely elect someone else during the next election cycle. Furthermore, the voters have a large say in the funding of the district through the levy process. The system is currently set up to virtually insure that a district will ask for more money every few years as inflation erodes their purchasing power and while their property tax funding stays virtually constant. Once again voters can reflect their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the district or the general reality of the economy through the ballot process. If you think that another level of oversight is needed and enough people agree with you, then by all means put it to the vote. We should all be accountable after all.

Some good reading in the last 24 hours from OUR side.

analogkid;768827 wrote: If If you think that another level of oversight is needed and enough people agree with you, then by all means put it to the vote. We should all be accountable after all.

And that's what is going to happen. Let the people of Ohio vote and then we will see. If my side loses, then so be it. I will abide by THAT decision, rather than the "on the soap box" SB5 proponents on here. (I think you will lose, btw)

BRF;768841 wrote:Some good reading in the last 24 hours from OUR side.



And that's what is going to happen. Let the people of Ohio vote and then we will see. If my side loses, then so be it. I will abide by THAT decision, rather than the "on the soap box" SB5 proponents on here. (I think you will lose, btw)

LOL @ "OUR" side.

If this bill isn't passed, "YOUR" side will see massive layoffs. I can't wait, personally, it'd be hilarious when thousands of public employees are handed pink slips with reason as "no money due to the failure of SB5".

Have a nice day.

sleeper;768847 wrote:LOL @ "OUR" side.

If this bill isn't passed, "YOUR" side will see massive layoffs. I can't wait, personally, it'd be hilarious when thousands of public employees are handed pink slips with reason as "no money due to the failure of SB5".

Have a nice day.

It's already happening in many states that have really strong public unions. Because salaries haven't been controlled, there have been massive layoffs from city governments, schools, etc. All these "with the union in solidarity" folks are standing by and waving as their co-workers get their pink slips.

In some cases, offers were even made that if the union would back off pay increases or take cuts, layoffs could be avoided...the people voted to see their fellow union members laid off rather than take a pay cut. I'm sure that will all makes for a cohesive work environment, when all is said and done.

Writerbuckeye;768855 wrote:In some cases, offers were even made that if the union would back off pay increases or take cuts, layoffs could be avoided...the people voted to see their fellow union members laid off rather than take a pay cut. I'm sure that will all makes for a cohesive work environment, when all is said and done.

All for one and one for all. Solidarity. Union pride. Union power.

At least the union thugs - I mean - union bosses still get to keep their paychecks. They'll have to raise union dues on the Fortunate Few, however, to maintain their cushy lifestyles and pass on a few bucks to their favorite socialist politicians..

That is so cool that YOUR side looks forward to massive lay-offs and laugh and laugh about it because you all have the answer to the whole deal. Well, you are wrong, imo.

The bitterness of YOUR side is very stunning. For you people to get on here and spew your points about SB5 and how we must all go along with them......something very bad must have happened to you to make you lash out like this.

And you, also, have a good rest of the day, too.

BRF;768949 wrote:That is so cool that YOUR side looks forward to massive lay-offs and laugh and laugh about it because you all have the answer to the whole deal. Well, you are wrong, imo.

The bitterness of YOUR side is very stunning. For you people to get on here and spew your points about SB5 and how we must all go along with them......something very bad must have happened to you to make you lash out like this.

And you, also, have a good rest of the day, too.

After the amount of ignorance and selfishness being displayed by the opponents, they all deserve to work at McDonalds. Like I said, enjoy the pink slip and I will be laughing.

Writerbuckeye;768407 wrote:I love the lie about only that amount which covers the cost of collective bargaining will be taken out of someone's pay check if they decide not to become a union member.

When I worked for the state, the "fair share" (now THERE is a misnomer if ever one existed) was EXACTLY THE SAME as the union dues. There is no choice here; you either pay the dues or the equivalent of dues. You don't get a choice of not paying. And even if you wanted to opt out of the union collective bargaining and negotiate on your own behalf with your boss -- it's not allowed.

There is no freedom of choice once a union takes over the workplace. You pay one way or another for the union representation, even if you neither want nor need it.

You can negotiate a different contract with your employer if she so desires to as it is her business. If it is not the case it is simply because your employer doesn't want to negotiate with you one on one and it is within her right to do so. There are any number of instances where this happens in the real world. And, if a non-union members union dues are used for anything other than negotiating the employment contract you can file a complaint with the NLRB.

If you thought your "fair share" wasn't going to pay for the negotiation of your employment contract you could have sought redress in the federal courts.

Hilarious. I'm sure the union would willingly open its books to show (well at least show in THAT set of books...wink, wink) that the money being used for negotiations is the same, and that the money isn't be used elsewhere.

Of course...I HAVE TO FRICKING GO TO FEDERAL COURT TO GET REDRESS, APPARENTLY.

Again, hilarious.

If the union was such a good thing for everyone, why would I HAVE to go to a court on something like that?

We all know the answer.

Writerbuckeye;768855 wrote:It's already happening in many states that have really strong public unions. Because salaries haven't been controlled, there have been massive layoffs from city governments, schools, etc. All these "with the union in solidarity" folks are standing by and waving as their co-workers get their pink slips.

In some cases, offers were even made that if the union would back off pay increases or take cuts, layoffs could be avoided...the people voted to see their fellow union members laid off rather than take a pay cut. I'm sure that will all makes for a cohesive work environment, when all is said and done.

got a link? how do you explain the states WITH unions that arent in the red or isnt in the red as bad as ohio?

Glory Days;769041 wrote:got a link? how do you explain the states WITH unions that arent in the red or isnt in the red as bad as ohio?

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-25/news/gl-1120_1_city-employees

http://www.newson6.com/story/11889456/poll-who-do-you-think-is-responsible-tulsa-mayor-or-police-union?redirected=true

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2011/05/malloy-to-order-layoffs-tuesda.html

I found these in about 5 minutes. I'm sure there are more.

analogkid;768827 wrote:As I understand the process, the taxpayers already have a vote on every new contract through the decisions of their duly elected representatives, the members of the Board of Education. If they do not agree with the decisions of the board members then they merely elect someone else during the next election cycle.

Highly disagree, because the union will strike against the taxpayers and hold them hostage over a contract. It comes down to a working services, or services on strike. The final say in the contract should be the taxpayers, and if they reject it, the union is SOL and has to keep working until they can get the taxpayers to accept the contract.

BoatShoes;768962 wrote:And, if a non-union members union dues are used for anything other than negotiating the employment contract you can file a complaint with the NLRB.

If you thought your "fair share" wasn't going to pay for the negotiation of your employment contract you could have sought redress in the federal courts.

LMAO...really? On one hand you unionists tell us that the union can do a much better job of negotiating wage deals than the individual employee and on the other, you claim the individual employee can run to the NLRB and Fed courts to file a complaint against the union if he or she believes their union dues are unfairly being used to finance anything other than wage negotiations. The hypocrisy in this is unbelievable.

UNION: We'll negotiate a wage deal for you because you can't do it alone.
EMPLOYEE: But you send my union dues to political hacks I disagree with.
UNION: Too fucking bad. If you don't like it, you can always file a complaint with the Feds.
EMPLOYEE: WTF?

The best anti-SB5 argument so far: Fear/anxiety about losing something people have grown accustomed to.

That whole going to fed. court thing is not a good argument at all when you look at the average person, not one who is predisposed to litigate.

CenterBHSFan;769453 wrote:The best anti-SB5 argument so far: Fear/anxiety about losing something people have grown accustomed to.

That whole going to fed. court thing is not a good argument at all when you look at the average person, not one who is predisposed to litigate.

Unions don't want dissent to be easy. They are used to using force (historically) to get what they want. In this case, it's using the force of the system itself to intimidate people into submission.

believer;769452 wrote:LMAO...really? On one hand you unionists tell us that the union can do a much better job of negotiating wage deals than the individual employee and on the other, you claim the individual employee can run to the NLRB and Fed courts to file a complaint against the union if he or she believes their union dues are unfairly being used to finance anything other than wage negotiations. The hypocrisy in this is unbelievable.

UNION: We'll negotiate a wage deal for you because you can't do it alone.
EMPLOYEE: But you send my union dues to political hacks I disagree with.
UNION: Too fucking bad. If you don't like it, you can always file a complaint with the Feds.
EMPLOYEE: WTF?

First of all, you call me a "unionist" when I've made it clear that I'm not a big fan of unions. However, I'm an even lesser fan of people who are blindly partisan. Why can't you avoid terms like "unionist" and "union thug." There is no hypocrisy there. Unions are not above trying to skirt the laws moreso than anyone else. It is called due process of law. The NLRB is a powerful organization and just like our justice system, if you want to file a complaint against a union you file a complaint in the appropriate NLRB office. It seems to me that if you think that is so outrageous than you might have similar feelings toward our justice system as a whole. It is illegal for a union to use your non-union due to pay a political hack and it is relatively easy to file a complaint against that union. Here is a link to the NLRB office for Pittsburgh which I believe would be your local office. A simple phone call is all it will take. You don't need to hire a lawyer. It's akin to calling in a police report as they are charged with doing investigations into claims of unfair practices like say a detective might investigate a criminal law matter.

http://www.nlrb.gov/category/regions/region-06

I mean, Congress has made it illegal for your union due to pay for anything else but the negotiation of your employment contract (which you want to freeload on)...what other steps would you have them take other than providing you access to the Courts and additionally the NLRB to investigate them on your behalf? This is the way all other laws are enforced in our country.

CenterBHSFan;769453 wrote:The best anti-SB5 argument so far: Fear/anxiety about losing something people have grown accustomed to.

That whole going to fed. court thing is not a good argument at all when you look at the average person, not one who is predisposed to litigate.

Read my post. You don't have to go to federal court. Just pick up the phone and call your local NLRB office if you think a union in your shop who negotiated your labor agreement is using your dues to support Nancy Pelosi. If the NLRB finds the union to be violating the NLRA they will take them to court. You are free to carry on with your life. However, if you want to file a complaint against your employer for violating your civil rights, you had better lawyer up.

Mean while of course, there's nothing to stop a guy from making sure his employer, who might otherwise pay him a higher wage, from spending any amount he might desire on political campaigning in a post Citizens United world but that is of no concern to any of these folks so concerned about consideration paid for their labor negotiations going to political activity which has been made illegal!

Writerbuckeye;769547 wrote:Unions don't want dissent to be easy. They are used to using force (historically) to get what they want. In this case, it's using the force of the system itself to intimidate people into submission.

Notice, again, an employer who willingly chooses to negotiate with employees who've decided to negotiate collectively some how is about force. And either way, why would unions be happy about people trying to free load!!! That is all you complain about but the Open shop laws you support effectively eliminate union shops because of the free rider problem...no one's going to join the union when they can get the union to bargain for them without having to pay the union due and be a free loader!

Writerbuckeye;769031 wrote:Hilarious. I'm sure the union would willingly open its books to show (well at least show in THAT set of books...wink, wink) that the money being used for negotiations is the same, and that the money isn't be used elsewhere.

Of course...I HAVE TO FRICKING GO TO FEDERAL COURT TO GET REDRESS, APPARENTLY.

Again, hilarious.

If the union was such a good thing for everyone, why would I HAVE to go to a court on something like that?

We all know the answer.

Again, clearly don't know what you're talking about. You don't have to sue them in federal court. The NLRB can investigate their books with a simple phone call. If your complaint has merit the NLRB will take them to court.

So clearly you don't know the answer.

Another excellent article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576317140858893466.html

BoatShoes;769559 wrote:Again, clearly don't know what you're talking about. You don't have to sue them in federal court. The NLRB can investigate their books with a simple phone call. If your complaint has merit the NLRB will take them to court.

So clearly you don't know the answer.

Writer is getting a major spanking. Just go away you are embarrassing yourself on this topic.