Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/9/2018 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 7/15/2018 7:13:10 PM EST
Ok, I've received some pamphlets about voting NO on Prop A and I'm confused on what it will do or won't do for Missouri and me

I need a simple breakdown if possible.

I live in country so city life means nothing to me, but one still has to go to city to purchase products.

I own my small farm and all equipment/vehicles on it.

I'm a retired senior and receive a monthly pension and both of us receive (very little) Social Security and this is all we get.

What does Prop A do for, or doesn't do for older people?

What does Union or Non-union jobs have to do with Prop A?

This is one vote I'm not sure of due to my non-working / retired status, BUT I also want to make sure whichever way I vote it is for the good of my future income, the working stiffs, and not some government / big business entity that can do what it wants whether from inside Missouri or outside the State.
Link Posted: 7/15/2018 7:39:03 PM EST
Vote No if you believe that people should be forced to join a union in order to work, where unions exist.

Vote Yes if you believe that people should not have to join a club in order to earn a living.
Link Posted: 7/15/2018 7:51:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2018 7:52:10 PM EST by delorean]
There's another thread you can read a little further down...…

But for you, it probably wouldn't change much. Maybe in the long term the price you pay for goods and services, but probably nothing drastic and definitely not anything income related or the short term.

So, vote with your heart:

Do you believe that a person who is eligible for a position should be forced to join the union and pay union dues? Bear in mind that a good potion of those dues will go to lobbying and political donations to Democrat candidates that worker may NOT want to support (a gun hating liberal like Hillary Clinton)…..yet they have no choice. So why not let them choose? Prop A doesn't ban unions, it just gives a person a choice whether or not to join. The opposition says that person gets representation and higher pay in a union, but what if they don't want/need representation and higher pay comes through them NOT paying dues. Look at the three auto plants just in STL shut down--Ford, GM, Chrysler--then Harley in KC plus a few more. Who knows if they would have survived without a union, but all I know is they're NOT building auto plants or any manufacturing in states who are NOT right-to-work states.

It already passed once on a public vote......nix'd because of some wording error (democrat SOS wrote it, so the fix was in.) Then everybody in the 2016 elected pro right to work candidates, and it passed in the house and senate......nix'd again because the union was able to get 100,000 votes. So, third time is a charm...….it's passed twice, and this is their last ditch effort.
Link Posted: 8/3/2018 11:01:29 PM EST
It doesn't ban unions but it allows people to benefit from a union negotiated scale and not pay dues. Thats not fair and financialy puts them out of business. Show me states that have prospered after rtw.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 6:30:22 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cb69:
It doesn't ban unions but it allows people to benefit from a union negotiated scale and not pay dues. Thats not fair and financialy puts them out of business. Show me states that have prospered after rtw.
View Quote
From the bit of research I've done every state that has passed right to work have had increased wages and increased employment.

I've been a member of 3 different unions in my 63 years and come from a union family.

Unions had a positive purpose before OSHA, ERISA and EEOC. Now workers rights are 'protected' by law and unions have become, primarily, a political action committee.

My dad [union member for almost 50 years] was a steward for a time as well. He didn't like the part where unions protected members who were lazy or unsafe workers.

Let unions show their value and membership be volunteer, not forced. If they cannot show value then someone should not be forced to join.

I'm voting 'yes'.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 9:46:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 10:22:36 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cb69:
. Show me states that have prospered after rtw.
View Quote
Uh...all 28 of them are better off.

And this "lower wages" BS propaganda does not account for cost of living factors between states. Use cost of living as a modifier and that arguement goes out the window.

Anybody notice that in all the Vote NO yard signs, commercials, mailers, etc, never once is the word UNION said or printed. They scared to identify this as pro-Union. Unreal.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 10:42:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2018 10:43:33 AM EST by chrisinmo]
The struggle I have is that legal precedent as I understand it dictates that unions are obligated to represent the entire workforce whether they are a member or not. If employees have the right to choose they should not have representation if they opt out. While I don't support forcing people into a union I also do t support forcing the union to represent and spend resources on non member. I can't support one side of this without the other being addressed at the same time.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 12:14:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
So you think it’s fair to FORCE someone to pay union dues to be able to work?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
Originally Posted By cb69:
It doesn't ban unions but it allows people to benefit from a union negotiated scale and not pay dues. Thats not fair and financialy puts them out of business. Show me states that have prospered after rtw.
So you think it’s fair to FORCE someone to pay union dues to be able to work?
Considering the rate of pay it brings im ok with that. Am i not forced to pay taxes.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 2:34:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 4:08:29 PM EST
I have to wonder how many of you poster's have ever been in a
Union ,, after reading replies on the two post on Prop A here ,
or you all post of second hand knowledge .. of Unions .

TS2
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 5:32:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 5:41:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TargetShooter2:
I have to wonder how many of you poster's have ever been in a
Union ,, after reading replies on the two post on Prop A here ,
or you all post of second hand knowledge .. of Unions .

TS2
View Quote
I've been in 3.

I've posted in both threads on this issue

If you cannot keep your job without a union [don't ask me specifics because it will emparASS unions] then you shouldn't count on unions.

I've belonged to 3. Both parents and grand parents were, somewhat, union members.

If You need a union, you really need to get off your f^*(_ ass

WORK for God's sake [if not for yours or your family].

Get off your ass and work!!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 8:12:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
I’ve never been in a Union nor would I ever work where I had to belong to a fucking union.

My mother belonged to a union, she worried about them striking every time that contract time came around and years after she passed away the corporation she worked for was totally destroyed by the union. They went on strike knowing full well that it would result in the corporation going chapter 7.

It did.

And I’ve been in charge of union employees.
View Quote
So from reading your reply , you are bitter because of your Mother ,
would that time frame be 1960-early 80's ?? when she was union
what union and local ??
also seems you carried the anger over to the company side when you
were in management .
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 8:13:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Deuskid:

I've been in 3.

I've posted in both threads on this issue

If you cannot keep your job without a union [don't ask me specifics because it will emparASS unions] then you shouldn't count on unions.

I've belonged to 3. Both parents and grand parents were, somewhat, union members.

If You need a union, you really need to get off your f^*(_ ass

WORK for God's sake [if not for yours or your family].

Get off your ass and work!!!!!!
View Quote
Sounds like you are talking about Mo-Dot workers , one with a shovel
and three are watching him dig .

TS2
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 8:23:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2018 9:01:59 PM EST by delorean]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TargetShooter2:

Sounds like you are talking about Mo-Dot workers , one with a shovel
and three are watching him dig .

TS2
View Quote
8 man crew for the highway grass maintenance. = 2 comin', 2 goin', 2 shittin', 2 mowin'.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 9:02:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 12:06:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:

My .02, if you WANT to put in an HONEST days work, there is no need for a union. If you want to WORK, you will be promoted, you will receive raises.
View Quote
you don't really believe that do you ?? ,,

sounds like right out of the HR dept ..

until you become too old , too slow , you start to have health
problems , you are not a asset then , or maybe a little out spoken
for the way they treat some people ,, or time after time you have to
work with in a unsafe conditions or equipment that should of been tagged out
or replaced , but you do it because you need a job , you have a wife and kids that
depend on you .. or your not a good ole boy or ass kisser

yeah .02's are like opinions and they are like ass holes
we all have them ,, for my self I've seen both sides , like
walking in some one else's shoe's .

10-7
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 9:47:46 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chrisinmo:
The struggle I have is that legal precedent as I understand it dictates that unions are obligated to represent the entire workforce whether they are a member or not. If employees have the right to choose they should not have representation if they opt out. While I don't support forcing people into a union I also do t support forcing the union to represent and spend resources on non member. I can't support one side of this without the other being addressed at the same time.
View Quote
This right here is why I'm not supporting prop A.
I'm in a union in Kansas and when a non-union employee is fired the union has to represent them even though they pay no dues its the law.
I would support right to work if the people who don't join would have to negotiate there own pay and benefits and represent themselves during discipline hearings, or the can hire a lawyer. The union should have no obligation to non union employees.

Vote no for better language in the law.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 9:59:48 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TargetShooter2:
you don't really believe that do you ?? ,,

sounds like right out of the HR dept ..

until you become too old , too slow , you start to have health
problems , you are not a asset then , or maybe a little out spoken
for the way they treat some people ,, or time after time you have to
work with in a unsafe conditions or equipment that should of been tagged out
or replaced , but you do it because you need a job , you have a wife and kids that
depend on you .. or your not a good ole boy or ass kisser

yeah .02's are like opinions and they are like ass holes
we all have them ,, for my self I've seen both sides , like
walking in some one else's shoe's .

10-7
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TargetShooter2:
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:

My .02, if you WANT to put in an HONEST days work, there is no need for a union. If you want to WORK, you will be promoted, you will receive raises.
you don't really believe that do you ?? ,,

sounds like right out of the HR dept ..

until you become too old , too slow , you start to have health
problems , you are not a asset then , or maybe a little out spoken
for the way they treat some people ,, or time after time you have to
work with in a unsafe conditions or equipment that should of been tagged out
or replaced , but you do it because you need a job , you have a wife and kids that
depend on you .. or your not a good ole boy or ass kisser

yeah .02's are like opinions and they are like ass holes
we all have them ,, for my self I've seen both sides , like
walking in some one else's shoe's .

10-7
TS, I agree. The work harder get promotion ,trickle down economics is bs. For many businesses cost of labor is bottom line.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 10:08:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By seasprite:
I'm in a union in Kansas and when a non-union employee is fired the union has to represent them even though they pay no dues its the law.
View Quote
Yes, that's BS, but that's the union's fault. You don't think that would quickly change is RTW was passed? Maybe that person doesn't even want union protection. There are PLENTY of lawyers out there to take wrongful termination (especially OSHA/whistleblower and discrimination) cases at no cost to the petitioner.....they just take a percentage of the settlement. And they'll move faster and with more fierceness than the union will. I know plenty of union members that lost their jobs unfairly and the union didn't do a damn thing for them; I also know of other total POS's that deserved to get fired, yet the union protected them.

9% of Missouri's workforce is union, so why should the other 91% be punished because of some outdated BS that the union won't change?? I'm educated and skilled.....I don't need a union's protection and I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want it. And even if I did have to give them my money, it's an absolute slap in the face when they would give it to Hillary Clinton or other gun & freedom hating democrats.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 1:43:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By delorean:

Yes, that's BS, but that's the union's fault. You don't think that would quickly change is RTW was passed? Maybe that person doesn't even want union protection. There are PLENTY of lawyers out there to take wrongful termination (especially OSHA/whistleblower and discrimination) cases at no cost to the petitioner.....they just take a percentage of the settlement. And they'll move faster and with more fierceness than the union will. I know plenty of union members that lost their jobs unfairly and the union didn't do a damn thing for them; I also know of other total POS's that deserved to get fired, yet the union protected them.

9% of Missouri's workforce is union, so why should the other 91% be punished because of some outdated BS that the union won't change?? I'm educated and skilled.....I don't need a union's protection and I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want it. And even if I did have to give them my money, it's an absolute slap in the face when they would give it to Hillary Clinton or other gun & freedom hating democrats.
View Quote
I'm not following your line of thinking on this.
1. Kansas is RTW and the union still has to represent the non union.
2. How are the 91% that are non union being punished? To my knowledge not every job in MO is required to be union. When I worked at the grocery store and cabinet shop in my younger day they were non union and I paid no dues. Just Taxes
3. As far as dues going toward the left, I can only tell you about the Teamsters we have separate fund called DRIVE that is for politics and you have voluntarily sign up for this. I never did because I hardly ever agree with the union when it comes to politics. As far as other unions go I have know idea how they fund there political donations.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 2:57:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 8:30:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2018 8:40:44 PM EST by seasprite]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:

Missouri is a non-right to work state, what this means is if you go to work for a union shop “Joe’s Union Print Shop” you have to pay the union or you can’t be employed there. End of story!

It doesn’t effect jobs where they are non-union.

The vote of NO is to keep Missouri a non-right to work state keeping it where you have to pay unions to work in a union “shop”.
View Quote
I understand that, its the 91% that delorean referred to that I have issue with or are you saying 91% of union members would drop out if right to work would pass.

I also understand a lot of people on this site are anti union and thats fine with me I just don't want people to be confused about the actual issue here.

I would support RTW as long as there was some language keeping an activist judge from ruling like in Kansas where the unions are forced to represent non union employees.

Like a lot of us on this site, no one wants to be forced to do things they don't want to do or be a part of and thats fine just make sure your not forcing the unions to do things they don't want to do because that wouldn't be any better for those that want to belong to the union.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 8:35:20 PM EST
If you don't want to be in a union, don't apply at a union shop. Simple as that. As far as dues supporting democrats, dues cannot be used for political purposes. That's why unions have PAC's that you can choose whether or not to donate to.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 9:23:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Brassaholic13:
Vote No if you believe that people should be forced to join a union in order to work, where unions exist.

Vote Yes if you believe that people should not have to join a club in order to earn a living.
View Quote
This is well stated and is my understanding as well. Lays it out pretty clearly cut.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 9:57:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brettswain:
If you don't want to be in a union, don't apply at a union shop. Simple as that. As far as dues supporting democrats, dues cannot be used for political purposes. That's why unions have PAC's that you can choose whether or not to donate to.
View Quote
Common sense and facts have no place on ARFCOM.
Link Posted: 8/5/2018 10:32:30 PM EST
Follow the money.
Link Posted: 8/6/2018 12:57:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Common sense and facts have no place on ARFCOM.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Originally Posted By brettswain:
If you don't want to be in a union, don't apply at a union shop. Simple as that. As far as dues supporting democrats, dues cannot be used for political purposes. That's why unions have PAC's that you can choose whether or not to donate to.
Common sense and facts have no place on ARFCOM.
That's some serious brain washing - not common sense.
Link Posted: 8/6/2018 7:36:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brettswain:
Snip.....,As far as dues supporting democrats, dues cannot be used for political purposes. That's why unions have PAC's that you can choose whether or not to donate to.
View Quote
I’ve worked in both Union and non union jobs over the course of my career. I don’t believe the above for one second and never have. I know what the law says but I think believing that no dues money goes to political causes is extremely naive.
Link Posted: 8/6/2018 8:04:58 PM EST
I guess we'll get to have this "conversation" again down the road since prop A will he handily defeated.

The decision to put it on the August ballot was an error for those in favor of it.
Link Posted: 8/6/2018 11:25:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/7/2018 7:14:30 AM EST by delorean]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
I guess we'll get to have this "conversation" again down the road since prop A will he handily defeated.

The decision to put it on the August ballot was an error for those in favor of it.
View Quote
Two schools of thought on that by Republicans...….

Yes the pro-groups didn't have much time to market it, plus the money reserves were/are very lacking because they spent most of it defending Greitens. As of about 3 weeks ago, the various groups only had about $3M vs. the unions which spent $15M.

But at the same time, it was going to bring a lot of democrats out in November which would have been bad for the senate race. Look back at the last two times McCaskill got elected...….both times, the cigarette tax was on the ballot and democrats came out to vote in record numbers.

If you have to lose one, probably better to lose right to work locally than risk losing the senate nationally. Just like CCW and the farm bill from a few years ago, if it fails tomorrow, just give it another 2-4 yrs and it will be back in the legislature again. A new wave of the house members will cycle through, and if they run on R2W, then it will go through the rolls again. It just depends on how much it fails by. If it's only a few points, it will be two years, if it's 10 points, it may be a while.
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 2:33:06 AM EST
The problem is no new jobs will come to MO as long as we aren't right to work. You'd be a fool to open a manufacturing plant here right now!
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 2:51:11 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NOMAAM:
The problem is no new jobs will come to MO as long as we aren't right to work. You'd be a fool to open a manufacturing plant here right now!
View Quote
this one coming to mid Mo

https://www.sedaliademocrat.com/news/steel-producer-nucor-announces-new-steel-mill-in-sedalia/article_0ecdb978-736f-5da3-a339-e543a4e26ab0.html
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 7:57:34 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Common sense and facts have no place on ARFCOM.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Originally Posted By brettswain:
If you don't want to be in a union, don't apply at a union shop. Simple as that. As far as dues supporting democrats, dues cannot be used for political purposes. That's why unions have PAC's that you can choose whether or not to donate to.
Common sense and facts have no place on ARFCOM.
Thinking union billions don't assist democrats in the evisceration of the constitution is common sense?

Ok, I think I agree with you. No place for common sense here.
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 10:04:26 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jmt1271:

Thinking union billions don't assist democrats in the evisceration of the constitution is common sense?

Ok, I think I agree with you. No place for common sense here.
View Quote
Is that what I said? Clearly not.

Apparently reading comprehension is lacking as well.
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 12:31:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By seasprite:

This right here is why I'm not supporting prop A.
I'm in a union in Kansas and when a non-union employee is fired the union has to represent them even though they pay no dues its the law.
I would support right to work if the people who don't join would have to negotiate there own pay and benefits and represent themselves during discipline hearings, or the can hire a lawyer. The union should have no obligation to non union employees.

Vote no for better language in the law.
View Quote
Don't be fooled. The unions and the employers want it that way. I just downloaded a PDF of the UAW/GM National Agreement from 2015. Read the very first sentence:

Attachment Attached File
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 12:43:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DetrhoytMAK:

Don't be fooled. The unions and the employers want it that way. I just downloaded a PDF of the UAW/GM National Agreement from 2015. Read the very first sentence:

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/347339/Screenshot_20180807-122842-632933.JPG
View Quote
True.

The unions, not the companies put that clause in the agreements.

The unions don't 'have to' represent everyone, they insist on doing so.
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 2:00:09 PM EST
I voted yes because I'm sick of the unions..

Link Posted: 8/7/2018 2:51:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brettswain:
If you don't want to be in a union, don't apply at a union shop. Simple as that. As far as dues supporting democrats, dues cannot be used for political purposes. That's why unions have PAC's that you can choose whether or not to donate to.
View Quote
Money is fungible. Meaning that money gained for one purpose frees up money to be spent on other purposes. So yup, dues fund their political spending.
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 3:20:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Is that what I said? Clearly not.

Apparently reading comprehension is lacking as well.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Originally Posted By jmt1271:

Thinking union billions don't assist democrats in the evisceration of the constitution is common sense?

Ok, I think I agree with you. No place for common sense here.
Is that what I said? Clearly not.

Apparently reading comprehension is lacking as well.
If I misunderstood your sentiment, I apologize.

I took your post as validating the quoted post that unions don't utilize their vast income to assist the left.

What did you mean?
Link Posted: 8/7/2018 6:33:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Deuskid:

True.

The unions, not the companies put that clause in the agreements.

The unions don't 'have to' represent everyone, they insist on doing so.
View Quote
The companies are just fine with it. Would you rather deal with 30,000 employees individually, or in one fell swoop?
Top Top