Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/5/2018 1:24:59 PM EDT
How are Missourians voting for Prop A and why?
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 2:40:49 PM EDT
I'm voting Yes for Prop A and everybody I know will be as well. I can't support Unions and the Socialist (Democratic) party they support.

Yes on Prop 4 and No on Prop D.

Here is the info for this fall:

https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2018BallotMeasures

Official Ballot Title
Proposition A

Do the people of the state of Missouri want to adopt Senate Bill 19 ("Right-to-Work") as passed by the general assembly in 2017, which prohibits as a condition of employment the forced membership in a labor organization (union) or forced payments of dues in full or pro-rata (fair-share); make any activity which violates employees' rights illegal and ineffective; allow legal remedies for anyone injured as a result of another person violating or threatening to violate employees' rights; and which shall not apply to union agreements entered into before the effective date of Senate Bill 19?

State and local government entities expect no costs or savings.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will adopt Senate Bill 19 ("right-to-work"), passed by the general assembly in 2017. If adopted, Senate Bill 19 will amend Missouri law to prohibit, as a condition of employment, forced membership in a labor organization (union) or forced payments of dues or fees, in full or pro-rata ("fair-share"), to a union. Senate Bill 19 will also make any activity which violates employees' rights provided by the bill illegal and ineffective and allow legal remedies for anyone injured as a result of another person violating or threatening to violate those employees' rights. Senate Bill 19 will not apply to union agreements entered into before the effective date of Senate Bill 19, unless those agreements are amended or renewed after the effective date of Senate Bill 19.

A “no” vote will reject Senate Bill 19 ("right-to-work"), and will result in Senate Bill 19 not becoming Missouri law.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

*************************************­******************************************
Official Ballot Title
Amendment 4

Do you want to amend the Missouri constitution to:

remove language limiting bingo game advertising that a court ruled unenforceable; and

allow a member of a licensed organization conducting bingo games to participate in the management of bingo games after being a member of the organization for six months instead of the current two years?

State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings from this proposal.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to remove language limiting bingo game advertising that a court ruled was unconstitutional and not enforceable. This amendment would also allow a member of a licensed organization conducting bingo games to participate in the management of bingo games after being a member of the organization for six months. Currently, the constitution requires two years of membership.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding bingo games.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

*****************************************­******************************

Official Ballot Title
Proposition D

Shall Missouri law be amended to fund Missouri state law enforcement by increasing the motor fuel tax by two and one half cents per gallon annually for four years beginning July 1, 2019, exempt Special Olympic, Paralympic, and Olympic prizes from state taxes, and to establish the Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund?

If passed, this measure will generate at least $288 million annually to the State Road Fund to provide for the funding of Missouri state law enforcement and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction and maintenance.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri statutes to fund the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s enforcement and administration of motor vehicle laws and traffic regulations. The source of the funding will be revenue from an increased state tax on motor fuel (including gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, and blended fuel). The current state motor fuel tax rate is seventeen (17) cents per gallon. The amendment will increase the rate as follows:

Nineteen and one-half (19.5) cents per gallon beginning July 1, 2019;

Twenty-two (22) cents per gallon beginning July 1, 2020;

Twenty-four and one-half (24.5) cents per gallon beginning July 1, 2021;

Twenty-seven (27) cents per gallon beginning July 1, 2022.

The amendment will also increase the tax on alternative fuels used for motor vehicles (including compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, and propane gas). The amendment will increase the rate from seventeen (17) cents to twenty-seven (27) cents per unit equivalent to a gallon of gasoline or diesel beginning January 1, 2026.

The amendment will require the state auditor to audit the state’s use of the revenue generated by these taxes every two years.

Additionally, the amendment will allow a state income tax deduction for the value of any prize or award won in the Olympics, Paralympics, or Special Olympics; and it will create an “Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund,” which will be dedicated to financing road improvement projects in the state.

A “no” vote will not amend Missouri statutes to increase the motor fuel tax, exempt certain prizes from state taxes or establish the Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund.

If passed, this measure will increase taxes on motor fuel.
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 3:21:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 9:25:02 PM EDT
I’m voting yes

...but I like freedom. People are still free to join a union in right to work states, but they don’t have to if they don’t want to. The only way to get unions to improve to the point people want to join them, is to make them have to compete for the workers dollar, just like any legit business or organization.
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 10:04:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/5/2018 10:06:23 PM EDT by delorean]
I see vote no signs everywhere here in jeffco.......a county that voted 65% for Greitens and Trump. Plus commercials, bumper stickers, yard signs, bill boards, etc everywhere else.

So where is the vote yes stuff? I haven't seen any. Do they think they have this in the bag, or what? Just kind of odd to see the one side dumping so much money into it and nearly nothing from the other side.
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 10:11:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By delorean:
I see vote no signs everywhere here in jeffco.......a county that voted 65% for Greitens and Trump. Plus commercials, bumper stickers, yard signs, bill boards, etc everywhere else.

So where is the vote yes stuff? I haven't seen any. Do they think they have this in the bag, or what? Just kind of odd to see the one side dumping so much money into it and nearly nothing from the other side.
View Quote
The unions are funding the vote no signs. Who is gonna fund yes signs?
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 10:23:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
I’m definitely voting YES!!!

Missouri being a non-Right to Work state costs the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars in Govt contracts because of being required to pay “prevailing wages”.

An example is a flagman might be receiving $27.00 an hour because of “prevailing wages”.

In addition, ask yourself “Is it fair or right to FORCE someone to pay a union so they can hold a job?”

It’s almost like the old “Protection rackets” where a shop owner had to pay the mob so that the mob wouldn’t blow their business up.

And does ANYONE think that fast food workers deserve $15.00 an hour? It’s supposed to be a job where you learn how to hold a job.
View Quote
Lol.

Prevailing wage laws have NOTHING to do with prop A or right to work.
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 10:57:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2018 1:58:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By delorean:
I see vote no signs everywhere here in jeffco.......a county that voted 65% for Greitens and Trump. Plus commercials, bumper stickers, yard signs, bill boards, etc everywhere else.

So where is the vote yes stuff? I haven't seen any. Do they think they have this in the bag, or what? Just kind of odd to see the one side dumping so much money into it and nearly nothing from the other side.
View Quote
I see a lot of vote no signs too.

I don’t know how this vote will go - unions have gotten their people pretty worked up about it. They’ll show up and vote.

I’d bet that most people don’t care or would vote yes if pressed, but they’re not motivated to show up like union families are.
Link Posted: 7/6/2018 7:35:55 AM EDT
In Mid MO there are No on Prop A signs and ads all over the place. There is no vocal opposition, I bet the unions get it voted down.
Link Posted: 7/6/2018 10:12:38 AM EDT
I'm voting YES. I don't believe in having to join a club in order to work.

Only places you'll see with vote no signs are union homes. Brainwashed, they are.
Link Posted: 7/6/2018 12:33:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Pumpkinheaver:

The unions are funding the vote no signs. Who is gonna fund yes signs?
View Quote
All us evil business owners / 1%'ers......plenty of money out there behind right to work, just not seeing it. That's why I'm curious if they think they don't need it, or what. Maybe we'll see some stuff closer to Aug 6. Much like a Trump bumper sticker, or MAGA hat, I'd almost be scared displaying a YES Prop A sign anywhere around me. Wouldn't last very long that's for sure.

I knew they'd get the 100,000 votes or whatever it was to get it on the ballot. They had those guys out everywhere collecting signatures with the statement of "let's get it on the ballot and let the people decide," even though the people DID decide by voting for pro- right to work candidates (overwhelmingly.) But I believe the fix was in before that when we voted on it the first time...….the Sec of the State was democratic at the time and had an "insurance policy" worked out with the judge at the time to say that the wording was ambiguous. He didn't want it to pass, so why would he have written it like that??
Link Posted: 7/6/2018 4:08:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2018 4:08:32 PM EDT by SShockwave]
I voted YES when I voted for Greitens over Koster.

Since the Commies insist on trying to repeal my Legal vote, I will be forced to vote again to keep the commies from having an economic stranglehold on my State.
Link Posted: 7/7/2018 8:09:08 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
It’s based on UNION salaries!
View Quote
In most cases, that is correct.

But it still has nothing to do with prop A. If it passes, it will have zero impact on a contractual wage rate.
Link Posted: 7/7/2018 12:26:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2018 12:27:31 PM EDT by PursuitSS]
Link Posted: 7/7/2018 3:35:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/8/2018 12:02:04 AM EDT by cbr954]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
As an example, a General Laborer working in St. Louis County MUST BE PAID....$47.64 per hour working on any job for local or state Govt.
View Quote
That is total package.
Link Posted: 7/8/2018 12:31:51 PM EDT
Yes on A. No on D.
Link Posted: 7/8/2018 10:57:56 PM EDT
I'm voting no on prop A. I agree no one should be forced to join a union, but a union shouldn't have to represent or protect people not paying for the representation
Link Posted: 7/8/2018 11:37:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 7:53:27 AM EDT
Voting yes here.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 9:13:59 AM EDT
I belong to a union and I'm still voting "yes". I like freedom of choice, and if the unions provide a viable service for their members, legislation such as this ought not have any effect.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 9:33:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
Two wrongs don’t make it right!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
Originally Posted By sigpros:
I'm voting no on prop A. I agree no one should be forced to join a union, but a union shouldn't have to represent or protect people not paying for the representation
Two wrongs don’t make it right!
I totally get it I do. I'm all for freedom of choice. But I'm so tired of no personal responsibility in this country. If you don't want to join a union that's fine don't join. But you shouldn't be entitled to the benefits of the Union. I just don't think a person should be able to get a "union" job not pay into the union and then be able to run to the union it something goes wrong and the union have to represent them.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 10:05:47 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sigpros:

I totally get it I do. I'm all for freedom of choice. But I'm so tired of no personal responsibility in this country. If you don't want to join a union that's fine don't join. But you shouldn't be entitled to the benefits of the Union. I just don't think a person should be able to get a "union" job not pay into the union and then be able to run to the union it something goes wrong and the union have to represent them.
View Quote
In many cases, the companies prefer it that way, so that they don't have to take time to deal with you as an individual. They have agreements with the unions that said unions will be the sole bargaining representative for ALL hourly employees, whether those employees pay dues or not.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 10:11:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2018 10:12:24 AM EDT by Weekend_Hillbilly]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DetrhoytMAK:
I belong to a union and I'm still voting "yes". I like freedom of choice, and if the unions provide a viable service for their members, legislation such as this ought not have any effect.
View Quote
I’m hearing this from friends that are union. I see tons of stickers and yard signs, however, there’s no telling what they’ll do in the privacy of the polling booth.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 11:09:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sigpros:
I'm voting no on prop A. I agree no one should be forced to join a union, but a union shouldn't have to represent or protect people not paying for the representation
View Quote
You don't think that will change pretty quick if Prop A is passed?? Unions will go straight to nix that.....which is fine. But all this time they've been fighting the other angle saying that they cover everybody so everybody has to be union. They're not for freedom of choice and free speech, and they give all their money to gun hating politicians. So you're going to vote NO and support all that just because it's going to be unfair to small group if it passes?? How about all the people it's UNFAIR to now?
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 12:39:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2018 12:40:25 PM EDT by JAD762]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sigpros:
I totally get it I do. I'm all for freedom of choice. But I'm so tired of no personal responsibility in this country. If you don't want to join a union that's fine don't join. But you shouldn't be entitled to the benefits of the Union. I just don't think a person should be able to get a "union" job not pay into the union and then be able to run to the union it something goes wrong and the union have to represent them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sigpros:
Originally Posted By PursuitSS:
Originally Posted By sigpros:
I'm voting no on prop A. I agree no one should be forced to join a union, but a union shouldn't have to represent or protect people not paying for the representation
Two wrongs don’t make it right!
I totally get it I do. I'm all for freedom of choice. But I'm so tired of no personal responsibility in this country. If you don't want to join a union that's fine don't join. But you shouldn't be entitled to the benefits of the Union. I just don't think a person should be able to get a "union" job not pay into the union and then be able to run to the union it something goes wrong and the union have to represent them.
Frankly, I don't think they should either.

But, as a third generation (former) union member, I'm still voting yes on Prop A.

Not having a monopoly on their members will make unions more accountable to their members. Unions don't give a rip about their members any more than big companies do because union members have no recourse against the union - barring a huge populist uprising among the members, which never happens.

If union members can vote with their feet its going to make unions much more accountable to their members, which is a good thing.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 2:05:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dogma:
I’m voting yes

...but I like freedom. People are still free to join a union in right to work states, but they don’t have to if they don’t want to. The only way to get unions to improve to the point people want to join them, is to make them have to compete for the workers dollar, just like any legit business or organization.
View Quote
Philosophically I agree with you, people shouldn't be forced to join a union. I imagine the text of the law is much more complex, and that's bc they're trying to stick it to union labor more than anything.

The anti big goverenment types went and got big government on people who didn't want any govt. The unions are fine with the status quo, so why change it?
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 2:07:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SShockwave:
I voted YES when I voted for Greitens over Koster.

Since the Commies insist on trying to repeal my Legal vote, I will be forced to vote again to keep the commies from having an economic stranglehold on my State.
View Quote
How was CCW passed in MO again??
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 4:44:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cash50:

How was CCW passed in MO again??
View Quote
What a wild story that was!! The dems and Holden really thought they had that locked down......one republican short yet he flew home from military duty offshore to cast his vote. Hahaha. "And then the streets ran red with blood." STL County had a judge block issuing permits, yet Utah, Florida, and all the other were good to go!
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 5:03:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By delorean:
What a wild story that was!! The dems and Holden really thought they had that locked down......one republican short yet he flew home from military duty offshore to cast his vote. Hahaha. "And then the streets ran red with blood." STL County had a judge block issuing permits, yet Utah, Florida, and all the other were good to go!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By delorean:
Originally Posted By cash50:

How was CCW passed in MO again??
What a wild story that was!! The dems and Holden really thought they had that locked down......one republican short yet he flew home from military duty offshore to cast his vote. Hahaha. "And then the streets ran red with blood." STL County had a judge block issuing permits, yet Utah, Florida, and all the other were good to go!
My point was that voters voted down CCW, then the legislature went and passed it anyways, after the voters "made their voices heard".
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 6:00:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cash50:

My point was that voters voted down CCW, then the legislature went and passed it anyways, after the voters "made their voices heard".
View Quote
Voter fraud is what sunk CCW down the first time when it wa son the ballot. It was way ahead until the very last minute when it did a complete 180. Lots of folks tried to prove that but kept getting stonewalled on records. Lot of talk/stories on MOCarry, but many of those patriots have passed one.

BTW, the voters already *DID* pass right to work.....then the dems got it recalled because of "confusing language." Democrat Sec of State wrote the language on the ballot, and a democrat judge ruled on it. What a coincidence!!!! So we elect legislators who campaigned that they were going to get it done......they do and the democrats block it again. So now we are where we are. Gonna let them win?? Third time's a charm!
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 6:28:42 PM EDT
If they would have left law enforcement off the gas tax I would have voted for it.

Fund the freaking roads. They suck.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 9:03:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By lokifox:
If they would have left law enforcement off the gas tax I would have voted for it.

Fund the freaking roads. They suck.
View Quote
You're kidding, right? Have you ever driven in Illinois?
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 11:01:33 PM EDT
Hell no to the fuel tax.

Hell no to any new tax and I don't care what they claim it is for.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 11:52:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbr954:
Hell no to the fuel tax.

Hell no to any new tax and I don't care what they claim it is for.
View Quote
This. They can go fuck themselves.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 2:30:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cash50:

Philosophically I agree with you, people shouldn't be forced to join a union. I imagine the text of the law is much more complex, and that's bc they're trying to stick it to union labor more than anything.

The anti big goverenment types went and got big government on people who didn't want any govt. The unions are fine with the status quo, so why change it?
View Quote
Who cares if the Unions are “fine” with the status quo when the status quo is wrong morally and economically? The unions enjoy government protection in forcing their monopolies in certain trades, and in certain areas. This removes some of that big government protection. Your statement about big government makes no sense. Just as states compete for businesses and productive citizens (tax cows), and business must compete for employees and customers, and employees compete for jobs, so should unions compete for members.
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 9:45:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2018 1:08:12 PM EDT by chumpmiester]
I never did like any amount of my union dues going to anti gun political candidates. I have several horror stories about different unions that I belonged to in the past.

My last job I was a maintenance tech but was considered management since I was not in the union. That particular union shot itself in the foot when it came to the maintenance department. They wanted 3 maintenance techs, 1 welder, and 1 machinist per shift when at the most we on,y need two techs per shift.

i think that workers should have a choice.
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 12:50:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/16/2018 6:00:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By eric10mm:
Once, and I do not plan to do it again. I would prefer to drive around. But that has nothing to do with the roads.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By eric10mm:
Originally Posted By Brassaholic13:

You're kidding, right? Have you ever driven in Illinois?
Once, and I do not plan to do it again. I would prefer to drive around. But that has nothing to do with the roads.
Just the Illinois Nazis?
Link Posted: 7/17/2018 12:56:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2018 2:36:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By eric10mm:

I hate Illinois Nazis!
View Quote
me too and I was born and lived there and most of my family have yet to escape
Link Posted: 7/19/2018 7:50:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/19/2018 8:38:58 AM EDT by Bladeswitcher]
One anti-A commercial shows an old guy sitting at his kitchen table talking about how Prob A will cost jobs. He should know, the commercial says, since he lost his job in Oklahoma. The implication is that he lost his job because of some kind of "right to work" law.

I couldn't figure out how "union busting" and resulting lower wages would result in a loss of jobs. I googled the guy. He wasn't hard to find. He's pretty much a union spokesman. Turns out he worked for a tire factory that was shut down. The company closed the factory because it was cheaper to make tires overseas. Supposedly, the company tried to negotiate with the union to reduce costs and keep the factory going on a smaller scale. No joy.

Mr. Kitchen Table didn't lose his job because of right to work. It may have just been market changes (like the buggy whip factory jobs lost 100 years ago). Or, maybe he lost his job because his union refused to bend so that the manufacturer could keep his job site competitive. Either way, it doesn't have anything to with legislation like Missouri is considering.

There may be valid reasons to oppose Prop A but it's too late to hop on that bus. When people lie to me and try to overwhelm me with a huge-budget bullshit campaign, I tend to reflexively oppose their cause. That's just how I roll . . .
Link Posted: 7/19/2018 9:07:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/19/2018 11:50:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/19/2018 11:53:44 AM EDT by delorean]
Olin in East Alton, IL was another great example.

The company said to the union, we can't afford to stay here...….make some concessions or we're moving the plant and 1000 jobs to Mississippi. Olin wanted them to drop from FIVE weeks vacation to FOUR weeks, FREEZE (not lower) their wages, and end their 401K matching. Workers overwhelmingly voted NO to that and Olin said, OK....FU, plant is closing and moving to MS.

FIVE weeks vacation?? Are you freakin kidding me?!?!? I worked for a company for 10 yrs and worked my way up to 11.33 days of PTO a year.

Anybody remember the big grocery strike in STL around 2001 or so?? Schnucks, Dierbergs, and Shop N Save worked together to reduce hours the stores were open and brought in temporary workers for good money until they beat the union down enough to get some decent terms. If you want to work as a bag boy all your life so be it, but it's not Schnucks fault they can't afford to pay you $40K/year with full medical, dental, and retirement.
Link Posted: 7/20/2018 7:47:48 AM EDT
The pro commercials are finally ramping up. Better late than never I guess.
Link Posted: 7/24/2018 4:41:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Buckshot4U:
The pro commercials are finally ramping up. Better late than never I guess.
View Quote
I saw my first pro signs around the Osceola area last week.

None anywhere else though.
Link Posted: 8/3/2018 11:48:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2018 1:32:14 PM EDT by cb69]
I am voting no. I am in a union and l am good with that. I am not good with how they use my dues. Just like im not ok with how they waste my tax dollars.
If you have the option of earning union pay and not paying union dues, the numbers will drop hard.
I have worked for greedy big biz that was non union. When their tax breaks ran out they went to china. The greedy union evens that out.
I work for a fortune 50 company, i see a stock report and they make a fortune paying a great wage.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 7:56:44 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cb69:
I am voting no. I am in a union and l am good with that. I am not good with how they use my dues. Just like im not ok with how they waste my tax dollars.
If you have the option of earning union pay and not paying union dues, the numbers will drop hard.
I have worked for greedy big biz that was union. When their tax breaks ran out they went to china. The greedy union evens that out.
I work for a fortune 50 company, i see a stock report and they make a fortune paying a great wage.
View Quote
So why are you voting no????? Seems like you made plenty of arguments to vote yes.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 2:08:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By delorean:

So why are you voting no????? Seems like you made plenty of arguments to vote yes.
View Quote
Delorean, my bad on typo. My first real job was a factory that had been union in another state. Our city cut them major deals for a5yr plan to get up and running non union in a semi rural area. Keep in mind wages went from $20hr to 5 plus the tax breaks. As soon as the 5yrs were up they went to china. It's just greed.
I left that job for a union job. I still have that same job 20yrs later. I pay $4k a year in dues and im fine with that. I am not ok with how they spend it but thats up to them. Just like taxes, im forced to pay and i don't like how it's spent.
Link Posted: 8/4/2018 2:09:59 PM EDT
Knock on door this AM....Prop A No voters out, passing info along. They left pamphlet on the door. If I had known it was them, I would have answered and told them to get their communist asses off my lawn

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/

PATTERSON: Labor unions and communism

By Matt Patterson - The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 7, 2011

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Trade unions are a school of communism.

-Vladimir Lenin

L labor leader Andy Stern has seen the future. There’s no freedom there, but he’s OK with that. Mr. Stern, a former president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), recently returned from a trip to China, where he had the opportunity to meet with “high-ranking” government officials, who outlined for the former labor leader the authoritarian regime’s long-term economic plan.

Mr. Stern was so enamored with what he saw in the Middle Kingdom that he praised the communist country’s state-planned economy in the pages of the Wall Street Journal and urged the United States to embark on a similar path. Among the more revolting passages of Mr. Stern’s love letter to Leninism:

“The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model - so successful in the 20th century - is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century. In an era when countries need to become economic teams, Team USA’s results - a jobless decade, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking middle class and phenomenal gains in wealth but only for the top 1 percent - are pathetic. This should motivate leaders to rethink, rather than double down on an empirically failing free-market extremism.”

That a labor leader would proclaim love for freedom an extreme view should come as no surprise - the history of labor unions has been intimately entwined with the history of global communism. As the influential Dutch astronomer and Marxist theorist Anton Pannekoek wrote in his 1908 treatise, “The Labor Movement and Socialism,” “The object of the labor movement is to increase the strength of the proletariat to the point at which it can conquer the organized force of the bourgeoisie and thus establish its own supremacy.”

Vladimir Lenin agreed and made unions an integral part of the “people’s republic” he founded in 1917. “Shakedown Socialism” author Oleg Atbashian, a propagandist for the Soviet Union before he migrated the United States in 1994, writes that in the Soviet Union, “organized labor was part of the official establishment and union membership was universal and mandatory” and “that system’s seemingly magnanimous goals - fairness, economic equality and social justice - in real life brought forth a rigged game of wholesale corruption, forced inequality and grotesque injustice.”

Hmm, sounds a lot like what unions have inflicted upon the United States: wholesale corruption as many union chapters have historically acted as fronts for organized crime; forced inequality as unionized public employees out-earn their counterparts in the private sector; grotesque injustice as greedy unions strong-armed lavish salaries and benefits for themselves that bust the budgets of entire states, forcing non-union folks to suffer higher taxes and fewer services.

The sad thing is, for a time in the 20th century, American unions turned from this seedy past to become defenders of economic freedom. As Ivan Osorio, labor expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes, “During the Cold War, the AFL-CIO, Teamsters and most major U.S. labor unions were staunchly anti-communist. In fact, the AFL-CIO under Lane Kirkland worked closely with the Reagan administration to aid the Solidarity movement in Poland.” Unfortunately, our 21st-century unions seem to be slipping back to their traditional socialist mores and tendencies as they decline in popularity. In 2010, the union membership rate was 11.9 percent, down from 20.1 percent in 1983, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Unions today loathe freedom, as Andy Stern demonstrates in his Wall Street Journal column, because unions require unfree markets in order to thrive. They love big government because unions require the government to guarantee their monopolies on labor. And it is precisely those features of unions that have contributed to their increasing unpopularity in the United States, where citizens are becoming wise to the corrupt conspiracy between unions and government to extinguish their liberties.

In a February interview with The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, Mr. Stern lamented the decline of organized labor’s power and influence and waxed nostalgic about the movement’s early days: “We had to do sit-down strikes and various other things. We had socialist and communist tendencies. We grew up, to speak in Marxist terms, in a world with a lot more class struggle … but it’s not viewed through that light anymore.”

Yeah, poor unions. If we were all a little more Marxist, maybe they wouldn’t be having such a tough time of it.

Matt Patterson is the editor of Labor Watch at the Capital Research Center.
Link Posted: 8/6/2018 1:46:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2018 1:50:09 PM EDT by JAD762]
Anyone know this turd?

According to his profile he works at a Wendy's in Belton.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top