"Union fat-cats...myth or reality?"

“In Ohio, once a union is voted in, workers can be forced to pay dues long after those who voted to unionize have retired – and that’s just fine with the editors of The Blade.”

Toledo Blade Editors Defend Forced Unionism

By Jason Hart

* * *

(ohioansforworkplacefreedom)

WOW . . . the ever ignorant wrongriki refuses to accept the fact that all its idiocy is for naught

PSST . . .wrongriki does not want you to KNOW this . . .

Oh I see . . wrongriki thinks . . . that the Taft -Hartley act doesn't cover everything that it keeps lying about !According to federal law workers already have their CHOICE and rights

* * *

(we are ohio.co m) Please read the Taft-Hartly act !!

“The group that has placed billboards around the city drawing a line between communism and Right to Work laws has begun a television ad campaign.”Yeah way to go !!

. . .

Anti-Right to Work Ads to Air in Columbus

(abc6onyourside)

* * *

(we are ohio.co m)

“A coalition continues to gather signatures to put a Right to Work amendment to the Ohio Constitution before voters. It may not appear on the ballot until 2014.”

. . .

Anti-Right to Work Ads to Air in Columbus

(abc6onyourside)

* * *

(ohioansforworkplacefreedom)

WOW . . . the ever ignorant wrongriki refuses to accept the fact that all its idiocy is for naught

PSST . . .wrongriki does not want you to KNOW this . . .

Oh I see . . wrongriki thinks . . . that the Taft -Hartley act doesn't cover everything that it keeps lying about !According to federal law workers already have their CHOICE and rights

* * *

(we are ohio.co m)

I do believe I've seen this garbage before !Talk about hypocracy , heres ole wrongriki , (the welfare kid) cutting and pasteing all the while bit ching and whining about it ! How typical !!

“The editors of the Toledo Blade took up the banner of forced unionism in a May 4 editorial bashing workplace freedom, calling legislation that would let workers opt out of paying union bosses “union-busting.” ”

Toledo Blade Editors Defend Forced Unionism

By Jason Hart

* * *

(ohioansforworkplacefreedom)

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Says Will Collins of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, “The case for right-to-work has always rested on the importance of defending worker freedom, but right-to-work laws also have a proven track record of encouraging economic growth.”

The often-cited argument that right-to-work laws, somehow, defend worker freedom is an awfully tough case to make—as the only apparent freedom provided workers via these laws is the freedom to get something for nothing.

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

WOW . . . the ever ignorant wrongriki refuses to accept the fact that all its idiocy is for naught

PSST . . .wrongriki does not want you to KNOW this . . .

Oh I see . . wrongriki thinks . . . that the Taft -Hartley act doesn't cover everything that it keeps lying about !According to federal law workers already have their CHOICE and rights

* * *

(we are ohio.co m)

WOW . . . FIVE ‘Cover-up’ a.k.a. ‘Piling-on’ CUT & PASTE posts in a row.

PSST . . . Munster does not want you to KNOW this . . .

Oh I see . . . Munster thinks . . . that non-union members should be forced to pay union dues that are attributable to the cost of POOR representation of employees in collective bargaining LOSSES and providing a free ride for all Union Fat Cats for this POOR service that are force-fed to those non-union members.

* * *

(ohioansforworkplacefreedom)

WE ARE OHIO.CO M WE ARE OHIO.CO M WE ARE OHIO.CO M WE ARE OHIO.CO M WE ARE OHIO.CO M

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Says Will Collins of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, “The case for right-to-work has always rested on the importance of defending worker freedom, but right-to-work laws also have a proven track record of encouraging economic growth.”

The often-cited argument that right-to-work laws, somehow, defend worker freedom is an awfully tough case to make—as the only apparent freedom provided workers via these laws is the freedom to get something for nothing.

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Taft-Hartley clearly states, and a number of court cases have confirmed, that non-union members can be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and providing the service that are given to union members. Indeed, the law specifically states that non-members cannot be required to pay for the union’s political activities or for the costs incurred by the union resulting from organizing employees.

And no you don't and wont see !Well if you bother to read the Taft-Hartley act you'll see that what you just said is a LIE !!!'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified Contributor

Rick Ungar Forbes Which brings us to myth number 2….

Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.

Again….not true.

Oh I see . . . Munster thinks . . . that non-union members should be forced to pay union dues that are attributable to the cost of POOR representation of employees in collective bargaining LOSSES and providing a free ride for all Union Fat Cats for this POOR service that are force-fed to those non-union members.

* * *

(ohioansforworkplacefreedom)

Taft-Hartley clearly states, and a number of court cases have confirmed, that non-union members can be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and providing the service that are given to union members. Indeed, the law specifically states that non-members cannot be required to pay for the union’s political activities or for the costs incurred by the union resulting from organizing employees.

Well if you bother to read the Taft-Hartley act you'll see that what you just said is a LIE !!!'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified Contributor

Rick Ungar Forbes Which brings us to myth number 2….

Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.

Again….not true.

“Joseph V. Senese was paid $591,346 last year for his role in running the National Production Workers Union, based in the golf course-lined Chicago suburbs, which reported 600 members in 2006 and none in 2007, according to union disclosures.”

“For decades, the union spent “large sums of money” to provide Mr. Senese with around-the-clock security after his brother and father, also union honchos, survived assassination attempts and federal authorities barred his father from union activity for life, alleging mob ties, according to a 1993 Chicago Tribune article.”

. . .

Union bosses’ salaries put ‘big’ in Big Labor By Luke Rosiak

(The Washington Times)

* * *

(ohioansforworkplacefreedom)