| Latest Post: Started By: Rank: Category What happened to the "Union Influence in Politics" topic?Even though I initiated it as the debut topic in the Times forums, I'm happy to realize it has been deleted. It died an ugly death long ago, and should have been executed long before it was. I'm curious though... Why? I am unaware of the travesty that occurred that was sufficiently heinous to warrant it's deletion... As compared to the tripe on ALL the other threads that is evident on a daily basis. Member CommentsMunsterWell 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. Posted 9 days ago. MunsterAnd again if you read it , it will tell you that you cant do that !!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. Posted 9 days ago. R1KRA8Consequently, 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) Posted 9 days ago. MunsterWell 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. Posted 9 days ago. MunsterTaft-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. Posted 9 days ago. R1KRA8Will Ohio beat Pennsylvania for 25th? by Stephanie Kreuz * * * (ohioansforworkplacefreedom) Posted 10 days ago. R1KRA8Will Ohio beat Pennsylvania for 25th? by Stephanie Kreuz * * * (ohioansforworkplacefreedom) Posted 10 days ago. MunsterTaft-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. Posted 10 days ago. MunsterWell 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. Posted 10 days ago. R1KRA8How Many Democrats Voted for Taft-Hartley?
by Alexander Cockburn * * * (ohioansforworkplacefreedom) Posted 10 days ago. MunsterDuh..... how many other things are named Taft-Hartly ???And speaking of "freerider" its a little ironic that wrongriki is a welfare addicted food stamp lover (a freerider) ! We are Ohio.co m Posted 10 days ago. R1KRA8The TRUTH does not sit well with a retired DUES EXEMPT union member who is has to post half-truths, out right lies, insults, name-calling, and wild claims. * * *
(ohioansforworkplacefreedom) Posted 10 days ago. MunsterAnd its not" fat cats" Its real people whose way of living will be hurt just because some big corporate big wig wants a new yacht ! We are ohio.co m Posted 10 days ago. MunsterLook ignorant one , haven't you ever heard of Taft-Hartly ? One has to wonder , does wrongriki ever look at anything that isn't a biased republican crap factory ? Talk about brainwashed and indoctrinated !!! The truth doesnt sit well with "people" who are used to telling half-truths and out right lies ! And the truth is a person either CHOOSES to go to work at A: a union shop or B: CHOOSES to go to work at a non-union shop ! Either way a person gets to choose and since thats the whole point of you "peoples" arguement it lets all the air out of your balloon now dont it ! We are Ohio.co m Posted 10 days ago. R1KRA8Right-To-Work legislation is now being vehemently fought against by union bosses, their family members, and their toadies in order to deny the workers the power and freedom to choose whether to participate in a labor organization as a condition of employment. * * * (ohioansforworkplacefreedom) Posted 10 days ago. scrappileRight-to-work legislation is now being pushed by right wing, pro-corporate legislators nationally in order to break the power of unions, which now only represent 9 percent of workers in private industry in the U.S. Right-to-work would bar unions from collecting dues from all represented workers, while still requiring unions to represent all workers. It would reverse previous union elections won by unions in which the entire unit had elected to be represented by unions, breaking the unity needed by labor to have any power. Posted 10 days ago. MunsterWhat wrongriki is trying to say in these forum topics is this . . . it will get the last word in almost every topic even if he has to post more of his right-wing propaganda and repetitive nonsense.One has to wonder , does wrongriki ever look at anything that isn't a biased republican crap factory ? Talk about brainwashed and indoctrinated !! Posted 10 days ago. MunsterKyle Olson, Publisher; Founder & CEO
Kyle is Publisher of EAGnews****, a news service dedicated to education reform and school spending research, reporting, analysis and commentary. He recently appeared in a weekly “Fox & Friends” segment called “The Trouble with Schools” on the Fox News Channel. Just another in a long line of biased right-wing hate mongers ! Posted 10 days ago. MunsterI 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 !! Posted 10 days ago. R1KRA8“Union bosses talk a good “wealth redistribution” game, but they don’t practice what they preach.” “They’re like the pigs that took over the farmer’s house in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” Remember, they led the “socialist” revolution to overthrow the evil farmer, then moved into his house, started wearing his clothes and started acting just like the evil farmer did.” . . . ‘1 percent’ union bosses have little financial solidarity with everyday union members By Kyle Olson * * * (ohioansforworkplacefreedom) Posted 11 days ago. Post a Comment |