londonfog
Well-Known Member
why do you need so many accounts on RIU ? Do you have friends IRL ?+rep
he's going to really screw with their minds when he changes up..and he will
justins only been here since 2016..he has a lot to learn about Buckhard.
Labor Unions starting a third party
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
People in unions voted against them. The Reagan Democrat and the base of conservative voters were construction workers and automobile industry workers who had it good and wanted to keep it that way for themselves. Most of the Trump voters fit this profile too.
London is right in that right to work states are nearly impossible to unionize. Unless Sanders has a plan for that, he can talk about unions all he likes, he's going nowhere on this issue.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Man your stupidity or lack of research is astounding. Please cite were the Dems took money for right to works state. You and @schuylaar are two of the most uninformed political members on RIU.
I can show plenty to support that Democrats are strongly against right to work states, which directly has a negative affect on unions.
While your stupid unknowing ignorant ass ( and lonely ) waste your time on love sites and bashing Dems, the Republicans are trying to make right to work states a national thing. Do some research and find out who is trying to pass legislation to stop this bullshit...hint the Dems. I also will be willing to bet you are on of those fools who complain about Union dues. Could you do us all a favor ???
STFU please
I voted against you and schuylair forming a romantic relationship. The chance of your guys having a retarded baby is too great. She either get tubes tied, burnt or removed or you get fixed yourself, We then can revisit the issue.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sarin gas attacks and 650 step protocols.
Singlemalt
Well-Known Member
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...peal-right-to-work-nationwide/article/2635096
Democrats introduce bill to repeal right-to-work nationwide
by Sean Higgins | Sep 20, 2017, 6:15 PM
Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday to repeal all state right-to-work laws, arguing that the laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join or financially support a labor union as a condition of employment, are wrong because they make it harder to form unions.
"So-called right-to-work laws give corporations the ability to trample workers' rights and dismantle unions. I refuse to let that happen. At a time when Americans are working harder and earning less for the time they put in, we should be making it easier for workers to raise their voices and bargain for better wages and safer working conditions. Right-to-work is really right to work for less," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a co-sponsor of the legislation. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is the lead author.
The legislation is two sentences long: "This act may be cited as the 'Protecting Workers and Improving Labor Standards Act'. Subsection (b) of section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164) is repealed."
Organized labor is a major source of campaign funding for the Democratic Party, giving more than $59 million in the 2016 election cycle alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Conservative groups put the amount that unions gave to Democrats, liberal activist groups and political action committees between 2012 and 2016 at $765 million.
State right-to-work laws specifically prohibit union-management contracts that require all workers join the union or pay it a regular fee. The provisions, dubbed "security clauses" by unions, are common in non-right-to-work states. Unions argue they are owed the money to pay for collective bargaining expenses that benefit workers. Business groups and Republicans back right-to-work laws, arguing they give states an edge in attracting business and that joining a union should be up to individual workers, not employers and union leaders acting together.
A total of 27 states have the laws. Five states have adopted them since 2012, including Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which border Canada. Another state, Missouri, passed one but it is on hold pending the outcome of a union-backed voter referendum. Several of the laws date to the 1940s when they were first allowed by the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. Prohibiting them would severely disrupt business practices in those states.
The funds provided through right-to-work laws are a major source of union revenue. Until recently, unions assumed that all of the states open to the laws had already adopted them, but the recent passage of versions in states with strong pro-labor histories such as Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan have left union leaders shaken.
"You never say right-to-work in the union movement because it is a great example of naming something. Pretty often you cannot even explain right-to-work to union members without them thinking it sounds like a pretty good idea," Ben Johnson, former head of United Professions AFT Vermont, the union's state umbrella organization, told the Washington Examiner last month. Leaders struggled to come up with a euphemism that would make it sound bad. The most commonly used one is "right to work for less," which tries to present the laws as weakening unions and therefore workers' bargaining strength.
Unions have attempted to attack the laws from several novel angles. Wisconsin unions challenged their state's law as an unconstitutional "taking" of their property, an argument recently rejected in federal and state court. The Canadian government, prompted by its unions, has attempted to use the North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations to get the U.S. to ban the laws, but the Trump administration has reportedly refused.
Right to work Elizabeth Warren Sherrod Brown Economy Labor Senate Labor unions Sean Higgins Congress News Politics
Share your thoughts with friends.
Comment On This Article
More Washington Examiner
Democrats introduce bill to repeal right-to-work nationwide
by Sean Higgins | Sep 20, 2017, 6:15 PM
Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday to repeal all state right-to-work laws, arguing that the laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join or financially support a labor union as a condition of employment, are wrong because they make it harder to form unions.
"So-called right-to-work laws give corporations the ability to trample workers' rights and dismantle unions. I refuse to let that happen. At a time when Americans are working harder and earning less for the time they put in, we should be making it easier for workers to raise their voices and bargain for better wages and safer working conditions. Right-to-work is really right to work for less," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a co-sponsor of the legislation. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is the lead author.
The legislation is two sentences long: "This act may be cited as the 'Protecting Workers and Improving Labor Standards Act'. Subsection (b) of section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164) is repealed."
Organized labor is a major source of campaign funding for the Democratic Party, giving more than $59 million in the 2016 election cycle alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Conservative groups put the amount that unions gave to Democrats, liberal activist groups and political action committees between 2012 and 2016 at $765 million.
State right-to-work laws specifically prohibit union-management contracts that require all workers join the union or pay it a regular fee. The provisions, dubbed "security clauses" by unions, are common in non-right-to-work states. Unions argue they are owed the money to pay for collective bargaining expenses that benefit workers. Business groups and Republicans back right-to-work laws, arguing they give states an edge in attracting business and that joining a union should be up to individual workers, not employers and union leaders acting together.
A total of 27 states have the laws. Five states have adopted them since 2012, including Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which border Canada. Another state, Missouri, passed one but it is on hold pending the outcome of a union-backed voter referendum. Several of the laws date to the 1940s when they were first allowed by the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. Prohibiting them would severely disrupt business practices in those states.
The funds provided through right-to-work laws are a major source of union revenue. Until recently, unions assumed that all of the states open to the laws had already adopted them, but the recent passage of versions in states with strong pro-labor histories such as Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan have left union leaders shaken.
"You never say right-to-work in the union movement because it is a great example of naming something. Pretty often you cannot even explain right-to-work to union members without them thinking it sounds like a pretty good idea," Ben Johnson, former head of United Professions AFT Vermont, the union's state umbrella organization, told the Washington Examiner last month. Leaders struggled to come up with a euphemism that would make it sound bad. The most commonly used one is "right to work for less," which tries to present the laws as weakening unions and therefore workers' bargaining strength.
Unions have attempted to attack the laws from several novel angles. Wisconsin unions challenged their state's law as an unconstitutional "taking" of their property, an argument recently rejected in federal and state court. The Canadian government, prompted by its unions, has attempted to use the North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations to get the U.S. to ban the laws, but the Trump administration has reportedly refused.
Right to work Elizabeth Warren Sherrod Brown Economy Labor Senate Labor unions Sean Higgins Congress News Politics
Share your thoughts with friends.
Comment On This Article
More Washington Examiner
londonfog
Well-Known Member
yeah right Fogdog said nothing about Dems recieving mney to kill the Unions. Your depressing desperate ass did.
Still can't cite your bullshit
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Fucking depressing is right. Dude hates America. Some have even stated why does he even still live here?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Right. The list of corporate donors to the Democratic Party is endless. This is a plain stupid argument.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That's awesome- so why wasn't this legislation introduced when Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate plus a friendly President?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Singlemalt
Well-Known Member
Doesn't fit his narrative
londonfog
Well-Known Member
your argument is stupid when you say Dems are against the Unions. It shows what an uninformed voter you are. Republicans are the reason behind the death of your Unions and your right to work states. Your hatred for Hillary has got you fuck in the end pretty bad.
why don't you take the time and do some fucking research.
First start with the number of right to work states 28
Next see who runs that state and who is the governor.
Finally STFU. You are much too dumb to have this fucking conversation.
"Hillary bad me stupid" the song from Bernie Babies the Movie.
please stop voting
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No I won't shut up, because that's what the rich Union busters want.
If the Democrats were so concerned about worker's rights, why haven't they done anything about them when they had majorities?
The Unions stuck by them for half a century, only to be continually shit on.
Time to try something different.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
10 seperate threads...
That's like "a star going supernova and becoming a black hole" level of meltdown.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He seems to be falling apart ever since he started getting all desperate for Schuylaar's attention. Also, I have my timezone set for here in Philippines. It was actually around 3:30am in Colorado when he had that meltdown.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The idea that I might actually be responding to each thread in kind is foreign to you, isn't it?
That might be because you have nothing to add to any of them and just shit post about time zones instead.
Long ago I asked you about your viewpoints. Unlike many on this forum, I was willing to listen with an open mind and if we disagreed, to discuss things on an adult and respectful level.
I'm sorry that's something you've since proven yourself incapable of, truly.
Ya got good taste in classic VWs, though.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You have failed to respond to well written arguments that you asked for on quite a few occasions. In reality, the vast majority of your posts can be characterized in one of the following ways:
1 repetitive projection
2 links to websites like "nakedcapitalism"
3 "histrionics"
4 "no substance"
You are the most notorious shit poster on the forum. You only ask about my views to change the subject when you have nothing valid in regards to your drivel. I don't owe you a treatise on my views.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
does this also apply when accurately discerning what a holocaust or apartheid state are?
because you get kinda hysterical regarding things like that. and other things.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No you don't. And therefore I needn't treat you as a serious debate partner.
But you are an authority on shit posting. It's all you do.
Similar threads
