It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Missouri Voters Reject Anti-Union right-to-work law

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 06:06 AM
a reply to: highvein

Only for people too stupid to understand the concept of a union in the first place..

The union negotiates the employees to gain 5$ an hour and keeps 1$ an hour for union dues..


If Americans could just decide not to pay taxes does anyone pay taxes???

Hell no.,

It plays off the worst , most selfish part of human nature..

It is no different than if stores gave you the option to pay or not...

Does ANYONE pay???

Is there ANYWAY that leads to a viable buisness model????

Of course not..

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 06:09 AM
a reply to: Lumenari

Yea.. facts..

Because if stores have people the option to only pay if they felt like it, everyone would still pay for their goods and services..

Because if people only had to pay taxes if they felt like it, I’m sure the roads would still get fixed and cops and the military get paid..

It’s propaganda meant for stupid people..

It isn’t rocket science lol..

Why don’t you try running a buisness where people only pay you if you feel like it...

Guess what???

Almost no one would feel like it..

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 06:13 AM

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: CB328
I am shocked this wasn't posted on there, though I shouldn't be. Another sign of voter dissatisfaction with current politics and possible proof of the "Blue Wave", Missouri voters rejected an anti-union bill that would have hurt union fundraising. I believe Americans are waking up to the fact that unions help all Americans, not just people in union jobs.

Yes , by all means keep those Union dues flowing to the Democratic Party
They need all they can get.

And there is the real reason the unions have been demolished..

They were the major donator for the democrat party..

It wasn’t because the concept of unions is corrupt, or because this or that union rep was corrupt..

The GOP has destroyed the ONLY leverage the American labor force had to negotiate with big buisness, not because it is best for the American people.....

But because they were funding their political opponents..

Atleast you admit it.. how the F you think that is a good thing I have no idea..

Well I do, and it is the reason most people fall for rightwing propaganda...

Because it is propaganda meant for the uneducated who believe in fairytales.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:01 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And there is the real reason the unions have been demolished..

No , that's not how , the unions are demolishing themselves
Do you even know the original reason folks paid their union dues ?
You don't , do you ?
Not one penny went to political candidates .
I do. Shop Steward for 8 years in a major union. Back when unions served a purpose for the MEMBERS.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:10 AM
a reply to: CB328

I truly believe 'right to work' is an out and out pile of horses### ever perpetuated on humans. Once you read what it actually is, your blood starts to boil...

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:48 AM
a reply to: Lumenari

I love how you mention a left wing circle jerk while the two of you diddle yourselves over how much you love Mr. Corporation and how he'll make everything better for you

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 09:08 AM
I have owned both a union shop and an open shop. Both have advantages and disadvantages. My main problem with the union was they want to tell me who I can hire, yet they won’t drug test their own people and sell tickets to unqualified people. And they they raised hell if I go to the street to hire qualified employees. I closed the union shop years ago and I will never go back. The corruption was unpresidented at the time and both the members and the contractors got the shaft.

I was once told by the business agent from the IBEW local760, “We have been watching your business, it’s growing and we want our cut.” That is a direct quote. What what you do?

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 09:33 AM
a reply to: Nickn3

That's the real issue; we're not talking about the same unions that originally existed.

Back in the day, unions were formed by workers to consolidate their power and try to force employers to provide better working conditions and wages. If a company tried to underpay or use unsafe working practices (as many did then), the unions would strike and shut the company down. That was a good thing, and it was met with a lot of violence... a lot of people put their butts on the line for their right to organize.

That's not how it works today.

Over time, unions began to consolidate with each other. Instead of workers at one factory or for one company striking, now you got workers from an entire industry striking. It came down to the unions having so much power they became as corrupt as the companies they were formed to protect workers from.

The union dues were a way to pay the union reps for their work negotiating deals and to pay a subsistence wage for workers who were striking. Today, the money goes to pay union leaders just for being leaders, and to lobby politically. To cover these increased costs, the union dues have increased substantially. The real problem I have is when the union leaders use the funds to lobby for things that are not directly related to maintaining the power of the unions... instead, they are the pet political agendas of the leaders, which often do not represent the views of the majority of the workers.

It really is no different than extortion practices used by the Mafia back when. If someone had a business, they would get a visit from a Mafia rep who wanted their 'cut' to 'protect' the business. Of course, the protection was from the Mafia itself. Today, a business that is doing good gets a visit from a union rep who wants their 'cut' to 'protect' the business from strikes. Of course, the strikes would come from the union itself, and they did add a new wrinkle: the cut comes from the workers, but the business has to pay them more than the union cut to make the union look good.

I've worked under a public union. People who were incompetent couldn't be fired, but people who were competent were prevented from doing certain tasks to speed up the work... that was someone else's job! Don't you dare touch it! Sit there and wait for two weeks while we bring in the right guy instead of taking care of the issue in 5 minutes.

Just like no Mafia member ever complained about their business practices, no union member will ever complain about union practices. Why should they? They are getting the sweet deal. Of course, when their company shuts down because they can't afford to pay the high wages any more, the workers get all upset at the company, just like when someone couldn't pay their protection money to the Mafia, the Mafia got all upset at the business owner for making them burn them out.

Some things never change...


posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: wylekat

I am living it, and love it. If we wanted to unionize we can, we CHOOSE not to. Bring your propaganda elsewhere.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

I lived in MA most of my life. You get in trouble with the union if you are too successful. You need to keep your productivity low so that they can force more hires, which means more union dues.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:19 AM
Hmm, it seems like a lot of out of state money was pumped into defeating prop A:

“Out-of-state unions have been dumping a lot of money into the state on this issue, so they got out the door fast,” said Jeremy Cady, state director for the organization. “Everyone noticed a lot of their signs going up, but at the same time here pretty shortly I’ve noticed signage going up for the proponents.”

The unions are losing members and will soon be unable to beat these initiatives. I believe the unions are a bandaid for the actual issue, wage disparity throughout a companies employment structure. Once the pubic government employees got a hold of the collective bargaining idea, its days were numbered as they have perverted and corrupted this ideal to the max.

There is no way that public/government employees should be allowed collective bargaining because we the tax payers now are on the other side of the table have no representation. So basically it is back to being taxed without representation. It wouldn't be so bad if reality were intact but since they are not fiscally responsible, the skies the limit until it is not. If local, city and national governments were actually accountable to a budget, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Maybe sometime in the near future, we can address the actual idea instead of creating bandaids to mask the issue. But I guess we do that a lot with the majority of tough issues facing us. I wonder why?

edit on 18-8-2018 by ClovenSky because: how=now

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:30 AM
LEOs and firemen are all public unionized and that's as it should be.

If you want complete corporate control over your wages, safety, working conditions etc. then don't join a union; other wise let the workers decide if they want collective bargaining.

Without my unions I would have no health plan, retirement, or safety on set and my union dues secure that. My union dues are a bargain for what they provide.

Even Donald Trump is a member of SAG/AFTRA!

Right to work states guarantee you a right to work for less....Your choice.

Union proud, Union strong....

and thinking about joining a

and for the future, this
edit on 18-8-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:53 AM

originally posted by: olaru12
other wise let the workers decide if they want collective bargaining.

So you support RTW states. I do too. If you want a union, you can have one, you just aren't forced.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: tinner07

Except that most union shops will take the dues, anyway. Supposedly for other "charities". At least that was the case in the last union shop I worked in, represented by the Teamsters.

I didn't join, as I needed the money my own self. Yet, loe and behold, the money was gone anyway. I was not best pleased. Then I was expected to toe the union line upon threat of "unspecified" consequences...when they threatened to go on strike. I told 'em, I'm not a union member, I need this job to keep a roof over my head...I'm crossing. That's when the "unspecified" came into play.

Didn't strike, so it came to nothing...

...and people wonder why I've little use for unions. They really shouldn't.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's the telling part of all this. Where unions are voluntary, no one seems to want them. They have to be made mandatory by law to be capable of getting people to cooperate.

No law can stop a union from forming anyway. A strike is not some mystical thing that requires a law; it is the workers agreeing to work together (freedom of assembly) to strike (freedom to protest) to get the business to offer better working conditions (execute a contract). I support that wholeheartedly. What I can't support is the extortion aspect and the political pandering against the will of those contributing.

So all the law does is protect extortion from workers... and that's a good thing?


posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:18 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

That was one of the things that made be laugh, when I saw the difference between the military and civilian aircraft maintenance practices. A friend of ours was a pilot on KC-135s. He was leaving one day, and they turned around before takeoff because of an engine problem. We put him on the run spot, and called out the jet shop guys. We troubleshot, found the problem, changed the engine and had them on their way back out in three to four hours, with no more than five guys.

We got word that a cousin of mine was coming in on a Delta flight, with a maintenance team to do an emergency engine change on one of their L1011s. So we hopped in the truck and headed down to the hardstand. We get there, and they've got 55 people setting up. They had people who were only there to take the cowling off, deal with hydraulic lines, electrical systems, etc. We asked him how long he'd be, to see if we could take him to breakfast or something, and he said it would take at least 12 hours and they were right back on a plane.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 12:28 PM
a reply to: liejunkie01

Unions were a great idea. But as with most anything else they became corrupted.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 12:37 PM
a reply to: Gothmog

Suprise suprise..

A conservative who owes his lively hood and pay rate to the unions and now wants them demolished after you no longer need it..

No different than every other republican who used the social programs to get where they are then decide no one else deserves the same breaks.

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

There is such a thing as common sense (although quite uncommon lately, it seems), and it can do wonders when applied. The big reason for what you experienced was a lack of common sense. It doesn't take an electrician to connect every wire; it doesn't take an 'expert' (someone who used to be a spert?) to be careful around hydraulic lines. But when absolute rules are put into place, suddenly it does.

And that leads to a loss of efficiency and a loss of revenue... which leads to high prices...


posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 01:11 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's just hilarious he says he wants workers to decide .. then says states where workers can decide suck because they should NOT be able to decide and it should be mandatory and forced on them.


I actually love unions .. as they are meant to be, not the monstrosity they have become.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in