It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Florida enters Union battle heating up across nation with strong anti-Union bill

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Union dues in crosshairs of John Thrasher bill



www.tampabay.com...

Here are some notable excerpts from the proposed, yet not sponsored, bill by Florida state Sen. John Thrasher.


"Deductions may not be made for purposes of political activity, including contributions to a candidate, political party, political committee, committee of continuous existence, electioneering communications organization, or organization exempt from taxation under s. 501(c)(4) or s. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code."

"A public employer may not deduct or collect the dues, uniform assessments, fines, penalties, or special assessments of an employee organization from the compensation of any person employed by the public employer..."

"Unless an employee has executed a written authorization, the employee is entitled to a pro rata refund of any dues, uniform assessments, fines, penalties, or special assessments paid by the employee and used by the labor organization of which the employee is a member to make contributions or expenditures, as defined in s. 106.011. The written authorization must be executed by the employee separately for each fiscal year of the labor organization and shall be accompanied with a detailed account, provided by the labor organization, of all contributions and expenditures made by the labor organization in the preceding 24 months."


While they say the bill does not go as far as the Wisconsin proposed bill does it actually is quite extensive and will put a serious dent into the few Florida unions that currently exist, seeing as how Florida is a strong 'right-to-work' state.

I would also like to add that Sen. John Thrasher is my state Senator from my Senate District. He is always in the news for proposing extremely tough legislation against taxes, government, and now unions.
edit on 2/22/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Unions were a good idea when they started, however now they have grown corrupt. They should have been

abolished after the government created federal minimum wages, osha, and the other programs designed to protect

the workers.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Its good to see real americans standing up to these unions who since their founding have done nothing but destroy the american dream and turn taxpayers lives into a nightmare thanks to their communist leaders who think they deserve a free handout. Union labor isnt supposed to be middle class these people have no job skill and children used to be able to do their jobs so I dont see why they should get special treatment for doing something a 14 year old could do. Its a fact that children used to be the main labor force of industry and got to earn a wage and contribute to the growth and prosperity of America. Thanks to these unions they turned americans into communists who seek nothing but the destruction of our way of life. Maybe because I am a real american and worked hard to get where I am like all successful people, but giving these terrorists a free handout is the wrong thing to do, it only encourages this behavior of theirs.

These unions are basically terrorists organizations now that they have been infiltrated by the muslim brotherhood. The muslim brotherhood is responsible for the stonings of women and the be.ing of journalists. Recently it was uncovered that many of these unions have muslims in them that they are protecting and I have yet to hear one union leader speak out against muslims for their treatment of journalists and women abroad. The patriot in me says everyone needs to work hard to get through this economic crisis and these people dont even bother to show up for work which disgusts me. Those doctors who pass out notes are letting people die in hospital beds because there are no doctors to attend to them. These people should be rounded up and sent to jail for their crimes and for standing in the way of moving american forward so every american can have the right to live the american dream instead of this nightmare they are creating by not going to work and causing a ruckus in the streets like a bunch of anarchists.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Glad to see it......
I hope they push this through.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
reply to post by Misoir
 


Its good to see real americans standing up to these unions who since their founding have done nothing but destroy the american dream and turn taxpayers lives into a nightmare thanks to their communist leaders who think they deserve a free handout. Union labor isnt supposed to be middle class these people have no job skill and children used to be able to do their jobs so I dont see why they should get special treatment for doing something a 14 year old could do.

These unions are basically terrorists organizations now that they have been infiltrated by the muslim brotherhood. The muslim brotherhood is responsible for the stonings of women and the be.ing of journalists. .


You need to research your history. The United States would no longer exist as it is if unions had not come along. The only reason this country has a middle class, which is the only reason this country has been in its position of power, is because of unions.

Furthermore, I would love for you to back up your statment about the muslim brotherhood. I believe it is nothing more than fear mongering, hate filled propaganda to make such a statement. Especially when you do not back it up with a single fact.

Invoking terrorist to get a response to your statement is a weak style of argument-one based solely on garnishing an emotional response.

That being said, obviously there are some issues with unions today. But outlawing them outright? Say good bye to the middle class....



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The middl class is slowly being erroded already..............so losing the unions isn't really gonna matter that much.
It's amazing that the unions are still acting in the manner that they are.........they had to know sooner or later it was gonna catch up to them.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
The middl class is slowly being erroded already..............so losing the unions isn't really gonna matter that much.
It's amazing that the unions are still acting in the manner that they are.........they had to know sooner or later it was gonna catch up to them.


You're right, it is being eroded. Complacency is the answer?

I agree, some unions are out of control, but again, outlawing them does nothing but put all the power back in the employers hands. It is a terrible idea, and one that will kill the average american over the long run.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Who benefits from Unions: Workers and the lower and middle class.

Who benefits from Unions being destroyed: Government, Corporations, and the rich.



You decide who you want to support...that is all I have to say...that is as simple as I can make it.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Public employee unions vs. the rest of us
Many still profess confusion about the distinction between collective bargaining in the PUBLIC sector and that in the PRIVATE sector. Really, it's not that hard, unless the intention is to ignore the obvious differences between public employee unions (which negotiate against friendly politicians to whom the unions give huge campaign donations) and private unions (which negotiate at arm's length against employers that don't enjoy a monopoly in the market
Private employee unions are ok; public employee unions bad
Members of a Private employee union also pay for the Public union salaries and pensions!
Salaried workers get screwed by both.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

That being said, obviously there are some issues with unions today. But outlawing them outright? Say good bye to the middle class....


Fear-mongering.

The bill does not outlaw unions. It just seeks to take away the unions political activities since they have always been one-sided.

Can't unions still exist without that and instead use their member's dues to do things for the members such as subsidizing health care costs?

And why can't it be a worker's choice whether they join a union or not?

If the answer is no to either question, then I join the folks who say unions need to follow dinosaurs into extinction.
edit on 2/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

That being said, obviously there are some issues with unions today. But outlawing them outright? Say good bye to the middle class....


Fear-mongering.

The bill does not outlaw unions. It just seeks to take away the unions political activities since they have always been one-sided.

Can't unions still exist without that and instead use their member's dues to do things for the members?

And why can't it be a worker's choice whether they join a union or not?

If the answer is no to either question, then I join the folks who say unions need to follow dinosaurs into extinction.
edit on 2/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


I dont recall claiming that the article said they would be outlawed....not exactly fear mongering. But nice attempt to twist my statement.

Tell me, why shouldnt unions be allowed political activities? Isnt that the idea behind every secret society and membership group out there? To gather power in numbers? Isnt that the idea behind political parties?

But this one specific group shouldnt be allowed to? Sorry, but thats just downright asinine, naive, and bordering on prejudice.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Read your own statement that I quoted:


but outlawing them outright? Say good bye to the middle class....


You said it and it is fear-mongering because you obviously seek to make people fearful that this bill attempts to outlaw unions and that doing so would be a threat to the middle class.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Tell me, why shouldnt unions be allowed political activities? Isnt that the idea behind every secret society and membership group out there? To gather power in numbers? Isnt that the idea behind political parties?

But this one specific group shouldnt be allowed to? Sorry, but thats just downright asinine, naive, and bordering on prejudice.


The answer is quite simple.

It is because in many states people are forced to join a union just to get a job whether or not they agree with the union's activities - political or otherwise.

In this period of high unemployment, that requirement is even more insidious.


Bottom line, unions are fighting this not because they care about workers. It's because they don't want to lose the income stream provided by workers forced to join.


edit on 2/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
And as I mentioned on a related thread concerning right to work laws:

Workers in RTW states maybe makes a little less money, but they still have an American job.

Plus, if being a member of union is such a great benefit to workers, why do they have to be forced to join?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Read your own statement that I quoted:


but outlawing them outright? Say good bye to the middle class....


You said it and it is fear-mongering because you obviously seek to make people fearful that this bill attempts to outlaw unions and that doing so would be a threat to the middle class.



Actually it was a statement on the anti-union movement as a whole, but nice try there.

Anything relevant to say? Or do you just enjoy trying to twist words?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Tell me, why shouldnt unions be allowed political activities? Isnt that the idea behind every secret society and membership group out there? To gather power in numbers? Isnt that the idea behind political parties?

But this one specific group shouldnt be allowed to? Sorry, but thats just downright asinine, naive, and bordering on prejudice.


The answer is quite simple.

It is because in many states people are forced to join a union just to get a job whether or not they agree with the union's activities - political or otherwise.

In this period of high unemployment, that requirement is even more insidious.


Bottom line, unions are fighting this not because they care about workers. It's because they don't want to lose the income stream provided by workers forced to join.


edit on 2/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


Who is fear mongering now??

There is no state in this nation which forces someone to join a union. Some professions are more union heavy than others, but in the end, it is a choice to join a union, no one is forced.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Tell me, why shouldnt unions be allowed political activities? Isnt that the idea behind every secret society and membership group out there? To gather power in numbers? Isnt that the idea behind political parties?

But this one specific group shouldnt be allowed to? Sorry, but thats just downright asinine, naive, and bordering on prejudice.


The answer is quite simple.

It is because in many states people are forced to join a union just to get a job whether or not they agree with the union's activities - political or otherwise.

In this period of high unemployment, that requirement is even more insidious.


Bottom line, unions are fighting this not because they care about workers. It's because they don't want to lose the income stream provided by workers forced to join.


edit on 2/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


Who is fear mongering now??

There is no state in this nation which forces someone to join a union. Some professions are more union heavy than others, but in the end, it is a choice to join a union, no one is forced.



That is BS and you know it.

If the state is not a right to work state and the "union shop rule" is in place, a worker is forced to join the union, or be fired for not joining.

source


The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Tell me, why shouldnt unions be allowed political activities? Isnt that the idea behind every secret society and membership group out there? To gather power in numbers? Isnt that the idea behind political parties?

But this one specific group shouldnt be allowed to? Sorry, but thats just downright asinine, naive, and bordering on prejudice.


The answer is quite simple.

It is because in many states people are forced to join a union just to get a job whether or not they agree with the union's activities - political or otherwise.

In this period of high unemployment, that requirement is even more insidious.


Bottom line, unions are fighting this not because they care about workers. It's because they don't want to lose the income stream provided by workers forced to join.


edit on 2/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


Who is fear mongering now??

There is no state in this nation which forces someone to join a union. Some professions are more union heavy than others, but in the end, it is a choice to join a union, no one is forced.



That is BS and you know it.

If the state is not a right to work state and the "union shop rule" is in place, a worker is forced to join the union, or be fired for not joining.

source


The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.



I understand that, but you ar still missing the point. You are not forced to join a union. If some occupations are more union heavy than others, it may feel that way, but it is not the case, and, to steal a line "you know it". Dont want to join the union? Find a scab job. Find another occupation. Move to another state. It all comes down to choice.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That is called forced.

In my state, I am free to work in whatever occupation I choose.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


www.stopteacherstrikes.org...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join