Volkswagen the UAW and the GOP surprise!

reply to post by AlaskanDad


Unionization and politics are one in the same, regardless of how you try and spin them.

As for the challenge made about knowledge on Unions, have you gone daft? You posted, people responded and is apparent you have issues with those responses, which is fine.

Unions are very much a problematic entity. They have strayed far away from their core responsibility, wages, hours worked, safety, age of employees, and have moved into an area of politics all on their own.

When you have unions demand that layed off workers receive full pay and benefits, something tells me they are out of touch with the way the world works. To force workers to pay into something that does not represent them is a problem. It very much affects how foreign companies do business inside the US.

Having politicians speak about the subject is very much in their realm of responsibility since they represent the people of that area in government. As for lies, that determination should be made by their constituents. It should also be up to the constituents to either continue the reps employment or to fire him and put someone else in his place.


Why exactly do you have an issue with what the rep did?
Are you a member of a union?
Are you a member of the union in question?
Are you affiliated in any way shape or form to the company, the union, the government (local / city / state / federal)?

replying to Xcathdra

Unionization and politics are one in the same, regardless of how you try and spin them.
That is your opinion not fact.

As for the challenge made about knowledge on Unions, have you gone daft? You posted, people responded and is apparent you have issues with those responses, which is fine.
I only ask of your experience with unions as experience is a common consideration in the assessing of an individuals knowledge or skills.

Unions are very much a problematic entity. They have strayed far away from their core responsibility, wages, hours worked, safety, age of employees, and have moved into an area of politics all on their own.
Once again simply opinion

When you have unions demand that layed off workers receive full pay and benefits, something tells me they are out of touch with the way the world works. To force workers to pay into something that does not represent them is a problem. It very much affects how foreign companies do business inside the US.
Once again only your opinion and no examples are cited

Having politicians speak about the subject is very much in their realm of responsibility since they represent the people of that area in government. As for lies, that determination should be made by their constituents. It should also be up to the constituents to either continue the reps employment or to fire him and put someone else in his place.
Once again your opinion, though:

"During the next week and a half, while the decision is in the hands of the employees, I do not think it is appropriate for me to make additional public comment," Corker told news outlets last week.

source autonews.com

Why exactly do you have an issue with what the rep did?
Our political system is broken when our elected officials misrepresent facts.

Are you a member of a union?
No, though I have been a member in two unions.

Are you a member of the union in question?
No nor have I ever been a member of the UAW

Are you affiliated in any way shape or form to the company, the union, the government (local / city / state / federal)?
Gee I have owned a few VW's and I pay for the Government, though I hold no positions with any of those listed above.

I can understand some folks might want to join a union and respect that, the laws in Tennessee allow you to choose not to be a part of a union (see attached image below), why do so many not respect the rights of workers that wish to be a part of the union.


www.tn.gov...

AlaskanDad
That is your opinion not fact.

Actually no, its fact. The Us Supreme Court has issued several rulings, going back to 2007, that specifically deals with the use of union dues and political campaign contributions. In short they stated unions have to give members the ability to opt out of any deduction from their pay that would be used to support partisan politics.

Unions have become nothing more than super PAC's, and the Supreme Court has called them out on it in several rulings, the latest being in 2012.

AlaskanDad
As for the challenge made about knowledge on Unions, have you gone daft? You posted, people responded and is apparent you have issues with those responses, which is fine.
I only ask of your experience with unions as experience is a common consideration in the assessing of an individuals knowledge or skills.

Actually I posted and only you responded, making you the one who had issues with my post and no one else.

AlaskanDad
Once again simply opinion

Fact backed by Us Supreme Court Rulings and not merely my opinion. If unions were doing it right, they would not have lost so many times in state and federal courts, including scotus.

AlaskanDad
XCATHDRA -When you have unions demand that layed off workers receive full pay and benefits, something tells me they are out of touch with the way the world works. To force workers to pay into something that does not represent them is a problem. It very much affects how foreign companies do business inside the US.
Once again only your opinion and no examples are cited

Again - Fact, not opinion.
UAW - General Motors - full pay for being layed off / idled plants.

Teachers union - Wisconsin - Demands Viagra be covered - brvanlanen.wordpress.com...

Teachers union - Chicago - Demanded a 30% pay increase - blog.heritage.org...

Teachers union - Buffalo New York - demand insurance covers plastic surgery - free to teachers. -blog.heritage.org...

AlaskanDad
Once again your opinion, though:

"During the next week and a half, while the decision is in the hands of the employees, I do not think it is appropriate for me to make additional public comment," Corker told news outlets last week.

source autonews.com

Then don't re-elect him. He has a right to speak on the topics, just as any citizen does.

AlaskanDad
Our political system is broken when our elected officials misrepresent facts.

Simply your opinion. Feel free to support the comment where he misrepresented facts.

AlaskanDad
No, though I have been a member in two unions.

Then you are very aware of how unions operate and the mess they can cause when they decide to represent their own interests instead of those in the union as a whole. Every state should be a right to work state. If the unions have issues with that, then they should rethink the crap manner in which they try to maintain control over industries.

AlaskanDad
Are you a member of the union in question?
No nor have I ever been a member of the UAW

ok

AlaskanDad
Are you affiliated in any way shape or form to the company, the union, the government (local / city / state / federal)?
Gee I have owned a few VW's and I pay for the Government, though I hold no positions with any of those listed above.

We all pay for government. However, smart ass comment aside you didn't answer the question. I can ask it in a different format if it helps?

AlaskanDad
I can understand some folks might want to join a union and respect that, the laws in Tennessee allow you to choose not to be a part of a union (see attached image below), why do so many not respect the rights of workers that wish to be a part of the union.

Because respect is a 2 way street and is earned, not just granted. We can flip the question back around and ask why Unions don't respect the rights of those workers who do not wish to be a part of a union? If a person is not a part of a union, and the union strikes, why should that worker be punished for going in to do his job by being labeled as a scab by union employees / union management?

The quicker the unions and its blind members understand how respect works, things might go a bit smoother. Demanding respect for unions when unions refuse to extend the same courtesy to those who wish to work and not be a part of the union is just as much a problem.


Unions have and still can serve a useful purpose when they operate in good faith. I don't agree with unions who support union members who are on the job in an intoxicated / drugged condition. I don't support unions who will protect employees who consistently show up to work late or don't perform their job as expected and required. I don't support a union who makes unrealistic demands when it comes to job security (there is no such thing and again the sooner the unions understand that concept the better of we ALL will be).

I don't agree with unions who will hold an industry hostage by requiring a person be a member of a union in order to be employed. Change union membership to Whites only and you have an equivalent of just how stupid that concept is.

I am positive you and just about everyone else would object to having a mandatory 3 dollars taken out of your federal tax return in order to fund the next presidential election. Even more of a fit should that donation only go to one candidate / party.

if you are going to try and take me to task, maybe you should spend some time learning about the topic instead of attacking me because I don't hold unions in high regard.

Unions and politics are very much the same. That is not an opinion, that is fact.

Take a look at this page: nlpc.org...
Pay particular attention to the scandals involving the AFL-CIO leadership, Ron Cyrus, Bobby Barnett and Bobby Curtis and the amounts of money "stolen" from union accounts and arson of the files... There are those who still believe every cent of that money went to the political coffers of Democrats but once the union burned and "stole" the files, wah-lah, no evidence of wrong-doing exists and once the bookkeeper is dead, no evidence exists at all! You can maintain all day long that unions and politicians aren't co-joined at the navel but there are a lot of us out here who can't be convinced because we've seen it with our own eyes.
The leadership of the union is no different from the leadership of the political parties, they will do whatever they deem "necessary" to hold their money and power be it lies, intimidation, arson and even murder.
And yes, for those wondering---Ron Cyrus was Milley's grandpa---is her behavior a bit more understandable now?

Xcathdra
Actually no, its fact. The Us Supreme Court has issued several rulings, going back to 2007, that specifically deals with the use of union dues and political campaign contributions. In short they stated unions have to give members the ability to opt out of any deduction from their pay that would be used to support partisan politics. Unions have become nothing more than super PAC's, and the Supreme Court has called them out on it in several rulings, the latest being in 2012.

reply to post by Xcathdra

diggindirt
Take a look at this page: nlpc.org...
Pay particular attention to the scandals involving the AFL-CIO leadership, Ron Cyrus, Bobby Barnett and Bobby Curtis and the amounts of money "stolen" from union accounts and arson of the files... There are those who still believe every cent of that money went to the political coffers of Democrats but once the union burned and "stole" the files, wah-lah, no evidence of wrong-doing exists and once the bookkeeper is dead, no evidence exists at all! You can maintain all day long that unions and politicians aren't co-joined at the navel but there are a lot of us out here who can't be convinced because we've seen it with our own eyes.
The leadership of the union is no different from the leadership of the political parties, they will do whatever they deem "necessary" to hold their money and power be it lies, intimidation, arson and even murder.
And yes, for those wondering---Ron Cyrus was Milley's grandpa---is her behavior a bit more understandable now?

Xcathdra many thanks for your many enlightening facts, I quoted you and diggindirt as when I read them it struck home as this exemplifies the need for campaign finance reform.

Thanks for giving me food for thought!

AlaskanDad
Xcathdra many thanks for your many enlightening facts, I quoted you and diggindirt as when I read them it struck home as this exemplifies the need for campaign finance reform.

Thanks for giving me food for thought!

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. While we don't agree on unions, we do agree on a need for campaign finance reform.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I want to add that you opened my eyes to how far down the ladder political and corporate corruption runs to the guys in the labor halls and top of that it shows the cost of having political favoritism.

I concede to the fact that unions have a bad side though that seems to be politically corrupt, yet I can see with proper management unions could be a great tool for the working folks.

reply to post by AlaskanDad


Union appeals Volkswagen workers' rejection in US

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United Auto Workers on Friday challenged last week's close vote by workers at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that rejected the UAW's bid to represent them.

In an appeal filed with the National Labor Relations Board, the union asserted that "interference by politicians and outside special interest groups" had swayed the election.

In particular, the appeal took aim at Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican and former Chattanooga mayor, who suggested that a "no" vote would lead a Volkswagen expansion in the state.

The UAW bid was defeated in a 712-626 vote, even though the German company generally is considered labor-friendly.

"It's an outrage that politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in Tennessee," UAW President Bob King said.

The union had faced a midnight Friday deadline for filing the action with the NLRB. The rejection by Volkswagen workers dealt a harsh setback to the union, especially since Volkswagen did not oppose the unionization drive.

Click link for remainder of article...

as I was saying.....

How many respondents here actually work in the South with the automotive manufacturers?

I will note three of the big automotive manufacturers in TN alone...GM (Spring Hill), Nissan (Smyrna) and VW (Chattanooga). Only ONE is UAW. The one that closed for years.

People here see what the UAW has done to the profitability of manufacturing in the North, particularly Detroit, and they want none of that thuggery here.

There is no story about lying politicians in this thread. There is only the example of a local working populace that is awake to the burden UAW places on any employer, and see what the LACK of it has done for thse seeking higher-wage employment (if you don't get it, then note that starting wages of $23.00 / hr plus benefits are nothing to thumb your nose at).

The employees didn't want VW to treat them like GM has, but prefer the same treatment they see at Nissan (and add to that in adjoining states Kia, BMW, Toyota for a few).

The industries that have sprouted down here in the last 20 years to support all these new automotive manufacturers are another bonus that no one down here want to threaten simply to be a card-carrying thug for the UAW.

NO ONE in the South needed a politician to remind them of that. We look north for those reminders all the time. And we look here too. There were hundreds of good jobs available at Spring Hill when it opened. Guess how many of those jobs got filled by transplants? That didn't happen at Nissan and VW, those jobs were for the locals.

I am no fan of Bob Corker. But in this case, he TOLD NO LIES. Those that say so...let us see your union card so we know from where you speak.

I read this over at reddit from a current Chatanooga resident mattbchs:

As far as the unions go I think it made a lot of VW employees nervous about their job security and pay. Being called to strike because of issues in the north would NOT go well here. There is a big difference in the way companies do business down here and they way they do them up there. Now I agree that unions do well in helping individuals get proper compensation and benefits when ran correctly but I believe the general workforce is very happy with the pay and benefits VW is already providing them. Like the saying goes here "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Another major issue the community has is with the politics an unions brings. Tennessee is predominantly republican (even though Chattanooga is considered one of the more liberal cities) and your average working class is very conservative or libertarian. Unions have heavy ties with the Democratic Party in the past. Unions also have a bad reputation of being corrupt. We tend to see story after story of corruption in the government already and the thought of answering to a corrupt northern union headquarters is enough to sway the vote to an absolute NO. Call us bigots and tea party loving wackos but the south just wants jobs and to keep them. There is a reason Tennessee has had a Nissan and VW plant built here most recently and that's because we understand what those companies want out of a workforce and we can deliver that, just as they deliver an acceptable compensation package.

Reddit Comment Source


I think that says a lot.

reply to post by AlaskanDad


I noted your responses, and give credit to a rational thinker.

That statement from a Chattanooga resident hit the nail on the head. A lot of the South suffered in poverty while the North got all the high-paying industrial jobs during the growth boom of the last century. Southerners also saw what unions did to those jobs. We witnessed the unions (and specifically UAW) virtually destroy the profitability of an entire industry over a period of decades while they held their employers hostage to their own success.

That success didn't last when the economy went global. And global industries coming to the U.S. did NOT want that same burden they saw destroying the domestic industry. So they looked to the South. And the South welcomed a new prosperity.

So when those jobs started coming down here, we opened the door, and let them in. No one here wants to close that door!

Its notable the only non-profitable auto manufacturer located in TN is UAW-controlled. High-paying jobs with UAW representation = unemployment. Thats the formula we see, and we can do math too.

Well, the UAW came, saw, and got their butts handed to them on a platter. I'm not the least surprised that they cry foul, fraud and cheat on the first sign of defeat. They do not take rejection well and really, get downright ugly about insisting their control *WILL* be extended to where they deem it MUST be. It's about time a major vehicle company plant rejected their B.S. outright.

Some love Unions ..and I'll even say that at one point in this nation's history? They were absolutely necessary to break the exploitation which was common place here and still IS in most of the developing world today. Now? It's not about exploitation in the US but power, and insuring they get members maximum wages BEYOND average local market pay for equivalent work. All the better to pay those Union dues with, so those truly running the show can continue on buying politicians like some people collect bells or rocks.

It's a nice day when EITHER side is capable of losing to the will of the people. One side just has a long way to go in learning to live with it and accept the fact, people can be 100% informed and STILL reject them on all levels.

Deputy wrecks 33 times in 17 years, but union fights for his job

As a law officer in Minnesota, former Todd County Deputy Sheriff Mark Grinstead didn't miss much.

After all, why try to avoid something when it's a lot easier to just hit it?

Grinstead, it must be said, hit many things -- deer, cows, trees, buildings and snow banks, for example. In 17 years, he had 33 wrecks.

Grinstead racked up about $100,000 in losses while patrolling the rural county roads. Case closed? Not by a long shot.

Minnesota's biggest law enforcement labor union promptly filed a grievance with a state arbitrator.

Philadelphia union members indicted in '12 Quaker house arson

Ten Philadelphia union members have been indicted for allegedly using illegal means of coercion, including the torching of a Quaker meeting house, to force local contractors to use organized labor.

The federal indictment, which was unsealed Tuesday, accuses members of Ironworkers Local 401 of several crimes, including racketeering and arson. Other alleged crimes include incidents in which union members allegedly threatened or assaulted contractors and damaged construction equipment and job sites.

“While unions have the right to legally advocate on behalf of their members, my office will not tolerate the conduct of those who use violence to further union goals,” U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger said in a press release. “Union officials and members who commit arson, destroy property, use threats of physical harm, and engage in other acts of violence to extort victims on behalf of their union need to be criminally prosecuted."

According to the indictment, the union members had a "network of individuals," friendly to the union, who helped identify construction projects and job sites were work was being performed without union labor. Then, business agents would approach foremen to imply or explicitly threaten violence, destruction of property, the U.S. Attorney's office said.

The union members even created "goon" squads, comprised of union members and associates, who carried out crimes, the indictment said. One such squad called itself "The Helpful Union Guys," or THUGs, for short.

In December 2012, several union members allegedly cut steel beams and bolts and used torches on structural columns in a Quaker meeting house that was being built in Philadelphia's Chestnut Hill section, reportedly causing $500,000 worth of damage.

Other alleged incidents include using baseball bats to beat a contractor in 2010, and picketing and threatening the contractor of an apartment complex under construction to the point where he relinquished his profits and turned the job over to another construction firm.

A woman who answered a phone call placed to the union by FoxNews.com Thursday night said she had no comment.

While I understand what a Union is and what its goal should be, the unions that behave in this manner are poison to unions as a whole.

XcathdraUnions have become nothing more than super PAC's

This is precisely why Republicans want (most) Unions to go away - those who don't support Republicans are competition, at least. Power is what is important to politicians, not what an organization does.
Maddow had a good summary during the Wisconsin union busting.
2008 Outside Spending
Top contributors below (total - $324.2M Liberal, $268.2M Conservative):

1. Republican National Cmte $78,317,424 Conservative
   
2. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $75,976,271 Liberal
   
3. Service Employees International Union $46,425,906 Liberal
   
4. Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $40,157,316 Liberal
   
5. National Republican Senatorial Cmte $39,556,642 Conservative
   
6. National Republican Congressional Cmte $34,328,010 Conservative
   
7. American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $21,926,199 Liberal
   
8. Freedom's Watch $17,259,645 Conservative
   
9. US Chamber of Commerce $16,647,261 Conservative
   
10. Patriot Majority USA $14,324,973 Liberal
    

Two big unions there - SEIU and AFSCME.

2010 Outside Spending
Top contributors below (total - $211.5M Liberal, $266.9M Conservative):

1. Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $65,683,337 Liberal
   
2. National Republican Congressional Cmte $46,240,365 Conservative
   
3. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $41,423,346 Liberal
   
4. American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS $38,386,070 Conservative
   
5. National Republican Senatorial Cmte $34,300,734 Conservative
   
6. US Chamber of Commerce $33,849,755 Conservative
   
7. American Action Network $18,945,602 Conservative
   
8. Service Employees International Union $16,324,566 Liberal
   
9. American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $13,177,349 Liberal
   
10. National Education Assn $10,173,406 Liberal
    

Again, two big unions there - SEIU and AFSCME. The NEA also makes an appearance in this misterm election.
2012 Outside Spending
Top contributors below (total - $406.9M Liberal, $860.8M Conservative):

1. American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS $176,429,025 Conservative
   
2. Restore Our Future $142,097,336 Conservative
   
3. Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action $65,166,859 Liberal
   
4. National Republican Congressional Cmte $64,653,078 Conservative
   
5. Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $60,545,352 Liberal
   
6. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $52,834,293 Liberal
   
7. Republican National Cmte $43,629,275 Conservative
   
8. Majority PAC $37,498,257 Liberal
   
9. Americans for Prosperity $36,352,928 Conservative
   
10. US Chamber of Commerce $35,657,029 Conservative
    

Er... where did the unions go?
14. Service Employees International Union $23,011,004 Liberal
17. American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $18,012,198 Liberal

2010 was midterm elections, so that will naturally be less than the two presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. Of course, you can see that campaign contributions across the board are increasing... and that union contributions are decreasing.

reply to post by Greven


Your numbers there look like the best arguments I've heard yet to revisit the Citizens United decision for inclusion of Unions as well as Corporations in blocking dirty money and block funding of politics.

It's amazing to see that list, and realize...every individual dollar from a Union came out of someone's paycheck. Dollars they didn't have for Christmas, the kids back to school supplies or just going out for dinner once in awhile. Surely, all the members will agree that their personal household funds were diverted for much better causes in outright buying politicians and political influence.

It's not too often I do see lists (and I'm familiar with that site, but don't use it often myself) which show the problem of corruption in our system SO clearly. It's both labor and business and both are playing for high stakes with no quarter shown or asked for.

I'm not totally anti-union when they help protect small business. But the SEIU and UAW have become to big for their britches and have become the very same thing they once fought against.

The Steelworkers all across the rust belt and the UAW guys in Detroit have lobbied themselves right out of a job and into unemployment as the manufacturing plants closed. Unions are not always a good thing. They need to pick their battles better and stop being the Super PAC that they have become.

Unions are supposed to represent the workers, not politicians.

reply to post by Greven


This is where I disagree... I don't think Unions should go away. I still believe they can serve an important counterbalance against government as well as business interest.

my issues with unions are limited to the manner in which they deal with business, the manner in which they seem to represent all that is bad while ignoring the good (the examples I gave about unions protecting those who should not get protection for job related foul ups).

As far as political donations go, I have a more restrictive viewpoint. I don't think business / entities should be allowed to donate to political parties / individual politicians. I don't agree with the Supreme Court than spending money on politics is a protected activity under the 1st amendment.

To drive it home -


Not all Unions are bad, just as not all law enforcement is bad. VW actually supports unions in their facilities and was not opposed to this plant becoming a part of the union.

I just do not support an entity that forces people to be a part of an entity, that force people to monetarily support goals that they don't agree with, or force individuals to support individuals with diverging political beliefs. I will state that my view applies to unions and not government. Government is something else entirely in its own spectrum.

Unions now days seem to ignore economic conditions, essentially demanding tribute that a business cannot come close to fulfilling. The flip side is if they don't agree, the union strikes, placing the business in an even more precarious position. If people wish to be represented / a part of a union, that is there choice. However, people should have the choice to join or not join, and that decision should not determine whether the person can be or cannot be hired.

I think what bothers me the most is that political corruption is destroying so many things in the USA. It would seem the divide and conquer effect of our two party system and financing of political campaigns is even wreaking havoc with labor unions ability to help workers, uhg! I can now understand why the UAW does not belong in the South what I do not understand is why the South did not create their own Unions to cater to their needs and desires. But I suspect the reason may be it was easier to create hate with our current political system than it is to fix anything.

I find I am pissed at both the political parties for their devious destruction of Unions. The system of politics / government that wastes union dues on political campaigns rather then the dues being used the needs of the workers is corporate America at its finest.

I am starting to see our nation it's constitution and our rights as a big fat log and both our political parties have a hold of an old two man bucking saw. Both parties are a push'n and a pull'n away as they're making that log into firewood so the 1% and their corporations can enjoy a nice fire in their fireplaces, all the while the people sit out in the cold and watch.

reply to post by AlaskanDad

I find I am pissed at both the political parties for their devious destruction of Unions. The system of politics / government that wastes union dues to be on political campaigns rather then the dues being used the needs of the workers is corporate America at its finest.

OP, I have to say, starting with the first message on the thread, I figured this would be a wild one for debating from very different corners on this topic. After reading your last note though? It seems we probably agree on far more at this point, than not. I think what I quoted above form some of the wisest words I've seen written on this in a long time.

If Unions were apolitical to national parties or politicians outside very specific and narrow issues that are directly related to their mission as a labor union? Hell, to each their own and many do swear by them. Who am I to say another citizen can't live that way if they so choose? I'm with you though..my deep deep dislike of what unions have become and a couple very specifically....is entirely about their mission changing from 100% about the workers to the amassing of political power while saying it's to help the workers in the "long term"..whatever that means to folks losing jobs and getting layoff notices.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Citizens United is and remains a terrible decision, and I wonder if it will end up being looked to in history as what did the United States in.

As you noted, businesses and unions donate to political causes. It's an important note, but business donations are not as noticeable as union donations - even if they come from the same place. Businesses pay their employees, employees pay unions, unions donate to political organizations is an easy chain to follow. Businesses setting aside some pay for their employees to put instead to political organizations is more abstract, like employer healthcare costs and taxes. It's not as visible to folks.

Xcathdra
reply to post by Greven

 

I just do not support an entity that forces people to be a part of an entity, that force people to monetarily support goals that they don't agree with, or force individuals to support individuals with diverging political beliefs. I will state that my view applies to unions and not government. Government is something else entirely in its own spectrum.

Businesses donate money to political causes too - and you will never see that money to know about it, unless you track down their political donations. That money could have gone to pay many people, but same as unions - it doesn't.

Do you feel the same way towards businesses? People have been dismissed or barred from religious affiliated organizations due to conflicting beliefs. Arizona is trying to make it possible for businesses to discriminate against sexual orientation, as another example.