DEMOCRAT UNION THUGS GONE CRAZY....

Union contributions may be used for political purposes. But a union member must/can request that he be exempted (or refunded) the portion of the union dues which were used for political activities. This set up is done for the sole purpose to intimidate members who don't want to go along with the union bosses. It is easy to imagine a union boss telling everyone in the shop that Joe doesn't support candidate X...Joe's life has now become extremely difficult. And likely his property and life is in danger from some of the hardcore elements of the union nuts.

It is typical union intimidation tactics. Like the voter card check law Democrats wanted passed. Unions are contemptible. They are thugs who use intimidation, violence and coercion. Unions should be outlawed.

Not necessarily, BigTurd.

http://www.unionfreeamerica.com/duesforpolitics.htm Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

"UNION FREE AMERICA"??????? The title alone tells you they are not going to give a union friendly spin on things. I stand by my statement that "dues money is not used for contributions to political candidates. Unions use voluntary contributions (PAC $$$) from their members for that purpose."

Union dues are not given directly to candidates, but they are used to provide support for candidates, in the form of staff, etc.

Do you have trouble reading, too, BigTurd?

Union dues are not given directly to candidates, but they are used to provide support for candidates, in the form of staff, etc.

Do you have trouble reading, too, BigTurd? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I clearly stated political contributions to the candidates themselves. Apparently it is you who has trouble reading! You might want to find a source other than UNION FREE AMERICA. I suspect they are slightly biased!

Then you agree that union dues are sometimes used in indirect support of candidates? If so, then yes. We agree.

Union dues are not given directly to candidates, but they are used to provide support for candidates, in the form of staff, etc.

Do you have trouble reading, too, BigTurd? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Unions are the major reason Obama's "ground game" was so big. He supposedly had 200,000 compared to Romney's 20,000. These are the people who got out the wino, junkie and Alzheimer's vote.

Sins of the Flesh: From the union's perspective, the right to work argument is similar to the concept of who should be paying taxes and whether certain income earners should have a choice whether to voluntarily pay taxes, or not.

When one pays taxes, it is not a matter of choice. In return for your tax dollars at work the various forms of government have a basic obligation to provide its citizens with basic infrastructure and security needs.

Rightly or wrongly, unions feel that the same rationale should apply in the workplaces they represent. If employees are going to benefit from the increased security provided by the various labor agreements bargained with the employers, all bargaining unit employees should pay equally for the privilege.

From the union's perspective, paying union dues, just as paying taxes, should not be a matter of choice. At least that is the way I understand the argument! Originally Posted by bigtex

So using your logic 47% of Americans shouldnt be using our basic infrastructure.

So using your logic 47% of Americans shouldnt be using our basic infrastructure. Originally Posted by thisguy23

Uhhhhhh, that is not what I said at all! I believe if you were to carefully read my complete statement, you would find that I did not express an opinion on the subject. I merely responded to her question by saying that I felt this was how the union's were framing their argument. Not that I agreed or disagreed with the union's argument itself! Perhaps I was wrong and the union's argument is actually something completely different than my interpretation. If so, I was only wrong on my interpretation of the union's motives.

But I will hand it to you. It was a nice try on your part at deflection!

Just curious, have you been taking deflection lessons from StupidOldFart?

My bad, you did state that it was the unions perspective. So do you aree with it or disagree.

Me? Deflect? You're the one who didn't even answer my question. Methinks you are the deflector, BigTurd.

My bad, you did state that it was the unions perspective. So do you aree with it or disagree. Originally Posted by thisguy23

I believe that an organization has the right to be paid for services rendered. If that means that a non-union, bargaining unit employee should pay for services provided by the union, than so be it!

DOWN WITH SCABS!

UNION FOREVER!

IT AIN'T THE UNIONS RUINING AMERICA, IT'S WALL STREET.

IT AIN'T THE UNIONS RUINING AMERICA, IT'S WALL STREET. Originally Posted by Rogue_Gent

There is a lot to be said for that!

I believe that an organization has the right to be paid for services rendered. If that means that a non-union, bargaining unit employee should pay for services provided by the union, than so be it! Originally Posted by bigtex

I agree if you want to play you have to pay. 100% of Americans should pay taxes, and if you dont want employs that are union members working for you fire all of them. If you cant do that move or company to a right to work state. I dont get upset about all of this dont know why anyone would, if you have a problem in your life just solve it and move on.

"Democrat Union Thug" - Triple Redundancy Word Score. Well played OP.