|
|
so, what is the problem with saying:
it is illegal for:
a union (or anyone else) to take money away from someone without their consent to pay for a campaign.
a foreign entity or government to pay for a campaign
and thats it? completely unlimited after that. let the best man win. that way, no one is being forced to pay for anything, no one is taking foreign shit, and whoever can get the most money wins that game. keep in mind that "fair" is the place where you go and feed the pigs.
I just don't like the attitude that a union should be able to take my money without my direct consent because if they don't then Democrats won't be able to get money. well, boohoo. go get jobs then. I sure as hell don't want ANY federal financing for elections, and I don't care if that means poor people can't run. if Mr. or Mrs. Poor-Person who wants to run can't get any donations or volunteers or party support than Mr. or Mrs. Poor-Person shouldn't be President, straight up. (now, go ahead and tell me how rich I am while I laugh my ass off in my shoes with holes in them typing in a heater-less home.)
|
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
|
On November 01 2012 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 15:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 14:57 Souma wrote:
And textbook companies are evil, christ. In Japan I'm not even sure I spent a fifth of what I usually pay here for textbooks. Yes, I work part time at a community college bookstore and it's ridiculous. They do everything in their power to quash used book markets. There's a lot of 200+ dollar textbooks that are essentially disposable one-use only because of "added content" with scratch-off access codes or things like that. The textbook reps lobby the profs pretty hard to get them to buy their books - I don't really know how they convince them, though, the profs must not give a shit about how expensive that stuff is. There's no reason you need to release a new algebra textbook, render all the old ones useless, and make everybody buy new hardbacks. Algebra didn't change. It's disgusting. Oh, you don't know how that works? One word: kickbacks. There is a reason professors force all their students to buy the new edition of the same $100+ books over and over every semester, and it has nothing to do with the rising quality of the book. Of course they will deny they get a penny. The newest scam are these "custom" textbooks they put out now. With those, they can bribe legally with "royalties."
Source?
|
You don't get it superfan. When individuals organize themselves into a group for profit and personal benefit and corrupt the political process with bribes, it's good if they call themselves a union, it's bad if they call themselves a corporation.
But the response you will get is that people can already opt out, if they even realize it's possible and go through the difficult process of actually doing it, which by the way informs as many people as possible that someone is breaking ranks. What they won't tell you is that people who make the effort to do such a thing get on the union shit list and are committing seppuku.
None of that matters though. Taking someone's money for political campaigning should always be opt-in, I don't care who it is.
|
On November 01 2012 01:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You don't get it superfan. When individuals organize themselves into a group for profit and personal benefit and corrupt the political process with bribes, it's good if they call themselves a union, it's bad if they call themselves a corporation.
But the response you will get is that people can already opt out, if they even realize it's possible and go through the difficult process of actually doing it, which by the way informs as many people as possible that someone is breaking ranks. What they won't tell you is that people who make the effort to do such a thing get on the union shit list and are committing seppuku.
None of that matters though. Taking someone's money for political campaigning should always be opt-in, I don't care who it is.
When you voluntarily give the union your money for dues, you accept that the leadership will spend it how they see fit. Don't like it? Leave the union. It's that simple.
Edit: I also like how the libertarian of the thread is advocating for restrictions on an entirely voluntary organization.
|
On November 01 2012 01:17 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 15:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 14:57 Souma wrote:
And textbook companies are evil, christ. In Japan I'm not even sure I spent a fifth of what I usually pay here for textbooks. Yes, I work part time at a community college bookstore and it's ridiculous. They do everything in their power to quash used book markets. There's a lot of 200+ dollar textbooks that are essentially disposable one-use only because of "added content" with scratch-off access codes or things like that. The textbook reps lobby the profs pretty hard to get them to buy their books - I don't really know how they convince them, though, the profs must not give a shit about how expensive that stuff is. There's no reason you need to release a new algebra textbook, render all the old ones useless, and make everybody buy new hardbacks. Algebra didn't change. It's disgusting. Oh, you don't know how that works? One word: kickbacks. There is a reason professors force all their students to buy the new edition of the same $100+ books over and over every semester, and it has nothing to do with the rising quality of the book. Of course they will deny they get a penny. The newest scam are these "custom" textbooks they put out now. With those, they can bribe legally with "royalties." Source?
Just did a quick google search.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121565135185141235.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-585832.html
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/26235.htm
It's not just teachers, often it's the university or administrators.
|
On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem.
My grandpa wrote books for his class and made his students buy the books for the course. it happenes.
|
On November 01 2012 01:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:17 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 15:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 14:57 Souma wrote:
And textbook companies are evil, christ. In Japan I'm not even sure I spent a fifth of what I usually pay here for textbooks. Yes, I work part time at a community college bookstore and it's ridiculous. They do everything in their power to quash used book markets. There's a lot of 200+ dollar textbooks that are essentially disposable one-use only because of "added content" with scratch-off access codes or things like that. The textbook reps lobby the profs pretty hard to get them to buy their books - I don't really know how they convince them, though, the profs must not give a shit about how expensive that stuff is. There's no reason you need to release a new algebra textbook, render all the old ones useless, and make everybody buy new hardbacks. Algebra didn't change. It's disgusting. Oh, you don't know how that works? One word: kickbacks. There is a reason professors force all their students to buy the new edition of the same $100+ books over and over every semester, and it has nothing to do with the rising quality of the book. Of course they will deny they get a penny. The newest scam are these "custom" textbooks they put out now. With those, they can bribe legally with "royalties." Source? Just did a quick google search. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121565135185141235.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-585832.htmlhttp://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/26235.htmIt's not just teachers, often it's the university or administrators.
That's pretty jank.
|
On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem.
Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not.
Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything.
|
On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything.
Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. 
|
On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police.
I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it.
Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol))
|
On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it.
Many states (if not most) mandate that you join the public sector union as a condition of employment.
|
On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol))
I don't know... when my wife became a teacher here in Cali, they simply had her fill out union paperwork as soon as she was hired. I think it's just considered a given for everyone, I've never even heard of a public school teacher not being unionized.
xDaunt, can you find link please?
|
On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses
agency fees should be illegal.
more info:
Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to require a teacher to join a union in order to be employed. they've also ruled that no (non-unionized)teacher can be required to pay "agency fees" (cost of collective bargaining) that are higher than said cost. So you technically don't have to join the union (as if you'll even get hired if you don't. lol), but you still have to pay "dues" in the sense that you pay for the collective bargaining either way. (in non-Right-to-Work states, that is).
|
On November 01 2012 00:13 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 22:38 nevermindthebollocks wrote:I admit it is always hard for me to image Romney getting more than 40% of the national vote (or even 20%) but I think this shows the key big swing states are Obama's" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57542715/poll-obama-holds-small-ohio-edge-fla-va-tight/?tag=categoryDoorLead;catDoorHeroMr. Obama now leads Romney 50 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in Ohio - exactly where the race stood on Oct. 22. His lead in Florida, however, has shrunk from nine points in September to just one point in the new survey, which shows Mr. Obama with 48 percent support and Romney with 47 percent. The president's lead in Virginia has shrunk from five points in early October to two points in the new survey, which shows him with a 49 percent to 47 percent advantage. I have a feeling there's still a chance for North Carolina too and the election will be all but over before the polls even close in Ohio. These CBS/NYT/Quinnipac polls are insane. They assume a Democratic turnout advantage at or ABOVE 2008 levels. Obama won Ohio in 2008 by +4, you really expect that to go up? The entire country is moving away from Obama, even the states he's gonna win, and yet somehow Ohio is moving MORE towards it? The fact that every poll they released show Obama like 4-5 points better than all the other polls for that state should let you know the polls have some sort of systematic problem. Obama could easily win Ohio, but if he does it will be less than 4% margin he got last time.
What makes you think the country is moving away from Obama? Because all your favorite new sources say so and you don't hear the other side?
I am sort of worried about this country the day after the election when a big but less than 50% portion of our population who hears nothing but how their guy has it in the bag actually turns out to be a loser. It is going to be very ugly.
|
On November 01 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it. Many states (if not most) mandate that you join the public sector union as a condition of employment.
I wouldn't even be surprised if this was the case, but I'm coming up blank trying to find anything that says this.
|
On November 01 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it. Many states (if not most) mandate that you join the public sector union as a condition of employment.
Tjis brings up an interesting point. Where in the Constitution is the Right to Work? I looked and couldn't find it, lol
|
On November 01 2012 01:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expensesagency fees should be illegal.
That link merely shows me you don't have to be a member of a union to be a California teacher.
|
On November 01 2012 01:40 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it. Many states (if not most) mandate that you join the public sector union as a condition of employment. I wouldn't even be surprised if this was the case, but I'm coming up blank trying to find anything that says this.
It's a state issue, meaning that you have look at each state's laws (generally those pertaining to the state employment system). There is no federal statute that is on point. The US Supreme Court has looked at these state laws under First Amendment analysis and imposed some limits on the extent to which individuals can be compelled to participate in the union.
|
On November 01 2012 01:42 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it. Many states (if not most) mandate that you join the public sector union as a condition of employment. Tjis brings up an interesting point. Where in the Constitution is the Right to Work? I looked and couldn't find it, lol
It's not there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
