|
|
On November 01 2012 03:58 Souma 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. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol)) This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions. At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill.
It's funny how you simultaneously manage to argue that 1) It changes almost nothing 2) It's union crushing!
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 03:58 Souma 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. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol)) This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions. At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill. It's funny how you simultaneously manage to argue that 1) It changes almost nothing 2) It's union crushing!
What? How the hell did I argue it changes nothing?
Present: Don't like, opt out.
Pass Prop 32: Forbidden to use payroll deductions, period.
...
|
On November 01 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 03:58 Souma 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. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol)) This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions. At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill. It's funny how you simultaneously manage to argue that 1) It changes almost nothing 2) It's union crushing! What? How the hell did I argue it changes nothing? Present: Don't like, opt out. Pass Prop 32: Forbidden to use payroll deductions, period. ...
Forbidden to use payroll deductions, without permission. They can still do whatever they want with permission, spend as much as they want.
|
Romney should be winning every state imo. It's scary that he isn't and is why every Romney supporter needs to vote.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 03:58 Souma 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. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol)) This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions. At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill. It's funny how you simultaneously manage to argue that 1) It changes almost nothing 2) It's union crushing! What? How the hell did I argue it changes nothing? Present: Don't like, opt out. Pass Prop 32: Forbidden to use payroll deductions, period. ... Forbidden to use payroll deductions, without permission. They can still do whatever they want with permission, spend as much as they want.
|
There's going to be some sad puppies on Tuesday when Democrats don't have a +8 advantage the way some polls keep giving them.
By the way, Souma's "evidence" is an editorial. Good job there, right up with your high standards of calling people warmongers.
|
On November 01 2012 04:20 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 03:58 Souma 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. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol)) This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions. At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill. It's funny how you simultaneously manage to argue that 1) It changes almost nothing 2) It's union crushing! What? How the hell did I argue it changes nothing? Present: Don't like, opt out. Pass Prop 32: Forbidden to use payroll deductions, period. ... Forbidden to use payroll deductions, without permission. They can still do whatever they want with permission, spend as much as they want.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.
From the proposition itself.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:
There's going to be some sad puppies on Tuesday when Democrats don't have a +8 advantage the way some polls keep giving them.
By the way, Souma's "evidence" is an editorial. Good job there, right up with your high standards of calling people warmongers.
Too lazy to go through the entire proposition in its raw form. LA Times will have to do, sir warmonger.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:20 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 03:58 Souma 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:
[quote]
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)) This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions. At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill. It's funny how you simultaneously manage to argue that 1) It changes almost nothing 2) It's union crushing! What? How the hell did I argue it changes nothing? Present: Don't like, opt out. Pass Prop 32: Forbidden to use payroll deductions, period. ... Forbidden to use payroll deductions, without permission. They can still do whatever they want with permission, spend as much as they want. (b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. From the proposition itself.
Yes, that is not payroll deductions. You see where it says "other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a)"?
Let's look at what subdivision (a) is:
85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
|
Exactly, the purpose of the proposition is to stop automatic payroll deductions, obviously.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Exactly, the purpose of the proposition is to stop automatic payroll deductions, obviously.
I don't get it. Are you agreeing with me now? Or are you trying to change the topic?
|
Democrats won't have a +8 advantage and Romney won't win Independents by a 2:1 margin, both for the same reason. Ideology will be split roughly 40/40/20 Cons/Mod/Lib, which is what is worth paying attention to.
|
Ummm, that doesn't say they can't have a voluntary program. That language makes it clear that they can't simply go ahead and do it. Many of the backers of Prop 32 have said on the record that it doesn't outlaw voluntary deductions. It wouldn't hold up in court if it was the way you're saying it is. The lawyers for the anti-32 side would have a field day presenting pro-32 backers' own words to the judge(s).
And no one who has a brain has said Romney will win independents two to one, a 10-15 point lead among independents isn't 2:1 and no one has ever said it was.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.
Let me say that again.
If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.
So this goes back to the original point:
This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.
Edit: This isn't even bringing to light the many businesses that are exempted from this crap nor the political tilt towards corporations/rich folk.
Full campaign finance reform. Bring that to me and I will vote for it. This kind of shit will not stand.
|
Standing in a line for an early vote today. Gary Johnson has absolutely zero chance of getting elected... but I feel that if my vote is wasted on a mainstream candidate, then I might as well use it to send a message, and truly vote for the principles i believe in, instead of the lesser of two evils.
|
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.
Let me say that again.
If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.
So this goes back to the original point:
This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.
Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).
So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.
|
So I've been thinking lately about Christie's recent political maneuvering. What do you think his intentions are? He lives in a liberal state, so he could just be appealing to his base for reelection as governor, or he could be setting himself up for a 2016 presidential run and wants to appear as more of a moderate, above politics by putting the storm over party, or thinks his comments will buy him some favors from the next administration, etc.
I'm not really sure. I do fund it funny though that people think it's simply "honesty."
|
On November 01 2012 04:36 StarStrider wrote:
Standing in a line for an early vote today. Gary Johnson has absolutely zero chance of getting elected... but I feel that if my vote is wasted on a mainstream candidate, then I might as well use it to send a message, and truly vote for the principles i believe in, instead of the lesser of two evils.
5% does the LIbertarian Party WONDERS. I don't understand why they don't spread that message more. 5% gets them a lot of benefits for the next cycle.
|
On November 01 2012 04:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:
So I've been thinking lately about Christie's recent political maneuvering. What do you think his intentions are? He lives in a liberal state, so he could just be appealing to his base for reelection as governor, or he could be setting himself up for a 2016 presidential run and wants to appear as more of a moderate, above politics by putting the storm over party, or thinks his comments will buy him some favors from the next administration, etc.
I'm not really sure. I do fund it funny though that people think it's simply "honesty."
Well, he's always been "honest". Whether that's a ploy from the beginning that got him to where he is or just the type of leader he is, does it really matter? Either way, we get someone with that demeanor, which is what I really want.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.
Let me say that again.
If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.
So this goes back to the original point:
This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform. Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b). So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.
(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
