Thoughts on Paycheck Protection?

[DCal430]

California will be voting on paycheck protection laws this November. This will be the third attempt. It basically says unions need your permission to take money from your paycheck for political purposes. Right now unions are free to take money from your paycheck for political reasons without your knowledge or permission. This includes both fair share workers and full union members. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[sixone]

Being Cali, it prolly won't pass. But it should.

 

[amdhunter]

I wouldn't care less if I had a good union that got me more money. Just like most people, my votes can be bought.

 

[DesiPower]

<---P&N

anything going against the union, I am all for it. Unions are outdated and they suck

/ibtm

 

[dmcowen674]

Unions are outdated and they suck

Why?

 

[sixone]

Why?

OSHA and child labor laws.

 

[DesiPower]

Why?

In a capitalist society you cannot force employers to pay more than the market. In today's global market labor is dirt cheap, now obviously American worked cannot be expected to get $300 a month but neither should a 60 year old get 100k+ just because of his age.
Collective bargaining is a tunoff for employers and encourages them even more to ship jobs overseas.

 

[dmcowen674]

American workers cannot be expected to get $300 a month

So that's your goal now.

 

[DesiPower]

So that's your goal now.

You liberals don't like protectionism but you don't like $300/month salary either, you cannot have it both ways you know, you just cant.

 

[Away]

Why?

Political corruption for one, I could go on if you like.

 

[dmcowen674]

Political corruption for one, I could go on if you like.

Like there is no political corruption sans unions?

 

[mcurphy]

Unions are outdated and they suck

This.

 

[FelixDeCat]

People dont realize that unions need to get attention from lawmakers to support or oppose legislation that concerns their interests just like any other organization does. Given the choice, everyone would choose a bigger paycheck vs supporting the group that gets them a bigger paycheck because they assume other people are contributing so they dont have to. So collecting it from everyone is the only way to fund the unions PAC.

Also.....

I remember reading an article not to long ago from a man who was lamenting our current low wage environment. Back in the 1970s his dad was an average electrician for a home builder making $40,000 a year. To earn the equivalent amount today he would have to be paid $160,000.00. Unfortunately they still make around $40k or less.

But what has risen, SUBSTANTIALLY is CEO pay. They now make millions, even hundreds of millions per year. I dont care how talented you think they are or whatever. The CEO and worker relationship is supposed to be symbiotic with each depending on the other. The company can not function without both parties interaction, therefore they should all share equally in its success. It is sad that we argue for and accept the stupid notion that one man or group of men at the very top get all the spoils while everyone elses wages stagnate.

 

[sixone]

People dont realize that unions need to get attention from lawmakers to support or oppose legislation that concerns their interests just like any other organization does. Given the choice, everyone would choose a bigger paycheck vs supporting the group that gets them a bigger paycheck because they assume other people are contributing so they dont have to. So collecting it from everyone is the only way to fund the unions PAC.

Why do you assume that the people who support the union and the union's choice of candidates would not support the union financially?

Also.....

I remember reading an article not to long ago from a man who was lamenting our current low wage environment. Back in the 1970s his dad was an average electrician for a home builder making $40,000 a year. To earn the equivalent amount today he would have to be paid $160,000.00. Unfortunately they still make around $40k or less.

But what has risen, SUBSTANTIALLY is CEO pay. They now make millions, even hundreds of millions per year. I dont care how talented you think they are or whatever. The CEO and worker relationship is supposed to be symbiotic with each depending on the other. The company can not function without both parties interaction, therefore they should all share equally in its success. It is sad that we argue for and accept the stupid notion that one man or group of men at the very top get all the spoils while everyone elses wages stagnate.

CEO pay is set by the company's owners (aka stockholders). Since they are hoping to make money as well, they're going to pay him the same way every other employee is paid - the minimum amount that they think he'll accept and still do a reasonably good job. There is no lack of aspiring CEO's out there, hoping for a chance to show that they can do a better job for less money.

 

[DCal430]

People dont realize that unions need to get attention from lawmakers to support or oppose legislation that concerns their interests just like any other organization does. Given the choice, everyone would choose a bigger paycheck vs supporting the group that gets them a bigger paycheck because they assume other people are contributing so they dont have to. So collecting it from everyone is the only way to fund the unions PAC.

Also.....

I remember reading an article not to long ago from a man who was lamenting our current low wage environment. Back in the 1970s his dad was an average electrician for a home builder making $40,000 a year. To earn the equivalent amount today he would have to be paid $160,000.00. Unfortunately they still make around $40k or less.

But what has risen, SUBSTANTIALLY is CEO pay. They now make millions, even hundreds of millions per year. I dont care how talented you think they are or whatever. The CEO and worker relationship is supposed to be symbiotic with each depending on the other. The company can not function without both parties interaction, therefore they should all share equally in its success. It is sad that we argue for and accept the stupid notion that one man or group of men at the very top get all the spoils while everyone elses wages stagnate.

The problem is Unions give money to things that are not in our interest, and things we do not support. The union gave my money to a politician that I didn't support. Their was nothing I could do about it.

 

[CPA]

Why?

Did you read the OP? That's just one of the myriad of problems.

What if I formed a union, force a vote at your place of employment (companies can't stop a vote to join a union), it passes, then I take money out of your paycheck (along with all of your co-workers) and use it to fund Romney's Presidential PAC. Would you like that?

 

[CPA]

Like there is no political corruption sans unions?

That's a separate issue.

 

[dmcowen674]

Did you read the OP? That's just one of the myriad of problems.

What if I formed a union, force a vote at your place of employment (companies can't stop a vote to join a union), it passes, then I take money out of your paycheck (along with all of your co-workers) and use it to fund Romney's Presidential PAC. Would you like that?

I don't like what the Government funds with the taxes they take out of my paycheck, what's the difference?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Why do you assume that the people who support the union and the union's choice of candidates would not support the union financially?

That was not my argument. Even if most of the members supported various laws and issues and their only way to act collectively using that single, powerful voice - their union - that does not guarantee they will contribute. If members do not want to contribute to their own unions political clout they should end their membership.

CEO pay is set by the company's owners (aka stockholders). Since they are hoping to make money as well, they're going to pay him the same way every other employee is paid - the minimum amount that they think he'll accept and still do a reasonably good job. There is no lack of aspiring CEO's out there, hoping for a chance to show that they can do a better job for less money.

And when was the last time you voted to lower a CEOs pay? Can anyone reading this honesty say they did? If so, was the decrease approved? Can you provide a link? The answer is NO! I have voted in proxies and usually shareholders get the shaft and management does whatever the hell they want to, even if it means running the company into the ground and robbing the workers, shareholders, everybody!!

People should stop buying the stupid lies that say CEOs deserve to get the lions share of all compensation. That is just hogwash.

 

[FelixDeCat]

The problem is Unions give money to things that are not in our interest, and things we do not support. The union gave my money to a politician that I didn't support. Their was nothing I could do about it.

What issue do you think is not in your unions interest?

 

[CPA]

I don't like what the Government funds with the taxes they take out of my paycheck, what's the difference?

Neither do I, but again that's a different topic.

 

[BoomerD]

California will be voting on paycheck protection laws this November. This will be the third attempt. It basically says unions need your permission to take money from your paycheck for political purposes. Right now unions are free to take money from your paycheck for political reasons without your knowledge or permission. This includes both fair share workers and full union members. What are your thoughts on this?

As usual, that's full of FUD and mis-information. ANY union member can "opt-out" by filling out a form at his or her union office. Doing so tells the union NOT to spend his/her dues on political practices.

If this passes, every corporation should have to get a signed authorization from each and every shareholder...including those who own stock via mutual funds and pension funds, before it can spend a penny on politics.

 

[DCal430]

As usual, that's full of FUD and mis-information. ANY union member can "opt-out" by filling out a form at his or her union office. Doing so tells the union NOT to spend his/her dues on political practices.

If this passes, every corporation should have to get a signed authorization from each and every shareholder...including those who own stock via mutual funds and pension funds, before it can spend a penny on politics.

When your hired your never are informed of this. A lot of workers don't know the union takes money from their pay check for political reason. The first year I worked for the state I didn't even know about this, that cost me 2 years of extra dues. You also only have a 30 day window each year to Opt-Out and you must Opt-Out each year again and again and again.

I don't mind having to Opt Out, my biggest issue is I must Opt-out over and over again, and I have limited window each year to Opt-out.

Another difference is one volunteers to buy stocks one doesn't volunteer to be a fair share employee.

 

[BoomerD]

When your hired your never are informed of this. A lot of workers don't know the union takes money from their pay check for political reason. The first year I worked for the state I didn't even know about this, that cost me 2 years of extra dues. You also only have a 30 day window each year to Opt-Out and you must Opt-Out each year again and again and again.

I don't mind having to Opt Out, my biggest issue is I must Opt-out over and over again, and I have limited window each year to Opt-out.

Another difference is one volunteers to buy stocks one doesn't volunteer to be a fair share employee.

Doesn't cost you a single cent of dues...they just don't spend YOUR money on politics...You should still pay the same rate each month as a member who understands that the union is spending those political dollars in your best interest, whether you see it or not.

You have all the choice in the world about being a fair share employee. If you don't like it, you can either be a union member...or not work for the state. Fucking freeloaders who seem to think they're entitled to all the same wages and benefits as union members without paying dues are just a bunch of bloodsucking parasites.

Would you prefer to have to negotiate your own wages and benefits with the state without the help of the union? I'm sure your benefit costs would increase since you'd no longer be part of the large employee pool...but that's ok...and without the union to negotiate your raises...and without the other union members standing strong, willing to strike to get a raise...I'm sure you wouldn't mind having your pay cut just a bit...after all, you'd just be doing your part to help the state in such dire financial times.

 

[IronWing]

In a capitalist society you cannot force employers to pay more than the market. In today's global market labor is dirt cheap, now obviously American worked cannot be expected to get $300 a month but neither should a 60 year old get 100k+ just because of his age.
Collective bargaining is a tunoff for employers and encourages them even more to ship jobs overseas.

This is exactly why workers need strong unions and unions need to engage in political activity. The outsourcing of American jobs is directly related to the removal of tariffs. Tariffs protected American workers from overseas sweatshop competition. The decline of unions led directly to politicians' willingness to scrape tariffs which has led directly to job loss and wage stagnation and decline for American workers. American workers are going to have to re-fight the battles of the twentieth century in the twenty first century or America is going to end up with third world class stratification.