The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-30-2011, 01:27 PM   #1
Fair&Balanced
Operations Operative
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.
The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Obviously this is a big issue or why would the Unions try to fight so hard to defeat prop 75 in Calif?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_n...f/entire75.pdf
I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.

Last edited by Fair&Balanced; 03-30-2011 at 01:39 PM. Reason: added Prop 75 response
Fair&Balanced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 09:12 PM   #2
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced View Post
The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.


I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.
Again, reflux, you are trying to make a case against something that is a well known fact. Certainly through your Lobbying efforts you know that "card check" is a hugely controversially issue. I understand that you may not want to bring it up at this point, but it really is important to the issue at hand. But as a former Lobbyist you owe it to the rest of us to own up to the real issues at hand. Taxpayer dollars are being funneled to a single party... in this case the Demoncrats, without the general consensus of the group.

Please explain how "Card Check" works in the UAWA and how the employee has complete control to opt out of "Card Check"... Thanks
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 09:22 PM   #3
Bullitt
This is a fully functional babe lair
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 2,324
Thumbs down

SB 5 passed the house and senate here in Ohio tonight. Up for signing into law on Friday it looks like.
__________________
Kiss my white Irish ass.
Bullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.