{OT} Forced Unionization

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11 Feb 2010, 01:29 pm   #1 (permalink)
dbu''
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default {OT} Forced Unionization

<http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com...onization/?tes
t=latestnews>

The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.


"Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she
is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary.
Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers
have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care
subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the
government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the
Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.
Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in
annual dues to the unionŠ.
The money should be going to home-based day-care providers ‹ themselves
not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once
paid to her go to a union that does little for herŠ
Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Macknac Center, says the union was
forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in
which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me
his clients, like Berry, say they were "shocked" to learn they were
suddenly in a union.
They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said,
³Look, this is my home, Iım both labor and management here.² Theyıve
wanted nothing to do with this union and donıt think that it has any
purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.
Michigan isn't the only state funding unions this way."
--

  Reply With Quote
Old 11 Feb 2010, 07:49 pm   #2 (permalink)
Jeff Strickland
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization


"dbu''" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:zJadnTiIm4kCx-nWnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> <http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com...onization/?tes
> t=latestnews>
>
> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.
>
>
> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
> She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she
> is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary.
> Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers
> have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care
> subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the
> government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
> This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the
> Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.
> Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in
> annual dues to the unionŠ.
> The money should be going to home-based day-care providers ‹ themselves
> not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once
> paid to her go to a union that does little for herŠ
> Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Macknac Center, says the union was
> forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in
> which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me
> his clients, like Berry, say they were "shocked" to learn they were
> suddenly in a union.
> They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said,
> ³Look, this is my home, Iım both labor and management here.² Theyıve
> wanted nothing to do with this union and donıt think that it has any
> purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.
> Michigan isn't the only state funding unions this way."
> --
>


So, Michigan is treating her as a State Employee because they give her
dollars to take care of subsidized children? They should give her the
State's prevailing rate to provide day care for those children if they are
going to deduct union dues. They should also enroll her into the state
health care plan and the state employee retirement fund too.

This is a load of crap! The union has no right to the monies she collects
from the state to watch welfare kids.








  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 04:28 am   #3 (permalink)
FatterDumber& Happier Moe
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "dbu''" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:zJadnTiIm4kCx-nWnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> <http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com...onization/?tes
>> t=latestnews>
>>
>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.
>>
>>
>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
>> She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she
>> is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary.
>> Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers
>> have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care
>> subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the
>> government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
>> This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the
>> Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.
>> Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in
>> annual dues to the unionŠ.
>> The money should be going to home-based day-care providers ‹ themselves
>> not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once
>> paid to her go to a union that does little for herŠ
>> Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Macknac Center, says the union was
>> forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in
>> which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me
>> his clients, like Berry, say they were "shocked" to learn they were
>> suddenly in a union.
>> They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said,
>> ³Look, this is my home, Iım both labor and management here.² Theyıve
>> wanted nothing to do with this union and donıt think that it has any
>> purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.
>> Michigan isn't the only state funding unions this way."
>> --
>>

>
> So, Michigan is treating her as a State Employee because they give her
> dollars to take care of subsidized children? They should give her the
> State's prevailing rate to provide day care for those children if they are
> going to deduct union dues. They should also enroll her into the state
> health care plan and the state employee retirement fund too.
>
> This is a load of crap! The union has no right to the monies she collects
> from the state to watch welfare kids.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


And we invade other countries to spread democracy and free the people?
A lot of our people here at home could use some real freedom and if
democracy works so well why are 14 million officially unemployed? The
unofficial numbers indicate there are millions more than the official
unemployment number and many that are working are under employed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 11:06 am   #4 (permalink)
Jeff Strickland
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization


"FatterDumber& Happier Moe" <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote in
message news:4b752d69$0$12436$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net ...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "dbu''" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:zJadnTiIm4kCx-nWnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> <http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com...onization/?tes
>>> t=latestnews>
>>>
>>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
>>> She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she
>>> is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary.
>>> Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers
>>> have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care
>>> subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the
>>> government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
>>> This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the
>>> Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.
>>> Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in
>>> annual dues to the unionŠ.
>>> The money should be going to home-based day-care providers ‹ themselves
>>> not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once
>>> paid to her go to a union that does little for herŠ
>>> Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Macknac Center, says the union was
>>> forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in
>>> which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me
>>> his clients, like Berry, say they were "shocked" to learn they were
>>> suddenly in a union.
>>> They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said,
>>> ³Look, this is my home, Iım both labor and management here.² Theyıve
>>> wanted nothing to do with this union and donıt think that it has any
>>> purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.
>>> Michigan isn't the only state funding unions this way."
>>> --
>>>

>>
>> So, Michigan is treating her as a State Employee because they give her
>> dollars to take care of subsidized children? They should give her the
>> State's prevailing rate to provide day care for those children if they
>> are going to deduct union dues. They should also enroll her into the
>> state health care plan and the state employee retirement fund too.
>>
>> This is a load of crap! The union has no right to the monies she collects
>> from the state to watch welfare kids.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
> And we invade other countries to spread democracy and free the people?
> A lot of our people here at home could use some real freedom and if
> democracy works so well why are 14 million officially unemployed? The
> unofficial numbers indicate there are millions more than the official
> unemployment number and many that are working are under employed.



Keep in mind, it's the liberals that run Michigan that are doing this.

Can you say, socialism?









  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 11:26 am   #5 (permalink)
Conscience
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization

On 2010-02-12 09:06:29 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> said:

>
> "FatterDumber& Happier Moe" <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote in
> message news:4b752d69$0$12436$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net ...
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> "dbu''" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:zJadnTiIm4kCx-nWnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> <http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com...onization/?tes
>>>> t=latestnews>
>>>>
>>>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
>>>> She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she
>>>> is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary.
>>>> Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers
>>>> have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care
>>>> subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the
>>>> government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
>>>> This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the
>>>> Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.
>>>> Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in
>>>> annual dues to the unionŠ.
>>>> The money should be going to home-based day-care providers ‹ themselves
>>>> not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once
>>>> paid to her go to a union that does little for herŠ
>>>> Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Macknac Center, says the union was
>>>> forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in
>>>> which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me
>>>> his clients, like Berry, say they were "shocked" to learn they were
>>>> suddenly in a union.
>>>> They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said,
>>>> ³Look, this is my home, Iım both labor and management here.² Theyıve
>>>> wanted nothing to do with this union and donıt think that it has any
>>>> purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.
>>>> Michigan isn't the only state funding unions this way."
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, Michigan is treating her as a State Employee because they give her
>>> dollars to take care of subsidized children? They should give her the
>>> State's prevailing rate to provide day care for those children if they
>>> are going to deduct union dues. They should also enroll her into the
>>> state health care plan and the state employee retirement fund too.
>>>
>>> This is a load of crap! The union has no right to the monies she collects
>>> from the state to watch welfare kids.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> And we invade other countries to spread democracy and free the people?
>> A lot of our people here at home could use some real freedom and if
>> democracy works so well why are 14 million officially unemployed? The
>> unofficial numbers indicate there are millions more than the official
>> unemployment number and many that are working are under employed.

>
>
> Keep in mind, it's the liberals that run Michigan that are doing this.
>
> Can you say, socialism?


Or "Obamunism".

  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 08:27 pm   #6 (permalink)
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:29:35 -0600, dbu'' wrote:

>
> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.
>
>
> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI. She
> thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is now
> a government employee and union member.


I heard this today. Unbelievable.All of a sudden the state just started
taking union dues.

Unions had their time and place, and they are now almost as corrupt as
they have ever been.



  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 09:30 pm   #7 (permalink)
tak
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization


"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:hl52m5$1o8$4@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:29:35 -0600, dbu'' wrote:
>
>>
>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next year.
>>
>>
>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
>> She
>> thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is now
>> a government employee and union member.

>
> I heard this today. Unbelievable.All of a sudden the state just started
> taking union dues.


You know that's not so. There had to be a certification vote under the
Landrum-Griffith Act
and relevant state labor law. Landrum-Griffith also provides for
decertification if a significant number of members so demand, again by vote.
>
> Unions had their time and place, and they are now almost as corrupt as
> they have ever been.
>
>
>
>



  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 09:40 pm   #8 (permalink)
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:30:07 -0500, tak wrote:

>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:hl52m5$1o8$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:29:35 -0600, dbu'' wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next
>>> year.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
>>> She
>>> thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is
>>> now a government employee and union member.

>>
>> I heard this today. Unbelievable.All of a sudden the state just started
>> taking union dues.

>
> You know that's not so. There had to be a certification vote under the
> Landrum-Griffith Act
> and relevant state labor law. Landrum-Griffith also provides for
> decertification if a significant number of members so demand, again by
> vote.


What I heard, second hand, was that because she gets state funds, she is
considered a state employee, and has to pay state union dues.



>>
>> Unions had their time and place, and they are now almost as corrupt as
>> they have ever been.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 09:52 pm   #9 (permalink)
tak
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization


"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:hl5709$v3i$3@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:30:07 -0500, tak wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:hl52m5$1o8$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:29:35 -0600, dbu'' wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next
>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI.
>>>> She
>>>> thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is
>>>> now a government employee and union member.
>>>
>>> I heard this today. Unbelievable.All of a sudden the state just started
>>> taking union dues.

>>
>> You know that's not so. There had to be a certification vote under the
>> Landrum-Griffith Act
>> and relevant state labor law. Landrum-Griffith also provides for
>> decertification if a significant number of members so demand, again by
>> vote.

>
> What I heard, second hand, was that because she gets state funds, she is
> considered a state employee, and has to pay state union dues.
>


While a representation challenge can still be made under L-G, in New York at
least, state law says that if you benefit from union activities and
representation, you pay dues as a member or money as a fee payer.




>
>>>
>>> Unions had their time and place, and they are now almost as corrupt as
>>> they have ever been.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>



  Reply With Quote
Old 12 Feb 2010, 10:14 pm   #10 (permalink)
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: {OT} Forced Unionization

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:52:12 -0500, tak wrote:

>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:hl5709$v3i$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:30:07 -0500, tak wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>> news:hl52m5$1o8$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:29:35 -0600, dbu'' wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The racket, big unions. This should and will be investigated next
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint,
>>>>> MI. She
>>>>> thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is
>>>>> now a government employee and union member.
>>>>
>>>> I heard this today. Unbelievable.All of a sudden the state just
>>>> started taking union dues.
>>>
>>> You know that's not so. There had to be a certification vote under the
>>> Landrum-Griffith Act
>>> and relevant state labor law. Landrum-Griffith also provides for
>>> decertification if a significant number of members so demand, again by
>>> vote.

>>
>> What I heard, second hand, was that because she gets state funds, she is
>> considered a state employee, and has to pay state union dues.
>>
>>

> While a representation challenge can still be made under L-G, in New York
> at least, state law says that if you benefit from union activities and
> representation, you pay dues as a member or money as a fee payer.



Wow. What politician in what union's pocket passed that law?


>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> Unions had their time and place, and they are now almost as corrupt as
>>>> they have ever been.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>
>>


  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 am.

Attribution:
Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers



ToyotaLexusForum.com is an unofficial community for car enthusiasts. ToyotaLexusForum.com is not affiliated with Toyota Motor Corporation in any way.
Toyota Motor Corporation does not sponsor, support, or endorse ToyotaLexusForum.com in any way.
Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.