Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Teamsters????
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 811267" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>H8tounderstand,</p><p> </p><p>This is the classic example of a FOX news brainwashing. Specifically, a Bill Orielly "parrot". Last night, Bill Orielly made a statement where he said "dues" money <strong>"automatically"</strong> goes DIRECTLY to the democratic party and to candidates. This is <strong>NOT TRUE</strong>.</p><p> </p><p>What I find HILARIOUS about this post is the ridiculous nature of everything that was said that I highlighted in bold.</p><p> </p><p>For years, the democratic party has fought to "limit" the donation of "soft money" to political campaigns and passed laws making it harder to get this soft money to political candidates, but this poster said this:</p><p> </p><p><strong><em>""What in the world does the Teamsters do with our dues? Allow me to take a shot at answering, our dues go directly to the democrate party. Am I the only one that takes great offense to this.""</em></strong></p><p> </p><p>Obviously, this poster is a republican, and based upon his entire post, he shows that he is an extreme right wing leaning thinker, or neo-conservative, yet what he fails to understand is the dynamic that he supports.</p><p> </p><p>He shows that he "supports" the republicans, all the while not understanding that it was the republicans who vote down bills preventing soft money, and in fact, the 5 republicans in the supreme court in a 5 to 4 ruling overturned a law preventing unions and corporations from making soft money donations.</p><p> </p><p>On January 21, 2010, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> overturned a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads.</p><p> </p><p>Now, thanks to the very political party that this poster supports, soft money can be donated by unions to politcal parties right out of the treasury versus separate fund raising arms like DRIVE and he is OUTRAGED, but he is outraged against the union?</p><p> </p><p>How does a person like this reconcile this type of thinking? He hates donations by unions to the democratic party but says nothing about the hundreds of corporations that donate to the same party. He wants to withdraw from the union because of their donations but I bet he will still shop at walmart, target, kmart, exxon, mobil, bass pro shops, cracker barrel and the like.</p><p> </p><p>Corporations donate three times as much money to political party's than unions do, yet he says nothing about that.</p><p> </p><p>His very party has, over the many decades been on the opposite side of controlling political donations yet he expresses his anger when the Teamsters merely play by the rules of the republican party.</p><p> </p><p>The Teamster locals will make political donations within limits of the treasury of each local and this has to be approved by the eboards before ANY money can go to any candidate. There is <strong>NO MONEY</strong> that automatically goes anywhere without a majority vote by the eboard of each local.</p><p> </p><p>Bill Orielly is INCORRECT (as usual) on this issue ,and this posters reaction by merely repeating him is exactly the kind of uninformed citizen that would side with a political party that does not have his own best interest at heart.</p><p> </p><p>Every member has the right to withdraw from the union in every state of this country, even in california. You dont have to be in a right to work state in order to do this, but why would you? You will still have to pay dues, and the only savings you would get would amount to about 10 bucks a month. </p><p> </p><p>For every person who works at UPS and feels the same as this poster does, the next time you get in trouble or fired, dont call your local or agent, handle it yourself and see where that gets you.</p><p> </p><p>The next time our contract comes up for renewal, dont take advantage of any benefits that are negotiated for you, tell the company you want to negotiate your own separate contract.</p><p> </p><p>H8toknow, why not come onto this board and post that you should be able to negotiate your own wages and benefit packages after you withdraw from the union. </p><p> </p><p>Here's an idea, why not create a two tier pay system for UPS, yes I said TWO TIER pay system so the company can save some money. <strong>We could have Tier 1 that would be comprised of UNION dues paying members</strong> who would work under a national agreed contract, and a <strong>Tier 2 that would be comprised of all the employees who opted out of the union and its national contract and would be forced to negotiate a local contract for employment.</strong></p><p> </p><p>Why not<strong> force</strong> an employee who wants to opt out of the union to negotiate his own separate local agreement for employment? Why if they are so <strong>OFFENDED</strong> by the unions political actions should they benefit from a nationally negotiated contract by the very union they despise?</p><p> </p><p>It makes no sense to post something like H8torecognize has.</p><p> </p><p>Peace.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 811267, member: 17969"] H8tounderstand, This is the classic example of a FOX news brainwashing. Specifically, a Bill Orielly "parrot". Last night, Bill Orielly made a statement where he said "dues" money [B]"automatically"[/B] goes DIRECTLY to the democratic party and to candidates. This is [B]NOT TRUE[/B]. What I find HILARIOUS about this post is the ridiculous nature of everything that was said that I highlighted in bold. For years, the democratic party has fought to "limit" the donation of "soft money" to political campaigns and passed laws making it harder to get this soft money to political candidates, but this poster said this: [B][I]""What in the world does the Teamsters do with our dues? Allow me to take a shot at answering, our dues go directly to the democrate party. Am I the only one that takes great offense to this.""[/I][/B] Obviously, this poster is a republican, and based upon his entire post, he shows that he is an extreme right wing leaning thinker, or neo-conservative, yet what he fails to understand is the dynamic that he supports. He shows that he "supports" the republicans, all the while not understanding that it was the republicans who vote down bills preventing soft money, and in fact, the 5 republicans in the supreme court in a 5 to 4 ruling overturned a law preventing unions and corporations from making soft money donations. On January 21, 2010, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"]Supreme Court[/URL] overturned a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. Now, thanks to the very political party that this poster supports, soft money can be donated by unions to politcal parties right out of the treasury versus separate fund raising arms like DRIVE and he is OUTRAGED, but he is outraged against the union? How does a person like this reconcile this type of thinking? He hates donations by unions to the democratic party but says nothing about the hundreds of corporations that donate to the same party. He wants to withdraw from the union because of their donations but I bet he will still shop at walmart, target, kmart, exxon, mobil, bass pro shops, cracker barrel and the like. Corporations donate three times as much money to political party's than unions do, yet he says nothing about that. His very party has, over the many decades been on the opposite side of controlling political donations yet he expresses his anger when the Teamsters merely play by the rules of the republican party. The Teamster locals will make political donations within limits of the treasury of each local and this has to be approved by the eboards before ANY money can go to any candidate. There is [B]NO MONEY[/B] that automatically goes anywhere without a majority vote by the eboard of each local. Bill Orielly is INCORRECT (as usual) on this issue ,and this posters reaction by merely repeating him is exactly the kind of uninformed citizen that would side with a political party that does not have his own best interest at heart. Every member has the right to withdraw from the union in every state of this country, even in california. You dont have to be in a right to work state in order to do this, but why would you? You will still have to pay dues, and the only savings you would get would amount to about 10 bucks a month. For every person who works at UPS and feels the same as this poster does, the next time you get in trouble or fired, dont call your local or agent, handle it yourself and see where that gets you. The next time our contract comes up for renewal, dont take advantage of any benefits that are negotiated for you, tell the company you want to negotiate your own separate contract. H8toknow, why not come onto this board and post that you should be able to negotiate your own wages and benefit packages after you withdraw from the union. Here's an idea, why not create a two tier pay system for UPS, yes I said TWO TIER pay system so the company can save some money. [B]We could have Tier 1 that would be comprised of UNION dues paying members[/B] who would work under a national agreed contract, and a [B]Tier 2 that would be comprised of all the employees who opted out of the union and its national contract and would be forced to negotiate a local contract for employment.[/B] Why not[B] force[/B] an employee who wants to opt out of the union to negotiate his own separate local agreement for employment? Why if they are so [B]OFFENDED[/B] by the unions political actions should they benefit from a nationally negotiated contract by the very union they despise? It makes no sense to post something like H8torecognize has. Peace. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Teamsters????
Top