How About An Amendment To The Taft/Hartley Act?

[MC4YOU2]

With Right to Work again becoming a front page story, since Wisconsin's Scott Walker got it passed through, I thought it might be worth considering an amendment. A total repeal of Taft Hartley is very unlikely.
The Republicans have enjoyed some small success in derailing the ACA by attacking it's individual points, and total failure at any repeal.
Could the Democrats and Labor put some amendment through that basically allows Taft Hartley to remain, but guts it's financial rewards in some measure?
I propose this; Any month that an employee not in the union, but working in a union job, does not pay dues, his employer's contributions to his retirement fund cannot be allocated to his individual account. Instead they are held in a general fund until he does either pay his dues and gets his retirement, or doesn't pay and doesn't collect either. Said funds then go into the general fund for distribution.

 

[Lead Belly]

How about this. Every Union member anywhere 100% of the time votes. If this happened they would truly fear us.

 

[3 done 3 to go]

I may be a good idea. But, unfortunately a big slush fund just sitting there would be someone else's corruption ans embezzlement. Ask at any local. It's the way government works. With your hard earned money

 

[UPSmechanicinblue]

With Right to Work again becoming a front page story, since Wisconsin's Scott Walker got it passed through, I thought it might be worth considering an amendment. A total repeal of Taft Hartley is very unlikely.
The Republicans have enjoyed some small success in derailing the ACA by attacking it's individual points, and total failure at any repeal.
Could the Democrats and Labor put some amendment through that basically allows Taft Hartley to remain, but guts it's financial rewards in some measure?
I propose this; Any month that an employee not in the union, but working in a union job, does not pay dues, his employer's contributions to his retirement fund cannot be allocated to his individual account. Instead they are held in a general fund until he does either pay his dues and gets his retirement, or doesn't pay and doesn't collect either. Said funds then go into the general fund for distribution.

I don't see enough support from the voters, here In Michigan the Unions tried to make it so we could never become a right to work state on the ballot, It was turned down by the majority on the ballot. We are a even heavily Unionized state and our famous governor seen this and made us right to work shortly after. We are down to around 15% of work force union and others listen to corporate America on how bad Unions are for workers. Also like Michigan Walker got reelected.

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

With Right to Work again becoming a front page story, since Wisconsin's Scott Walker got it passed through, I thought it might be worth considering an amendment. A total repeal of Taft Hartley is very unlikely.
The Republicans have enjoyed some small success in derailing the ACA by attacking it's individual points, and total failure at any repeal.
Could the Democrats and Labor put some amendment through that basically allows Taft Hartley to remain, but guts it's financial rewards in some measure?
I propose this; Any month that an employee not in the union, but working in a union job, does not pay dues, his employer's contributions to his retirement fund cannot be allocated to his individual account. Instead they are held in a general fund until he does either pay his dues and gets his retirement, or doesn't pay and doesn't collect either. Said funds then go into the general fund for distribution.

You have a union job. You pay union dues. That's it.

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

You have a union job. You pay union dues. That's it.

If you don't. The union members should have a "talk" with said non paying "member" as to why they do not want to contribute to there pensions , benefits and representation , like all other members.

 

[MC4YOU2]

I may be a good idea. But, unfortunately a big slush fund just sitting there would be someone else's corruption ans embezzlement. Ask at any local. It's the way government works. With your hard earned money

That's possible, but I would think the slush fund would be fairly small. Only the folks that really hate unions would forego their pensions to avoid dues. Also, even a slush fund beats giving a scab more free money.

 

[MC4YOU2]

I don't see enough support from the voters, here In Michigan the Unions tried to make it so we could never become a right to work state on the ballot, It was turned down by the majority on the ballot. We are a even heavily Unionized state and our famous governor seen this and made us right to work shortly after. We are down to around 15% of work force union and others listen to corporate America on how bad Unions are for workers. Also like Michigan Walker got reelected.

There needs to be a conversation that the voting general public can embrace. As union jobs evaporate, we become less relevant. That's of course the entire point of RTW. This is only one possible answer. Another is to create a movement based on broader worker rights, such as a campaign to do away with "At will" state laws.

 

[Catatonic]

A song for those sitting in LA-LA

 

[MC4YOU2]

A song for those sitting in LA-LA

Stranger things have happened. Democratic black president for 2 terms, the ACA, and the greatest gift like manna from heaven for Hillary; Ted Cruz throws his hat and high heels into the ring.

 

[Catatonic]

If you don't. The union members should have a "talk" with said non paying "member" as to why they do not want to contribute to there pensions , benefits and representation , like all other members.

That attitude and reality is why many people have a negative of Unions.
If you can't see that, you are part of the problem.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

That attitude and reality is why many people have a negative of Unions.
If you can't see that, you are part of the problem.

DONT work in a union shop, if you plan on being a scab.

Problem solved.

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

That attitude and reality is why many people have a negative of Unions.
If you can't see that, you are part of the problem.

If you can't see that if there was no union ,we wouldn't be making half as much as we do now with little to no benefits , and that with members deciding to opt out and not pay dues there will be no union, you are the one that has the problem.

 

[Catatonic]

If you can't see that
1) if there was no union ,we wouldn't be making half as much as we do now with little to no benefits ,
2) and that with members deciding to opt out and not pay dues there will be no union,
you are the one that has the problem.

1 is backed up by reality (UPS Drivers make much higher than the industry average)

2 is debunked by reality. (Local 728 is in a RTW state and is as strong and corrupt as Locals in Forced Union states.)

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

1 is backed up by reality (UPS Drivers make much higher than the industry average)

2 is debunked by reality. (Local 728 is in a RTW state and is as strong and corrupt as Locals in Forced Union states.)

Lmfao. So your saying if there was no union and everyone stopped paying dues ups would just continue by the union rules of fair days pay for fair days work, have no production dicipline , and continue to pay us highest wages. Lmfao. I'm done with this. I'm back to fluff. Ur insane.

 

[Wally]

No union and I'm canned years ago for no good reason.

 

[Catatonic]

If you can't see that if there was no union ,we wouldn't be making half as much as we do now with little to no benefits , and that with members deciding to opt out and not pay dues there will be no union, you are the one that has the problem.

Lmfao. So your saying if there was no union and everyone stopped paying dues ups would just continue by the union rules of fair days pay for fair days work, have no production dicipline , and continue to pay us highest wages. Lmfao. I'm done with this. I'm back to fluff. Ur insane.

Maybe you should stick to "No Fluff" if you can't keep up.
No one in the first 14 posts except you were talking about "No Union" ... I assume you misstated but it appears you miscomprehended.
Everyone else is talking about RTW state members not joining the Union.
Please feel free to attempt participation in this thread again.

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

Maybe you should stick to "No Fluff" if you can't keep up.
No one in the first 14 posts except you were talking about "No Union" ... I assume you misstated but it appears you miscomprehended.
Everyone else is talking about RTW state members not joining the Union.
Please feel free to attempt participation in this thread again.

Hey smart guy, guess what happens when more and more RTW states happen and more and more employes opt to not join and not pay dues......there won't be a union ,will there.

 

[iruhnman630]

I propose this; Any month that an employee not in the union, but working in a union job, does not pay dues, his employer's contributions to his retirement fund cannot be allocated to his individual account. Instead they are held in a general fund until he does either pay his dues and gets his retirement, or doesn't pay and doesn't collect either. Said funds then go into the general fund for distribution.

Give a 3rd party the right to hold a transaction between 2 parties hostage until the 1 party pays the 3rd party?

Yeah, I don't think that idea will get much support

 

[iruhnman630]

Hey smart guy, guess what happens when more and more RTW states happen and more and more employes opt to not join and not pay dues......there won't be a union ,will there.

The unions will need to work on selling the advantages of membership and convincing people to choose to join.