PRO act

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Turdferguson, Feb 6, 2020.

  1. sailfish

    sailfish Duke of Douschebaggery

    Candidates better really do something to stand out amongst the others then. If people can't be bothered to put in the research maybe they really shouldn't be voting in the first place.
  2. Box Ox

    Box Ox Well-Known Member

    There'd need to be some sort of government system to ensure resource equality (or at least a floor) between the candidates since only the most personally wealthy would be able to rise above all the noise with no support from national parties. Already an issue for less wealthy candidates down here in the south.
  3. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut Proud Deplorable

  4. Box Ox

    Box Ox Well-Known Member

    None of the above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  5. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut Proud Deplorable

    Not voting does nothing because if the majority doesn't vote the minority rules.

    Consent requires the ability to withhold consent.
  6. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    Why would not for profit healthcare be socialist? Non profits are perfectly acceptable in a capitalist system. In fact, healthcare should be non profit, due to the moral hazards involved in profitting from illness and injury.

    That goes against freedom of association. I'm all for putting an end to the duopoly of the current system, though.

    DELACROIX In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier

    Just what percentage of our Teamster's members are seriously going to vote for any of the Democratic candidates or their platform. Any socialist agenda with our current Health and Welfare benefits Pension funding (investments) and our 40lK returns should cause concern. Anybody who has ever been involved with our union work members knows it is about caring for number one and hell with the rest with a few idealistic malcontents living in a dream world.

    If a Democrat somehow gets in just how many of our union members will be thinking about cashing out of their 40lk's or expect to suffer a major downgrade of their projected annual health coverages.

    Does anybody really believe that if by chance Trump gets voted out that the stock market will not crash and burn. That hurts all of our Pension Plans and in particular the underfunded "Central States" plan. It is projected to default in 2025 at it's current returns, what happens if the stock market drops drastically?

    Team Care is doing well and it should be considering the weekly monetary contributions going into our Health and Welfare. Do you really think that our leadership would actively support any candidate and will upset their golden calf and the company's continuing monetary contributions going into that fund. They will make a small token endorsement for a Democrat of course knowing full well who a vast majority of their membership will be voting come November.

    This "PRO Act" bill seems to parrot our current NLRB provisions for what their worth.
  8. Brownsocks

    Brownsocks Just a dog

  9. Whither

    Whither Scofflaw

    I read in our local labor rag that this would basically repeal the Taft-Hartley Act (vetoed by Harry Truman but overridden with ample support from Dems). Seems convenient to me for the Dems to propose this bill now. "We wanted to help you all but the evil GOP stopped us again!"

    It's worth remembering that unions of the time didn't mince words --taft-hartley.jpg
    I don't expect either party to do much for workers until workers are ready to stand up for themselves ...
  10. Inthegame

    Inthegame Well-Known Member

    Put those same conditions on posting, and you'd end Brown Cafe.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  11. rod

    rod #1 on Upstates "list"

    I suppose they have gotten tired of busting their butts only to see their hard earned money being given away to low life slum
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. Inthegame

    Inthegame Well-Known Member

    Capitalism doesn't recognize moral hazards. Non profits are a challenge to the for profit system and are tolerated on a very short leash, especially when competing in an extremely lucrative market.

    To refer to them as "perfectly" acceptable reminds of a recent "perfect" phone call, that was also inaccurately described.
  13. BrownMonk

    BrownMonk Old fart Package Car Driver

    My understanding is that the Pro Act fills in some of the limitations of the Taft Hartley Act and increases benefits. Tell me what I'm missing. It did pass the House on Friday?
  14. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    Capitalism doesn't recognize anything, people do. The tight leash nonprofits operate under are to establish tax exempt status with the IRS, which is an agency I will gladly admit is Socialistic. I have no idea how a description of any particular phone call comes into play, but feel free to derail however you choose. This is a free market of ideas, after all.
  15. Brownslave688

    Brownslave688 You want a toe? I can get you a toe.

    There was loads of time to pass like this while Obama was in office.
  16. MyTripisCut

    MyTripisCut Dumpster, INABAG

    Actually only his first two years in office had control of both the House and the Senate.
  17. a911scanner

    a911scanner Active Member

  18. eats packages

    eats packages I have depth perception issues

    There are times where I can see no other way but to apply friction to "people who deserve things" but the PRO act is not one of them, unless you are swimming in stock assets.
  19. eats packages

    eats packages I have depth perception issues

    Stop projecting nonsense. Nobody is doing a damn thing to you but securing free healthcare for themselves and others, hooray.
  20. a911scanner

    a911scanner Active Member

    What? Are you saying that to me? I was just completely disagreeing with the nonsense I read. I interjected no nonsensical item for you to thrash me over.