Florida Republicans pass anti-union bill, reject Democrats’ attempts to soften its blow

[Thebrownblob]

View attachment 427566

That’s great but that staff members from a local, where are all the members who are worried about it? And I don’t know what this post proves.
Of course, any smart labor organization would be against any type of bill that would limit their ability to gather new members

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The card check is not as big issue to me as them making these people basically recertify wanting to be in the union every year the 60% rule seems a bit ridiculous and like they’re begging to break the union. Union members will find a way to pay their dues. But having constant pressure put on people to vote against being union seems a bit egregious.

If you can't get 60% to be union, maybe they shouldn't be? I mean if these people aren't paying dues then maybe the union should be decertified. See how the freeloaders like it then.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Yes...it's called union busting. They are willing to run out the cost to tax payers for the sole purpose of making things harder for the working man.

Again, you haven’t showed me what it cost the state to administer this every year.

$900,000 is not a lot of money in a state budget one time.

Does it cost the state $200,000 a year to administer this, won’t be very many years before they are paying more than 900,000.

If you want to effectively push against something, you don’t like you need to have all the facts.

 

[Thebrownblob]

If you can't get 60% to be union, maybe they shouldn't be? I mean if these people aren't paying dues then maybe the union should be decertified. See how they like it then.

I get what you’re saying but asking them to constantly prove they have 60% is a little extreme that would be like us at UPS taking a vote every year making sure they’re 60% and it gives the company in Management lots of time to try and talk people out voting for the union.

 

[nWo]

Again, you haven’t showed me what it cost the state to administer this every year.

$900,000 is not a lot of money in a state budget one time.

Does it cost the state $200,000 a year to administer this, won’t be very many years before they are paying more than 900,000.

If you want to effectively push against something, you don’t like you need to have all the facts.

For the of christ. Show me how this bill benefits anybody. The Teamsters are under attack. Can they have your support?

 

[nWo]

They are already taking out taxes, 401k, loans etc out of people's paychecks. Also taking out union dues is not some insane cost.

 

[Thebrownblob]

For the of christ. Show me how this bill benefits anybody. The Teamsters are under attack. Can they have your support?

I have done more and given more to the Teamsters than you’ve ever thought of doing so keep pretending you’re doing anything.


Now back to the big boy topic, how much more effective way to defeat a bill like this would be to prove that they are trying to Univest with this 60% rule.

The state can make the case that it will save the money not to keep the dues by paying someone bookkeeping but they cannot say forcing the unions to make sure they’re 60% every time save them even one single dime.

This is where I believe the state has jumped the shark, and will lose in court.

 

[nWo]

And if it's such a cost saving measure then why did the republicans decide the law shouldn't apply to cops? Is it because cops are more likely to vote for republicans than the trashman?

 

[Thebrownblob]

They are already taking out taxes, 401k, loans etc out of people's paychecks. Also taking out union dues is not some insane cost.

Go back to school Poindexter I’m through talking to you. You have no valid arguments except for shouting at people and pretending you’re doing something, adults Try to gather everything to effectively fight.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I get what you’re saying but asking them to constantly prove they have 60% is a little extreme that would be like us at UPS taking a vote every year making sure they’re 60% and it gives the company in Management lots of time to try and talk people are voting for the union.

The bill doesn't require a union vote every year, it requires the union to maintain an accurate roll of dues paying members and certify that they're still at 60% every year. You don't have to get everyone to sign up again each year.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

For the of christ. Show me how this bill benefits anybody. The Teamsters are under attack. Can they have your support?

The teacher's union is under attack and they should be.

 

[nWo]

Go back to school Poindexter I’m through talking to you. You have no valid arguments except for shouting at people and pretending you’re doing something, adults Try to gather everything to effectively fight.

Form a counter argument.
Name 1 good thing about this bill. Name 1.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And if it's such a cost saving measure then why did the republicans decide the law shouldn't apply to cops? Is it because cops are more likely to vote for republicans than the trashman?

Because the politicians represent the people, and the people of Florida support the cops. They don't support the teacher's unions radical positions.

The teacher's union is going to screw all of us if they keep up their extremist positions.

 

[nWo]

Go back to school Poindexter I’m through talking to you. You have no valid arguments except for shouting at people and pretending you’re doing something, adults Try to gather everything to effectively fight.

200 posts in this thread. And you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence as to why this bill is so great. Name a single benefit of this bill. Just one.

The Teamsters are under attack in Florida and I will stand with them. Attack me all you want.

 

[nWo]

Because the politicians represent the people, and the people of Florida support the cops. They don't support the teacher's unions radical positions.

The teacher's union is going to screw all of us if they keep up their extremist positions.

The teachers are not the enemy. The Teamsters are not the enemy.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The teachers are not the enemy. The Teamsters are not the enemy.

I agree, most teachers don't even support the union's sick positions.

The teacher's union's radical extremist anti parent positions are the enemy. They can come back to rational reality at anytime. Until then, there will be more of these kinds of bills, and we will all probably end up hurt because of it.

 

[Wally]

....this bill is expected to cost the taxpayers $900,000. It isnt saving anyone any money.

So dems are now concerned with cost of government. Glad to hear it, it's been ages.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Form a counter argument.
Name 1 good thing about this bill. Name 1.

From the union standpoint? None, but I can’t pretend I’m the only one looking at it.

The state will argue they are save the money and it might with bookkeeping for car check, but they cannot argue, forcing them to prove yearly that they have 60% does anything other than help the state try and bust the union eventually. And that is where I would beat the hell out of them with this bill.

 

[Thebrownblob]

The bill doesn't require a union vote every year, it requires the union to maintain an accurate roll of dues paying members and certify that they're still at 60% every year. You don't have to get everyone to sign up again each year.

The basic premise to union representation is that you have a vote one time after that, unless there is a decertification vote there would be no need for anything else.

More to the point the state cannot pretend this 60% provision, saves them money, whereas the dues and card check they may be able to say it does.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The basic premise to union representation is that you have a vote one time after that, unless there is a decertification vote there would be no need for anything else.

I think 60% is a pretty low bar man.
Honestly this bill doesn't seem to do much other than get headlines and put the teacher's union on notice that they need to back down.