Prop 75 question

[Grammatron]

That is completely incorrect based on both state law and Supreme Court ruling.

Then please, please cite the laws like I have been asking you.

 

[Mark]

Then please, please cite the laws like I have been asking you.

Now I know you are trolling. I already gave you the case name, ruling and year.

 

[Grammatron]

Now I know you are trolling. I already gave you the case name, ruling and year.

Communication Workers of America v. Beck, based on the information you provided, only applies to nonunion members who pay union dues.

You have not provided any state law references, therefore this Proposition does not do something that is already possible unless you have more information you want to share with me without throwing using personal attacks.

 

[Mark]

Communication Workers of America v. Beck, based on the information you provided, only applies to nonunion members who pay union dues.

Which is exactly the group you claim you are trying to protect. They are already protected.

You have not provided any state law references, therefore this Proposition does not do something that is already possible unless you have more information you want to share with me without throwing using personal attacks.

I can't cite the exact State law number so it doesn't exist? That's just lame, Grammatron.

But even if I accept that (I don't) the Supreme Court is the final say anyway! And they already provided full protection in 1988!

Which leaves us right back at square one: there is NO reason for this proposition other than to limit Democrat funding sources. None. You have yet to provide one single reason for voting for this proposition that does not already have the force of law.

You haven't, because you can't.

 

[Grammatron]

Which is exactly the group you claim you are trying to protect. They are already protected.

At best you misunderstood me at worst you ignored my posts. I am trying to extend the benefit to all the members of the union.

I can't cite the exact State law number so it doesn't exist? That's just lame, Grammatron.

Forgive me if I don't take your word that a law exists that does just that. Call it what you want but if you can't provide evidence I can't accept your claim.

But even if I accept that (I don't) the Supreme Court is the final say anyway! And they already provided full protection in 1988!

No they did not, as I have demonstrated. For the third time Mark, it only applies to EMPLOYEES who ARE NOT part of the Union. I am at a loss as to why you keep dropping that part in this discussion. If that law applied to all the members of the Public Union, I would agree with you that this proposition is pointless.

Which leaves us right back at square one: there is NO reason for this proposition other than to limit Democrat funding sources. None. You have yet to provide one single reason for voting for this proposition that does not already have the force of law.

You haven't, because you can't.

I have in every single post and you straight-up ignored it.

 

[Mark]

At best you misunderstood me at worst you ignored my posts. I am trying to extend the benefit to all the members of the union.
Forgive me if I don't take your word that a law exists that does just that. Call it what you want but if you can't provide evidence I can't accept your claim.
No they did not, as I have demonstrated. For the third time Mark, it only applies to EMPLOYEES who ARE NOT part of the Union. I am at a loss as to why you keep dropping that part in this discussion. If that law applied to all the members of the Public Union, I would agree with you that this proposition is pointless.

I have in every single post and you straight-up ignored it.

Grammatron, I don't know if you are being deliberately thick with this or if you just want to get Democrats out of office or what.

I will tell you---AGAIN!---The Supreme Court has ruled that:

A) The U.S. Supreme Court says no public employee can be forced to join a union or contribute to politics. Got it, Grammatron? They don't have to join the union!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B)

Finally, in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Supreme Court already has ruled that nonunion workers who pay agency fees to unions to support their collective bargaining efforts are entitled to a full refund of that portion of their dues used for political activity.

Got that, Grammatron? If their dues were used to for political activity...they are entitled to a full refund!

The only purpose of 75 is to hamstring Democrat fundraising. You have yet to provide one single reason for this proposition that is not already law. Except for hurting Democrats.

 

[Grammatron]

Grammatron, I don't know if you are being deliberately thick with this or if you just want to get Democrats out of office or what.

I will tell you---AGAIN!---The Supreme Court has ruled that:

A) The U.S. Supreme Court says no public employee can be forced to join a union or contribute to politics. Got it, Grammatron? They don't have to join the union!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B)

Got that, Grammatron? If their dues were used to for political activity...they are entitled to a full refund!

The only purpose of 75 is to hamstring Democrat fundraising. You have yet to provide one single reason for this proposition that is not already law. Except for hurting Democrats.

Yes, I got that. Did you get the part where I said I want the same power to be extended to members of the union?

Why are you against individuals members having the power to request their dues are not used for political activity?

 

[Mark]

Yes, I got that. Did you get the part where I said I want the same power to be extended to members of the union?

Why are you against individuals members having the power to request their dues are not used for political activity?

Because they can opt out of the stupid union any time they bloody feel like it, that's why. There is no reason to add another law...unless you just want to stick it to Democrats (no chance of that, right?).

 

[Grammatron]

Because they can opt out of the stupid union any time they bloody feel like it, that's why. There is no reason to add another law...unless you just want to stick it to Democrats (no chance of that, right?).

I'll remember that next time we discuss employment issues "Hey, if you don't like it, just quit!"

I still don't know why you are so opposed to members having more choice, must be a Democrat thing.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It's called democracy; you know, the system of government the Republicans are trying to undermine with this proposition.

If "democracy" means running roughshod over the rights of the minority, then undermining democracy is something which I wholehearedly support.

People love to say that corporations are "using their own money" and therefore should not be controlled this way. But that is also a lie. Corporations are owned by shareholders who currently have no option to opt out of political donations at all!

Corporations are collectively owned by their shareholders, and shareholders can collectively choose to opt out. Complaining that individual stockholders can't choose what contributions to give makes as much sense as complaining that individual stockholders can't choose to opt out of hiring a new CEO. By buying a stock, you accept that you're putting your money in the hands of the corporation, and you accept its judgement in how to invest your money. You can't loose any more money than you choose to put in. In a union, you are coerced into joining, and they can keep taking and taking money.

This whole thing is just ugly. It is a blatant Right Wing lie.

What is a lie? Corporations use their own money. That is a fact. Yes, stockholders have an interest in the money, but there is no right to segregation.

Under 75, the union will be forced to solicit specific permission from each and every member; and you think that is the same as forcing a shareholder into selling stock?!?!?

Clearly, you don't. So which do you think is more of a hassle?

Grammatron, I don't know if you are being deliberately thick with this or if you just want to get Democrats out of office or what.

You seem to be the one being deliberately thick. You claim that unions can opt out, but you are unable to cite anything to that effect. Instead, you cite something regarding nonunion workers. You claim that the intent is to protect nonunion workers, but the Proposition is quite clear about being about union workers.

That being said, I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote for this one, because it does seem like a pretty blatant power grab. I doubt its sponsors are kept up at night by the thought of all those poor Republican union members (all three of 'em) having their dues sent to the Demmycrats.

Yes, I share your concern, but I think that the effect should take precedence over motive. After all, the drive during the 60's to secure black voting rights was, strictly speaking a power grab by the liberals. But it was grabbing power which was rightfully theirs. Yes, Republicans are trying to take power away from Democrats. But it's power that doesn't rightfully belong to Democrats in the first place.

 

[Mark]

If "democracy" means running roughshod over the rights of the minority, then undermining democracy is something which I wholehearedly support.

Corporations are collectively owned by their shareholders, and shareholders can collectively choose to opt out. Complaining that individual stockholders can't choose what contributions to give makes as much sense as complaining that individual stockholders can't choose to opt out of hiring a new CEO. By buying a stock, you accept that you're putting your money in the hands of the corporation, and you accept its judgement in how to invest your money. You can't loose any more money than you choose to put in. In a union, you are coerced into joining, and they can keep taking and taking money.

What is a lie? Corporations use their own money. That is a fact. Yes, stockholders have an interest in the money, but there is no right to segregation.

Clearly, you don't. So which do you think is more of a hassle?

You seem to be the one being deliberately thick. You claim that unions can opt out, but you are unable to cite anything to that effect. Instead, you cite something regarding nonunion workers. You claim that the intent is to protect nonunion workers, but the Proposition is quite clear about being about union workers.

Yes, I share your concern, but I think that the effect should take precedence over motive. After all, the drive during the 60's to secure black voting rights was, strictly speaking a power grab by the liberals. But it was grabbing power which was rightfully theirs. Yes, Republicans are trying to take power away from Democrats. But it's power that doesn't rightfully belong to Democrats in the first place.

Jesus.

A) The Supreme Court ruled that non-union members can opt out of political donations.

B) The Supreme Court ruled that any non-union member who finds out their dues were used for political contributions against that person's wishes, is entitled to a full refund of those monies.

C) Anyone can opt out of the union any time they want, and thus deny the union any money for political dinations. Saying they can't is a lie.

D) The Supreme Court also ruled that no one can be forced to join the union. I cited the case and the year for all of this in this very thread. Saying I didn't is a lie.

E) Prop 75 does not provide one single benefit to union members or non-members that they do not already have. The only thing it does---the only thing it is intended to do--is hurt the Democrats' fund raising.

 

[Art Vandelay]

C) Anyone can opt out of the union any time they want, and thus deny the union any money for political dinations. Saying they can't is a lie.

Are you saying that I said that they can't?

D) The Supreme Court also ruled that no one can be forced to join the union. I cited the case and the year for all of this in this very thread. Saying I didn't is a lie.

Are you saying that I said that you didn'?

E) Prop 75 does not provide one single benefit to union members or non-members that they do not already have. The only thing it does---the only thing it is intended to do--is hurt the Democrats' fund raising.

Are you claiming that currently, unions have to get permission to take money from their members for political purposes? Can you justify that assertion, or do you just have a bunch more of your BS?

 

[Mark]

Are you saying that I said that they can't?

Are you saying that I said that you didn'?

Are you claiming that currently, unions have to get permission to take money from their members for political purposes? Can you justify that assertion, or do you just have a bunch more of your BS?

Your words:

You claim that unions can opt out, but you are unable to cite anything to that effect.

I did cite the Supreme Court case, name and year. You either lied, or didn't bother to read what I wrote.

Currently, Unions can use part of union dues for political purposes...and the individual members can stop it if they want to simply by opting out and saying so.

It is that simple. This proposition is an attempt to limit Democrat donations, while leaving corporate donations---whose sharholders have no choice in the matter---untouched.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Your words:I did cite the Supreme Court case, name and year. You either lied, or didn't bother to read what I wrote.

Currently, Unions can use part of union dues for political purposes...and the individual members can stop it if they want to simply by opting out and saying so.

You cited a case dealing with nonunion workers, as has been pointed over and over again. Are you mentally retarded, or are you just a troll?