Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

No it is not dumbass. If you are going to make claims be ready to back them up or shut the fuck up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not only will I NOT 'shut the fuck up', but with Kwickie, his monotonous asking for 'cites' is exactly as I described it. He uses that reply to avoid even having to deal w/ the bigger issue. It's a dodge, a hustle, and quite frankly, boring as hell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?

---

Any cites to say they weren't?

---

Quote:

---

Your tedious claim of 'cites', is nothing more than a clear attempt to distract from the issue at hand. The union voted to kill Hostess, as unions have voted to shut down many businesses before.

---

Quote:

---

You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.) If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does the union have the ability to vote to kill a company? Can they unincorporate the company and fire all the board of directors and sign the papers to liquidate all the assets?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does the union have the ability to vote to kill a company? Can they unincorporate the company and fire all the board of directors and sign the papers to liquidate all the assets?

---

No, but you know they can go on strike and kill the company that way.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Every time I come back here from the real world, or from hunting stuff up on the internet to better understand an issue, I read a post from Rap, then a response, and immediately think "Why does anyone respond to him? He's so obviously clueless and DELIBERATELY not interested in any facts, only able to spout what he's been told." You're arguing with him--debate isn't possible and you know precisely what you'll get from him...so I keep wondering "why???".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


Bite me.

Don't mean I don't still luv 'ya.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Thing is, the union going on strike isn't the same thing as the company's execs filing for bankruptcy and liquidation. The union going on strike is the workers saying that there are minimum conditions for work, conditions below which they will not voluntarily report for work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Interesting to compare to this, which shows the salaries going down 8% for a year and then starting to go up again.

Quote:

---

The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.

---

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/companies/hostess-liquidation-thu
rsday/index.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.

---

Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Interesting to compare to this, which shows the salaries going down 8% for a year and then starting to go up again.

Quote:

---

The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.

---

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/companies/hostess-liquidation-thu
rsday/index.html

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

If you can't cite your claims they are nothing but opinion a can be ignored, and may times should be. See Rappy facts matter to thinking people. If you produce the citation Kwickie can not longer avoid it without and is forced to deal with it or should be called out on it. Until you back up your claims your the one who gets called out. That is the way it goes.

---

Quote:

---

... you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision REQUIRING all employees to either join the union or pay union fees .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Can and DO offer up cites, but not every single post. In the REAL world, many voice their opinions freely, in the course of having a mature conversation. Not every minute detail is cross examined and 'cited'. Hell, even when I DO offer up cites, the peanut gallery still mocks, dismisses and ignores my views, so I fail to see the point of trying to be taken seriously by the likes of you as a legitimate motivating factor.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Which often means, you're forced to join the union.

As I said...

And then there's the issue of having open votes, or card check, where the unions intimidate the employees by forcing them to openly vote up or down on measures, instead of a secret ballot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

KW's other post provided evidence that a person can't be forced to join a Union, just pay the dues. Now I don't understand why anyone would not join and get a say if they have to pay for it and get represented by one. Techniclly you and I were wrong and he was right. Deal with it.

Now I agree with you on the issue of secret ballots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saying you're not FORCED to join, unless it's part of the labor agreement, still ends up as being exactly as I said, where anyone wishing to want to go work ends up having to join the union OR merely paying a portion of their pay check to the union.

I fail to see any tangible distinction, though you ( and more so Kwickie ) want to play semantics on this point. At the end of the day, anyone who goes to work for company X, is getting $ taken from them, forcibly, and or having to join the union, outright.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And I'm sorry, but merely having folks ask for citations, at a drop of a hat, isn't a valid excuse for me to bother going to the trouble of finding suitable sources for the approval of a message board. Some times it's warranted, but not always. Kwickie loves to merely toss out the 'cites' challenge, simply because he has nothing of substance to offer, ( he seldom does ) and is just being an a-hole , out of pure spite.

---

Quote:

---

A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.

---

Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

KW's other post provided evidence that a person can't be forced to join a Union, just pay the dues. Now I don't understand why anyone would not join and get a say if they have to pay for it and get represented by one. Techniclly you and I were wrong and he was right. Deal with it.

Now I agree with you on the issue of secret ballots.

---

Saying you're not FORCED to join, unless it's part of the labor agreement, still ends up as being exactly as I said, where anyone wishing to want to go work ends up having to join the union OR merely paying a portion of their pay check to the union.

---

Quote:

---

I fail to see any tangible distinction, though you ( and more so Kwickie ) want to play semantics on this point. At the end of the day, anyone who goes to work for company X, is getting $ taken from them, forcibly, and or having to join the union, outright.

---

Quote:

---

And I'm sorry, but merely having folks ask for citations, at a drop of a hat, isn't a valid excuse for me to bother going to the trouble of finding suitable sources for the approval of a message board. Some times it's warranted, but not always. Kwickie loves to merely toss out the 'cites' challenge, simply because he has nothing of substance to offer, ( he seldom does ) and is just being an a-hole , out of pure spite.

It's not a serious request, and he knows it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.

---

Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.

---

Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?

---

Any cites to say they weren't?

---

So you've got nothing, eh? Figures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

It's not coercion, or intimidation and certainly not tyranny. It can be part of legal agreements between a Union and an Employer. So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.

---

Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?

---

Did I make a claim that is untrue?

Or did I quote a source you have an issue with?

(There's a difference between the two, but in your rapidly deteriorating mental state, you seem not to be able to discern such differences.)


That's cute. I noticed how you managed to put your own quoted clips in quote tags, yet made the quotes I posted look like they were things that *I* said, when you know they aren't my claims, but allegations made in an article which I cited.


Further, you've yet to show where the article I posted is "untrue". You've only posted something else which differs from my source. Would it be valid for me to claim that you're citing untrue articles if I have a source that disagrees with yours?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Ergo, he doesn't feel the need to back up whatever he posts, he's just having a "free-flowing conversation". He just chooses to state it as fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.

---

Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?

---

Did I make a claim that is untrue?

Or did I quote a source you have an issue with?

(There's a difference between the two, but in your rapidly deteriorating mental state, you seem not to be able to discern such differences.)


That's cute. I noticed how you managed to put your own quoted clips in quote tags, yet made the quotes I posted look like they were things that *I* said, when you know they aren't my claims, but allegations made in an article which I cited.


Further, you've yet to show where the article I posted is "untrue". You've only posted something else which differs from my source. Would it be valid for me to claim that you're citing untrue articles if I have a source that disagrees with yours?

---

See Mike squirm. Squirm, Mike, squirm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

It's not coercion, or intimidation and certainly not tyranny. It can be part of legal agreements between a Union and an Employer. So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole.

---

It's not 'hyperbole', but the way things are. You think because it's "legal", that makes it O.K. ?

If buying of slaves is deemed " legal ", then what's the problem, right ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, Niki, you're have it completely wrong. I did say cites ARE appropriate, but not for every single conversation. If I like crunchy peanut butter over creamy,and say as much, that shouldn't require 3 independent citations form " neutral " sources.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, Niki, you're have it completely wrong. I did say cites ARE appropriate, but not for every single conversation. If I like crunchy peanut butter over creamy,and say as much, that shouldn't require 3 independent citations form " neutral " sources.

---

Please learn the difference between opinion and facts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
My opinions are based on facts.

---