General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts) Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:35 AM Apr 2012

Mitt Romney renews attacks on unions in Wisconsin victory speech

Mitt Romney renews attacks on unions in Wisconsin victory speech

by Laura Clawson

Mitt Romney may have won the Wisconsin Republican presidential primary, but he wasn't ready to move on from his anti-union message. In his victory speech, Romney said:

"Workers should have the right to form unions, but unions should not be forced upon them. And unions should not have the power to take money out of their members’ paychecks to buy the support of politicians favored by the union bosses."

It is so tiresome having to answer the same Republican lies again and again. Nobody has to join a union. They just don't. It's a federal law. Yet Republican politicians like Mitt Romney and Scott Walker have the stamina to go on saying this stuff day after day, month after month. At what point does lying and misleading as their mission in life completely eliminate even what little moral compass they had when they started out?

And "buy the support of politicians"? Mitt Romney's Super PAC got $5 million from just 25 donors. It got $22.4 million from donors giving $500,000 or more. And he wants to accuse unions, pooling money from people who might, if they're lucky, earn $500,000 over 10 years, of buying the support of politicians?

Some days the barefaced shamelessness and utter mendacity of these assholes is just a little too much to take.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/04/1080548/-Mitt-Romney-renews-attacks-on-unions-in-Wisconsin-victory-speech

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mitt Romney renews attacks on unions in Wisconsin victory speech (Original Post) ProSense Apr 2012 OP

I hear union bashing on a daily basis Rambis Apr 2012 #1

K&R lsewpershad Apr 2012 #2

He means he doesn't want any power of the people to interfere with his power siligut Apr 2012 #3

In fairness, Romney's not saying people are forced to join unions, just forced to pay dues (nt) Recursion Apr 2012 #4

Actually, ProSense Apr 2012 #5

It's legal to require employees to pay dues (in many states) Recursion Apr 2012 #6

Are the ProSense Apr 2012 #7

That's the theory, at least. Recursion Apr 2012 #8

why o why tigereon Apr 2012 #9

Rambis

(7,774 posts)

1. I hear union bashing on a daily basis

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:48 AM

Apr 2012

None of the people who do it know the least bit of what they are talking about. DUMB fucking sheep who will enjoy their 8 hour day, safe working conditions, sick leave and vacation because of who? UNIONS!

lsewpershad

(2,620 posts)

2. K&R

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:07 PM

Apr 2012

siligut

(12,272 posts)

3. He means he doesn't want any power of the people to interfere with his power

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:30 PM

Apr 2012

People joined together are strong, that is what Rmoney and corporation CEOs are against.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

4. In fairness, Romney's not saying people are forced to join unions, just forced to pay dues (nt)

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:12 PM

Apr 2012

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

5. Actually,

Reply to Recursion (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:30 PM

Apr 2012

"In fairness, Romney's not saying people are forced to join unions, just forced to pay dues"

...he's saying "unions should not be forced upon" people, which is RW speak.

How is being forced to "pay dues" different from being "forced to join unions"?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

6. It's legal to require employees to pay dues (in many states)

Reply to ProSense (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:41 PM

Apr 2012

but illegal to require union membership in all 50. So, in (I think) 31 states you can be required to pay partial union dues as part of being employed, but in no state can you be required to actually join the union.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

7. Are the

Reply to Recursion (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:52 PM

Apr 2012

"It's legal to require employees to pay dues (in many states)"

...the dues tied to anything, say represenation?

What are the rules regarding union dues?

The amount of dues collected from employees represented by unions is subject to federal and state laws and court rulings.

The NLRA allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.

Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as 'core' members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

An employee may object to union membership on religious grounds, but in that case, must pay an amount equal to dues to a nonreligious charitable organization.

More than 20 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called "right to work" laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union. These states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

http://www.nlrb.gov/faq/questions/what-are-rules-regarding-union-dues

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

8. That's the theory, at least.

Reply to ProSense (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:31 PM

Apr 2012

And people who don't like being in unions (yes, there are such people) aren't mollified by the fact that they only have to pay part of their dues.

tigereon

(8 posts)

9. why o why

Reply to Recursion (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 03:17 AM

Apr 2012

The GOP says they are for smaller government, it turns out they are for communist government. To them ANY actions justify the means. So sure are they of their fundamental beliefs that they think any actions justify the results.

In one state in America, the GOP has suspended Democracy by dismantling and removing democratically elected officials and placing a tsar in control of whole parts of the states. Within those areas the citizens have no democratic rights and no representation.

They then moved to throw out the state constitution and pas their own laws and rules completely ignoring their own constitution. And finally they removed the rights of the minority party to even vote.

For all intents and purposes the rule of law has been suspended, Democracy has been suspended, the minorities have lost their right to democratically elected representation and the GOP has installed fundamentalist extremist rule.

In fact its not so much communist Russia as it is a fundamentalist extremist state with dictatorial rule….much like Iran. And this is happening in America

I wish this was some sort of joke article or some sort of exaggeration, but the story I am writing about has been covered in the Post, the NY Times and other mainstream news organizations…..but no one seems to care…..Do you?

http://thetop10.squarespace.com/the-politics-of-it-all/2012/4/6/communist-russia-comes-to-america-thanks-to-the-gop.html

Reply to this discussion