Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep and these people are learning the negative of having Republicans in charge, getting things rammed through without any debate because we all know you can make major decisions without proper debate and weighing all the possibilities.
Amnesia again eh? Do you remember anything about how the HC bill was passed?
No it can't. You can't pay someone more for the same job at the same place just because they are a union member. That is discrimination and is illegal. I suggest that if you find yourself in that situation, call a good lawyer and enjoy your early retirement from the settlement you'll get.
Sounds like you might want to ask the union workers how much they are making cause I bet they are making more.
Quote:
American workers who are members of unions earn significantly more per hour than their nonunion counterparts, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Data from the BLS National Compensation Survey shows that in July 2002, average hourly earnings among all union workers were $20.65, compared with $16.42 for nonunion workers.
In 2002, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $740, compared with a median of $587 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions. Union Workers Earn More Than Nonunion
Sounds like you might want to ask the union workers how much they are making cause I bet they are making more.
That's not at the same place of employment. BTW, it is well known that unions get above market rate for their employees, hence the near bankrupt states. Private unions are not in question, if an owner of a company wants to pay above market value for everything, let them. State's use OUR money, that's the difference.
It was NEVER debated by both sides. The R's were locked out of it. Where you asleep through it or not paying attention?
The Republicans were not locked out of the debate, the Republicans were trying to stop the debate at every turn. If there was no debate we would have the single payer option. You must of not been paying attention to the actual debate.
That's not at the same place of employment. BTW, it is well known that unions get above market rate for their employees, hence the near bankrupt states. Private unions are not in question, if an owner of a company wants to pay above market value for everything, let them. State's use OUR money, that's the difference.
You should check with your union counterparts, I bet they get much better benefits than you do, unless you pay a union due to be apart of what they make.
You should check with your union counterparts, I bet they get much better benefits than you do, unless you pay a union due to be apart of what they make.
We all get the same. Even the non members pay some % in dues, just not 100%. There are no free riders in right to work states, atleast in the public arena:
Quote:
The Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), held that public employees that elect not to join a union can only be required to pay a fee (i.e. “agency fee” or “fair share fee”). The agency fee equals the employee’s share of what the union can prove is related to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.