Posted on 04/26/2010 3:49:38 PM PDT by jerry557
I'm not the only one that calls it freedom of association. You better have a read of the constitution. It is guaranteed. As for the Wagner Act, it granted employees the right to collective bargaining. It is the product of a legal democratic process we call our republic form of government.
What flavor of looter are you? Teacher?
You make foolish assumptions.
With your expressed values, I feel I should ask if you are a liberal. Every conservative I know believes that when two parties enter into an agreement each upholds their end of the bargain. You seem to want to throw out the rules because they don't suit you, choosing instead a ends-justifies-the-means approach. Tell me those are not your values.
If you want to be mad at someone, trying getting mad at the boneheads that agreed to the outrageous deals offered to public employees. I'm with you that public employee salaries and benefits are grossly out of line and way too much. Where we disagree is how to go about correcting those bad decisions. I'm not ready to throw out the constitution and rule of law simply because a decision did not suit me.
Form all of the associations you wish. There is no constitutional or natural right to force an employer to deal with unions. It is only by the brute force of radical Leftists like FDR that you enjoy the raw power to shake down the taxpayer via kickbacks called campaign contributions to politicians.
Yeah, I figured as much, a teacher. Your union cares as much about educating kids as the UAW cares about building fine autos. Zero.
Bookmark
It is amazing that you would think that opposing public sector unions is some how "communist".
Actually unions are quite popular in communist countries. They allow the government more control over the people by making sure their health care, pensions, work rules, uniforms, days off and everything else is under the control of the ruling party.
Forcing people into associations that they would rather not be a part of, imposing draconian rule on them and making them pay you for the privilege is not American.
JFK understood that expanding union power meant expanding the Democrat base which translated into more thugs and money under his control.
In other words collection calls.
Sorry sometimes I still speak British rather then American.
You bet!
Same thing with government wanting more taxes from the working middle class.....
They have no more money to give....lol
Lordy, I had someone sign up for something with my phone number once. It took months for them to stop calling me. And they were nasty about it. Some old black lady kept calling asking for someone with a hispanic name. She wouldn’t stop, so I finally screamed ‘Do I sound like jose to you?!?!’
She finally stopped not long after that.
Ya see thats what makes this a whole new ball game.
Millions have lost about everything, including homes, jobs, businesses, investments, careers...
And those left working have had their hours slashed, benefits flushed and their working twice as hard for less money.
The debt collectors are in for a rude awakening.
If you are going to state my position, at least do it correctly. I did not say opposing public sector unions is communist. It is actually quite American to take a position against something you disagree with.
I said if someone wants to ban employees from forming a union, perhaps they would prefer to live in a communist country. Curious, where do you get the notion that workers are free to form a union in a communist country?
I get your point. You don't like unions. More specifically, you think the rules have been bent too far in their favor. My response is, work within the system to right the pendulum.
This thread is full of stories I hear often. If you have any questions or want any help, Freepmail me.
They have no mulaa to give!
LOL...No money honey!
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
Why do you say that?
These millions simply have no jobs or money left to give.
Fact is, these debt collectors will have better luck juggling chain saws, than collecting money from these folks.
Its hard to follow the law when it constantly changes. Going after expired debt is not fair to the consumer. But there are traps in the FDCPA that not even the most compliant company can comply with. So if your solution is to just have everyone’s debt forgiven, come out and say it.
And the FDCPA is a strict liability statute. It doesn’t matter what your intent was, if you forgot to cross an “i” or dot a “t” you’re screwed. The law and the courts need to address their resources to agencies and actors who are actually ripping off the consumer. My firm filed over 750,000 law suits. The percentage of those people who did not owe the debt was less than a rounding error. And we are talking in statute debt. So to allow debtors to avoid their debts over merely technical infractions, like adding some words to the warning or other things is just typical of the obama thugster regime. If the collector acts in a manner that actually damages the debtor, in whatever illegal manner, that needs to be addressed. But these imaginary infractions thought up to shakedown the agencies and law firms is just legalized theft, period.
I expected this attitude, based upon my experience. My position is actually pretty simple: if agencies want to harness the power of the State to compel someone else, they have to follow the rules. They have to follow the rules. They have to follow the rules.
The basic rules haven't changed in decades, and the violations I see are not technical in nature.
10 day violations. 30 day violations. Posting of inaccurate information with credit bureaus. Harassment. Lying. Unenforceable debt.
None of these requirements have changed in many years.
I suspect what you're talking about is something else..."approved practices" of the industry (IE, what hasn't been getting us fined/sued, and, while maybe not 'technically' legal, is highly effective?)
The rules are simple and clear.
And the FDCPA is a strict liability statute. It doesn’t matter what your intent was, if you forgot to cross an “i” or dot a “t” you’re screwed...
That's how law works. The same is true for employment law and tenant law. You refer later in the post to this..."My firm filed over 750,000 law suits."
That's the reason for strict liability. It recognizes that there's a tremendous imbalance in knowledge and experience between you and most of the debtors you deal with.
If you filed over 750,000 lawsuits, you ought to be able to get it right, wouldn't you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.