[Cincinatus' Wife]

Union bosses don't like it when Americans take their country back.

Union bosses want to keep laundering compulsory union dues into Democratic Party campaign coffers.

[nathanbedford]

To assert that the failure of wages to increase while union membership decreases is to confuse coincidence with causation.

To avoid the trap of post hoc ergo propter hoc one must eliminate other contributing factors. First, it is not clear that the government's numbers on unemployment are honest. The evidence to the contrary is abundant. The government has changed the way it counts even if it renders an honest count.

Second, immigration has flooded the labor market and some qualified observers have argued that all growth (repeat, "all") since the great recession has gone to immigrants, many of them illegal. One might well ask why this AFL-CIO has not taken the lead in opposing a policy which deprives its members of jobs?

The answer is as one poster on this thread is already pointed out, it is all about dues and the triangle trade of a kind of modern slavery: workers are required to pay dues as though they were in involuntary servitude, a percentage of those dues go into the pockets of union leaders, and a percentage goes into the coffers of the Democrat Party which passes laws to protect union leaders, often at the expense of rank-and-file workers and dues payers, as we have noted, concerning Democrats who support illegal immigration.

It is our liberty, Mr. Becker, which is the culprit but it is your union, your henchmen, your political party and your president.

[John Valentine]

It’s hard to know where to begin to comment on this exercise in illogic, but this sentence is as good a place to start as any.

“Right-to-work laws make collective bargaining more difficult by requiring that union members pay for the representation of nonmembers. Burdening those who desire union representation does not make economic sense, particularly now...”

So, then if I understand it, this well paid minion of the AFL-CIO believes that it makes more economic sense to burden those who do NOT desire union representation so that those who do might find their collective bargaining made easier.

I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other.

All I see here is a union minion worried about his personal salary and job security.

And is this yo-yo totally oblivious to the moral dimension of this issue?

Should not those desiring a service be the ones to pay for its provision? Where is the moral argument for coercion of those who are not desirous of union representation?

[FlingWingFlyer]

I can’t imagine ANYTHING lower down the food chain than a union thug “lawyer”.