Victory #2 for public employees

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/09/teachers_win_union_refun...
COLUMBUS, Ohio—A statewide teachers' union will pay almost $92,000 to more than 2,800 Ohio teachers to resolve claims that union fees were illegally used for political work.

The payment, part of a settlement approved this week by a federal judge, comes after some teachers sued the Ohio Education Association and 11 affiliates contesting "fair-share" fees they had to pay between 2009 and 2013.

While the teachers had declined to pay union membership dues, they were still charged the fee, which pays for the union's costs of negotiating contracts that cover all teachers, whether they are union members or not.

No votes yet

It's sad when you have to protect yourself against the people who are supposed to protect you.

MikeyA

Seems like the very definition of grasping at straws to make a point, Fred.
Much ado about very little.

Not straws or even straw men, Dale. This kind of behavior is significant and serves to illustrate labor union corruption.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

It's funny, when politicians want us to fund pet projects with levys they always tell us it's worth the effort to get us to vote because it's only pennies a day or less than a dollar a week. I would imagine it's just that important to those teachers who fought to make the point.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Those pennies represent a real loss of money. AAAAND since these are not "dues" and are in fact for lobbying they are not deductible meaning now a larger percentage of these teachers paycheck is being taxed. That is why union members across the country are rejecting the union's prison rape model of extracting money.

MikeyA

Keep grasping at straws Fred.

Yet it's fine for a corporation to:

Force or otherwise shame employees into contributing to the yearly United Way campaign so the executives at the UW can collect millions along with all the other administrative and other overhead, so the CEOs can go hob-nob with each other while the employees who contribute and their families can't get help from the UW when needed.

Only offer 401(k) retirement plans instead of an actual pension, so instead of the employees having a say as to what the pension invests in, the money goes to some huge bank or fund manager who lops 25% off as administrative costs and who gets to invest in whatever they want and vote proxy on the shares that are technically held by employees' money, instead of the employees having the ability to vote proxy. And of course said banks and fund managers get to take their cut of employees' money and pay off lobbyists and participate in the political process.

Do other things, like instead of hiring more people or investing in solutions to make things run more efficiently, choose instead to urge employees to work harder under pain of being fired and then use the savings to buy lobbyists and donate to candidates and special interest groups to make things worse for employees and the labor pool.

But we all know you enjoy your socialist job, MikeyA, that's why you attack ANY AND ALL defense cuts while bashing unions, because you can't actually work in the private sector and face reality there.

AC

Ac, first a company cannot make you donate to the United Way.

Second, an employee does not have to contribute to a pension or 401(k). In fact, I'd recommend anyone to take their retirement planning into their own hands. I do it myself. My military retirement is not a major factor in my retirement plan. I have Roth Ira's, a traditional IRA, and a Thrift Savings Plan, every retirement plan should be unique to that person and if you trust anyone else to look out for your best interest whether it be a company or union you're going to regret it.

I do not attack any and all defense cuts. In fact, I supported a entire budget freeze in 2009. Not a cut, not a cut in the raise, but a freeze. I also support a Balanced Budget Amendment because our government has proven incapable of common sense budgeting. It's you who supports out of control and reckless financial decisions because how did you put it? That it "limits options". For governement options should be limited.

MikeyA

We have this thing called a Constitution that limits government options. It's just that you get butthurt and have to bitch and cry like a cranky baby whenever your limited and narrow interpretation of it isn't followed.

Duh

Duh, why do you think I'm supporting the amendment? To limit the government. Currently the government is not limited and it's done a horrible job. But I notice you glossed over where I confronted your statement that I'm against any and all military budget cuts.

MikeyA

I get it, you're just against any cuts that would put you back on Civilian Street, you socialist moocher.

The military owes me nothing. If they showed me the door tomorrow I would leave knowing every day I served giving them my best. It actually happens quite frequently, I've seen many people get passed over.

I've used my time in the military to learn several skills and jobs that would make me competitive in any industry I would seek employment.

They are offering early retirements as they shrink the force, I'm considering it. So your assumption about me is wrong as usual.

I fail to see how I'm a socialist. I don't advocate expanding the government into areas that are clearly designed for private industry the way you do.

MikeyA

Government wasn't ever supposed to have a standing military for your socialist ass to enlist in and suck the teat of, you socialist sponge! Fighting was supposed to be the job of the militias!

You're a hypocrite like always, MikeyA. Once again I assert you are full of shit, since your socialist self gets all bent out of shape whenever the government does what you think it shouldn't yet you "work" for it in a way the Founding Fathers didn't want to exist in the first place.

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

Sad that you are so wrong, so often.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

"Sad that you are so wrong, so often."

It is getting common isn't it?

MikeyA

Re-read what I said, Retard LeFeeble.

"Government wasn't ever supposed to have a standing military"

They have the POWER to raise and support an army.
They can appropriate money for that for a two year period.

Of course you ignore the workaround (keep a standing military by appropriating money for it EVERY TWO YEARS).

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm

Try again, LEFEEBLE.

They have the power to create such a thing so the intent must have been so unless you're arguing that the founding fathers made a mistake.

The current military was outlined in the War Powers Act and the National Security Act of 1947. If you support their repeal you can start now, there's an election in a few months, good luck with the movement.

MikeyA

Mikey says they offered him early retirement. Standard military retirement is 20 years. You get offered early retirement earlier than 20 years? No wonder our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world. We have this socialist military albatross chasing corporations to less taxed countries like with Burger King to Canada. Pretty soon our so-called defense budget will be the straw that broke the country. We need to cut this in half. No more damn wars. Let China and others pay for their own defense then maybe we can spend our money on rebuilding the American economy and infrastructure. Spend it on energy independence. Half the defense money budget is in defense of oil companies overseas. Force the oil industry to not export our reserves overseas. Nationalize our reserves in the name of economic security. Stop building these pipelines that help no Americans. Build wind and solar farms with the cuts in military spending.

Charles Lane: Military budget eaten by health, benefit costs
Read more: http://www.lenconnect.com/article/20140907/Opinion/140909269#ixzz3CjoxukAr
"

Argument: The Ministry of Oil Defense
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/05/the_ministry_of_oil_def...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Two points Paul.

First, the only reason early retirement is being offered to anyone is because the President you voted for is shrinking the force so by offering early retirement they will meet that goal faster and cheaper. I would take a significant cut in pay benefits by leaving but I never have done this job for the money. All other benefits would remain the same for myself and my family as it does for other retirees.

So thank you for electing a President who decided to see how fast he could cut it.

Second point, you keep talking about military health costs. I've already pointed out to you that the military is a single payer system, the same type of system you and your liberal brethern champion. I'd suggest opening the system up to competition to reduce costs.

And finally, after this President's foray into Libya you're really going to talk aobut protecting oil? Really? Wind and solar farms cannot self sustain our energy usage. Also it would make that fake condition you previously cited much more rampant. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth seems to be the norm for you.

MikeyA

All our trading partners let the U.S. spend our money defending the world and protecting the oil shipping lanes. We allowed them to spend their money on building up their manufacturing base and stole our Middle Class economy. Our country now is more dependent on others for our manufactured goods. As history has taught us World War II was won by the ability to mass produce hardware. That ability has now been transferred to China thanks to the influence of Wall Street yada yada and so forth. We are in decline because we refuse to admit our folly and change our hubris ways. In the end the people of America will suffer either from inflation or cuts in earned Social Security and Medicare to fund the for profit military industrial complex.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/15/who_pays_the_pro_war_pundits

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Libya is not in the Middle East. It is in Northern Africa, it is more west than Greece, Poland, and Hungary.

Your whole post just shows your ignorance in these matters. You hear of a country that is Muslim and has oil and you think it's in the Middle East when it clearly is not. Your opinion is based upon prejudice and ignorance.

Additionally, nothing you posted dispelled what I posted. You support a President who got us involved in a conflict because of oil. You talk of the US protecting oil shipping lanes for others, then explain Libya. No oil shipping lanes were threatened. You only brought the manufacturing/import issue in because you couldn't debate the b.s. you're spewing so you're trying to deflect and switch to a new topic.

MikeyA

If you need help MrIgnorant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East . Can you see Tripoli from your back door? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMiddle_East.ogv

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.