Do you anticipate ever addressing the very specific points I've tried to make repeatedly and the very specific questions I've asked repeatedly, or do you anticipate continuing to rattle off your extensive experience as a union member, dropping names of other unions your friends and family members have belonged to, and reciting newspaper opinions that are 100% opinion statements (which are fine to have, as far as they go) but are devoid of actual elements of substantial arguments?Wow, you've quite an invested (sic) interest, obviously...What do you imagine that to be? My wife and I both work, neither of us has a portfolio outside of our retirement accounts, neither of us know the Koch brothers, neither of us are members of the Lincoln Club, hell, I'm registered Libertarian - this Prop passing doesn't affect me in the slightest. I do have an interest in spreading freedom and reducing coercion wherever possible, even in places where I'm personally unaffected (you know, the whole "when they came for X, I didn't speak up because I wasn't X"). I would think every citizen would have the same vested interest in other citizens' freedom to decide which political campaigns they wish to support. I'm not left-handed, but I don't think we should take left-handers' money to spend on causes they may not support. I don't have union dues extracted from my paycheck, but I don't think we should take union members' money to spend on causes they may not support.We worked in may hazardous areas, conditions, we negotiated contrasts that covered our members safety, management was never going to step up.. So now you want to handicap the union mamagement and how it can use its influence,Interesting choice of words, "handicap". It's very simple - I don't want to change at all what a union is able to do in the execution of reason for being: the collective bargaining that goes on between union and employer. What I desire is for the money that gets funneled into politics - from any source, union, corporate, private - to ALWAYS be voluntary and never, EVER compulsory. The union can still use its influence as it does now - but each member should be able to withdraw his personal permission to use funds from his own paycheck to exercise that influence. If the union's going to take $100 from Joe's paycheck, spend $80 of it on collective-bargaining with Joe's employer and the other $20 to bankroll the Basic Speed Law reduction bill, which has nada, zero, zilch to do with the collective-bargaining that is the reason the union exists, then Joe should be able to say, "No thanks, I oppose the bill so I don't want my money funding its passage."You would have it go back to what we see in the Southern coal mines, shifty, greedy bosses, slave drivers of old, watching whole families die rather than provide the safety equipment, then whine when it collapses and their mess is displayed publicly.If you truly honestly believe that this is the inevitable outcome - indeed, that this would even be possible in this day and age with the legislation that's been passed and the regulations that are in effect and the agencies overseeing those regulations and the trial lawyers itching to make their fortunes - then I've misjudged you for a reasonable person with whom honest discourse about the actual rubber-meets-the-road merits of the Prop was possible. It's obvious that neither one of us is going to change the other's mind about this, but I was hoping we could at least put something up here that would treat any other readers to a balanced look at the Prop itself so they could weigh it in their own minds and make their own decisions. Hopefully that will still happen, with or without your measured participation.JT
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra