🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟

Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁

Teamsters at the GOP Convention

You simply are 1000% wrong. It is totally illegal to take union dues and donate them a political candidate or a party.

The only thing they are allowed to is Get Out To Vote Programs.

You do know under the Landrum-Griffith Act. Every penny a union spends is documented and file on the LM-2 with the Department of Labor.

Federal Elections Act of 1971 made it illegal for union dues to be donated to political parties, candidates, and campaigns

Political action committees​

Main article: Political action committee
The Federal Election Campaign Act also "provided the basic legislative framework for separate segregated funds," more commonly known as political action committees. Although the law prohibits corporations and unions from making direct contributions to federal candidates, it allows a group to "establish, operate and solicit voluntary contributions for the organization's" political action committee. These funds can then in turn be used in federal elections“

You are either very naive or a special kind of stupid. I am sure corrupt politicians would NEVER break laws to receive funding. Just because it is not SUPPOSED to happen does not mean it DOES not happen.









 
You are either very naive or a special kind of stupid. I am sure corrupt politicians would NEVER break laws to receive funding. Just because it is not SUPPOSED to happen does not mean it DOES not happen.









It’s quite apparent you didn’t read the article and you didn’t comprehend my post

PAC money ISNT Union dues. Like I stated it’s against the law for a union to give dues money to a party or candidate.

PAC money is voluntary contributions from members which is perfectly legal.
 
You are either very naive or a special kind of stupid. I am sure corrupt politicians would NEVER break laws to receive funding. Just because it is not SUPPOSED to happen does not mean it DOES not happen.









Can't you make your point without all the links? Who has time to read them?
 
Can't you make your point without all the links? Who has time to read them?
And he doesn’t probably even read what he posts.

As one of his posts clearly states PAC Money, which aren’t even union dues money, it’s voluntary contributions from members.

 
Well how about this one to throw everyone for a loop.

“President-elect Trump has tapped Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), to serve as Labor secretary in his new administration.

Chavez-DeRemer had the backing of the Teamsters before she was officially picked by Trump. She served for one term in the House and lost her reelection bid to Democrat Janelle Bynum in November.”

IMG_1888.jpeg
IMG_1889.jpeg
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #82
The only possible heartburn with that pick is that she voted against right to work. That may get a few No votes from the GOP but might garner a few Dem votes.

Upside is it won't affect the 119th House.
 
The only possible heartburn with that pick is that she voted against right to work. That may get a few No votes from the GOP but might garner a few Dem votes.

Upside is it won't affect the 119th House.

Maybe I could go along with the idea of RTW if it didn’t obligate representation to free riders. Could you imagine the idea of walking into a Lawyers office and saying to a Lawyer you’re going to represent me but I’m not going to pay you. Oh and BTW you better do the best job you can or I’ll sue you.

Thankfully under the RLA that’s not something as yet we need to be concerned about.

Now if you’ll excuse me I need to call my electric company and tell them I’m no longer going to pay them and they better not turn off my lights.

 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #84
Nah, I'm in agreement with you -- if you're not a member, you automatically waive any obligation for the union to represent you in a grievance. DFR I'm a bit less forgiving on, as the union could always do something shady like have the company lay off the non-union members first instead of doing so on merit or date of hire.
 
Nah, I'm in agreement with you -- if you're not a member, you automatically waive any obligation for the union to represent you in a grievance. DFR I'm a bit less forgiving on, as the union could always do something shady like have the company lay off the non-union members first instead of doing so on merit or date of hire.

Actually that wouldn’t be shady at all. I don’t get why you would or should think a person should have Union contractual rights if they didn’t pay anything at all to help that Contract exist. Unless of course they’re paying the Agency Fee in which case they have rights.

If they don’t pay anything at all they should have no rights of the Contract including layoffs, seniority bidding or overtime. They should go to the bottom on all of those things.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #86
Nah, seniority isn't a concept invented by unions. You don't get to staple people just because they don't see the value that the union offers, or can't join because of personal beliefs.

For example... the Amish and Mennonites typically can't join secular organizations, including unions. And both can be found in the general workforce and some trades. There are also some Quaker congregations of the opinion that being in a union might go against their doctrines of neutrality and being non-confrontational.

Doing a layoff based on a non-seniority basis would constitute discrimination based on religious principals.
 
Last edited:
Nah, seniority isn't a concept invented by unions. You don't get to staple people just because they don't see the value that the union offers.

For example... the Amish and Mennonites typically can't join secular organizations, including unions. And both can be found in the general workforce and some trades. Doing a layoff based on a non-seniority basis would constitute discrimination based on religious principals.

You and I don’t share the same opinions on the issue. That’s ok ✅ in Trumps America though. 😃
 
Back
Top