On Tuesday 12 July 2005 07:08, Todd Walton wrote: > On 7/12/05, boblq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 July 2005 12:54 am, Todd Walton wrote: > > > Chris mentioned current (or fairly current) strength of support > > > for unions, and I'm only 29 years old, making my history with unions > > > not all that long. > > > > Even people who are only 29 might realize that something > > happened before they did and look into it. > > Yabbut... Chris said, 'Support for unions is extremely low, who'da > thought?', and I said, 'Well, I've never seen a good union', meaning: > 'I'm not surprised that union support is low, they don't seem to be > doing much good'. And *now* I'm saying, think twice before you jump > to conclusions about whether I know anything about the history of > unions, and about whether I think that history is positive or > negative. > > -todd
Clarification: I said support for unions using dues in a political context ( ads, contributiuons etc ) was low. The proposed bill would allow for those union members who *disagree* with the use of dues for a particular political statement or direction to request a refund or refuse to contribute: case in point- the teachers union just 'assessed' additional dues of $780 / per year (I may be off on the figure ) for political positioning ( my words ) mostly attaking Arnolds stance on tenure, merit pay etc. Under current law, all union members pay, regardless of their feelings about the stance of the union. Under the proposed bill they could request a refund. In states with similar laws, the participation in these contributions have fallen from a mandatory 100% participation to a voluntary 7% participation. The message is clear at least in the area of political arean regarding unions. C. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
