- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Disenfranchised: Deprived of power, marginalized.
Look it up.
Deprived of the right to vote. Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation. If you want to be an apologist for unions, which you clearly do, you should avoid the word "disenfranchised" at all costs, because unions blatantly seek disenfranchisement of the people they represent. They have worked very hard and very successfully at preventing union workers from having the right to periodically vote to recertify or decertify that representation.
And as far as unions go; once again dude, you're either that ignorant or lying.
I have informed you very objectively about Janus v. AFSCME. You're the one stuffing your head into the sand.
The argument against unions in Janus claims the mandatory agency fees are spent politically. Unions are agreeing with that argument!
Naomi Walker, AFSCME, directly states that the effect of a ruling in favor of Janus would be as follows: "The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble." How can think tanks and advocacy organizations "crumble" based on dues that are supposedly not used for politics? Easy. It's because the dues are used politically, actually. All union dues are political. She also says, "Janus will make it harder for public sector unions to lead, or even join, fights on social and economic issues." That is also political. She is admitting that unions need dues that are allegedly not spent politically in order to advance political causes.
How is it you still can't understand this? Important people in the American labor lobby are loudly arguing that basic financial core dues which are allegedly only used for representation... are needed by unions in order for them to wage political battles and support political causes.
Here's what I've been saying, which you still can't comprehend: "Sweeping condemnations of “a rigged system,” “rich CEOs,” “anti-union oligarchs,” “corporate special interests,” and “anti-worker extremists” undermine the hair-splitting distinctions union lawyers try to make between political and apolitical spending when defending mandatory fees in court; it’s clear that union leaders believe their activism is inextricably linked to their ability to coerce fees from non-members." - Public-Employee Unions: Only a Lousy Right-Winger Would Call Us Political