The way it works here is you can choose to be not part of the union. But you still pay the union dues. So there really is no point in choosing to not be part of the union.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
The way it works here is you can choose to be not part of the union. But you still pay the union dues. So there really is no point in choosing to not be part of the union.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
Yeah I don’t think that would stand up to a court challenge over here based on current jurisprudence. I can’t see how you could argue that you’re able to exert your right to disassociate if you still have to pay fees.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
your step father chooses to work for a small company. he Feels he gets appropriate benefits And is treated well. I think unions are good for larger organizations that are less personal and the power dynamic is much different. His union dues at a small company wouldn’t get him far. There is not much profit to share. However larger companies and organizations can assert more pressure, have more money profit, and have a much less personal relationship with their employees.
My union dues get me good working conditions, great healthcare for my family, and a retirement. His money is just not going to go as far at small companies.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
That is not true. You can refuse to pay and still work under the same conditions, it the union will not represent you in disputes.
I don't think that's true for all states. Or at least it wasn't in MA within the last 10 years. I'll have to do more digging into it.
He is friends with the owning family and they treat him like family.
However, he gets crap for benefits. Mediocre health insurance, no dental and no retirement.
Without these benefits and union dues his take home pay is more than what it would be if he worked at a union outfit. However, he's got no retirement savings outside of whats in his checking account and property.
And he's always bitching about how the government takes too much in taxes, and that wages have been stagnant for years.
He blames the stagnant wages on minority outfits that underbid the job. It's extremely hard winning job bids these days when bidding at cost.
Another issue is, larger outfits can not contract out jobs to the outfit my father works for as the union forbids it. They can only contract out jobs to other union outfits.
The small family run construction outfit is getting less work every year and has been shrinking in size.
Yes, this. Unions are most effective against large monopolies.
So I'm really interested in this right now. It looks like the Senate realizes that drug overdoses and deaths of despair are probably a bad thing for our shining city on a hill, so they are finally talking about some legislation around it. I think it will probably fall short and likely create more barriers to entry if any means testing is written into it, but at least we are past ignoring it or thinking of it as something that is scourging the Appalachians but not for anyone in any "real" part of the country to worry about. As everything else, we have to wait until someone that a rich person knows was affected by overdose or a death of despair before we can do anything about it, but that's where we are now. I think that we should legalize all drugs and treat addiction as the mental health condition that it is. I think we need M4A. And I think we need a way for regular Americans to make a living wage without resorting to crime or slavery. They do mention at the end of the article that one Senator is fighting for extended Medicaid benefits to people dealing with addiction, which I like since usually you get penalized for being on drugs by many aide programs and safety nets. Many people on public assistance hide their addiction because they could be evicted for being a drug user.
More than 86,000 individuals died from drug overdoses in the 12-month period ending in July 2020, the highest ever recorded in a year, according to preliminary Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. A separate American Medical Association brief found that more than 40 states reported increases in opioid-related deaths during the pandemic.
At the same time, CDC data has shown sharp increases in individuals experiencing mental health symptoms. Local data has shown spikes in suicides, and children’s advocates worry that the pandemic will have lasting effects on kids’ mental and social health.
House lawmakers are pivoting to a more holistic approach to behavioral health and addiction policy. The newly formed Bipartisan Addiction and Mental Health Task Force will be led by Reps. Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., David Trone, D-Md., and Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash.
“I definitely expect that we will be working with our leadership both on the [Energy and Commerce] Committee and House leadership to have another round of bills,” said Kuster.
Kuster said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer had indicated legislation could move in September. A senior Democratic aide said that while there are no calendar announcements yet, leadership supports prioritizing the efforts during the 117th Congress.
House reshapes approach to mental health and addiction - Roll Call
House lawmakers are restructuring their task forces on the drug epidemic with a renewed focus on behavioral health.
Let's just think about this.
If the larger outfits have unions, how can they be hiring minorities below market value for wages? Isn't this something that the union protects against? From the department of Labor statistics: Among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $1,095 in 2019, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $892.
Nonunion workers had weekly earnings 81 percent of union members in 2019 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $1,095 in 2019, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $892.
www.bls.gov
I have seen numerous analyses that suggest that people in unions get paid better than people not in unions. This is just a fact, not an arguing point. The idea that he gets paid better without the union is a false economy. Also, seeing as unions can only contract out work to other unions, it looks like being in a union also helps with job security. I have to wonder if the people are purposefully leaving this non-union employer because they can get better employment with a union job. Not saying unions are the best thing in the world, just saying that this man's argument is nonsense.
Let's just think about this.
If the larger outfits have unions, how can they be hiring minorities below market value for wages? Isn't this something that the union protects against? From the department of Labor statistics: Among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $1,095 in 2019, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $892.
Nonunion workers had weekly earnings 81 percent of union members in 2019 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $1,095 in 2019, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $892.
I have seen numerous analyses that suggest that people in unions get paid better than people not in unions. This is just a fact, not an arguing point. The idea that he gets paid better without the union is a false economy. Also, seeing as unions can only contract out work to other unions, it looks like being in a union also helps with job security. I have to wonder if the people are purposefully leaving this non-union employer because they can get better employment with a union job. Not saying unions are the best thing in the world, just saying that this man's argument is nonsense.
I don't believe the minority outfits are unionized. There are a couple of them that are made up of mostly Portuguese workers and they pay well below the market wages. I have also heard stories of them getting in trouble for not playing employees prevailing wage. The are a real competition for any small job or town job and under bid everyone. They have taken over the market for those types of jobs.
Also fun fact. Any state construction job in Massachusetts is prevailing wage. So it doesn't mater where you work, the pay is the same state wage. My step father is well connected with the family that runs the business he works for, so 90% of his work is at prevailing wage. When he is not on a prevailing wage job for sure the union workers get paid more than him. But they treat him well and place him on all the prevailing wage jobs so he can't complain.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
It’s just an example of how he benefits from union workers even though he doesn’t pay dues. I have no problem with that. It is what unions are supposed to do. We are supposed to use our political power to raise the bar for how all members of our community are treated.
Last edited:
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I just watched this. If I was smart enough to understand the distinctions Fauci was talking about Rand was too. The science is pretty clear, but what to do about it is where everything gets confused.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
The newest modeling forecast from the UK states that even with the vaccine, there is the potential of spread given the new variants. In other words, there is a relationship between the number of people that got vaccinated and the number of Covid variants floating around, and these numbers need to be monitored carefully.
We estimate that vaccination alone is insufficient to contain the outbreak. In the absence of NPIs, even with our most optimistic assumption that the vaccine will prevent 85% of infections, we estimate R to be 1·58 (95% credible intervals [CI] 1·36–1·84) once all eligible adults have been offered both doses of the vaccine. Under the default uptake scenario, removal of all NPIs once the vaccination programme is complete is predicted to lead to 21 400 deaths (95% CI 1400–55 100) due to COVID-19 for a vaccine that prevents 85% of infections, although this number increases to 96 700 deaths (51 800–173 200) if the vaccine only prevents 60% of infections. Although vaccination substantially reduces total deaths, it only provides partial protection for the individual; we estimate that, for the default uptake scenario and 60% protection against infection, 48·3% (95% CI 48·1–48·5) and 16·0% (15·7–16·3) of deaths will be in individuals who have received one or two doses of the vaccine, respectively.
DEFINE_ME
www.thelancet.com
The only part of this study that I really look at critically is this: Our calculation of R was computed from the predicted growth rate of infection, assuming the complete release of all NPIs and for a given number of doses administered. The calculation of R assumed protection against infection afforded by the vaccine but ignored any increase in immunity from infection after January, 2021.
I think that's an awfully big assumption to make and I think it does effect the model. I wish they would have considered a separate factor for this because I can see this being a huge point of scientific contention and debate--and I mean to the point that anti-vax doctors and other professionals will grab this and call the study garbage due to this model assumption.
In the past year I have heard a lot about "Only Fans".
There have been specials about it on Axios, Dateline and other programs.
Many influencers on Instagram now have an Only Fans.
It's been around for a few years, but really has soared in popularity since COVID-19 hit.
Many people in their 20's have been resistant to request from followers to create an Only Fans as thats not them and that's something they would never do. But then COVID-19 hit and many of these young people found themselves jobless. The only options for jobs being minimum wage service jobs.
This lead to many people to trying out Only Fans. And the stories are all the same. It's great money. More money they could ever make getting a job elsewhere and has allowed them to pay off their student loans and buy their first house. They thought they would try it for a month or two until they got a job again, but found the money is too good to ever give it up.
You have about 5,000 followers on Instagram? If you create an Only Fans and post only pictures you would post on Instagram, just more often you can expect to make about $800 a week. One instagramer I follow made a YouTube video. She went in to try it out only for a month while unemployed doing just that, and told everyone not to renew because she's never going to post any nudes or anything sexual. But everyone renewed anyways. 6 months later she's still posting instagram like content on Only Fans and making more than $10,000 a month.
Another Instagram Fitness model I follow is making $55k a month.
How much money you can make all depends on how many followers you have and what you are willing to post. If your willing to post nudes and sexual content and have more than 100k followers on Instagram you can easily crack into the top 5% of content producers on Only Fans, who earn $110,000 a week or more just by charing your subscribers $50 a month or $1,000 a month for sexual content. And special custom posts for tips. Top accounts like actress Bella Thorne make more than a Million a month.
The primary audience of Only Fans is affluent white males.
I think it really says a lot if the economy and workforce our country has to offer is what is driving many young females into this type of gig. And even crazier that this type of gig produces more money than they could ever get any traditional job.
There have been specials about it on Axios, Dateline and other programs.
Many influencers on Instagram now have an Only Fans.
It's been around for a few years, but really has soared in popularity since COVID-19 hit.
Many people in their 20's have been resistant to request from followers to create an Only Fans as thats not them and that's something they would never do. But then COVID-19 hit and many of these young people found themselves jobless. The only options for jobs being minimum wage service jobs.
This lead to many people to trying out Only Fans. And the stories are all the same. It's great money. More money they could ever make getting a job elsewhere and has allowed them to pay off their student loans and buy their first house. They thought they would try it for a month or two until they got a job again, but found the money is too good to ever give it up.
You have about 5,000 followers on Instagram? If you create an Only Fans and post only pictures you would post on Instagram, just more often you can expect to make about $800 a week. One instagramer I follow made a YouTube video. She went in to try it out only for a month while unemployed doing just that, and told everyone not to renew because she's never going to post any nudes or anything sexual. But everyone renewed anyways. 6 months later she's still posting instagram like content on Only Fans and making more than $10,000 a month.
Another Instagram Fitness model I follow is making $55k a month.
How much money you can make all depends on how many followers you have and what you are willing to post. If your willing to post nudes and sexual content and have more than 100k followers on Instagram you can easily crack into the top 5% of content producers on Only Fans, who earn $110,000 a week or more just by charing your subscribers $50 a month or $1,000 a month for sexual content. And special custom posts for tips. Top accounts like actress Bella Thorne make more than a Million a month.
The primary audience of Only Fans is affluent white males.
I think it really says a lot if the economy and workforce our country has to offer is what is driving many young females into this type of gig. And even crazier that this type of gig produces more money than they could ever get any traditional job.
The SCOTUS has agreed to take on California's union laws.
The agricultural industry has challenged California's union law that allows unions to gain access to private property (farms) to recruit workers into joining a union. California is the only state that has such a law, which says unions may gain access to the property of farms up to 3 times a day 120 days out of the year. All they need to do is notify the department of agriculture of their intention, they do not need the approval of land owners.
The agricultural industry, or rather one large nursery in this case, is taking on the law as being unconstitutional.
They equate allowing access without compensation to their land to the government seizing their land.
The Biden Administration supports the unions in this case. But of course Republicans do not. The conservative leaning SCOTUS is likely to side with the Nursery, resulting in further weakening unions and preventing them from gaining access to private property to recruit.
The agricultural industry has challenged California's union law that allows unions to gain access to private property (farms) to recruit workers into joining a union. California is the only state that has such a law, which says unions may gain access to the property of farms up to 3 times a day 120 days out of the year. All they need to do is notify the department of agriculture of their intention, they do not need the approval of land owners.
The agricultural industry, or rather one large nursery in this case, is taking on the law as being unconstitutional.
They equate allowing access without compensation to their land to the government seizing their land.
The Biden Administration supports the unions in this case. But of course Republicans do not. The conservative leaning SCOTUS is likely to side with the Nursery, resulting in further weakening unions and preventing them from gaining access to private property to recruit.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
Why shouldn’t the landowner be allowed to prevent access of people to their land? There are a lot of other places to recruit people in the community.
If you think about it, most every business could be considered to be on private land.
Would this translate to union reps being barred from going to other job sites as well like mines because it's on private property?
Most every business does not want to be unionized. It means they labor costs them more. Should the land owner be able to say that the union reps can not set foot on their property to recruit / talk to workers?
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
There are rules about organizing. You can’t use company resources, time, space, and equipment. Sometimes we are given a limited amount of time to talk at monthly meetings. we also use a facility monthly for area meetings, but that has changed with COVID. Its all zoom now. Caesar Chavez had to do it the hard way. There are all sorts of community based resources that would help With organizing.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
This is intended as a funny. Some of y’all may find some amusement in it, some of y’all may not. I think it’s hilarious.