Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:37 pm

Right-to-work law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the US laws restricting labor unions. For the human right concept, see right to work. For the Indian law, see National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
Right-to-work laws are statutes in a reported 26 states in the United States that are an effort to give employees the right to work without being required or compelled to join to a union. These statutes are not listed under US labor and employment laws as of May 2016, but have been operational with local employment hearing judges for over a half decade. Right-to-work laws were reported in all US states in regard to unemployment insurance hearings in which the employer was seeking to bar the employee from receiving these legal benefits after termination. Public policy exceptions have been devised by attorneys to seek to overturn the broad and unannounced sweep of these laws in the US. Local appellate judges have not indicated that they will allow public policy to be used on behalf of the former employees - most of whom were employees under their health insurance when injured (e.g., mental health parity laws).

According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right to work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[1] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

Unions are already governed by regulations and laws, including public policy on labor-management relations (e.g., a university central office professional position on "labor relations"). Typically, unions are organized by industry (e.g., health care, restaurant, steel workers, teachers, state government- professional, non-professional), and they are required to be voted in by employees and "management" with provisions on dues payments required as of 2011. For example, while municipal employees have their own unions, as do police and firefighters, other non-profit agencies in localities may not be offered these same protections. Unions have early roots in America from assuring pensions and benefits to employees, to fair hearings and union representation, and even working conditions, such as the "sweat shops" of early manufacturing.

Right-to-work provisions (either by law or by constitutional provision) exist in 26 U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States, but also including the Midwestern states of Michigan,[2] Indiana,[3] Iowa, and Wisconsin.[4] Business interests represented by the United States Chamber of Commerce have lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[5][6][7][8] Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between those persons employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector with states that are otherwise union shop (i.e., pay union dues or lose the job) having right to work laws in effect for government employees.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:39 pm

Trump: 'I like right-to-work better'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump ... le/2583977
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:40 pm

Who’s behind right to work?
Ignoring the facts about “right-to-work,” far-right politicians across the country are promoting these deceptive policies as payback to their Big Business donors. By weakening workers’ ability to have a say about their job, right to work weakens unions’ ability to serve as an advocate for all workers and a check against corporate greed.

Without solid evidence to back their claims, the politicians advancing right-to-work legislation depend on a coordinated network of extremist right-wing groups to provide resources, research, and an echo chamber that pave the way for right to work.

The most well-known of these cash-flush special interest groups include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Right to Work Committee. Read on to learn more about the groups working overtime to make every state a right-to-work state.

ALEC
Right to work has gained some momentum as result of the collusion between Big Business and allied lawmakers involved in ALEC, an established conservative group backed by corporate special interests that peddles influence with state legislators. While much of its work has gone on behind closed doors, several media outlets and the Center for Media and Democracy have recently exposed how ALEC operates, peeling back the curtain on the significant political influence it wields at the state level. ALEC gives companies and politicians a shared role in developing its legislative prototypes, which are then introduced in copycat fashion by its members in legislatures nationwide. As part of its extremist agenda, ALEC and its members aim to limit the rights of workers and their unions through initiatives such as right to work. Check out Progress Missouri’s ALEC exposé, which reveals just how similar Missouri’s proposed right-to-work bill is to ALEC’s draft legislation.

In the ultimate irony, ALEC gives corporations a voice and a vote in order to rob workers of theirs. ALEC’s leadership and membership include executives from corporations like Comcast and Walmart that are notorious for their low-wage, anti-worker business practices. ALEC is also tied to heavy hitters in the Tea Party movement, like the billionaire Koch brothers, who channel their vast wealth to far-right groups and politicians and helped orchestrate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s repeal of public employees’ collective bargaining rights.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
As the nation’s most powerful lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made right to work one of its top priorities. The U.S. Chamber and its state affiliates have issued misleading reports, launched PR blitzes, and used their lobbying muscle to advance right-to-work legislation across the country. Like ALEC, corporations funnel money to the prominent lobbying force to promote their agenda in Congress and in the states. The U.S. Chamber has been campaigning against unions, fair labor practices, increases in the minimum wage, and legal protections for America’s workers for nearly a century.

While the Chamber advocates that workers benefiting from a union contract should not have to pay the union any fees, the Chamber does not appear to hold itself to the same standards. Click here to view a local Chamber’s double standard on right to work, which surfaced when the area’s union Building Trades Council inquired whether it would be possible to be a member of the Chamber but not pay dues. The Chamber responded that “It would be against Chamber by-laws and policy to consider any organization or business a member without dues being paid. The vast majority of the Chamber’s annual revenues come from member dues, and it would be unfair to the other members to allow an organization not paying dues to be included in member benefits.”

For more about the U.S. Chamber, click here.

National Right to Work
The National Right to Work Committee and its legal arm, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, are longtime proponents of right to work. The group claims to be a “worker advocate,” but an examination of its press releases issued between 2003 and 2005 showed no reference to any attempt to improve benefits or working conditions for workers; and only one mention of increasing wages. Meanwhile, the organization continuously pushes reports with outdated and flawed information to advance right to work. National Right to Work refuses to disclose its donors. However, like ALEC, the group has connections to the ultra-conservative Koch brothers.

For more about National Right to Work, click here.

What About Corporations?
In addition to hiding behind these special-interest groups, thanks to Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, corporations have significant leeway to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections and policy—without having to disclose their role. Since that landmark decision, record sums of money have been spent by outside groups to scale back protections for workers, and it is no coincidence that right to work has recently gained momentum.

Despite the challenges of tracking specific businesses and donors that are involved in promoting right to work, it’s clear that those behind these efforts have deep pockets. In 2012, Indiana’s airwaves were flooded with ads for right to work featuring top Republican lawmakers, who refused to share how the ads were funded. Public records reveal that the Indiana Opportunity Fund, a group founded by Republican activist Jim Bopp, spent $600,000 on ad buys. With laws granting anonymity to his donors, Bopp wouldn’t disclose where the money came from.

http://wrongforeveryone.org/behind-right-to-wor/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:42 pm

False Claims, False Promises: Why “Right to Work” Is Wrong for Everyone
The facts below illustrate why right to work is wrong for workers, businesses, and our economy. (You can also download this fact sheet as a PDF.)

Wrong for workers

These laws drive down wages for all workers, including non-union members, women, and people of color.
Workers living in right-to-work states earn about $1,500 less per year than workers in states without these laws. The wage penalty is even higher for women and workers of color.
(http://www.epi.org/publication/bp299/)
Workers in right-to-work states are less likely to have health insurance.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance for workers in right-to-work states is 2.6 percentage points lower than in states without these restrictions.
(http://www.epi.org/publication/bp299/)
Right to work makes workplaces more dangerous.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is higher in right-to-work states.
(http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Job-Safety ... Job-Report)
Wrong for businesses

Right-to-work laws do not improve business conditions in states.
(http://www.bepress.com/rle/vol5/iss1/art25/)
Right to work is not a deciding factor in where businesses locate.
(http://www.areadevelopment.com/Corporat ... tml?Page=2)
High-tech companies that provide good-paying, American jobs favor states where unions have a strong presence, because unions provide a high-skilled workforce and decrease turnover.
(http://www.itif.org/publications/2014-s ... nomy-index)
Wrong for the economy

Communities lose jobs when wages are lowered by right to work.
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every $1 million in wage cuts, the local economy sheds six jobs.
(http://www.epi.org/publication/working- ... ed-uphill/)
Right to work does not improve the employment rate.
In fact, seven of the 11 states with the highest unemployment rates have right-to-work laws on the books.
(http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)
According to a report from Ohio University, these laws actually led to a decrease in employment in certain industries.
(http://econpapers.repec.org/article/sej ... 02-418.htm)
Right to work proponents are wrong

Right-to-work supporters hide behind the claim that right to work protects workers who don’t want to join a union or agree with a union’s politics.
But federal labor law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union or make political contributions.
Right to work’s true purpose is to hurt the ability of unions to advocate for all workers and serve as a check on corporate greed.
Download this fact sheet as a PDF.
http://wrongforeveryone.org/more-facts- ... t-to-work/



HATE THE WORKER VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:44 pm

Right-to-Work Laws Top Republican Wish Lists
With the recent addition of West Virginia, a majority of states now make it harder for unions to collect dues. More could soon be added to the list.

BY ALAN GREENBLATT | FEBRUARY 25, 2016




Earlier this month, West Virginia became the 26th state to enact a right-to-work law. It won't be the last.

Right-to-work laws bar labor unions from requiring private-sector employees to join and pay dues. Such laws have been in place, primarily in Southern states, since the late 1940s. But over the past four years, states that were formerly union strongholds -- Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia -- have adopted the laws as well. Indiana also passed a right-to-work law in 2012.

"It's an old idea whose time has come," said Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

RELATED

Right-to-Work Law Reinstated in Wisconsin
Public Unions Claim Victory in Supreme Court's 4-4 Tie
Legislative Session Ends Without a Budget in West Virginia
Supreme Court: Quasi Public Employees Exempt from Union Dues
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Appear Against Unions
Increasingly, Republican governors are embracing right-to-work as a way to attract companies to their states.

"When we recruit, that is one of the first questions: What does your labor force look like and are you a right-to-work state?" New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez told the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce last month.

Some companies won't consider a state for relocation or expansion if it doesn't have a right-to-work law. Supporters of right-to-work -- who are trying to rebrand the concept as "worker freedom" legislation -- claim such laws have improved the economies where they are in place.

Labor unions, however, contend that right-to-work not only hurts them but workers in general. By making it harder for them to recruit, right-to-work laws diminish their ranks and thus make it more difficult for them to push worker-friendly policies, such as minimum wage increases and paid sick leave requirements.

"That's all right-to-work is about: trying to undermine the funding for unions to make it harder for them to be a factor," said Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that receives financial backing from unions.

The renewed enthusiasm for right-to-work comes as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the separate issue of whether government employees can be forced to pay union dues -- something 23 states allow. Given the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it's unclear whether the issue will be resolved this term. State right-to-work laws have also had their days in court and survived challenges in Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Unions can still organize in right-to-work states, but they have to convince individual employees that putting roughly 2 percent of their income toward dues is worthwhile.

Under a right-to-work regime, "unions do have to work harder to maintain membership," said Jim Waters, president of the Bluegrass Institute, a free-market think tank in Kentucky. "They can't rely on union membership growth and dues simply because a company has a union presence."

While overall union membership has stagnated in the last few years, it declined in the states that recently enacted right-to-work laws. Since 1983, when comparable data was first collected by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total share of the workforce that belongs to unions has declined roughly 5 percentage points, from 20.1 percent to 14.8 percent.

Advocates on either side of the issue come armed with studies that underscore the worth of their respective positions. Some studies suggest right-to-work states enjoy better job growth, while others indicate wages are driven down.

The debate is as much about politics as it is about economics.

In Missouri, legislators passed a right-to-work bill last year, but Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it. Now, the state's gubernatorial candidates are weighing in.

"As governor, I will make Missouri the 27th right-to-work state," Catherine Hanaway, a Republican candidate for governor, wrote last week in a fundraising appeal.

The surest defense against passage of right-to-work laws has been having Democrats control part of the political process. Despite Gov. Martinez' advocacy in New Mexico, the idea died in the Democratic-controlled state Senate last year and may not come back to life any time soon.

"I honestly think we're going to get a bigger majority of Democrats this fall," said John Henry, president of the New Mexico Federation of Labor. "This won't be a subject of conversation any more, not in New Mexico."

But in Kentucky, Republicans hope they can erase the Democratic majority in the state House this year, which is the sole remaining obstacle to passage of right-to-work, a priority of GOP Gov. Matt Bevin. With the issue stalled at the state level, a dozen counties in Kentucky have passed local right-to-work laws. On Feb. 3, a federal judge threw out Hardin County's law, ruling that only states have the power to opt out of federal law governing collection of union dues.

That decision will be appealed. But if Republicans are able to erase the Democrats' slender lead in the House, it won't matter either way because Bevin will sign a right-to-work law at the earliest possible opportunity.

"Unions won't like what is about to be said, but here it is: Kentucky will become a right-to-work state," the Bowling Green Daily News editorialized after the Hardin County ruling.
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/go ... nions.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:30 pm

seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:32 pm wrote:how many times are you going to post the same crap?

Isn't 10 times enough?

a little over kill to make your point ...I got it the first time...Trumps the actual rapist is better than Hillary...I get it...over and out



Here's an article to make both camps happy:

BOTH Clinton and his pal Trump were friends with billionare pedo Epstein
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... inton.html
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:33 pm

so is Naomi Campbell a rapist too?

and Hillary is responsible for Bill's actions ...are they both accused of rape or just Bill?
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:36 pm

seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:14 pm wrote:
backtoiam » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm wrote:You don't know any homeless people? Instead of admitting that the Democrats, just like the Republicans, have been fucking the poor, jobless, and homeless, you just keep pointing at the Republicans.



no I am pointing out that YOU are blaming only democrats for your problems....you for the first time now have mentioned republicans..I wasn't blaming anyone but the racist asshole Trumpters who want him to be president


People paying attention know Republicans are slime buckets. Trump today at one of his Fuhrer-istic rallies literally asked people to raise their hand if they were Christian Conservative, then wanted to do a poll to see if anyone who wasnt should be kicked out of the rally. Today, that actually happened.

I think the issue some are having is, when the Democrats claim to be for the poor, disenfranchised, ect. The right uses dirty tricks to destroy poor people(the stunt against ACORN comes to mind)
But seeing the Obama administration royally cover for the Saudis, help the Saudis commit mass war crimes in Yemen, deport millions of people in a way that would make Trump blush, try and destroy
medicinal marijuana dispenceraries, make jokes about drones the same night he orders deadly drone strikes on villages, ect, it just looks bad. More whistleblowers have been prosecuted under Obama, than even Bush.

So yes, he makes speeches about the rights of gay/lesbian/trans people, and bringing civility..but behind closed doors Obama also is behind a lot of bad things. And Hillary is a hundred times worse when it comes
to foreign policy, perhaps on par with Dick Cheney. This is why many of us do not support Hillary and never will
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby overcoming hope » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:44 am

Why Conservatives Are DESPERATE For Hillary To Win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgJcgZtSUSY
overcoming hope
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Grizzly » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:58 am

So just skimming over Democratic Underground today, it looks like Clinton shitz marmalade and roses and Trump this much worse. so that still leaves us with Coke or Pepsi happy?

I'm so sick of this game. R.D. Laing was sooo, right.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4919
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:58 am

oh jesus h christ on a pogo stick...this shit has been going on forever...get a grip ..you're tired? try being a woman ...I'm guessing you are a white man....how hard has it been for you poor baby :cry:

republican party is a racist hateful old white men party ...they are loosing control of their women.... their blacks ....their vegetable pickers...their dishwashers....their lawn movers and they don't like it one bit

yes trump is much worse and this is the fucking truth ...if you are a black....a woman...a latino....a man that cares about women and doesn't hate them knows this as fact



my vagina wants a democrat to win

my daughters vaginas want a democrat to win

and their husbands love women/ their wives and want them to keep control of their bodies

my grand daughters vaginas want a democrat to win

our vaginas are very selfish

I don't want my daughters and grand daughters to have to use wire hangers like my friends did

we kinda like and have gotten used to having control over our bodies
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:10 pm

The vaginas of a load of third world/brown/Muslim/Russian/Slavic women don't want $hillary to win. How's that for your 1st world, white privilege

*in the most surreal imagery I've contended with this sunny morning
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:12 pm

sorry to be so selfish...I suppose you care more about them than you do your own mother or wife or daughter or sister

oh that's right you are not an American are you...so what you think is bullshit to me...you don't care about us American women...what happens to us is of no consequence to you....you have the privilege to care about other women
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:15 pm

seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:12 pm wrote:sorry to be so selfish...I suppose you care more about them than you do your own mother or wife or daughter or sister

oh that's right you are not an American are you...so what you think is bullshit to me...you don't care about us American women


:starz:
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:19 pm

Rory » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:10 am wrote:The vaginas of a load of third world/brown/Muslim/Russian/Slavic women don't want $hillary to win. How's that for your 1st world, white privilege

*in the most surreal imagery I've contended with this sunny morning


he speaks from the privileged throne of a male...who probably in reality doesn't give a fuck about anything but himself and doesn't not know what the fuck he is talking about..and won't pay any price for his words anyway


take your crap and put it were that sunny morning doesn't shine...how's that for surreal imagery?

why don't you just take care of your own house before trying to clean up mine?

talk about what your country has done to third world/brown/Muslim/Russian/Slavic women
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 146 guests