Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2014, 08:57:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Epic video  (Read 498 times)
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« on: December 08, 2012, 09:09:19 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsI2xc_FYX0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsI2xc_FYX0</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
magikusar
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Posts: 2830


Team Ayn Rand


« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2012, 05:02:22 AM »

mildly retarded skull structure

really ugly guy

democracy is BAD


in democracy 51% can vote to take your house

and hek wipe out the 49%

individuals rights are where its at

and gov in a straightjacket

no one freeloads more than unions

all right to work laws are good

to hell with unions using lawyers n government to force their way

hek no

bargain but no force
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2012, 07:22:47 AM »

He's just butt hurt.

All States should be right to work.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2012, 11:55:56 AM »

He's just butt hurt.

All States should be right to work.

haha so retarded. So unions can be eliminated? unions are vital.they have drawbacks but are needed in many industries.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9254


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2012, 12:20:34 PM »

haha so retarded. So unions can be eliminated? unions are vital.they have drawbacks but are needed in many industries.

Yeah just like in the twink industry 
Report to moderator   Logged
anabolichalo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18202


VP Ronnie Coleman fan club EMEA


« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2012, 12:23:00 PM »

mildly retarded skull structure

really ugly guy

democracy is BAD


in democracy 51% can vote to take your house

and hek wipe out the 49%

individuals rights are where its at

and gov in a straightjacket

no one freeloads more than unions

all right to work laws are good

to hell with unions using lawyers n government to force their way

hek no

bargain but no force
movie star good looks imho

Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2012, 12:41:41 PM »

joining a union should be choice, not manditory based on your employment in a certain industry or at a certain company.

How anyone can support mandatory dues, fees and agreements is beyond me.

Right to work doesnt bust unions, it gives ppl choices and ppl understand that the unions dont have their best interest in mind and THAT BUSTS UNIONS
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2012, 06:53:41 PM »

haha so retarded. So unions can be eliminated? unions are vital.they have drawbacks but are needed in many industries.



No, I believe in unions idiot...feel free to look through my previous posts.

Educate yourself on right to work states and what that means.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2012, 06:54:55 PM »

joining a union should be choice, not manditory based on your employment in a certain industry or at a certain company.

How anyone can support mandatory dues, fees and agreements is beyond me.

Right to work doesnt bust unions, it gives ppl choices and ppl understand that the unions dont have their best interest in mind and THAT BUSTS UNIONS


Read and learn, Necro

Read and learn...
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2012, 03:31:19 PM »

joining a union should be choice, not manditory based on your employment in a certain industry or at a certain company.

How anyone can support mandatory dues, fees and agreements is beyond me.

Right to work doesnt bust unions, it gives ppl choices and ppl understand that the unions dont have their best interest in mind and THAT BUSTS UNIONS

places where right to work legislation has been passed have lower incomes, this is a fact. If you want the benefits of the union you should pay the fees, so these people can do the same job and pay nothing, put in no effort to negotiate like unions and benefit just the same? where is the logic in that. If they want less benefits and have argue for themselves I'm all for it. What this bill enacts is that people will now reap the benefits of unions and their hardwork yet never have to pay the dues, effectively killing unions.

Why did the GOP sneak this thru.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2012, 03:35:37 PM »


Read and learn, Necro

Read and learn...

don't let the facts hit you in the ass, nevermind the GOP sneaking the fucking bill through like the parasites they are.

http://www.mnaflcio.org/news/right-work-laws-get-facts

What is a “right to work” law?

Despite its misleading name, this type of law does not guarantee anyone a job and it does not protect against unfair firing.  By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have - the union contract.

A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them.  Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not.  In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.

“Right to Work” laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members.  If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process.  Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so everyone should share in the costs of providing these services.  Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough!

Will a “right to work” law benefit workers in Minnesota?

No.  Workers in states with so-called Right-to-Work (RTW) laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states - lower wages, higher poverty, less access to health care, poorer education for children - according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Census Bureau.  Why should Minnesota adopt a losing RTW strategy that lowers the standard of living for workers and their families?

Working Families in States with “Right to Work” Laws Earn Lower Wages

On average, workers in states with “Right to Work” law earn $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.   

“Right to Work” States Spend Less on Education

Right-to-Work states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.

“Right to Work” States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.

“Right to Work” Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards

Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers.  Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.

78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers.  And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.

Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.

How will a “right to work” law affect Minnesota's economy?

We need to strengthen our economy, and a so-called “Right to Work” Law would take us in the wrong direction.  Minnesota has a better economic record than states with so-called “right to work” laws.  For employers, a union contract with lower turnover and higher employee morale equals higher productivity.  By undermining contracts and depressing wages, a “right to work” law will reduce expendable consumer income and hurt productivity.

Do we need a “right to work” law to attract new jobs to Minnesota?

No.  Industries locate in a state for many reasons, but a right to work law is not one of them.  Factors like workforce productivity, availability of skilled workers, transportation, closeness to markets and materials, quality of life and proximity to research universities are the keys to economic growth.  We need to create good jobs throughout the state, but a “right to work law” will not persuade companies to move here.

Who benefits from “Right to Work” Laws?

No one.  Some low-wage employers might think that they would benefit from weak unions and low wages, but union members are also consumers.  “Right to work” laws undermine the purchasing power of unionized workers.  Employees covered by union contracts receive 28 percent more in wages and benefits than workers without unions.  For women workers, the union advantage is 34 percent. For African American workers, the union advantage is 29 percent.  And for Hispanic workers, the union advantage is a whopping 50 percent.  When “right to work” laws weaken unions and drive down wages and benefits, workers have less to spend and the entire economy – particularly small business--suffers.

 

“Right to Work” and Individual Freedoms

Without a “right to work” law, can a worker be forced to join a union?

No.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union.  Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.

Is a union required to represent all employees covered by a contract (nonmembers as well as members)?

Yes.  Under federal labor law, unions have the duty to fairly represent all workers covered by a contract.  That means nonmembers as well as members get the same wages, hours and working conditions established by the contract.  Unions must bargain for everyone and enforce the contract terms for everyone in a fair, honest, nondiscriminatory manner.  Unions cannot refuse to pay the costs of arbitrating a grievance simply because it involves a nonmember.  A union that violates this duty of fair representation can be sued.  This duty of fair representation applies whether or not the state has a right to work law.

If Minnesota enacts a “right to work” law, who will pay the costs of representing non-members?

Union members will be forced to pay not only their own share of representation costs, but also the full costs of those who do not pay their fair share of dues but still receive all of the benefits of union representation.

Does a union security clause require nonmembers to pay full union dues?

No.  Nonmembers are required to pay only the proportion of union dues related to collective bargaining expenses, so these costs are fairly shared by all represented employees.

Can a union unilaterally impose a union security agreement?

No.  The employer and the union must negotiate a union security agreement.  If management refuses, there is no union security agreement.

Why would an employer agree to a union security clause?

Many employers want to avoid the divisions and animosity that occur when some workers have to pay the costs of representing other employees.

Will a “right to work” law protect a worker’s right to a job?

No.  These laws guarantee no one a job, nor do they provide any due process or just cause protections against unfair firing.  By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have - a grievance procedure that requires employers to have legitimate, job-related reasons for disciplining or discharging an employee.


so this is a freeloading proposition, you get to be in the union without paying in, seems like that won't cause any issues. Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2012, 04:03:17 PM »

places where right to work legislation has been passed have lower incomes, this is a fact. If you want the benefits of the union you should pay the fees, so these people can do the same job and pay nothing, put in no effort to negotiate like unions and benefit just the same? where is the logic in that. If they want less benefits and have argue for themselves I'm all for it. What this bill enacts is that people will now reap the benefits of unions and their hardwork yet never have to pay the dues, effectively killing unions.

Why did the GOP sneak this thru.
Ill agree with you on this, if the benefits outweigh the cost most ppl would agree to pay the dues though.

The GOP didnt sneak this through they have the majority in congress and a rep govenor....

this was done in broad daylight...LMFAO

Ill also say that those not in unions should be paid on merit and not constrained to their union contracts as well.

Would you agree to that?
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2012, 07:04:11 PM »

lol what an epic fail.

Damn, Necrosis you are dumb.

That Wall-o-Text you tried to post only backs my argument...UNIONS ARE NOT ELIMINATED.

And no where in your whole line of shit does it say they are.


BTW...since you're not bright enough to know, much of that is OPINION by the AFL-CIO.


Typical juvenile canadian argument.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2012, 11:02:11 AM »

lol what an epic fail.

Damn, Necrosis you are dumb.

That Wall-o-Text you tried to post only backs my argument...UNIONS ARE NOT ELIMINATED.

And no where in your whole line of shit does it say they are.


BTW...since you're not bright enough to know, much of that is OPINION by the AFL-CIO.


Typical juvenile canadian argument.

so you are indicating that right to work does not in fact reduce union numbers? is that your claim?
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2012, 11:05:21 AM »

Ill agree with you on this, if the benefits outweigh the cost most ppl would agree to pay the dues though.

The GOP didnt sneak this through they have the majority in congress and a rep govenor....

this was done in broad daylight...LMFAO

Ill also say that those not in unions should be paid on merit and not constrained to their union contracts as well.

Would you agree to that?

it all went through in one day, you think that is in broad daylight.

I agree with the last statement. I don't agree with people getting union benefits without paying the dues. I mean you are required under this legislation as a union to provide for everyone and non-union members can even sue the union for not protecting or representing them properly. It makes no sense.

I am all for people working without being in a union.
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5563


« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2012, 01:01:21 PM »

In the private sector unions should be a choice, not a requirement and in the public sector they should be illegal.  Under no circumstances should unions ever be in control of tax payer money.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4089


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2012, 02:59:23 PM »

In the private sector unions should be a choice, not a requirement and in the public sector they should be illegal.  Under no circumstances should unions ever be in control of tax payer money.

I don't much care for unions, or the notion that they have successfully cultivated that they, somehow, have more rights than, and ones that are distinct from the rights of the union's members. I'm not sure how that came to be accepted as convention wisdom...

As for making government unions illegal, as much as I don't like unions you are treading in somewhat legally dangerous territory. After all the Constitution guarantees people the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, and in theory what is a union of government employees doing if not petitioning the government for redress of grievances? I'm generally weary of bringing the hammer down and making illegal practices that I simply disagree with. It's a recipe for disaster.

As for the money bit: I assume you mean money from taxes, and not "money of people who are taxpayers" because... well... Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6494


« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2012, 03:19:10 PM »

No one said it would eliminate unions. But it does weaken unions. It is a step towards lower wages and benefits.

I agree that people should be able to OPT out of dues...But all rights of union benefits/wages should also be forfeited.....making it easiar for you to get fired....and fighting for you cost of living raises...etc.  That alone would keep people in the union paying dues for representation.

And just admit it....this was an attempt to slam this thru while a quick window was open. This is typical of GOP when they dont want to discuss issues in a bi-partisan way.....but typical politics.
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5563


« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2012, 03:32:42 PM »


As for making government unions illegal, as much as I don't like unions you are treading in somewhat legally dangerous territory. After all the Constitution guarantees people the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, and in theory what is a union of government employees doing if not petitioning the government for redress of grievances? I'm generally weary of bringing the hammer down and making illegal practices that I simply disagree with. It's a recipe for disaster.


Removing unions, or making them illegal, in the public sector would in no way affect the people's rights to address government grievances.  They still have the right to do so, even in a collective manner if they wish, to petition problems to the government.

I'm referring to the collective bargaining rights and threats of strikes that unions use to strong arm the government into providing ridiculous pay and more importantly unfunded pensions.
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6494


« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2012, 03:46:54 PM »

Removing unions, or making them illegal, in the public sector would in no way affect the people's rights to address government grievances.  They still have the right to do so, even in a collective manner if they wish, to petition problems to the government.

I'm referring to the collective bargaining rights and threats of strikes that unions use to strong arm the government into providing ridiculous pay and more importantly unfunded pensions.


The collective bargaining right is what allowed Unions to accomplish their task.  The phrase "United we stand, Divided we fall."

And why clog up goverment with lawsuits when the union party could take care of it? You are for smaller gov't?
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4089


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2012, 03:59:31 PM »

Removing unions, or making them illegal, in the public sector would in no way affect the people's rights to address government grievances.  They still have the right to do so, even in a collective manner if they wish, to petition problems to the government.

One can argue that that group of Government employees who think they're not getting enough money and start protesting are petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. How is that different from a union? The answer is: it's unclear.

Can you prove that a union of Government employees is fundamentally different from just a group of Government employees who are exercising their First Amendment rights? If you can't, you've failed before you even began your effort to make unions illegal as any Court is almost certain to ask exactly that question.


I'm referring to the collective bargaining rights and threats of strikes that unions use to strong arm the government into providing ridiculous pay and more importantly unfunded pensions.

There's a ton of problems with unions. I don't like them. In fact, I think that they are an abomination; as I mentioned I find the notion that unions magically have rights as unions that are above and beyond the rights of the individual union members to be bullshit. I find many union practices abusive and immoral, and think capitulating to unions is almost always a recipe for disaster.

Unions can and should be challenged, on a whole range of topics. But I don't think that making them illegal is viable much less Constitutional.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2012, 05:17:48 PM »

so you are indicating that right to work does not in fact reduce union numbers? is that your claim?


Not at all.

But I do agree with the wage issue.  So people who sacrifice union membership should have to do their own negotiating and live with what they can get.  However, that's do to Federal fairness laws that need to be changed - not right to work.

As for the claim they have to represent you, I would need to see actual proof and not just some AFL-CIO claim that that's the case.  I haven't seen this yet, but if you've got the data to back it up....put it up.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2012, 05:54:03 PM »

it all went through in one day, you think that is in broad daylight.

I agree with the last statement. I don't agree with people getting union benefits without paying the dues. I mean you are required under this legislation as a union to provide for everyone and non-union members can even sue the union for not protecting or representing them properly. It makes no sense.

I am all for people working without being in a union.
LOL this has been in the spot light for a while now, just b/c the voting was done on 1 day doesnt mean this was done in darkness...This shit was done in broad day light

I agree with you but im guessing youre not familiar with the concept of sunk cost. The unions are going to "negotiate" for their terms no matter if there are some employees who benefit from it without paying dues or not. Their members will still supposedly benefit from their negotiations regardless of whether or not their are free riders.

If this is about fairness maybe the unions should do what liberals want to do with taxes and raise the rates of those making more to pay for those that dont pay.

The irony that you use fairness to get ppl who get free rides to buy into unions and not apply the same standard to the 45% of ppl who pay no federal income taxes is fuking hillarious.

I guess fairness is on a sliding scale, eh?

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!