Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

woo-boy wrote:

<quoted text>Right-to-work laws allow workers to opt out of paying union dues while still benefitting from collective bargaining agreements- a practice that weakens unions negotiating power. Such laws are enforced in nearly half the states, mostly in the south or in the western part of the U.S., where workers have a diminished voice on the job and face more dangers at their work sites.
*8 of the 12 states with the highest unemployment rates are right-to-work states.
*6 of the 8 states that have the lowest wages are right-to-work states.
*Wages in right-to-work states are %12 lower than those in non-right-to-work states.
*Rates of uninsured are %24 higher in right-to-work states.
*Rates of uninsured children are %39 higher in right-to-work states.
*12 of the 14 highest wage states are not right-to-work states
Source:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

StarryStarry wrote:

<quoted text>
Buy "Carhops's Burger Sauce." It will zap your taste buds back to the Bob's Big Boy's days. Distributed in Willowick, OH. www.carhopsburgersauce.com . There is a KFC on Rt 82 in North Royalton. Their 12 piece popcorn chicken is $3.39 and is at least 10 times better than McNuggets.

woo-boy wrote:

<quoted text>Right-to-work laws allow workers to opt out of paying union dues while still benefitting from collective bargaining agreements- a practice that weakens unions negotiating power. Such laws are enforced in nearly half the states, mostly in the south or in the western part of the U.S., where workers have a diminished voice on the job and face more dangers at their work sites.
*8 of the 12 states with the highest unemployment rates are right-to-work states.
*6 of the 8 states that have the lowest wages are right-to-work states.
*Wages in right-to-work states are %12 lower than those in non-right-to-work states.
*Rates of uninsured are %24 higher in right-to-work states.
*Rates of uninsured children are %39 higher in right-to-work states.
*12 of the 14 highest wage states are not right-to-work states
Source:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

DON W SOUTH wrote:

<quoted text> If what you propose is implemented, consumers will not be able to afford to buy. You are using 19th & early 20th Century thinking in the 21st Century. It will not work.
The US no longer has a monopoly on most everything. We taught other nations the know how & now they are our competitors. You are going to have to give a little, or we will be fighting them, then you can blame the republicans for starting a war. Which do you want, trade with 'em or fight 'em?

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Then I'm confused. Are you saying that unions must represent employees who don't want to pay union dues? That doesn't sound right to me. I can't see any law being written that way, nor can I see any state forcing a union to represent workers whether they want to be in the union or not.

phkksk wrote:

<quoted text>
Each RTW (For Less) law is written slightly different. In many cases, yes, RTW (For Less) requires the union to represent every employee who WOULD be covered under the labor contract if they were a member of the union.
Believe me, I am a union member and understand the effects and intentions of these bills and how they work. An HONEST Right-To-Work law would require total separation of the employee and the union. The non union would have his/her own wages and benefits with no representation from the union required. Those who choose to stay/join the union should have to follow the unions rules of membership including payment of dues as they specify. But, RTW (For Less) isn't written that way.
They use these laws to eliminate unions by deceiving voters. If the laws were called "Bankrupt Unions Amendment" it would never pass. It passes by fooling voters into thinking it's a good thing. Obviously it's not, or Indiana wouldn't have been the first state in more than 10 years to pass the law. It only passed because the people of Indiana had no say in whether it passed or not.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that's what you have representatives for. We can't vote on every law.
But I would still like to see something in writing that says the state forces unions to represent people who are not a member of their union. My biggest issue is the unions forbidding an employer from hiring somebody who doesn't want to belong to the union.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks much. I'll keep that in mind when I'm looking to take a ride somewhere for chicken.:-)

Judged:

1

1

1

queteam1911 wrote:

We should enforce our existent free trade agreements with countries that subsidise their products(China) There are tax breaks for companies that move overseas With unemployment reaching levels it hasn't been at since WWII there is a need for government safenets With no manufacturing base and older displaced workers completely out of the work force and not even counted in unemployment numbers how can republicans vote no on the jobs bill The rich continue to get richer because of trading ownership in companies and the poor and middle class continue to struggle. The rich should pay their share of taxes not get tax breaks Trickle Down economics doesn't work

StarryStarry wrote:

<quoted text>
KFC has closed in Macedonia Commons. Maybe Chick Fil A was too much competition. Although, they are not cheap, even though they have that nice cow and balloons and Christian kiddie books.

queteam1911 wrote:

Obama wants to end tax credits and tax deferrals for companies with overseas operations. Instead, he wants to give tax breaks for American firms to write off the cost of new equipment and also make a tax credit for research and experimentation permanent. The jobs bill would have created immediate jobs working on the infrastructure like highways. It also would have invested in education. But, we can't have Obama being successful so partisan politics was played. Saving the auto indusry was a failure and a waste of money. That's funny!! Corporations shouldn't receive the tax breaks they receive and then pay ridiculous amounts of bonus money to executives. That would help the debt wouldn't it, or is the debt just something mentioned to blame the poor and middle class for safenets like Medicare.

free wrote:

Pro Business ? No to Unions ?
<quoted text>

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean Medicare? The same Medicare DumBama stole money from?
You can't boost an economy of 315 million people by providing a few hundred thousand construction jobs. That's not how it's done. It's why the first so-called stimulus bill failed. Nothing but a near trillion right down the drain. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over agin, but expecting different results each time.
The United States invests the most money in education of all the industrialized countries. Yet our students rank mediocre when it comes to results. Throwing money at the problem is no solution, and anybody who examines the results of throwing money into our education can tell you that.

queteam1911 wrote:

What about saving the auto industry? Are you saying that didn't happen? Its easy for you to say a few hundred thousand jobs aren't anything but what about the unemployed. Unemployment which was at levels we haven't seen since WWII needed to be addressed. Its also funny you mention throwing money away on education. Kasich's major supporter David L. Brennan from White Hat,which has two successful schools out of ten, isn't willing to account for how the public money is spent on his charter schools.