NON-UNION? obama just tells you where to go

[sarahgop]

haha. it appears you will only get taxed if you dont belong to a union.

[Johnnybags]

and take .01 cents out of your pay for dues. You are now union and do not have to pay.

[Dianne]

And don't forget, government employees are exempt from the Cadillac Tax as well.

You and I must pay their portion of the tax. Obama clearly is an imperialist dictator.

[sarahgop]

it would only people who didnt vote for obama will be taxed.

[roho76]

As if Union dues aren't taxes. At least when I pay taxes to the government I get shitting sevices in return. To this day I haven't seen a purpose for the Union outside of helping some junkie hold onto his job. Unions are responsible for putting a stick in the spokes of natural selection.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Unions would be nothing without State enforcement. The Unions won the battle over a hundred years ago when business owners just hired new people when their workers went on strike, and those "Union" persons who went on strike came in and destroyed the owners property. The State protected and instituted laws to protect the unions. From then on, the business owners, entreprenuers, etc. ceded to the demands of the thugs, because they (workers : unions) had a right to destroy their (owners) property, privileged via the monopolists (The State).

http://mises.org/daily/3852
http://mises.org/Econsense/ch37.asp

Unions have always, and will always be thugs and criminals.


The reason unions are to blame is inherent in the situation. Employers don't want violence; all they want is peace and quiet, the unhampered and peaceful production and shipment of goods. Violence is disruptive, and is bound to injure the profits of the company. But the victory of unions depends on making it impossible for the company to continue in production, and therefore they must zero in on their direct competitors, the workers who are replacing them.

Pro-union apologists often insist that workers have a "right to strike." No one denies that. Few people--except for panicky instances where, for example, President Truman threatened to draft striking steel workers into the army and force them back into the factories--advocate forced labor. Everyone surely has the right to quit. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the employer has the right to hire replacement workers and continue in production.

Unions are now flexing their muscle politically as well, to pass legislation in Congress to prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacement workers, that is, from telling the strikers, in effect: "OK, you quit, so long!" Right now, employers are already severely restricted in this right: they cannot hire permanent replacement workers, that is, fire the strikers, in any strikes over "unfair labor" practices. What Congress should do is extend the right to fire to these "unfair labor" cases as well.

In addition to their habitual use of violence, the entire theory of labor unions is deeply flawed. Their view is that the worker somehow "owns" his job, and that therefore it should be illegal for an employer to bid permanent farewell to striking workers. The "ownership of jobs" is of course a clear violation of the property right of the employer to fire or not hire anyone he wants. No one has a "right to a job" in the future; one only has the right to be paid for work contracted and already performed. No one should have the "right" to have his hand in the pocket of his employer forever; that is not a "right" but a systematic theft of other people's property.

[MichelleHeart]

What now, Jesus?

[Krugerrand]

and take .01 cents out of your pay for dues. You are now union and do not have to pay.

Perhaps it's time for the Annoyed Tax Payers Union