SHOW-ME PAYBACK TIME CONFRONTING EASTERN JACK REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS WHO VOTED AGAINST RIGHT TO WORK!!!
We usually don't venture this far to the east with our political interest but this political vendetta might have local implications and offers a look at the metro in the middle of a contentious GOP SMACKDOWN EFFORT in order to thwart union influence.
Examiner: Right-to-work opponents target 3 local legislators
Deets:
"Rep. Jeanie Lauer of Blue Springs, Rep. Bill E. Kidd, R-Independence and Rep. Sheila Solon of Blue Springs were among 20 Republicans in the House who voted against right to work last month in the General Assembly’s annual veto session. The legislation would mean workers could work in a union shop without paying union dues. Proponents said it would be bring more businesses to the state, but unions and other opponents say it drives down wages.
"Lauer, Kidd and Solon all said they were voting in line with their constituents’ clearly expressed views against the idea. Republicans pushed the measure through last spring, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, and Republicans couldn’t put together the two-thirds majority vote needed to override the veto in September.
"Ninety-five Republicans and one Democrat voted to override, and 42 Democrats, one independent and 20 Republicans voted no – and right-to-work proponents have most angrily targeted a handful of those 20, including Kidd and Solon."
Developing . . .
this report makes no sense. somebody needs to proofread before hitting the send button.
ReplyDeleteUm. Republicans are going to take out the traitors! Sounds good to me.
ReplyDeleteThe story is bullshit Tony. You've got some roaring little mouse in your ear.
ReplyDelete10:25 Not all republicans are for Right-to-Work. In case you didn't know.
ReplyDeleteI'm Republican and I firmly stand behind and for "Right to work" the unions, much like our government are not what they use to be, they are political welfare recipients and have outlived their usefulness as they stand today
ReplyDeleteRight to work is just big goverment regulations interfering in private business. If an employer decides the want to hire only union members, that's no different than an employer deciding they will only hire people with college degrees, or people with certain certifications. Right to Work is very, very un-conservative. No one has to be a member of a union anyway, they just have to pay the union a fee for the contract negotiations and representation they benefit from. Or a person could just get a job at any of the 92% of jobs in Missouri that are non-union, if they don't like their employers rules.
ReplyDeleteIf economics and the people that drive it were not trying to get the most for the least from other people, then unions would not be necessary. PEOPLE ARE NOT KIND TO ONE ANOTHER UNLESS FORCED TO BE BY LAW. This applies to both sides in employment. Both sides are compelled BY HUMAN NATURE to be self serving. Are there exceptions to this? Of course there are. On the personal, one on one level there are people who show some deference to one another. Some people have moral values that they adhere to moving them to exceptional behavior. Some people have a intellectual belief that providing an adequate income to labor will get better results. This is also exceptional behavior. FOR THE GREATER PART, people will either consciously, or unconsciously, try to use any working relationship to their economic advantage.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Skippy? Did he get out on bail.
ReplyDeleteBWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA