UPDATE: Two more resources for union members wanting to divert their dues to charity, the National Right to Work Foundation and Union Refund.
Maybe if you’ve been a union member for some time, you’ve been able to avoid some level of discomfort over your union dues going to the political campaigns of Democrats. Maybe you’re a hard-working conscientious person who can rationalize this by saying that, after all, the Democrats are more pro-union than Republicans, generally speaking. Maybe you were able to swallow your irritation at the massive union support for Obamacare despite knowing full well that Obamacare was likely to eliminate many working class jobs as companies could not afford to afford the mandate. Now, on the other hand, the Wisconsin AFL-CIO has gone one step farther to stand in defense of an organization – Planned Parenthood – that has nothing whatsoever to do with union or working issues. That’s right: from now on you (or at least your union dues) are now in favor of taxpayer funding for abortion.
Wisconsin AFL-CIO members, you just essentially got conscripted into MoveOn.org. There is no defensible justification for the AFL-CIO to support government funding of Planned Parenthood but they are doing it anyway.
Good news, though, union members. If your union has gone down this road, they have just forfeited their right to your union dues. Even though they may fight you over it, you are entitled as a conscientious objector to divert your union dues to a charity even if you are in a closed shop. If your union refuses to honor this request, file a complaint with the EEOC (which you can do yourself). And if that doesn’t work, contact an employment lawyer in your area.
It’s time for union members to stand up to this kind of disgusting overreach once and for all.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
What you don't see here...
stigmo Tuesday, March 29th at 10:18PM EST (link)I helped organize the pro-life counter-protest, and what you don’t see in this video is that there were more pro-lifers in Madison that day than pro-aborts.
There were only about 200 pro-aborts in this picture, and most of them were PP staff, Democrat legislators and union thugs. Then the bus drove over to Planned Parenthood, where almost all the participants got off the bus or were staff coming out of the building.
I’m pretty sure they had to turn up their sound because the people praying (peacefully) was drowning them out.
Check out some pictures here: http://blog.prolifewisconsin.org/2011/03/27/four-days-three-pickets-two-saves-and-countless-prayers-to-end-abortion/
stigmo, thanks for the info and the link
lineholder (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 10:28PM EST (link)The “Pepto-Bus”….I like it.
It looks like the group you are working with is doing an excellent job. Well done, and many thanks from this fellow American who adamantly believes in the sanctity of life.
Nice, Leon!
lineholder (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 10:25PM EST (link)I especially liked the part about providing the link for Union members to contact the EEOC.
I live in a RTW state, so it is a bit difficult for me to understand what it might be like for someone living in Union “territory”. I spent a few minutes earlier today reading responses that had been posted at a WI newspaper blog. This group of Union folks over here were condemning Walker et. al to the depths of Hades. This group of Union folks over there were telling the first group of Union folks to get out of “protest mode” and move on with life.
The Unions aren’t as all-powerful as they like to think of themselves as being. Not anymore they aren’t. Not even in their own camps.
It's backwards
redwood Tuesday, March 29th at 10:25PM EST (link)Not paying should be automatic. If they want money to be deducted then they sign up for it. Members should not be forced to swim upstream on this. You know what happens to the salmon.
thugs and murderers
averagevoterdotcom Tuesday, March 29th at 10:43PM EST (link)gather. What a surprise. No right-to-work for the babies in the wombs, that is for sure. Heck, the babies will not even be able to cast a ballot in a union vote. Talk about this ultimate bullying, barry?
I think most union members would be afraid
carolina Tuesday, March 29th at 10:47PM EST (link)to ‘rock the boat’ and attract unwanted attention to themselves within their work environment. This kind of coercion has to be going on – especially with the current charged atmosphere.
To Leon or a moderator
lineholder (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 11:00PM EST (link)Okay, so I may show my ignorance in asking this question, but what do the marks on the second page of this mean?
http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0329/0329sumiamendedorder.pdf
I would assume it means that
Leon H. Wolf (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 11:11PM EST (link)the judge was not actually including that portion in her order. That’s what the initials presumably mean.
————
We can’t stop here. This is bat country.
Let me explain further
Leon H. Wolf (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 11:15PM EST (link)If you are moving for an injunciton or temporary restraining order as a lawyer, it is helpful (and sometimes required) to submit a proposed order – that is, what you would like the order to say if the judge grants your motion. Sometimes the judge takes your order and just signs it. but frequently they want to change a little bit of it or omit a portion. Typically for the sake of cleanliness they will require you to submit a new, clean order with the changes they require and they will sign that one but I have sometimes seen the judge just take the order, cross out a sentence, initial above the markings, and sign it.
Here it looks like the judge liked the rest of the proposed order except for the paragraph with the lines through it and just struck it out.
————
We can’t stop here. This is bat country.
Thank you for answering, Leon
lineholder (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 11:50PM EST (link)The situation is WI is confusing. Ozanne files the appeal. Then the law is posted. Then Ozanne files a withdrawal of the appeal. But by that time, the appeals court had referred the case to the State SC. So the appeals court denies the withdrawal.
All of this happened while Sumi was on vacation. Sumi comes back, hears the case today, makes this ruling, includes in it that the law isn’t law, but since the case has already been forwarded to the State SC, can she do that?
I’m not a lawyer, but common sense would say that it has moved out of her jurisdiction to do so, which may be why she crossed out what was on the second page.
Question: Correlations regarding federal law and state law…Obamacare is still being implemented in some states even though it is has been ruled unconstitutional. The case is moving through the system to the SCOTUS, but these states are considering the law valid until the SCOTUS rules on it.
Would the same principles apply in the ruling in WI? Would Act 10 still be the law until it the State SC rules on it? Or is the context totally different regarding state law versus federal law?
The basic leftist position is:
Adjoran (Diary) Wednesday, March 30th at 1:52AM EST (link)“Screw your rules. We do what we want and write new rules.”
Adjoran rocks
hunter10 Wednesday, March 30th at 10:14AM EST (link)You stole my thunder. If the rules don’t suit them they find an activist judge to change them.