Texas lawmakers approve bills requiring ultrasound before abortion

[Palehorse]

don't need to get nasty....I just pointed out that he has not been proven guilty and yet YOU are ready to throw the first stone....

several time already since it broke news.

I'm just stating my opinion. He'll have his day in court, and should he prove innocent then I'll admit to being wrong in my opinion.

I dare say it is more likely he'll find a means to wriggle out of all this via a loophole or technicality. . . in which case I will stand by my opinion.

Speaking of stones, you're casting your share at Indiana Democrats without even making any attempt what-so-ever to understand their position. . .

[Henry Hawk]

I'm just stating my opinion. He'll have his day in court, and should he prove innocent then I'll admit to being wrong in my opinion.

I dare say it is more likely he'll find a means to wriggle out of all this via a loophole or technicality. . . in which case I will stand by my opinion.

Speaking of stones, you're casting your share at Indiana Democrats without even making any attempt what-so-ever to understand their position. . .

I understand their position... All this bill is wanting is to keep unions from inserting clauses into contracts that force employers to fire nonunion workers who fail to pay the union "agency fees" if the do not join.  THAT is a fair bill!

The Unions realize they might lose some power, so they are intimidating (like they are so good at) voters to get in an uproar.  These democrats are heavily sponsered by these Unions, so they know the only way to stop this is to..........defy the democratic process. 

YOU was angry at republicans for VOTING...."the party of no"....at least they VOTED.  Even fillibustering is legal, but simply leaving the state and not showing up to do their job is setting a bad precident.

I guess if one party does not like what the other party is proposing, they can all just go get a motel, at the taxpayers expense in another state, and just hang out.

[Palehorse]

I understand their position... All this bill is wanting is to keep unions from inserting clauses into contracts that force employers to fire nonunion workers who fail to pay the union "agency fees" if the do not join.  THAT is a fair bill!

The Unions realize they might lose some power, so they are intimidating (like they are so good at) voters to get in an uproar.  These democrats are heavily sponsered by these Unions, so they know the only way to stop this is to..........defy the democratic process. 

YOU was angry at republicans for VOTING...."the party of no"....at least they VOTED.  Even fillibustering is legal, but simply leaving the state and not showing up to do their job is setting a bad precident.

I guess if one party does not like what the other party is proposing, they can all just go get a motel, at the taxpayers expense in another state, and just hang out.

They want to vacate ratified bargaining agreement mid-contract! That is out right illegal and bullshit!
Moreover, it will open the door to corporations doing the very same thing. . .

HB1538 is nothing short of an assault upon the middle class worker, whose only refuge within an at will state is the bargaining agreement.

If they pass this, watch for a BIG push to change Indiana's "at will" status, as well as a full force legal assault on the legality and constitutionality of HB1538! Now, how much do you think the state is going to save when they have to defend their actions in a court of law?

You might think all of this is unnecessary because your employers might be currently treating you right from your view. But watch what will happen to you once their backs are against the wall over finances or loss of volume / customers. They will start cutting heads at the TOP; top earners go first, no matter how many years they've worked for the company, or how much knowledge they have surrounding the business, or how good they are at it. OUT, with NO recourse what so ever.

[The Troll]

They want to vacate ratified bargaining agreement mid-contract! That is out right illegal and bullshit!
Moreover, it will open the door to corporations doing the very same thing. . .

HB1538 is nothing short of an assault upon the middle class worker, whose only refuge within an at will state is the bargaining agreement.

If they pass this, watch for a BIG push to change Indiana's "at will" status, as well as a full force legal assault on the legality and constitutionality of HB1538! Now, how much do you think the state is going to save when they have to defend their actions in a court of law?

You might think all of this is unnecessary because your employers might be currently treating you right from your view. But watch what will happen to you once their backs are against the wall over finances or loss of volume / customers. They will start cutting heads at the TOP; top earners go first, no matter how many years they've worked for the company, or how much knowledge they have surrounding the business, or how good they are at it. OUT, with NO recourse what so ever.

  Believe me Palehorse.  His time is coming.  He thinks his new daddy boss wouldn't fire him for anything.  This Republican depression is far from being over.

  One day the boss will come in to work with a hard-on because of something his wife said to him and fire this guy and there he will stand without one leg to stand on.  The other daddy's boy, with more layoffs in the high tech business these laid-off people will become computer advisors and put him out of business.  What an outlook.  I'll bet he's not getting rich now. 

[Henry Hawk]

You might think all of this is unnecessary because your employers might be currently treating you right from your view. But watch what will happen to you once their backs are against the wall over finances or loss of volume / customers. They will start cutting heads at the TOP; top earners go first, no matter how many years they've worked for the company, or how much knowledge they have surrounding the business, or how good they are at it. OUT, with NO recourse what so ever.

And WHY should they NOT have that right?....It is HIS business.  NOT mine!  For Gods sake PH, why should there be laws to tell people HOW to run their businesss?  The place where I work has been in business for over 50 years.   I am free to look and go to work anywhere I choose.  I have choose to work here.  I can tell you this, I Hope and Pray that a Union NEVER works its way into this place. 

I would have NO incentive to work hard or try to get ahead.  Those with more senoriety would be getting more pay and priviliges, JUST because, not because they deserved it.

And as far as state workers, they should NOT have any right to strike.  Their wages should be determined by the voters.  No body puts a gun to anyones head to take a job with the State.  You should know exactly what you are getting into before you take such a job.....

[Sandy Eggo]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. 1) Why should the voters be allowed to vote for the salaries of state positions when the majority wouldn't have a frame of reference to know what those particular skills, abilities and experence is worth. 2) The voters don't hire the state workers. Someone emplyed by the elected officials do. They have preset requirements set by the elected individuals and knowledge of the type of worker needed, why wouldn't paysetting fall under that responsibility too. 3) I don't know, but does the state have a grade/pay scale established yearly? 4) How can the state employees "know what they're getting into" if their pay and job security fluctuates with the whims of voters? How could there be any consistancy?

[The Troll]

And WHY should they NOT have that right?....It is HIS business.  NOT mine!  For Gods sake PH, why should there be laws to tell people HOW to run their businesss?  The place where I work has been in business for over 50 years.   I am free to look and go to work anywhere I choose.  I have choose to work here.  I can tell you this, I Hope and Pray that a Union NEVER works its way into this place. 

I would have NO incentive to work hard or try to get ahead.  Those with more senoriety would be getting more pay and priviliges, JUST because, not because they deserved it./

  / and I would lose my ability to suck ass, , apple polish the boss and stab co-workers in the back.  Give us a break, face it you're a scab.  I've got you number and your brother's, Night Squawk.  What sweet baby boys.   

[Henry Hawk]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. 1) Why should the voters be allowed to vote for the salaries of state positions when the majority wouldn't have a frame of reference to know what those particular skills, abilities and experence is worth. 2) The voters don't hire the state workers. Someone emplyed by the elected officials do. They have preset requirements set by the elected individuals and knowledge of the type of worker needed, why wouldn't paysetting fall under that responsibility too. 3) I don't know, but does the state have a grade/pay scale established yearly? 4) How can the state employees "know what they're getting into" if their pay and job security fluctuates with the whims of voters? How could there be any consistancy?

Sandy, I am going to do something I rarely do, and admit I'm wrong with my answer.  I have yet to have my first cup of coffee or even a coke.  I retract that last part of my last post.

I think I should have merely stated that I am against Public Unions.   As of now, in 28 states....state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired, which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.

This is plain and simply wrong.

[The Troll]

Sandy, I am going to do something I rarely do, and admit I'm wrong with my answer.  I have yet to have my first cup of coffee or even a coke.  I retract that last part of my last post.

I think I should have merely stated that I am against Public Unions.   As of now, in 28 states....state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired, which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.

This is plain and simply wrong.

  If a person receives all of the benefits of a union contract, he or she should pay for it.  They don't have to belong, attend meetings or anything else for the union.

  If they don't want to pay union fees.  Let they negotiate their own contract with the state.  What a big laugh. 

   Henry you're out of your freeking mind. 

[Henry Hawk]

  / and I would lose my ability to suck ass, , apple polish the boss and stab co-workers in the back.  Give us a break, face it you're a scab.  I've got you number and your brother's, Night Squawk.  What sweet baby boys.   

I know better, but yet I am going to respond to your ascinine comments.....you really show just how ignorant you are when you babble like this.

It must be a Union thing, when you cannot trust nobody you work with.  This so-called sucking ass comment makes me wonder if you even understand what America is all about.  Troll, I can say with all my heart I have never "sucked anyones ass".  I have however, devoted myself to become the best RCDD (look it up) I can be.  Through hard work, reading, taking classes, studying, I have become an expert in my field.  I have, like many of our parents, and grand parents, become successful due to NO handouts or Freebies.  I started out at the bottom of this trade 22 years ago.  I did not get promoted because SOME contract made it possible.  I did not get my retirment plan because a contract mandated it.  I got to where I am, because people saw value in me.  They have taken a chance on me, and I have delivered.  NOT because a UNION Contract said the HAD to hire me. 

Yes Troll, I very well could be fired tomorrow.  I accept that.  But not every employer is "evil" as you seem to think.  I bring VALUE to this company.  This company has in return brought VALUE to me.  THIS is the way it is supposed to work.  I am living the American dream.  I am raising five kids, along with my wife of 27 years.  I drive a car that has nearly 250,000 miles on it.  I don't own Bass Boats, and have a bunch of toys.  I do have great kids and I pay my bills.  We scrap and save and manage to take vacations every so often.  We have big dinners together and enjoy time together.  All of this without a Union.  A union who is nothing more than BIG BUSINESS.  They recieve MILLIONS and MILLIONS of $$$ every year....for what?  To be lobbyists and become larger and larger.

You call me a scab?  I am nothing more than a hard working American.  PERIOD.

[Sandy Eggo]

Sandy, I am going to do something I rarely do, and admit I'm wrong with my answer.  I have yet to have my first cup of coffee or even a coke.  I retract that last part of my last post.

I think I should have merely stated that I am against Public Unions.   As of now, in 28 states....state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired, which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.

This is plain and simply wrong.

That's okay.

I've avoided this conversation because the "union contract" isn't something I'm familiar with. I have dealt with unions on the other side of the process when they are advocating for the employee. I like that these employees have a method for ensuring that they're being treated fairly and equally. I've also dealt with union agreements after they've been completely signed off on and I believe that is the general intent of unions, so I tend to lean towards them as being a good thing.

As I said, I'm not familiar with the intial agreement part of the process, so I'm going to do something I rarely do agree with you (at least partially). I don't think it's fair to force people to pay for something that is basically forced on them. However, if paying dues becomes an option and they choose not to pay/participate, then they shouldn't expect the benefits.

[Palehorse]

which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.

This is plain and simply wrong.

Thank the SCOTUS for that little reality that they made LEGAL, by providing corporations constitutional rights!

[Henry Hawk]

Thank the SCOTUS for that little reality that they made LEGAL, by providing corporations constitutional rights!

THIS  has nothing to do with that ruling....it is wrong no matter what.

[Palehorse]

THIS  has nothing to do with that ruling....it is wrong no matter what.

Really? Seriously? And a union is NOT a corporation itself? Please explain!

[Henry Hawk]

Really? Seriously? And a union is NOT a corporation itself? Please explain!

with or without that ruling...this would still exist....it has and is existing.  Let's not get side tracked about the issue we are talking about....