Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 06:12 AM Apr 2014

Extremists in Missouri House narrowly vote to send paycheck deception bill to Senate

Jefferson City – Despite overwhelming testimony about its negative consequences, extremists in the Missouri House voted to send HB1617, a paycheck deception measure, to the Senate by a narrow margin of 83 to 69.

The bill is similar to SB29, which was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon last year. Unlike last year’s version, however, this bill contains ballot referral language to put the measure on the August ballot. Just as in last year’s legislation, HB1617 seeks to shut hardworking public workers – with the exception of first responders such as police and fire fighters –out of the political process – and to take away their voice on the job.

Sponsored by Rep. Holly Rehder (R-Sikeston), HB 1617 would require public sector workers to give annual written permission for union dues to be taken out of their paychecks.

The bill would also require similar approval for unions to spend worker fees on political activities.

http://labortribune.com/extremists-in-missouri-house-narrowly-vote-to-send-paycheck-deception-bill-to-senate/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Extremists in Missouri House narrowly vote to send paycheck deception bill to Senate (Original Post) Sherman A1 Apr 2014 OP
What an I missing? pipoman Apr 2014 #1
It adds an additional and unnecessary Sherman A1 Apr 2014 #2
The difference is that a workers rights organization is more than a checkmark on a an annual salary Fred Sanders Apr 2014 #3
, blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #4
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
1. What an I missing?
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 07:36 AM
Apr 2014

I and my wife both have annual "open enrollment" at our jobs. While it is about insurance, it is also about all of the benefits options and review of all salary deductions. The union should be included in the enrollment, by all means. ..I am having difficulty understanding the hair-on-fire opposition to this.

In fairness, I am not a union member and have never been eligible for union membership, so I absolutely may not be informed enough to get it...

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
2. It adds an additional and unnecessary
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 07:40 AM
Apr 2014

expense burden to Unions. Both in the area of having to take time to go back every year for reauthorization, but also in record keeping. This is a ALEC and Koch Bros initiative, which of itself is enough to oppose.

There is no need or benefit other than to make life for Unions more expensive and less able to represent their members.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. The difference is that a workers rights organization is more than a checkmark on a an annual salary
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 08:46 AM
Apr 2014

and benefits review. Should take a bit more time to reflect on the issue than a pencil mark.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Missouri»Extremists in Missouri Ho...