Bookmark & share: 
Welcome to reader comments forum, which is offered as
a "public square" for our audience. We view this space as our readers'
section of the Web site, separate from our journalistic offerings.
We hope you will use the forum to advance public dialogue and community
discourse. As such, we ask that participants refrain from personal
attacks and offensive comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate or
offensive, you can bring it to our attention by clicking on the 'report
abuse' link by the comment. It will be reviewed by online staff.
Please understand that 1) a comment is not "inappropriate" solely
because you disagree with its author; and 2) there may be a delay while
the comment is being reviewed.
Please review our Reader Comment Guidelines.
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
eliot spitzer
of Biddeford, ME
Apr 14, 2008 10:20 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhhh yes all the people on food stamps will be next.report abuseWendy Waltz
of Jefferson, ME
As an 11 year (full, not just fair share) member of MSEA, I, for one, am OUTRAGED that my union dues are being used to recruit new members.
Ms. Turowski said this bill was "a priority for the union this session." Somebody PLEASE tell me WHY are my MSEA dues being used to recruit NEW members? MSEA lobbied long and hard all year for these new recruits at the expense of its current membership. These potential new members get "priority", while current members get stuck with a dues increase, a $700 lump sum payment and NO RAISE this year. MSEA should be working just as hard (if not HARDER) on behalf of its CURRENT members who are ALREADY PAYING DUES. I guess current MSEA members were not "a priority for the union this session."report abuse
Apr 14, 2008 8:04 PM
More evidence of MSEA's misplaced priorities...
As an 11 year (full, not just fair share) member of MSEA, I, for one, am OUTRAGED that my union dues are being used to recruit new members.
Ms. Turowski said this bill was "a priority for the union this session." Somebody PLEASE tell me WHY are my MSEA dues being used to recruit NEW members? MSEA lobbied long and hard all year for these new recruits at the expense of its current membership. These potential new members get "priority", while current members get stuck with a dues increase, a $700 lump sum payment and NO RAISE this year. MSEA should be working just as hard (if not HARDER) on behalf of its CURRENT members who are ALREADY PAYING DUES. I guess current MSEA members were not "a priority for the union this session."report abuse
Chris
of Harpswell, ME
Apr 14, 2008 6:27 PM
P.S. Allowing private contractors to unionize for purposes of bidding on state or municipal contracts would create an absolute nightmare. Can you imagine plowing contractors demanding to "unionize" in order to bid on municipal or state plowing contracts? You might as well stand on a street corner and give away the taxpayers money.report abuseChris
of Harpswell, ME
Apr 14, 2008 6:15 PM
There is nothing wrong with getting together for healthcare insurance purposes, as a lot of associations do that. However if the contractors use the union in order to collaborate on bids for state contracts, that would automatically nullify their bids with DHS. That is if the purpose of the union is to collaborate on state bids, it would clearly disqualify the members of the union from state contracting.report abuseYou must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.
