Unions Use Dues For Campaigns

[haymarket]

and randel deserves full credit for coming here and answering the post. reading back i'm worried it sounds a bit snarky - like i'm calling him out - but i truly wanted his response. he's a decent standup guy who just happens (I think) to be wrong on this issue.

you apparently have no desire to face up to it, and so i guess not so much.

Randel is a grown man who makes his own decisions.
So am I.

My decision is to ignore the celibate monk who gives advice about sexual technique.

I also refrain from buying a ticket to a magicians show when I have figured out the tricks, exposed them, and the magician keeps doing them again and again and again.

 

[cpwill]

dishonest? nope, the examples i showed proved my point...is it possible that i could have been wrong about another union? sure..but, that union has in place procedures for those not wanting their dues spent on activities of a political nature to get a refund of that portion of dues...no harm, no foul...and there are indeed federal laws in place against the spending of union dues on federal candidates for office, no dishonesty there either...as for union dues in general, again, you are made aware before employment is offered, of the terms and conditions of the union, it is explained to you that 30 days after you are hired, you will become a member of the union, and in my union's case, it is explained to you that your dues will be 2 hours of straight time per month, usually taken the third pay period of the month...do i believe that you should have the ability to opt out of your union dues?? hell no i don't, as with anything, unions cost money to operate...no, you should not be able to enjoy the benefits of a union and not help pay for them...that is just stupid.

reading back through the posts it seems that you generally gave off the impression that unions weren't aloowed to use dues for political activities end of line; not the kind of fine-tuning you present here.

as for the "mechanisms"; i'm betting it's the "opt-out" that is prevalent, with a series of bureacratic steps necessary to achieve it. Would i be generally accurate there?

and as for the "you have the freedom not to work here if you want to be in a union", i'm all for it - so long as you are also willing to allow "you have the freedom to work here if you don't want to be in a union". the game should not be tilted in favor of either player.

as for South Carolina, perhaps you should enlighten me, as i'm not seeing a connection, not following you at all.

the Union that works for Boeing up in Washington state is suing to get Boeing to fire 100,000 workers in South Carolina because those workers (gasp!) aren't unionized. so screw them and their families.

 

[Patrickt]

Boo Radley: "The effort to demonize public employees has been fierce. From talking about those evil teachers who make an excessive $70,000 or so a year, with good benefits, while pleading for those poor, poor rich folk who can't be expected to live on a taxed $250,000 plus a year, the attack on the working person has been constant and real. And you're on that side CP."

You have to admire the chutppah of someone whining about the imaginary demonization of public union workers while launching into the standard Daily Kos demonization of people earning $250k a year or more.

 

[TurtleDude]

people should read the Supreme Court's BECK decision which was issued-I believe during the very end of the Reagan Administration and then totally ignored by CLinton's administration to the point of telling the DofL to not enforce it. I suspect Obama's regime has done the same thing but it is the controlling law in this area.

 

[randel]

reading back through the posts it seems that you generally gave off the impression that unions weren't aloowed to use dues for political activities end of line; not the kind of fine-tuning you present here.

as for the "mechanisms"; i'm betting it's the "opt-out" that is prevalent, with a series of bureacratic steps necessary to achieve it. Would i be generally accurate there?

and as for the "you have the freedom not to work here if you want to be in a union", i'm all for it - so long as you are also willing to allow "you have the freedom to work here if you don't want to be in a union". the game should not be tilted in favor of either player.



the Union that works for Boeing up in Washington state is suing to get Boeing to fire 100,000 workers in South Carolina because those workers (gasp!) aren't unionized. so screw them and their families.

the UAW uses V-CAP to fund its political activity

What Is V-CAP? | UAW

as for how getting the rebate works, from what i have read, you fill out a form, mail it to the union in question, or give it to your local's financial secretary and he/she mails it in.

as for the game being tilted...if a group of people go through the hassle of forming a union, suffering through 'captive audience' meetings with the company, dealing with 'one on one' meetings, watching fellow co-workers who are sympathetic to the formation of a union lose their jobs, why should they be ok with someone hiring in and basically saying 'screw the union, i'm not joining, but i will enjoy the wages and benefits the union has negotiated, as well as having representation should i need or want it'? screw that, don't want to be in the union, then find somewhere else to work, you have a choice . as far as the boeing situation, from what i have read, that is with the NLRB, and if the union can show that the moving of the jobs is in retaliation, then the company is in violation of labor laws...there are no winners here, those in sc get no jobs, and the company and union are both made out to be asses.

 

[cpwill]

1. money remains fungible (I linked a poll on that issue earlier in the thread, but you didn't comment or vote or probably even read it)
2. the UAW has been free to use union dues for political activities since the Citizens decision. I have no doubt whatsoever that the next time they drive one of their companies into the ground they will use every dollar they can to get us to bail them out again.

 

[randel]

1. money remains fungible (I linked a poll on that issue earlier in the thread, but you didn't comment or vote or probably even read it)
2. the UAW has been free to use union dues for political activities since the Citizens decision. I have no doubt whatsoever that the next time they drive one of their companies into the ground they will use every dollar they can to get us to bail them out again.

personally, if the UAW were to use my dues for political activity, i'm ok with that, as i believe that they are working for me, for my best interests, and there needs to be a counterweight to all the money business spends to elect republicans. in a perfect world, their would be no need for all the money in the process, each side would be equal financially.

 

[cpwill]

personally, if the UAW were to use my dues for political activity, i'm ok with that, as i believe that they are working for me, for my best interests, and there needs to be a counterweight to all the money business spends to elect republicans. in a perfect world, their would be no need for all the money in the process, each side would be equal financially.

and i'm in favor of union members being allowed to opt into that, where their dues can be used for political activities. I just think workers should have choices. that's why I'm against GOVERNMENT closed-shops. having government be biased against non-unionized labor is no more legitimate than any other kind of government bias. Private entities have the right to bias. Public ones do not.

edit, it should be noted that i'm generally "against" private closed shop rules, too, but that's more of the "i don't think it's a good idea" opposition not the "i want legal opposition to it" opposition. I do want the law changed to keep Government from being a biased player.

 

[Boo Radley]

Boo Radley: "The effort to demonize public employees has been fierce. From talking about those evil teachers who make an excessive $70,000 or so a year, with good benefits, while pleading for those poor, poor rich folk who can't be expected to live on a taxed $250,000 plus a year, the attack on the working person has been constant and real. And you're on that side CP."

You have to admire the chutppah of someone whining about the imaginary demonization of public union workers while launching into the standard Daily Kos demonization of people earning $250k a year or more.

Since when have I done that? I point out how those we're speaking of demonize those making some $70,000 a year while whining about those making $250,000 or more not having enough. I have demonized neither group. I keep telling folks that reading for comprehension is an important and fundamental skill. :coffeepap

 

[Patrickt]

Since when have I done that? I point out how those we're speaking of demonize those making some $70,000 a year while whining about those making $250,000 or more not having enough. I have demonized neither group. I keep telling folks that reading for comprehension is an important and fundamental skill. :coffeepap

I'm sorry but to "point something out" involves calling attention to something real. I don't know anyone who has said that people earning over $250k a year aren't earning "enough". Would you show me where anyone is saying that? Now we do have people saying they have too much, like President Obama, and we should take it away from them but please, show me where someone is saying they don't have enough.

Of course, you can't because no one has said that. Reading for comprehension is a valuable skill for conservatives. For liberals, lying is a much more valuable skill, isn't it?