I'm honestly not sure what can be done about this. I hate it. I hate that with each election cycle, we don't simply spend a few more million, we collectively spend a few more BILLION dollars. Clearly, that money is being spent because the people spending it want the country reshaped to their liking. It's a bad state of affairs. If they clamp down on the money, what's to stop them from coming at hacks like me next when I say something good about Sanders on the internet that this is an unfair advantage. Much as I would like this fixed by a sledge hammer law, I think we need to find some way to do it ourselves outside of Washington.
Yes, and I also advocate taking all union members out into a courtyard and beating them to death for destroying America with their campaign contributions.
The Use Of Union Dues For Political Purposes: A Legal Analysis Summary Under union shop agreements, labor unions must establish strict safeguards and procedures for ensuring that non-members’ dues are not used to support certain political and ideological activities that are outside the scope of normal collective bargaining activities. The “union shop” or “agency shop” agreement essentially provides that employees do not have to join the union, but must support the union in order to retain employment by paying dues to defray the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance matters.
In a line of decisions, the Supreme Court has addressed this issue and has concluded that compulsory union dues of non-members may not be used for political and ideological activities that are outside the scope of the unions’ collective bargaining and labor-management duties when non-members object to such use.
Seven Supreme Court decisions have held that union dues exacted from dissenting non-members may not to be used for political and ideological purposes and must be expeditiously refunded to dissenting non-members according to proper procedural safeguards:
(1) International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961); (2) Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U.S. 113 (1963); (3) Abood v. District Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977); (4) Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435 (1984); (5) Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986); (6) Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988); and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991).
You ask me this question a lot Lou, and I give the same answer every time. If we are talking about a comprehensive plan wherein, 1) There are no superpacs, 2) Corporations cannot contribute OR lobby, 3) Rich donors like Bill Maher and others cannot contribute 1 million dollars, then yes, I am in agreement to end union contributions.
Conceptually, I will continue to belabor a point though, which is that union contributions are not equivalent to the big money donations of the mega rich and corporations. I never liked working in a union shop, and I'm not particularly a fan of lazy union guys who abuse the system. Like anything else, those few don't represent the rest who are just trying to earn a living.
I once belonged to the American Federation of Musicians in South Carolina. I guess my $50 dues went to sponsor Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat candidate. I feel cheated.
When I worked in the grocery store back in Chicago, I had to be in the union and I hated it, I was part of the UFCW and I hated it when the transparent union reps came in, read my name badge and called me by my name like they were my buddy. At the first hospital I worked at in Chicago, a union there was trying to organize a "corporate campaign" to organize all of the hospitals in one shot rather than letting each hospital vote on its own. The TV ads they ran were very deceptive. None of us in the ICU that I worked wanted to see the union come in. Out here in Vegas, I worked at a hospital that was union shop, but I never joined. The relationship between hospital and employees in pretty much every unit was adversarial and unpleasant. I don't think the union helped that, but, after seeing some decisions that management made, I can absolutely say that hospital needed a union badly.
I'm honestly not sure what can be done about this. I hate it. I hate that with each election cycle, we don't simply spend a few more million, we collectively spend a few more BILLION dollars. Clearly, that money is being spent because the people spending it want the country reshaped to their liking. It's a bad state of affairs. If they clamp down on the money, what's to stop them from coming at hacks like me next when I say something good about Sanders on the internet that this is an unfair advantage. Much as I would like this fixed by a sledge hammer law, I think we need to find some way to do it ourselves outside of Washington.
ReplyDeleteClearly the bug bucks need to go.
DeleteDo you also advocate the big bucks of unions also go?
Yes, and I also advocate taking all union members out into a courtyard and beating them to death for destroying America with their campaign contributions.
DeleteSatisfactory?
The Use Of Union Dues For Political Purposes:
DeleteA Legal Analysis
Summary
Under union shop agreements, labor unions must establish strict safeguards and procedures for ensuring that non-members’ dues are not used to support certain political and ideological activities that are outside the scope of normal collective bargaining activities. The “union shop” or “agency shop” agreement essentially provides that employees do not have to join the union, but must support the union in order to retain employment by paying dues to defray the costs of collective
bargaining, contract administration, and grievance matters.
In a line of decisions, the Supreme Court has addressed this issue and has concluded that compulsory union dues of non-members may not be used for political and ideological activities that are outside the scope of the unions’ collective bargaining and labor-management duties when non-members object to such use.
Seven Supreme Court decisions have held that union dues exacted from dissenting non-members may not to be used for political and ideological purposes and must be expeditiously refunded to dissenting non-members according to proper procedural safeguards:
(1) International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740
(1961); (2) Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U.S. 113 (1963); (3) Abood v. District Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977); (4) Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435 (1984); (5) Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986); (6) Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988); and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991).
Little touchy Max?
DeleteYou ask me this question a lot Lou, and I give the same answer every time. If we are talking about a comprehensive plan wherein, 1) There are no superpacs, 2) Corporations cannot contribute OR lobby, 3) Rich donors like Bill Maher and others cannot contribute 1 million dollars, then yes, I am in agreement to end union contributions.
DeleteConceptually, I will continue to belabor a point though, which is that union contributions are not equivalent to the big money donations of the mega rich and corporations. I never liked working in a union shop, and I'm not particularly a fan of lazy union guys who abuse the system. Like anything else, those few don't represent the rest who are just trying to earn a living.
I once belonged to the American Federation of Musicians in South Carolina. I guess my $50 dues went to sponsor Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat candidate. I feel cheated.
DeleteWhen I worked in the grocery store back in Chicago, I had to be in the union and I hated it, I was part of the UFCW and I hated it when the transparent union reps came in, read my name badge and called me by my name like they were my buddy. At the first hospital I worked at in Chicago, a union there was trying to organize a "corporate campaign" to organize all of the hospitals in one shot rather than letting each hospital vote on its own. The TV ads they ran were very deceptive. None of us in the ICU that I worked wanted to see the union come in. Out here in Vegas, I worked at a hospital that was union shop, but I never joined. The relationship between hospital and employees in pretty much every unit was adversarial and unpleasant. I don't think the union helped that, but, after seeing some decisions that management made, I can absolutely say that hospital needed a union badly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete