Polls suggest Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, however, I suspect if the public was asked to define what collective bargaining is, few would be able to do so. Contrary to popular belief, it does not abolish public employee unions or restrict the ability of workers to organize. One of the main aspects of Collective Bargaining, and the one unions fight so hard to keep in place, is the forced union financial contribution.
You see, thanks to collective bargaining, taxpayer money flows directly to the hands of Democratic candidates. The union touches the money briefly, but the American People might as well write a check directly to the Democratic Party and skip the union. In places like Wisconsin, where collective bargaining was eliminated, teachers chose to keep their money and not fund the Democratic Party/Union.
I wonder if the Democratic Party would exist in its current form if collective bargaining was abolished. I see a great battle between Libertarians and Republicans with Democrats representing a fringe and un-influential, third political party.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Spiral
onislandtime
Brokenwing
Joisey Shore - Redux -
AndNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent
Bill Beck
Salon.com
Comments
Do you want proof that unions fund Democrats?
Do you want proof that Collective Bargaining allows unions to collect their dues directly from the Government?
Do you want proof that taxpayers fund the Government?
Do you want proof that Wisconsin teachers stopped paying their dues after Collective Bargaining reform?
I assume from this statement you believe that, since public employees are paid with taxpayer money, the "American People" are making contributions to Democractic politicians.
But the money being paid to public employees is being paid to them for performing a service. Their wages belong to them, just like your wages belong to you, and they can do with them whatever they like, including paying union dues or donating money to their union PAC. (Union dues are not used for political donations, by the way.)
Now, I grant you that unions tradtionally give money to Democrats. I'm not sure why this would anger or even surprise you. Democrats have traditionally supported worker rights more than Republicans have. Why would unions give money to Republicans?
"One of the main aspects of Collective Bargaining, and the one unions fight so hard to keep in place, is the forced union financial contribution."
I do know quite a bit about collective bargaining, having bargained several contracts myself, and I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. I'm in a right to work state, and there is no way to force a union financial contribution from anyone. I do understand that, in states that are not right to work, you do have union shops. But that is a separate issue from collective bargaining itself.
If you're interested, I wrote a blog about collective bargaining last year, which you can read by clicking here.
With Collective Bargaining – A teacher that makes $50,000 might only take home $48,000, the missing $2,000 goes directly to the union. The complete trail looks something like this: taxpayer to School Department to Union to Democratic Party (notice how the teacher never touches the money)
Without Collective Bargaining – A teacher that makes $50,000 takes home $50,000. How that teacher spends his or her money is none of my business as a taxpayer.
Johnny, I work for a teachers' union, and this is not what happens.
OK, let's say a teacher makes $50,000. Union dues here in TN amount to $432 (national and state), plus a much smaller amount that varies for local dues. Yes, that money is, for the most part, taken out automatically through payroll deduction. (Although payroll deduction is becoming extinct.) That dues money DOES NOT, BY LAW, go to any political candidates. It goes to pay the salaries of the union staffers who provide the services of the union. Voluntary donations to a PAC are designated for political activity. So that paragraph that you wrote above is a complete mischaracterization of what actually happens.
But, hey, don't believe me. I only work for a union, and I have day-t0-day experience with what you're talking about. Better to believe you, right?
Whether teachers have $2,000 or $432 taken out of their paycheck is not the point, we both agree that $X never makes it into the hands of the teacher. Of $X, I concede some of that money is used to pay the operating expenses of the union staffers and I imagine you concede some of that money is used to support Democratic politicians. Again, the amounts are an insignificant part of this debate.
The debate is over the fact that teachers (and indirectly taxpayers), as a result of collective bargaining, are not given the option of how their money is spent. Again, in Wisconsin, when teachers were given the ability to spend their money however they please, they chose not to fund the union. I can appreciate why you and the Democratic Party are nervous; soon after collective bargaining reform, many Wisconsin union staffers were let go.
"I imagine you concede some of that money is used to support Democratic politicians."
You have a lot of issues confused in your mind. Collective bargaining, payroll deduction, right to work, etc. These are not one and the same, and you have some work to do before you get it straight.
No, I can't concede that, because it doesn't happen. We are audited fairly regularly, and I can assure you that we follow the law.
You seem to think that, just because a person doesn't physically "touch" the money that is payroll deducted for dues, that is some kind of egregious scam. Money is payroll deducted for all kinds of things. It's nothing more than a convenience, and it really doesn't have a bearing on anything.
Teachers have always had a voice in how their dues money is spent. They elect their own officers and they have a huge democratic (with a small "d") decision-making process every year at their respective state Representative Assemblies and the national Representative Assembly.
The questions in your January 25 comment are pretty meaningless. But I have to admit, you've got that "truthiness" thing down.
You recognize that because of collective bargaining teachers are provided the convenience of having union dues automatically deducted from their paychecks. I don’t disagree with that, however what you call a “convenience”, I call “forced”. “Convenience” is an interesting choice of words for taking money out of someone’s paycheck without their consent. It’s also an interesting choice of words because in lieu of this “convenience” teachers chose to keep their money. By choosing to keep their money, union bosses can’t bank roll Democratic candidates and the viscous cycle gets broken.
Ahhhhhh, thank you Governer Walker and others for having the courage to stand up to these thugs.