Posted on 08/18/2010 12:08:34 PM PDT by MichCapCon
Unlike private sector unions, the sheer number of workers represented is not the linchpin of [the public sector unions] influence. Private sector unions have a natural adversary in the owners of the companies with whom they negotiate. But public sector unions have no such natural counterweight. They are a classic case of "client politics," where an interest group's concentrated efforts to secure rewards impose diffused costs on the mass of unorganized taxpayers.
A conflict of interest would be as follows: First, government union elects politician by funding their campaign and organizing a massive get-out-the-vote drive; second, politician supports employee pay increases, generous pensions and condition of employment; third, union takes dues (read: taxpayer money) and starts the cycle all over again for selected politician.
At both the state and national level, public-sector union support for many Democrats has been well documented. One of the largest public sector unions in the country, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has given over $40 million to politicians since 1990; with more than 98 percent of that going to Democrats. The SEIU, AFL-CIO and United Steel Workers have all promised big help in the coming election. In return, the Democratic Party has voted nearly lockstep with these union's demands.
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
No, really, CommieDemsUnionMarxists? Who knew?
They take money from the workers - in most cases it’s not voluntary - and then they dump the money into political campaigns without the permission of those who involuntarily contributed the funds.
In the case of PUBLIC/STATE/FEDERAL workers, this means they are taking our TAX money - since we pay their salaries - and use our money to fund political campaigns against our will. It’s the most crazy, evil system imaginable.
For example, California Teachers Assn contributed $1.3 million (yes, that’s million) to defeat Prop 8 (marriage between a man and a woman).
In a perfectly just world, all contracts and pensions negotiated between politicians supported politically by unions and unions that supported the politicians (nice circularity, isn't it) would be declared unconscionable contracts and voided retroactively.
The union officials, and the politicians they conspired with, would be charged with theft by swindle. All assets of the union would be liquidated to partially payoff the members that would be losing the benefit of the unconscionable contract negotiated corruptly on their behalf. All public employees formerly represented by the corrupt arrangement would be free to reapply for their current jobs (assuming there was actually a need for that job) under pay scale and benefit conditions not tainted by the former corruption.
Of course it is not a perfectly just world; as evidenced by the proliferation of Democrats, public unions and the corrupt bargain between them.
Government unions are an oxymoron.
I'd say it's more like a double negative that doesn't make a positive.
Thank you for this post but I have to tell all yall, your are going to have to just move on ahead and don’t let me slow you down. I have to sit here for a bit and look at this spot, “natural counterweight”. You know, get my brain around this.
We had an initiative during Davis's administration to tighten up on public unions. One of the requirements was that the union had to tell their members they could withhold that money. The initiatve was voted down.
Knowing about the case, my wife told the CCPOA she wanted to exercise her right to withhold that portion of her dues. It took them a week to find the right form. However, she did it.
More and more people need to do this.
In Cal, the law needs to be amended by initiative or otherwise to prohibit state public unions from providing funding to members of the state legislature of governor, the people who negotiate and must approve their contract. It is a direct conflict of interest and has set up an ongoing system of bribery. The same on the county and city level.
This is why unions should again be outlawed for public employees.
All government unions should be banned. The idea that government workers need protection from guess who?? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, is ridiculous. remember, teachers are government employees. Ban government unions.
.
I know about that “opportunity” for union members to opt out of contributing to political causes and campaigns. However, as I understand it, the union member still must pay for overhead and other expenses for the union to run around supporting political causes and campaigns that many union members are against. It’s a catch 22. See what I mean?
The union is entitled to have the dues for operating costs, including staff. The member is entitled to the portion of the dues that go to poltical campaigning and bribes to be redirected to charity etc. Yes, the union must estimate the %, however the law requires that they have to have budget records to back it up. If a lot of people did it, it would stop a lot of the nonsense.
First, government union elects politician by funding their campaign and organizing a massive get-out-the-vote drive; second, politician supports employee pay increases, generous pensions and condition of employment; third, union takes dues (read: taxpayer money) and starts the cycle all over again for selected politician.
The problem is that there is no natural counterweight available to get your head around or to motivate improvement - its the pols and the unions cheating on America. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.