Re: Unions about to take another hit
Money taken by mandate is de facto tax money. The requirement to pay private sector insurance companies was ruled constitutional by declaring the penalty associated with not doing it to be a "taxing power." Money the government requires by rules be surrendered by people who don't want to engage in a trade is a de facto taxing power. Tax money is not allowed to be spent on politics. But other money that government requires one party surrender to another, can be? That's wrong. Money that law requires be taken from citizens is either a tax, or a tax by another name, and such money should not be able to be spent on politics.
First of all, you clearly don't understand what "fair share" means.
No money provided by non-union fair share employees is used for political purposes. NONE!
It is against the law. Fair share is money contributed
for the services provided by the union "shared" by ALL non-management employees. The cost inherent in collective bargaining, union representation in labor disputes, grievance resolution, legal representation in wrongful termination actions, and protection from unfair disciplinary action. The fair share amount is between 60 - 70% of standard Union membership dues, the difference of 30 - 40% represents the portion unions are legally allowed to use for political purposes.
Bottom line?
Fair share employees are NOT paying for Union political action.
At least it's their money, which they did not take by force from anyone. That's what differentiates private money spent on politics (which is legal) from tax/public money being used on politics (which isn't).
This B/S argument is based on your notion that Public Service employees are somehow "robbing taxpayers" of their hard earned money. That Public Service employees are not "real" employees because they don't produce anything and are stealing money from the producing public.
Well, if you think only "producers" are real employees I'd say you have just re-classified every service sector employee as robbing "real taxpayers" every time a barber cuts your hair, an accountant does your books or works on your taxes, a food service employee makes you a burger, or a sales person helps you in a store. They all provide services for people who can't, won't, or are too lazy to, do things for themselves.
Neither do truckers, warehouse workers, Airline workers, mail delivery services, farm hands, lawyers, doctors (unless dedicated to research), etc.
If you really want to pick nits, most factory workers don't produce anything either! They WORK for a factory owner who bought all the machines, materials, and buildings the employees work in and with.
So by your definition you've limited "REAL taxpayers" to the very people who are indoctrinating you into thinking YOU are one of THEM, the "Koch's and their ilk." They are just tickled to death that people are buying their crap, that Unions are the enemy of free enterprise.
And no reason given, whether erroneous or not, for its faltering in the private sector provides additional support for why unionism should exist in the public sector.
The link you seem to be missing is that WORKERS have the right to unionize against the caprices and depredations of employers. Public Sector employees ARE workers! They WORK to provide services the PUBLIC demands. Otherwise their jobs would not exist. Basic Economics 101: Supply and Demand, heard of it?
Trying to classify them as "the other," so you can say "they" are doing such and so to you, and "they" must be treated as somehow underserving of consideration because of imaginary differences is total B/S. Their jobs exist because the PEOPLE have demanded something, the POLITICIANS have acquiesced to these demands by creating the agencies; and the PEOPLE have to pay for those services via shared taxation.
The only difference between Public Service and Private Service? Private service is pay-as-you-go. Public Service is "pay-
because-you go." And you go all the time.
