Monday, June 02, 2008

Unions: solving the problem of the lazy being unemployed

When Oregon unions flex, candidates win races
Organized labor -- public employee unions in particular -- spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and uncounted volunteer hours on Oregon's May 20 primary elections.

Yet in a recent newsletter to members, AFL-CIO leaders boasted about "the most aggressive pro-union election effort in any Oregon primary election. . . . One hundred percent of our endorsed candidates celebrated victory."

The stand-out example of union influence in the primary was the state attorney general race between Democrats John Kroger, a law professor at Lewis & Clark College, and state Rep. Greg Macpherson of Lake Oswego. SEIU contributed $317,371 to Kroger's campaign -- more than one of every three dollars he raised.

The OEA, which represents teachers, kicked in $50,000.

When government is the biggest employer in the state and all these workers are supporting Big Union (said in an ominous tone) with their dues it's no wonder that they call the shots.

Private companies learned long ago, as did the workers, that when Big Union comes in, finacial solvency goes out.

I know they love to talk about "working families" and the "middle class" but where do you suppose that these "working families" prefer to do their grocery shopping: the store with the union or the one with the cheaper groceries?

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

where they prefer to do their grocery shopping and where they can afford to do their grocery shopping are two separate questions now, aren't they?

MAX Redline said...

One of the problems in Oregon is that if a union gets into a workplace, everybody has to join. There's no choice. And then they take a percentage of workers' pay as "dues" - which they funnel into supporting Democrats or, in the off-season, dump into managers' pockets.

Oregon Reality said...

You don't have to join the unions in OR/WA, but you do have to pay dues.

Remember, if you're not a union member, you still have to pay union dues but you can cross a picket line to work and the union can't fine you. You can also get a partial refund of your dues the thug unions use for political activities.

I urge every union member, especially if you're NOT a Democrat, to quit your union and go through the procedures necessary to demand a partial refund of your union dues that are being used for political activities.

Anonymous said...

rofl - yeah fuck high wages and good benefits

Go Green Machine!!! said...

"One hundred percent of our endorsed candidates celebrated victory."

It is so nice being part of a winning team. I detect some jealousy.

When government is the biggest employer in the state and all these workers are supporting Big Union (said in an ominous tone) with their dues it's no wonder that they call the shots.

Boo hooo. Let the gnashing of teeth begin. It is so tiring listening to the whinners like Coyote, Daniel the methdealer, and Max Headrum moan about unions. As Oregon Reality points out, members can do just as he/she suggests. The Reality to Oregon's Reality is that many don't want to.

The way I see it, there are two types of people during election time, winners and losers. The losers always nag about the winners. But really, folks like Bill Sizemore who break the law continously and violate our election laws are hailed by Republicans because the guy is anti-union. Sizemore is a BIG loser. Always is and always will be. Unions which are voted in by workers, follow the laws with regard to dues and collective bargaining which most workers at least 98% support. Straight up, if you don't like unions, fine. But don't hate the players hate the game, the game that you suck at playing.

Go Green Machine!!!

Anonymous said...

Unions are for people who don't have skills that deserve better wages. Unions are poison.

Anonymous said...

I should rephrase that last comment. People who don't have skills rely on unions to get them wages they don't deserve.

Anonymous said...

wtf are you rambling about? please show me some studies that support your thesis that "People who don't have skills rely on unions to get them wages they don't deserve."

You'd rather we just go back to a system where the business end of the relationship has 100% of the power?

Anonymous said...

Unions are the #1 reason why FORD is going to Mexico to build vehicles and GM is closing 4 plants here.

Unions are the #1 reason for our expensive yet worldwide failing class of Schools, especially in Oregon.

Unions are representing FACISM, as members are forced to pay the man and watch the man only support Socialists and Communists.

Unions are the #1 reason so many jobs are going to other Nations and leaving here.

Anonymous said...

um, no, corporate greed and stupid trade policies like NAFTA, e.g., are the reason such things are happening. further, as someone who has met john kroger on several occasions, he is neither socialist or communist. do you even know what those words mean? do you know what fascism is? hint, it is often present when government and corporations are in lock-step ...

BEAKEER said...

ALL HAIL STEWIE!!!

MAX Redline said...

You can also get a partial refund of your dues the thug unions use for political activities.

Actually, you can't.

Go Green Machine! said...

Oregon Reality said, "You can also get a partial refund of your dues the thug unions use for political activities."

Max Headrun said, "Actually, you can't."

This is good news then. Maybe those that don't want to work for a union shop should get a job somewhere else. After all this is America, land of the free. Get a job somewhere else and stop complaining.

Anonymous said...

You though they gave alot for Kroger, wait until you see what Obama gets. Not specifically to his campaign, but for the exposure of McCain. Oh you Repubicans are gonna be in one hell of a mess.

Bobkatt said...

Unfortunately, unions have sold out the American workers just as the politicians have. Do you think that the Teamsters would have allowed Mexican truck drivers free access to the American roads 30 years ago. I don't think so. The AFL-CIO has supported amnesty for illegals. The SEIC represents a large number of illegals and supports amnesty.

Anonymous said...

The AFL-CIO has supported amnesty for illegals. The SEIC represents a large number of illegals and supports amnesty.

So unions support the workers that are sweating and toiling in this country just wanting a better life for their families? So what. I am glad they do and wouldn't want it any other way.

What you are basing is the story of America, immigrants coming here for a better life. As a union member myself, I support workers no matter where they come from. Foreign or domestic, they are our brothers and sisters and should be supported in their plight for fair and safe work conditions. Just because you hate immigrants or don't believe in a fair and safe work conditions dosen't mean all Americans do.

Bottom line, if you don't like unions don't join one. Just don't be suprised when other do.

Bobkatt said...

anon 10:39- Do you even think about what you write? Illegals are NOT immigrants. I don't hate immigrants. Illegals are not my brothers and sisters. Illegals do nothing but harm Americans ability to demand safe and fair working conditions. Just like outsourcing jobs, illegals destroy unions. How many unionized roofing and contracting companies are left? I'm in a union but I don't have to like them supporting illegals that take jobs from legal citizens.
Illegals need to go home and organize unions of their own to take on the governments that make their lives hell.

Anonymous said...

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the American labor bureaucracy, but Daniel's "musings" on this and all other subjects falls laughably short of any insightful analysis of the subject. As per usual, the Miglavian technique is to stomp in, take a dump on [insert scapegoat of choice here] and walk off without responding to anyone.

As usual, pathetic and useless. But very Miglavian.

Anonymous said...

As a state employee I know for a fact that state employee's can request a refund on the portion of their union dues that are used for political purposes, otherwise known as "non-chargeable" expenses.

The unions of course do not like to advertise this for obvious reasons. The state as an employer does not do anything to educate their workforce to this fact either. If you opt out of the union and become a "fair share" employee (fair share employees are not considered to be full members of the union but are required to pay their "fair share" dues to the union), you will receive a fair share packet in the mail once each year. Buried in that packet will be a brief mention on how you can request a refund of the political expenses.

Basically all you have to do is submit a request in writing for refund each year to the union. You are required to submit your request to the union in writing by the end of January to get a refund. I already got my check.

Anonymous said...

Union dues used for political purposes:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

* Thomas Jefferson

Oregon Reality said...

Workers in non-Right to Work states have the right to cut off the portion of their dues used for politics and other nonbargaining activities. As a result of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), public employees cannot be required to do more than pay a union fee (typically called an "agency fee") that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.

If you are a nonmember, you have a right to object and obtain a reduction of your compulsory agency fee payments so that they do not include the part of dues that is used for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

The employer and the union must establish certain procedures to safeguard your right to pay only a limited fee to the union. These safeguards include giving you:

* Audited financial information about how the amount of the agency fee was calculated;
* An opportunity to challenge the amount of the agency fee before an impartial decisionmaker and make the union prove its fee claim; and,
* The right to place the contested amount of the agency fee in escrow so that the union will not be able to illegally use your money while a decision on the proper amount of the agency fee is pending.

Your right to proper safeguards is based upon Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986).

Oregon Reality said...

Examples of Non-Chargeable Expenses

* Lobbying, unless necessary to ratify or fund the nonmember's specific collective bargaining agreement.
* Electoral politics, including ballot and bond issues.
* Public relations activities.
* Litigation not specifically on behalf of the nonmember's bargaining unit.
* Engaging in illegal strikes.
* Organizing.
* Union "members only" benefits.
* Portions of union publications reporting on the above seven categories.

Oregon Reality said...

From the examiner.com:
Editorial
Unions should stop tithing nonmembers with ‘fees’

The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper
2008-06-05 07:00:00.0

WASHINGTON -

Public employee unions in 28 states now legally force an estimated 12 million nonunion members to pay “agency” fees in lieu of membership dues. The fees are meant to recognize that all employees benefit from union bargaining regardless if they are union members. That’s a reasonable argument, of course, but Big Labor’s lawyers have successfully argued for decades that virtually everything a union does anywhere benefits everybody, so nonmembers should have to pay the fees and shut up.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Daniel Locke v. Edward Karass, a case from Maine in which the justices have an opportunity to uphold every employee’s right not to be compelled to support political and social causes with which they disagree.

The facts of the case, which was brought with support from the National Right to Work Committee Foundation, are simple: Locke is one of 20 Maine state employees who found that their compulsory agency fees to the Maine State Employees Association were being used to fund union lawsuits and bargaining in other states via a funding pool administered by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Locke and his like-minded colleagues objected to having to pay the fees because they knew the SEIU aggressively pushes a political agenda outside of Maine, including political campaigning, lobbying government at all levels, litigation against employers, media advocacy and other non-bargaining activities. Every dollar taken from Locke to pay for union litigation outside Maine freed up a dollar to be spent on SEIU’s political agenda.

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? After all, Thomas Jefferson said it was “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” And just last year, the court ruled that public employee unions must first get permission from individual members before using their dues for political activities. Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees.”

But things are never so simple in the nation’s capital. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has submitted a brief in the case in which he argues that public employee unions can indeed use agency fees to pay their share of a litigation pool.

But, he says, doing so must further the government’s interest in keeping the peace in the workplace. He also says the union must give reasonable assurance that the pool doesn’t indirectly aid non-litigation activities.

In other words, as long as there is peace in the workplace and wink-winks from the union, President Bush’s solicitor general will be happy. And this president is anti-union?

Anonymous said...

Daniel - it's "hear" when your ear detects sound... not "here".