Quote:Looks like like the 36% union members are smarter than the non union, unless they are forced to pay dues, they are sucking the hind teat of benefits for free. So the 64% that are non members are still raking in the benefits, Oh what a great country! .
Non union members DON'T usually "rake in the benefits". They (usually) have the same base salary, but that's it. They don't get the pension, the retirement medical, legal services etc. When layoffs happen they are often the first to go, because their bosses don't want the hassle from the union.
Do you consider it right that in some states 100% of public employees are forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment?
Do you consider it right that the union then uses those mandatory dues to support political causes the employee opposes?
Do you consider it right that the unions use general dues to lobby for policies the member disagrees with? For instance
the NEA pushing for homosexual education and explicit sex, not only in our schools, but a worldwide UN program? How many teachers do you know who agree with that? Doesn't matter, their union dues are being spent to implement the policy regardless.
Quote:If it is legal, what is the beef? You can do the same, you can advertise any amount you want. A lot of other organizations do, why not you?
That's what the current debate in WI (and other states) is about. It IS legal for unions to spend general dues for political purposes if they aren't giving money directly to a candidate. The question is whether it should be legal to force people to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Quote:Not your tax dollars, it is the people's dues that pays for the advertising. You can can claim it as tax dollars, but that is BS, it is their money to with as they see fit.
Well no, all too often it's NOT their money to do with as they see fit. It's their money for the union to do with as THEY see fit.
As outlined previously, it has been the case in the past (and may still be the present), that their money is being used illegally and often contrary to their positions, and even where the money is used legally, also often contrary to the employee's positions.
As just a for instance, the NEA spends 94% of it's political money on Democratic party candidates or issues, but only 45% of it's member teachers are Dems (according to the NEA itself).
A valid argument can be made that where they have the choice of whether to join the union or not, when they join they shouldn't complain, but WHAT ABOUT THE 28 STATES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE?
In ALL states my money is taken by threat of force to support at least one monopoly (education) which I vehemently oppose, but in those 28 states where there is no choice it absolutely IS my tax dollars being funneled to the Dems through the unions. Neither I or the public employees have any choice.