Scott Walker's crusade continues

[regexcellent]

You can sometimes opt out of union political donations (actually I don't even know if that's true) but not political activities.

[DinoDoc]

That's this particular line in the sand at this particular moment. One of hundreds of lines in the sand that have been drawn over the last several decades.

Your head is so far up Pelosi's arse I bet you could tell me what she had for breakfast.

This is the only "line" that matters at the moment rather than whatever imagined past slights you've imagined from the GOP.

[kentonio]

You can sometimes opt out of union political donations (actually I don't even know if that's true) but not political activities.

What does that even mean? .

[DinoDoc]

Your posts are so full of fail. Members have been able to opt out of political contributions for decades. All they have to do is fill out one 3"x5" card which is even pre-printed for them. Are you deliberately lying or just this ignorant?

What were the issues in Knox v SEIU?

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's great news. If they can opt out of political contributions, then how is right-to-work defunding the Democratic Party?

The goal is the overall weakening of the unions - since RTW legislation allows workers to get the same general wages and working conditions (not necessarily benefits, as a lot of benifit plans are union administered) while paying no dues at all. The union doesn't see a loss of just money that would go to political contributions - it sees a total loss from every member that would drop out, so the goal is to have a ripple effect force the unions to pull back contributions and use that money to maintain it's other services. In other words, the goal is to cripple unions financially so they are unable to afford participation in the political process.

[regexcellent]

Stuff that doesn't involve specifically putting money in a campaign fund.

(xpost @ken)

[kentonio]

Stuff that doesn't involve specifically putting money in a campaign fund.

(xpost @ken)

Such as? I'm very interested in which political 'stuff' is mandatory for union members.

[Dinner]

That's great news. If they can opt out of political contributions, then how is right-to-work defunding the Democratic Party?

EDIT: I am ignorant. I've never held a union job, and I had no idea that they could opt out of political contributions so easily.

The reason the unions still have money to spend on political causes is because so many members agree with the political contributions and don't opt out. BTW NONE, absolutely ZERO, of the agency fees (the fee non-members get charged if they benefit from the union negotiates a new labor agreement which non-members still benefit from) ever go to political contributions. By law they must only recoup costs incurred for actual negotiating expenses and nothing else. If the union does not recoup such costs then it must make members pay more to cover the costs not covered by the free loaders and that DOES mean the union has less money for other things like union drives at other factories and, yes, political contributions.

This is obviously nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to damage one of the Democrats largest financial donors and nothing else. The fact that the anti-union people have said nothing but one untruth after another reenforces such opinions. It's Republicans being upset that they lost free, fair, and open elections so now they're once again trying to change the rules so they're more in their favor (making them less free, less fair, and less open). It's just like how they routinely attempt to suppress black and hispanic voters and then wonder why those people don't want to vote for them. This will end up blowing up in their faces.

[regexcellent]

The union members don't participate themselves necessarily but it funds them. For instance the union organizes political rallies and protests, and it may have a super pac type deal where it's running ads on TV.

[Felch]

Well, I'm having difficulty figuring out the details here.

Apparently, you can opt out of paying for union political activities, but according to the League of Women Voters of California "A union member may request that his or her dues (or fees, in the case of non-union members) not be used for political activities, although there is no legal requirement that the union honor the request." John Jacobs of the Lodi News-Sentinel says that under current federal and state law unions have to honor a worker's request not to contribute money to candidates or causes they disagree with. In other words, I'm not sure what the truth is. Everybody seems to have an agenda, and no one is to be trusted.

What seems key here is where the money is going. If unions were taking a cut from worker's paychecks and sending money to Focus of the Family, I think MrFun would be changing his tune. As long as the money supports policies that they like, Dinner, MrFun, gribbler, MtG, and the rest see absolutely nothing wrong with taking it from people. Anybody trying to interfere in this extortion is a Republican troll.

[MichaeltheGreat]

What were the issues in Knox v SEIU?

Narrow, state-law specific and not really pertinent to RTW legislation. Nice try though.

[DinoDoc]

Narrow, state-law specific and not really pertinent to RTW legislation. Nice try though.

Entirely pertinent to the quoted post though for the purposes of proving Oerdin a liar: Supreme Court Says Unions Can't Bill Non-Members For Political Spending

[Dinner]

Why should the two fifths of union members who don't vote Democratic be forced to finance the Democratic Party?

Non-member money (the so called "agency fee") is never used for political causes while members can opt out of any and all political contributions simply by putting their name and social security number on a 3"x5" card and then signing it. No one is forced to finance anything political and it has been that way since sometime in the mid 1960's. That a half century has passed yet Republicans CONTINUE to spread this complete lie just shows how dishonest their attacks really are.

[Dinner]

Stuff that doesn't involve specifically putting money in a campaign fund.

(xpost @ken)

Jesus Christ. Learn what you're talking about before you post, junior, because you're completely wrong (again).

[Dinner]

The union members don't participate themselves necessarily but it funds them. For instance the union organizes political rallies and protests, and it may have a super pac type deal where it's running ads on TV.

And if a member doesn't want to contribute to those things it is EXTREMELY EASY for him to opt out. The reason most members continue to fund such things is because they see a benefit from it. The constant attacks on union rights and worker rights is why so little of it ends up going to Republicans.