Should workers be forced to give unions political donations for the right to vote?

[DCal430]

In California public employee unions are required to give political contributions to unions often in the hundreds of dollars a year, my union requires a $400 to $600 a year political contribution in order to vote on strikes, wages, working conditions, and other benefits. If I refuse to give the union political money the law denies me any say in my own benefits. Some unions are nicer and require "only" $60 to $100 a year in political contributions.

I am sorry, this was for P&N. I made a mistake.

 

[Rainsford]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but it seems reasonable to contribute to the union if you want a say in union actions. Unions couldn't exist without worker contributions, after all.

 

[drinkmorejava]

Pretty sure he is talking about money in addition to dues...which seems pretty screwed up

 

[DCal430]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but it seems reasonable to contribute to the union if you want a say in union actions. Unions couldn't exist without worker contributions, after all.

Contributing to the union for collective bargaining is fine. But why should I be forced to give $500 to the Union PAC in order to vote on my own employment contract.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So go work somewhere without a union. Problem solved. Otherwise suck it up. You made your choice.

 

[Incorruptible]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but it seems reasonable to contribute to the union if you want a say in union actions. Unions couldn't exist without worker contributions, after all.

The OP was referring to political donations not union dues which are totaly different

The workers shouldn't be forced, its not surprising that the public sector unions "steal" the workers money and then use it to vote for democrat to keep the government big

 

[3chordcharlie]

So go work somewhere without a union. Problem solved. Otherwise suck it up. You made your choice.

No, you're wrong.

I'm a fairly pro-union guy, but if this situation is true, it should be criminal.

Your union dues and membership entitle you to a vote in the handling of union affairs.

If your union solicits PAC contributions, the only voting rights tied to that donation should be related to the actions of that PAC.

Edit: That being said a search for "California public union political contribution" returns this thread twice in top-5 results.

 

[Chris A]

California is a huge mess because of the unions money making it into politics.

 

[Jhhnn]

In California public employee unions are required to give political contributions to unions often in the hundreds of dollars a year, my union requires a $400 to $600 a year political contribution in order to vote on strikes, wages, working conditions, and other benefits. If I refuse to give the union political money the law denies me any say in my own benefits. Some unions are nicer and require "only" $60 to $100 a year in political contributions.

I am sorry, this was for P&N. I made a mistake.

Unions are nothing w/o political clout- Repubs would legislate them out of existence.

You are, iirc, the California equivalent of a "fee objector", refusing to pay like your brethren for what they need for the union to survive. One of the great compromises in Labor Law is that you can do that at all. You're getting a free ride. Don't expect full privileges w/o full participation.

Or the Republican answer- If you don't like this job, this union, get another job, & don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[Chris A]

Unions have spent over 50 million to defeat this.

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/cta-375172-members-political.html

 

[DrPizza]

Gee, a union making political decisions which best benefits their members. Who would have thunk of such a thing. :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Pretty sure he is talking about money in addition to dues...which seems pretty screwed up

Ah, I see what he's talking about now. I would agree that mandatory political contributions in addition to dues seems a bit messed up...although I don't quite understand why the union wouldn't just increase dues and use some of that money for political donations.

To be honest though, I have a pretty hard time coming down on the unions for doing this since it's basically the same thing corporations do just in a slightly different way. Corporations donate money to political issues, money they earn from worker efforts while the workers have absolutely no say in how that money is used. It's messed up there too, but if that's allowed, the unions should be able to at least play the same ridiculous game.

Personally I'd be in favor of not only getting rid of things like mandatory contributions but making it illegal for non-human entities to spend any money on political issues. If you can't vote, you can't donate. Unions, corporations, whatever. Solves quite a few problems like this.

 

[a777pilot]

Vote, don't vote in your union. I don't care. I see no reason for any public sector unions. They ought to be banned.

 

[monovillage]

Unions have spent over 50 million to defeat this.

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/cta-375172-members-political.html

They'll be spending more in California since it'll continue to be on the ballot until it passes. Fucking union thugs.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, I see what he's talking about now. I would agree that mandatory political contributions in addition to dues seems a bit messed up...although I don't quite understand why the union wouldn't just increase dues and use some of that money for political donations.

To be honest though, I have a pretty hard time coming down on the unions for doing this since it's basically the same thing corporations do just in a slightly different way. Corporations donate money to political issues, money they earn from worker efforts while the workers have absolutely no say in how that money is used. It's messed up there too, but if that's allowed, the unions should be able to at least play the same ridiculous game.

Personally I'd be in favor of not only getting rid of things like mandatory contributions but making it illegal for non-human entities to spend any money on political issues. If you can't vote, you can't donate. Unions, corporations, whatever. Solves quite a few problems like this.

No, he's talking about the portion of his dues used for political purposes, and he's likely exaggerating the amount, as well. Here in Colorado, the law allows "fee objectors" to fill out a form, pay reduced dues, not pay for political activities by their union. It's a function of the law, and is likely much the same in Calif. The union has the right to deny them voting privileges as a consequence, but not representation wrt contractual stuff & discipline.

http://seiumonitor.com/beck-objection-form/

More specifics

http://cppea.org/about-cppea/faq/

 

[Chris A]

No, he's talking about the portion of his dues used for political purposes, and he's likely exaggerating the amount, as well. Here in Colorado, the law allows "fee objectors" to fill out a form, pay reduced dues, not pay for political activities by their union. It's a function of the law, and is likely much the same in Calif. The union has the right to deny them voting privileges as a consequence, but not representation wrt contractual stuff & discipline.

http://seiumonitor.com/beck-objection-form/

They do have the ability to opt out but there is no over site of it. A coworker tried over 11 months to get her exemption through. After several letters phone calls it finally went through. Her dues dropped by $11. Lol. That's was her portion.

I'm not anti union but private sector unions are killing this state. The unfunded pensions are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Unions are nothing w/o political clout- Repubs would legislate them out of existence.

You are, iirc, the California equivalent of a "fee objector", refusing to pay like your brethren for what they need for the union to survive. One of the great compromises in Labor Law is that you can do that at all. You're getting a free ride. Don't expect full privileges w/o full participation.

Or the Republican answer- If you don't like this job, this union, get another job, & don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

this is not union dues.

It is a separate fee that the union requires and chooses to use for union political action.

However, if he does not contribute the political money; he can not particpate in union functions.

Two taxes must be paid; if the second tax is not paid; he loses all rights to participate, even though he pas paid for those rights with tax #1.

 

[DCal430]

They do have the ability to opt out but there is no over site of it. A coworker tried over 11 months to get her exemption through. After several letters phone calls it finally went through. Her dues dropped by $11. Lol. That's was her portion.

I'm not anti union but private sector unions are killing this state. The unfunded pensions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Here it is 1% of our pay so if you make 60,000 a year that is 600 a year, and we have have no form instead you must hand deliver a personal written letter. You also have to do this EVERY year and you have only a 30 day window to do it too, if you miss the window your shit out luck.

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm tempted to say no. However, how many of you would also say no if we were talking about corporate PAC donations? Neither should be allowed.

 

[Chris A]

I'm tempted to say no. However, how many of you would also say no if we were talking about corporate PAC donations? Neither should be allowed.

Get them out too!

Lol DCal430. Too funny

 

[Jhhnn]

this is not union dues.

It is a separate fee that the union requires and chooses to use for union political action.

However, if he does not contribute the political money; he can not particpate in union functions.

Two taxes must be paid; if the second tax is not paid; he loses all rights to participate, even though he pas paid for those rights with tax #1.

See DCal's most recent post. It *is* part of normal dues, not something extra.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here it is 1% of our pay so if you make 60,000 a year that is 600 a year, and we have have no form instead you must hand deliver a personal written letter. You also have to do this EVERY year and you have only a 30 day window to do it too, if you miss the window your shit out luck.

If you're making $60K, a fair part of that is because you're union, and unions exist at the political whim of politicians. If you don't feed 'em, they'll feed you to the big money interests, just like in Wisconsin.

Break the balls off of teachers & other public employees so that fat cats get another tax cut, & it all looks good on paper.

The rest? Mew! they didn't make it easy for good reasons, reasons having to do with whiney right wing boneheads who don't want to pay like everybody else in the union, who actually want an open shop so they can be complete leeches.

 

[DCal430]

If you're making $60K, a fair part of that is because you're union, and unions exist at the political whim of politicians. If you don't feed 'em, they'll feed you to the big money interests, just like in Wisconsin.

Break the balls off of teachers & other public employees so that fat cats get another tax cut, & it all looks good on paper.

The rest? Mew! they didn't make it easy for good reasons, reasons having to do with whiney right wing boneheads who don't want to pay like everybody else in the union, who actually want an open shop so they can be complete leeches.

Federal workers lack unions and they seem to be doing good.

 

[Jhhnn]

Federal workers lack unions and they seem to be doing good.

They have elaborate civil service protections courtesy of the New Deal, which serve the same function as unions. Only the combined action of Congress & the Executive branch can reverse them.

Those protections are much, much easier to reverse at the state level, affecting lots of workers, not just public sector employees-

http://www.thenation.com/article/158640/labors-last-stand#

You can be a selfish short sighted bonehead if you want, but it's ultimately self defeating. Imagine your own govt workplace with no union, with the petty tyrants so common in middle level govt free to screw over anybody they want. People who don't work for govt should imagine the same thing, with govt jobs being so fucked up that nobody with any brains at all would work there & the kind of necessary services they'd receive.

 

[DCal430]

They have elaborate civil service protections courtesy of the New Deal, which serve the same function as unions. Only the combined action of Congress & the Executive branch can reverse them.

Those protections are much, much easier to reverse at the state level, affecting lots of workers, not just public sector employees-

http://www.thenation.com/article/158640/labors-last-stand#

You can be a selfish short sighted bonehead if you want, but it's ultimately self defeating. Imagine your own govt workplace with no union, with the petty tyrants so common in middle level govt free to screw over anybody they want. People who don't work for govt should imagine the same thing, with govt jobs being so fucked up that nobody with any brains at all would work there & the kind of necessary services they'd receive.

Not really in California in order to remove this protection you need:

1. A majority vote in the legislation.
2. The governor approval
3. A majority vote of the people to sign off on it.

So no it isn't easy to remove in the states.