• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Teacher Unions Working Overtime to Elect Kerry

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Teacher unions get active

School's out, but the nation's teacher unions will be working overtime this summer to help elect John Kerry president. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) will host John Kerry at their convention next month, and the National Education Association (NEA) has launched a new ad campaign in several battleground states to attack President Bush's education record. The ads claim the president's No Child Left Behind Act "forces teachers to drill students for standardized tests," which, it contends, "hurts kids today and limits them in the future."

Teacher union members will be the biggest single contingent of delegates to the Democratic Convention in Boston later in July, just as they were in 2000, when more than 350 NEA members and 152 AFT members were Democratic delegates. In addition, teacher unions will donate millions to elect Democrats at all levels of government. Indeed, the NEA and AFT are two of the top 13 all-time donors to the Democratic Party since 1978, giving nearly $12.4 million to Democrats as of June 2003, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to teacher union political activism. Much of what goes on is hidden from view, even from teacher union members themselves.

Like most unions, the teacher unions not only collect voluntary contributions from their members to donate to political candidates -- some 95 percent of which goes to Democrats -- they also spend huge sums of their members' dues to register voters, run ads, print campaign leaflets, set up phone banks and turn out voters on Election Day. What's more, the NEA employs what Landmark Legal Foundation president Mark Levin calls "the largest army of campaign workers that any organization has" -- the 1,800 NEA UniServ directors who are deployed in every Congressional District in the nation. The NEA, with its state affiliates, spent some $90 million to underwrite its UniServ program in 2003, according to documents Landmark Legal Foundation unearthed in its extensive court filings against the union.

These UniServ directors are responsible for all political activities within their geographic area, including raising funds for the NEA's political action committee (cynically named the Fund for Children and Public Education), managing NEA's delegates to the Democratic convention, giving campaign support for NEA-endorsed candidates and coordinating the union's lobbying efforts. Yet despite the obvious political nature of these union operatives' work and the huge sums of money to support it, the NEA claims it doesn't spend a dime of the dues it collects on politics, or at least that's what it tells the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both the NEA and the AFT claim they spend zero dollars on politics when they file annual returns with the IRS. Why? Because as tax-exempt organizations, they would owe taxes on that portion of their revenues that they spend on politics. Other non-profit groups report their political and lobbying expenses -- the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, for example, reported almost $20 million in such spending in 1996 -- but not the teacher unions. So, not only are the unions ripping off their own members, they are defrauding the government of millions of dollars in taxes.

What makes this all the more galling is that teacher unions want the rest of us to pay higher taxes. When California experienced a $35-billion budget shortfall in 2002, largely because of out-of-control spending by the Democrat-controlled legislature and then Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the California Federation of Teachers proposed raising six separate taxes to close the gap and passing legislation that would make it easier to raise taxes in the future. Of course the teacher unions claim these higher taxes would benefit education, though more money has done little to improve education to date.

Funding on education has gone up exponentially in the last several decades -- we're now spending more than three times as much per pupil in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars than we did in 1960 -- but student test scores, as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress, have shown almost no improvement over that same period.

Teacher unions deserve an "A" for their unswerving devotion to the Democratic Party, but they have failed miserably when it comes to improving education.

should be a good read;)

Anyway, it's pretty interesting how the Unions seem to be skirting the law when it comes the tax issue and political activities.

CkG
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
Unions usually support pro-worker candidates which are rarely Republicans anymore.

Republicans are generally pro-rich nowadays.

Republicans might once again get support from unions if they would not be so anti-worker.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Unions usually support pro-worker candidates which are rarely Republicans anymore.

Republicans are generally pro-rich nowadays.

Republicans might once again get support from unions if they would not be so anti-worker.

:p Keep trying.....someday you'll wake up.

CkG
 

MAW1082

Senior member
Jun 17, 2003
510
7
81
No, he's right.

Today's republicans are staunch free market economics supporters. This means they support VERY FEW government funded social welfare programs.

Unions usually consist of lower paid wage workers, who tend to desire social welfare programs.

You have to OPEN YOUR EYES before can see, even after you wake up!
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Unions usually support pro-worker candidates which are rarely Republicans anymore.

Republicans are generally pro-rich nowadays.

Republicans might once again get support from unions if they would not be so anti-worker.

:p Keep trying.....someday you'll wake up.

CkG

In what way is he wrong?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Unions usually support pro-worker candidates which are rarely Republicans anymore.

Republicans are generally pro-rich nowadays.

Republicans might once again get support from unions if they would not be so anti-worker.

:p Keep trying.....someday you'll wake up.

CkG

In what way is he wrong?

"pro-worker candidates"? "anti-worker"?

:roll: Just more BS spewed by the left.

Unions care about power, they have become what they used to fight against.

CkG
 

CWRMadcat

Senior member
Jun 19, 2001
402
0
71
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Unions usually support pro-worker candidates which are rarely Republicans anymore.

Republicans are generally pro-rich nowadays.

Republicans might once again get support from unions if they would not be so anti-worker.

:p Keep trying.....someday you'll wake up.

CkG

In what way is he wrong?

"pro-worker candidates"? "anti-worker"?

:roll: Just more BS spewed by the left.

Unions care about power, they have become what they used to fight against.

CkG


Yup. :beer:
 

fitzhue

Golden Member
Sep 24, 2000
1,242
0
71
Originally posted by: CWRMadcat
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Unions usually support pro-worker candidates which are rarely Republicans anymore.

Republicans are generally pro-rich nowadays.

Republicans might once again get support from unions if they would not be so anti-worker.

:p Keep trying.....someday you'll wake up.

CkG

In what way is he wrong?

"pro-worker candidates"? "anti-worker"?

:roll: Just more BS spewed by the left.

Unions care about power, they have become what they used to fight against.

CkG


Yup. :beer:

:thumbsdown: Are you disputing the fact that Democrats generally care more for the rights of the workers? Oh right it was the Bush camp that de-regged a good deal of the labor industry from ergonomics laws that protect workers and instituted widespread "tort reform" to protect corporations from frivolous lawsuits from workers that have gotten horrible injuries.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"pro-worker candidates"? "anti-worker"?

:roll: Just more BS spewed by the left.

Unions care about power, they have become what they used to fight against.

CkG

I'l join in on this little :beer: party

Unions as a balancing force aren't essentially bad, but many of them have gone too far.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: fitzhue
:thumbsdown: Are you disputing the fact that Democrats generally care more for the rights of the workers? Oh right it was the Bush camp that de-regged a good deal of the labor industry from ergonomics laws that protect workers and instituted widespread "tort reform" to protect corporations from frivolous lawsuits from workers that have gotten horrible injuries.

Republicans/business owners, for their part, sometimes cross the line. But I didn't read this a a pro-Republican/big business post as you seem to have, all I read was a (well deserved) critique of the NEA.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"pro-worker candidates"? "anti-worker"?

:roll: Just more BS spewed by the left.

Unions care about power, they have become what they used to fight against.

CkG
No it's not BS Cad. Take a look at which side of the fence the current administration comes down on regarding the issues. Just one example: The administration intervenes in a labor dispute between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's Union invoking the obscure Taft-Hartley act undermining the rights of port workers on the West Coast. I watched it happen as I lived in Long Beach, CA at the time. First time in over 25 years that anyone bothered to dust off that moldy old thing (the Taft Hartley act).

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's the same with the environment. Examine any single environmental issue and if there's a business vs. environment scenario, the administration comes down in favor of business every single time.

Do you want more examples of the administration's anti-labor stance?
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Oh, that's why they are all on strike. They wanted the end of the school year to stump for the great undecider. This Union is the definition of why Unions are bad. Pay people more than average for 3/4 year worth of work and they still bitch. The ultimate in Socialism/Union collaboration.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"pro-worker candidates"? "anti-worker"?

:roll: Just more BS spewed by the left.

Unions care about power, they have become what they used to fight against.

CkG
No it's not BS Cad. Take a look at which side of the fence the current administration comes down on regarding the issues. Just one example: The administration intervenes in a labor dispute between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's Union invoking the obscure Taft-Hartley act undermining the rights of port workers on the West Coast. I watched it happen as I lived in Long Beach, CA at the time. First time in over 25 years that anyone bothered to dust off that moldy old thing (the Taft Hartley act).

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's the same with the environment. Examine any single environmental issue and if there's a business vs. environment scenario, the administration comes down in favor of business every single time.

Do you want more examples of the administration's anti-labor stance?

They may be "anti-union" stances but again that doesn't mean they are "anti-worker";)

You can try to turn this into a Bush thread but it isn't one. It's about the NEA(union) politicking. I don't want today's big unions supporting the candidate I choose to support. Big Unions don't stand for the same things I stand for. The NEA doesn't care about kids any more than anyone else - they just try to leverage that emotion to gain more power - just like most unions.

CkG
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Went to moms office two weks ago at UCSB and on her office door big fat Kerry sign:)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Pay people more than average for 3/4 year worth of work and they still bitch.
--------------------
This is a free country you're paid what your worth and worth what you can get. Unions do the same thing you do when you get a job or do you just take whatever conditions your potential employer offers?
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Oh, that's why they are all on strike. They wanted the end of the school year to stump for the great undecider. This Union is the definition of why Unions are bad. Pay people more than average for 3/4 year worth of work and they still bitch. The ultimate in Socialism/Union collaboration.

Don't want a pay raise???? This guy sounds like the complacent proletariat big business owners love.

Zephyr
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: irwincur
Oh, that's why they are all on strike. They wanted the end of the school year to stump for the great undecider. This Union is the definition of why Unions are bad. Pay people more than average for 3/4 year worth of work and they still bitch. The ultimate in Socialism/Union collaboration.

Don't want a pay raise???? This guy sounds like the complacent proletariat big business owners love.

Zephyr

Maybe he's jealous unskilled or semi skilled labor who has no bargaining position?
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
307
126
The unions are culling an artificial slowdown of the U.S. economy by hampering WEST-EAST rail and roadway traffic with their slowdown. I'd think a sudden influx of cheap foreign good would be helpful to kickstart some money flow. Americans actually make more money off the supply chain that leads ultimately to the consumer than foreign companies ever get by selling their stuff cheap.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
307
126
Teacher unions seem unwilling to listen to the teachers, so why would the President?