With the inception of Labor Unions in the early 1900’s, workers were being gravely mistreated with long hours, little pay, and being forced to work in harmful work environments. The members stood up to politicians, interest groups, and fought for equal rights all around. Yes, labor unions were needed at the turn of the century, but the year is now 2011 and labor unions are the biggest political machine in America, working in iron triangles to achieve their revolving door political schemes. To quote Barack “I’ve been working with the SEIU before I was elected to anything.”
So how can labor unions really be involved politics? Aren’t they just trying to level the playing field for the common working man? Well first of all, I wouldn’t call a union member a “common man” considering on average their salary is higher, pensions better, and health care cheaper than most of private sector workers. Their collective bargaining rights allow them to raise money to give to politicians who promise the head of the unions that they will maintain power. To put it in perspective, SEIU president Andy Stern (who regularly visits the White House) was quoted as saying, “We Spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – 60.7 million dollars, to be exact – and we’re proud of it.” So it’s no wonder Barack called for the recession appointment of Craig Beck to National Labor Relations Board despite bipartisan disapproval. The unions were instrumental in getting him elected, so now it’s time for to return the favor by passing card checking laws, appointing the obviously pro-union Becker, and giving bailouts to both the teachers and auto workers unions with tax payer money. Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO is quoted as saying he goes to the White House 2-3 times a week. It's nice to know that Obama is so in touch with the "common working man"...
So why do union bosses only give their funds to Democrats instead of Republicans? Well in all fairness, on average a labor union will give 5% of their funds to a GOP candidate, so at least the Republicans aren’t left out completely! But the answer is simple, the unions supports bigger government and higher taxes- just like liberals!
Here are some examples of a union’s true intent:
-Oregon – unions spearheaded a battle to raise taxes on business and income by $727 million a year. 75% of the funding for the promotion of this tax increase came from unions.
-Arizona – in order to avoid government spending cuts, unions played a pivotal role increasing the sales from 5.5% to 6.6% , totaling about 1 billion dollars a year.
-Washington - Unions contributed over half of the $6 million dollars it took promote substantially raising taxes on those earning over $200,000 per year.
There are countless other examples of unions giving the money of their members to any political scheme that fits with the bosses specific political agenda.
Union membership has been on the decline, dropping from 14.3 million members in 1997 to 6.1 in 2011. This drastic decrease calls for Democrats to try and pass things like the card check, which makes it much easier for a company to unionize. Frankly, without the unions, in which all the members must pay their dues to the boss, who in turn give it to a Democratic candidate, the left would have a serious funding problem. The GOP has finally stepped up and taken on this corrupt partnership, much to the left’s dismay.
The challenges started with Chris Christie in 2010 when he demanded that teachers take a 1-year pay freeze (union members typically have an automatic raise after every year) and contribute a measly 2% of their salary to cover their whole families health care for a whole year. Considering the state of the budget, and how hard the private sector was hit by the recession, that doesn’t seem like too much to ask does it? Well the teachers union went on vicious smear campaigns against Christie, which lead to an email being circulated wishing for his death.
In more recent news, every Union member (and maybe just a handful of liberals) are up in arms about Republican Governor Scott Walker carrying through with his campaign promise and attempting to pass a bill that would avoid laying off 5,500 state workers by having them contribute 5.8% of their incomes towards their pensions, 12.6% of their salary towards health care, and have their collective bargaining rights removed. Even with the raise of contribution towards pensions and health care, the price for these union members would still be lower than the national average. It’s no wonder the cowardly democrats literally ran away from these problems, they are afraid without the bargaining rights their funding will dry up (one can only hope!). Considering the 3 billion dollar budget Wisconsin faces, do you really think that this bill is asking too much of these union workers?
I don't understand why you even mention the SEIU's donations to Obama's independent expenditures. I don't disagree with what you contend about Obama feeling obligated to politically favor them, but it's not as if only unions have the right to donate money to a presedential candidate. Any organization's PAC can contribute, so the fact that the SEIU appeared to be successful does not make them wrong in any sense. They merely seized the opportunity presented to them. I'm sure if any organization donated an alleged $60.7 million, Obama would have politically favored them as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd who said that unions were simply trying to level the playing field for the common working man? This is obviously one of the primary purposes of a union, but this is by no means their only purpose. Obviously unions have self-interest as well. With regards to your statement that union members are not "common men", I strongly disagree. You later mention that unions supported substantially raising taxes on individuals making over $200,000 a year; are these supposed to be the common men? I would like to point out that this figure would mean these individuals earn over $3,846 a week whereas the average union worker earns an average of $917 a week and an individual not represented by a union earns an average of $717 a week (Cited from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Making $917 a week would result in an annual salary of $47,684 and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2005 the average annual income in America was $44,389. Not a common man?
Lastly, a union without collective bargaining rights would hardly be a union at all. I would hardly call not wanting to surrender their union's power cowardly but rather a prudent future-oriented decision.
All that being said, I consider myself a conservative. I simply wanted to voice some contentions one may have with your article.
I find it odd that you characterize tax raises to balance the budget as vile union plots against America. Balancing the budget? Surely that's evil. Don't get me wrong, spending cuts are needed as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you conviently forgot to mention that the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to pay the 5.8% and the 12.6%. It isn't a question of money anymore but workers rights.
So let's consider the topic.
The common larger business is a fundamentally undemocratic structure. Some would categorize it as an oligarchy or tyranny. The "common" worker in a business is effectively disenfranchised. Not much different from a feudal serf. (And if you don't like it, good luck finding another job in this crappy economy!) How often do you see a janitor or a factory worker being allowed to vote on the companies policy, pay, or practice.
What is so wrong with attempting to establish a more democratic, equal, and representative work place? We hold these ideals in our government. Why not also in business? Isn't this the ideal we should be striving toward?
Sure it can be abused, but so can any system.
To make matters worse, Governor Walker's bill doesn't apply to Firemen and Policemen. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, but it might have to do with the fact that they vote statistically Republican.
In Response to "I don't really care":
ReplyDeleteI was by no means saying that it was illegitimate for a union boss to give their funds to politicans. Comparatively, corporations like Exxon give funds to Republican candidates, and they have every right to do that. I was simply giving the statistics to show that most of their funds go to the democratic candidates, thereby showing their blatant partianship.
In regard to their support of raising taxes on those making over $200,000, again I simply showing that they lean left on many important fiscal and social issues.
And in regards to these precious collective bargaining rights for the public member unions, no one can put it better than Progressive idol FDR himself "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."