Union Teachers ditch to attend anti-RTW rally

[noise]

Because Campaign Finance reform is misguided. There's no problem with how we finance campaigns. Look at what happened to Maroun. The public may take a while to catch up -- but in the end they tend to do the right thing. Limiting contributions and limiting free speech is a mistake.

As to this issue -- I have no problem with Unions funding political advertising. So long as the employees have the right to not join or participate in the Union and support activities they disagree with. Freedom is a good idea. Control of political campaigns is not.

Employees have the choice of not being an employee where they have to join a union.

[Det_ard]

Employees have the choice of not being an employee where they have to join a union.

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

Does this line of reasoning thus invalidate all those other liberal causes célèbre?

[Wesley Mouch]

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

Does this line of reasoning thus invalidate all those other liberal causes célèbre?

Glad you made this statement. Obvious contradiction in liberal thought.

I also think we need to deflate the thinking bubble that you can already opt-out of joining a Union -- if say you want to work for the government. The logic presented is that you can choose not go join -- and only pay an equivalent assessment for your 'administrative' cost to the Union. HA! How do you think the Unions compute their 'political activity' cost? Does it include a proportional share of their administrative costs? When Bob King goes on Craig Fahle to tear Synder apart, is that time, travel, phone, and his support staff get counted as 'political activity'? I'll bet not.

Does anyone know what percentage of money the UAW spends on political activities? Is this the same as the difference between Union dues and 'non-member assessment'?

I do accept that the Union has 100% right to speak for itself and its members. As long as members can opt out of membership and not be compelled to fund ANY costs related to anything political.

btw, is anyone else offended that the City of Detroit pays DWSD employees to do Union work? Do you suppose they're prohibited from any advocacy / political activity?

[noise]

Glad you made this statement. Obvious contradiction in liberal thought.

I also think we need to deflate the thinking bubble that you can already opt-out of joining a Union -- if say you want to work for the government. The logic presented is that you can choose not go join -- and only pay an equivalent assessment for your 'administrative' cost to the Union. HA! How do you think the Unions compute their 'political activity' cost? Does it include a proportional share of their administrative costs? When Bob King goes on Craig Fahle to tear Synder apart, is that time, travel, phone, and his support staff get counted as 'political activity'? I'll bet not.

Does anyone know what percentage of money the UAW spends on political activities? Is this the same as the difference between Union dues and 'non-member assessment'?

I do accept that the Union has 100% right to speak for itself and its members. As long as members can opt out of membership and not be compelled to fund ANY costs related to anything political.

btw, is anyone else offended that the City of Detroit pays DWSD employees to do Union work? Do you suppose they're prohibited from any advocacy / political activity?

There is absolutely no contradiction, aside from the conservative nanny-state ideas that have been floating around lately. Take some personal responsibility. If you want a union job, you need to join the union. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to join the union, don't apply for the job. We don't need Republicans taking away personal accountability.

[Bham1982]

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

That isn't analagous reasoning.

In the first case, you're talking about an issue of choice. In the second one, you're talking about protection from lawbreaking.

[noise]

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

Does this line of reasoning thus invalidate all those other liberal causes célèbre?

You followed that reasoning to a fork in the road and turned where it said, "do not enter".

That said, I agree with the idea that employees should be aware of the environments and conditions of their employment.