Shop Mobile More   DeviantArt is currently in read-only mode for system maintenance

Details

Closed to new replies
December 13, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 202

Papa Johns Forces Employees to Donate Money to Republican Party...

:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
...no, not really.

However, unions do exactly this for the Democratic party.

Over the last year, the UAW directly donated $1.5 million to candidates, almost all of it to Democrats. (Joe Heck, a Nevada Republican, did receive $1,000. There were a few other local elections in which Republicans received funds, the total of which didn't exceed $5,000.) It additionally donated $9.8 million to PACs, political parties directly, and other groups. ($4.1 million of this went directly to the Democratic party.)

Don't forget - union membership and union dues are a condition of employment at any union shop with an agency agreement. This is precisely the situation which right to work laws seek to rectify, because effectively, employees are being forced to donate money to particular political parties as a condition of their employment.

In many countries, the inherent conflict of interest has led the governments to either ban agency agreements entirely (the UK), or to institute alternatives (in Canada, employees may donate their dues to a mutually agreed upon charity, for example; South Africa allows the money to be donated directly to the government).

This situation would be a matter of outrage on this board if employers instituted this directly, or if the money was going to the Republican Party.

THIS IS NOT A RESULT OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. This situation long predates that decision, as previously these funds were simply routed through PACs. So don't blame the Supreme Court for this.

So why the vehement opposition to right to work legislation? This is clearly a violation of the employee's rights to political self-determination.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
wow this sounds like a huge strawman argument amirite?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
And what's the strawman, and what does it represent, praytell?

Or do you have no idea what the words you just wrote mean?
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
He's just some idiot who showed up about an hour ago. He hits up nearly every thread in politics with crappy one line responses that don't make much sense.

It appears he got you too.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Politics forum drinking games fodder!
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
dude i will be so drunk
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist
lol
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
your shit
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
go reread your argument its plain as day
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Uh huh.
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
yep.
Reply
:iconmomoe:
momoe Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2012
I disagree with donating anything other than a vote to politicians in the first place so... yeah... OUTRAGE, and all that. Does your stance also include condemnation of similar practices by corporate entities?

After all, a corporation donates profits that are generated by its workforce but does not consult that workforce on its political opinion.

Admittedly, union dues can be more directly linked to political donations than company profits can to an employee's output. The trade off is that employee representation is stronger in a union than it is within a corporation, so the likelihood of the union's political opinion matching its members is a bit better.

It's all kinda stupid but in practice, the corporation and the union's political leanings mostly cancel each other out, leaving the employee's actual political opinion to manifest (erm... mostly...). To me it all seems a delicate balance of necessary evils and one that should be carefully considered before tampering with.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
If I sell you a couch, do you think you're entitled to tell me I'm not allowed to donate proceeds of that sale to a political organization?

Businesses and unions aren't in the same boat there. If a business hired employees on the understanding that all profits will be reinvested in the company, and then the owners loot and sell the business, and then donate that money, that would be closer to violating the workers' rights in the same manner. Unions collect dues for the explicit purpose of bargaining with employers, and government has granted them substantial power over employees on the understanding that these dues equally benefit all employees. These are dues which -don't- equally benefit all employees; they specifically run contrary to the interests of some employees.
Reply
:iconmomoe:
momoe Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012
No, but if I make your couches, and you turn around and say the couch company we both work for supports race segregation, I may have a couple words for you. Consider your labor laws, and it's pretty clear that the relationship between employee and employer do not end when money changes hands, unlike in your example.

Also, I'm not saying that Unions and Businesses are the same thing; they're not. What you can't contest however is that there is needs to be some kind of balancing force to check corporate influence.

That corporations are more powerful than individuals is a tenet accepted by the law, by the government and by corporations themselves. There are rules in place to give ordinary people a bit of a leg-up should they need it. The only aspect this is not recognized would be in the realm of campaign contributions.

In practice, Unions fill the void of the countervailing political force. Not ideally, mind you, and personally, i'd rather unions stay out of it and we rely on the law to limit a business' political participation. But reality being what it is, means that this is not a realistic scenario.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012
As the conservatives on here have so helpfully pointed out to me, you can just get a job somewhere else! Jobs are very plentiful right now and nobody is going to be under financial strain to just drop a job with over-reaching policies. I mean, it takes people, like a week to change careers after all.

Or they can just start a new business! Business loans are so easy to get and everyone has capital at their disposal.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Oddly, people for whom your facetious statements are true - such as me - don't unionize, as a rule.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012
:iconwooshplz:
Reply
:iconabcat:
AbCat Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012   Writer
Not often that I agree with you, but under no circumstances should union membership be compulsory.
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012
Nobody said you had to join the union. Go work somewhere else. Once you take membership in an organization and sign on to follow its rules, and if you pay your dues, the organization has a right to spend that money any way it likes. Other examples of such organizations include:
The Salvation Army
The International Red Cross
The United Way
So-called charities which can pay their board members $2million salaries if they want. And only send 40% of their proceeds to anything 'charitable'. You're not forced to donate.
When I pay my energy bill to the third-party that manages distribution from the grid- that energy company takes a lot of my money and sends it to the republican party without my consent. I do not have the ability to select another power company, and when I moved here I didn't get to choose. My choice is to move somewhere else? Touche, Mr Unbalanced. Touche.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
When I pay my energy bill to the third-party that manages distribution from the grid- that energy company takes a lot of my money and sends it to the republican party without my consent. I do not have the ability to select another power company, and when I moved here I didn't get to choose.

- Aha! An excellent parallel. However, I never expected to see you arguing for deregulating the power grid.

(Actually, I expect you aren't arguing for any such thing, and would rather limit the rights of the power company than grant more freedoms.)
Reply
:iconkiwi-punch:
Kiwi-Punch Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Man...That's bullshit. Papa John's needs to get out of business if they're going to do that. Welp...Guess I'm not buying Papa John's anymore.
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I have not been buying pizza for years (though not because I hate pizza, but because restaurant and take-out food can easily eat up my food budget). There are alternatives, such as buying an unbaked pizza from Costco which costs roughly half its baked counterpart.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
I hope you're trolling.
Reply
:iconkiwi-punch:
Kiwi-Punch Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Sorry...I guess I didn't read the OP. My mistake.
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist
LOL
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
...
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Conservatives seem to love the phrase 'No one is forcing you to be in a union job! Go get a job elsewhere'. ;)
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
They're not the ones bringing this up. "That's a hypocritical complaint" isn't a valid argument here.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Never said this complaint was hypocritical. I believe that it's wrong, and I also believe that employers requiring and forcing unethical things on their employees is wrong.

However, all the right-wings here believe that if you don't want your employer to do something, you should just quit.

This means that the republicans have no real foot to stand on this when they're condemning this (not you, but the people in this thread) because as they say 'people can just quit!'
Reply
:iconanamusingalias:
anamusingalias Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
They are free to work elsewhere if they don't agree.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
Hello, ~TBSchemer
Reply
:iconanamusingalias:
anamusingalias Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
;)
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
That's only a valid argument if you believe workers shouldn't have any rights.
Reply
:iconanamusingalias:
anamusingalias Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
Good thing I was just being facetious then. Truthfully, I don't have any real reason to object to right-to-work legislation nor can I really think of one off the top of my head, but I tend to work freelance or in environments lacking a union anyways so it's never been a particular concern to me.
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
Which unions do this? As a member of the IWW I am required to make no such donations.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The UAW is the one I brought up in the op; it doesn't require members to make direct donations, but by forcing employees to pay dues which are then spent on political contributions, it makes those donations for them, potentially against their will.
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
Ah, well that's a statist union for you I suppose.

IWW membership is non-obligatory and other than operation expenses we only pay for disaster relief and other charitable causes.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The IWW, from the small amount of research I've done on it, seems like what unions should be, rather than what they are.
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
What pisses me off most about other unions I've observed is that they seem to have this strict parent-child relationship wherein the leaders assume that their followers are utterly incompetent, or too weak to stand on their own, or without government backing. That and the fact that they work organizers like slaves, sometimes 100+ hours a week for other peoples' benefits. Seems very much like the kind of system they claim to detest.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
and those republicans where probaby didn't have a democart challenger XD
Reply
:icondregs-of-humanity:
dregs-of-humanity Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
$9.8 million??? thats nothing...

In Australia the unions pay about 12% of the Labor partys total income. Add another 40 million or so to your 9.8 and you would get the idea. The Labor party is full of ex union bosses, and whenever a Liberal pollie makes plans to limit union powers they get absolutely fucking slaughtered at the polls.

If you don't like being part of a unionised business then go and find another job, thats the usual conservative response to people who don't want a boss that treats them like shit so why shouldn't it work both ways?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
In response to your last question, as I'm not sure how to take the sum of your response, because of the structure of US federal law: it would be illegal for me to advertise that I have a non-union workplace; that would be "Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization."

In short, federal law makes it difficult or impossible to select employment on that basis. Additionally, I couldn't be certain the workplace I joined wouldn't unionize in turn.

I would actually be fine with agency agreements if the reverse were also legal; if it were legal for companies to prohibit unionization altogether. Instead of equal rights, however, US federal law is stacked into special privileges for both sides, in some bizarre attempt to balance them out.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
Then let's get rid of Unions then.In fact, let's put the workers in a slave like conditions instead.
Reply
:iconpsowill:
PSOWILL Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
:paranoid: I'm always in the moon to build a deathstar.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
If we start now, it'll be done by summer.
Reply
:iconpsowill:
PSOWILL Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
I'll get the hammers.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
I'll get the whips and shackles!
Reply
:iconpsowill:
PSOWILL Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
:eyes: don't forget thhe prison cells.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
I got that covered. It's brothel style.
Reply
:iconpsowill:
PSOWILL Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
:w00t:
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
One extreme or another, right?
Reply
Add a Comment: