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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.