Papa Johns Forces Employees to Donate Money to Republican Party...
...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.
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.
Comments203
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
wow this sounds like a huge strawman argument amirite?
And what's the strawman, and what does it represent, praytell?
Or do you have no idea what the words you just wrote mean?
Or do you have no idea what the words you just wrote mean?
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.
It appears he got you too.
Politics forum drinking games fodder!
dude i will be so drunk
lol
your shit
go reread your argument its plain as day
Uh huh.
yep.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or they can just start a new business! Business loans are so easy to get and everyone has capital at their disposal.
Oddly, people for whom your facetious statements are true - such as me - don't unionize, as a rule.
Not often that I agree with you, but under no circumstances should union membership be compulsory.
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.
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.)
- 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.)
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.
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.
I hope you're trolling.
Sorry...I guess I didn't read the OP. My mistake.
LOL