5 ms·

Completely correct. Three of the top 10 election cycle 2018 contributors were unions. * Carpenters & Joiners Union gave $38,366,262 with $37,822,215 to democr

by mises 8y ago

Completely correct. Three of the top 10 election cycle 2018 contributors were unions. * Carpenters & Joiners Union gave $38,366,262 with $37,822,215 to democrats and $529,000 to republicans. * Service Employees International Union gave $28,224,658 with $28,219,509 to democrats and $132 to republicans. * Laborers Union gave $27,538,080 with $26,810,870 to democrats and $708,100 to republicans. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id= https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id= As you can see, there's a massive amount of political spending by unions, and it's almost completely on one side. The "right to work" laws which are so demonized do at least provide one huge advantage: people are no longer forced to contribute to a political campaign which they do not wish to support. There has been court ruling around this area in the past few years, but it was a problem for a long time and, to an extent, remains one.

calcifer 8y ago
You mean the unions are not supporting the anti-union party? Colour me surprised...
asark 8y ago
Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest groups. Though they do tend to be more equal-opportunity in their support. In both cases the answer to "how do I stop supporting this political action I don't like?" is "Quit. Hope your skills are marketable."
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > Quit. Hope your skills are marketable. What do I do when there is an industry-wide closed-shop union, as some people seem to want?
  - mises 8y ago
    This is exactly the problem. Many of the unions I mentioned above are such ones, where in many places, you must be a member if you work in an industry. They are less unions and more guilds. Let's say you are a carpenter, a skilled trade you have likely spent a large number of years learning. It's quite hard to leave the union, because you will be forced to move to a different profession. This obviously isn't right. Unions can serve a purpose for collective bargaining; I think most agree on that. But they don't need to support political parties. It seems that some unions have shifted from representing employees in negotiations to representing a profession in all respects. I believe that's contrary to their original purpose and dilutes both their support and their credibility as simply advocating for the worker.
  - asark 8y ago
    What do you do when all the best-paying companies in your industry lobby for things you don't like, leaving you few, poor, options for employment? If we must solve this problem for unions, it's surely at least as important to solve it for companies. As for closed shop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States It's illegal, so's the similar "union shop", and you can opt out such that you still pay dues but they may only go toward collective bargaining activities and services to members, which appears to solve this "I'm being forced to support the only viable political party that wants to make anything whatsoever better" problem. Maybe leaving others, sure, but this issue's... not an issue. Unlike employers. I can't sign a piece of paper banning them from using profit derived from my labor for political activity.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > What do you do when all the best-paying companies in your industry lobby for things you don't like, leaving you few, poor, options for employment? If we must solve this problem for unions, it's surely at least as important to solve it for companies. But the thousands of companies I could work for have healthy competition and diversity of approach to issues. An industry-wide union has no competition and no diversity. > Maybe leaving others, sure, but this issue's... not an issue. Say you were a Green supporter, and had a strong conviction against military intervention. How would you feel funding a union leadership that campaigns for Labour, following Iraq?
      - asark 8y ago
        Kickstarter's in the US, no? Did you check out that WP link? I don't mean this as a "did you even read the article" jab, but you mention Labour, but this is about the US and the laws in the US mandate that those working under union labor agreements may be required to pay dues, yes, but may also be allowed to (effectively) specify that their funds may not go toward (most forms of) political spending, but only bargaining and member services.
        icebraining 8y ago
  - magissima 8y ago
    In European countries where this is the model there are often several competing unions with different political affiliations.
    - mises 8y ago
      So let's say the far-left carpenters union is the one to successfully negotiate with an employer. I belong to a centrist union. Now what? Do I go against my political and personal beliefs or do I suffer because of them?
- tomohawk 8y ago
  Much worse. They collect dues, which ostensibly are to support what's going on where you work, and then just funnel it to politicians. So, it's your money going to political campaigns. If a company owner or corp funds a campaign, at least they're doing it with their own money.
  - moate 8y ago
    Corporations aren't people. They don't have "their own money". They have the money their employees generated. I spend 40 hours a week working for someone to create value greater than my salary. They then use this money for all sorts of things (shareholder payouts, acquisitions, political activities). T
- moduspol 8y ago
  > Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest groups. Well, in one scenario it's their money being spent. In the other, it's yours. You don't draw a pretty clear distinction there?
  - asark 8y ago
    You get upset that tenants are subsidizing a landlord's political spending without a say? Any time you give money to anyone else for any purpose, for that matter? And "their money" comes from your labor (plus their capital, in some share, yes) as surely as "your money" does. This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be, and may not be relevant anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States
    - moduspol 8y ago
      > This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be It really isn't. I think we can all make arguments as to why we're justified in taking from others, but that doesn't change the reality of what is happening. > may not be relevant anyway: AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to.
      - asark 8y ago
        > AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to. I'll pick out the part I think's most relevant, since yeah, that's a big ol' wall of text. "Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck that in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative known as agency fees.[12]" Collect fees? Yes. Spend those fees on political activities, if you're a non-member? No. Unless I'm misreading this. The public unions bit comes next and says that public sector unions can't even collect the agency fees from non-union members, which is a step farther and into union-busting territory. The original point was that union fees amount to compelled political speech, though (again, so does your company spending on politics, assuming they're making money off you even in an abstract way, but whatever) and this seems to make that moot, best I can tell. If that's wrong I'd like to know—I don't get off on going around spreading incorrect info.
spbaar 8y ago
You're kind of burying the lede here by saying "Completely correct" and ending with "There has been court ruling around this area in the past few years". Haven't workers under a union been able to opt out of political giving since Abood in 1977? And public workers have been able to completely free ride since Janus
tzs 8y ago
Speaking of Carpenters & Joiners, the article makes this claim: > If recognized, Kickstarter would be the first major tech company with union representation in the United States. But that's not correct. Engineers at Hughes Aircraft, including programmers, were unionized and represented by Local 1553 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. I think Hughes counts as a major tech company. Local 1553 also represents electronics and space engineers at other aerospace companies. How did a carpenter's union end up representing engineers whose work had nothing to do with wood? Briefly, in the 1940s when Hughes built the Spruce Goose, a huge plane built almost entirely out of wood, they hired a lot of union carpenters. After the Spruce Goose was cancelled, many of those carpenters stayed on doing other work at Hughes, and kept their union. More history of 1553 here [1]. [1] http://www.east1553.com/history.htm http://www.east1553.com/history.htm

by mises 8y ago

calcifer 8y ago

You mean the unions are not supporting the anti-union party? Colour me surprised...

asark 8y ago

Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest groups. Though they do tend to be more equal-opportunity in their support. In both cases the answer to "how do I stop supporting this political action I don't like?" is "Quit. Hope your skills are marketable."

chrisseaton 8y ago
> Quit. Hope your skills are marketable. What do I do when there is an industry-wide closed-shop union, as some people seem to want?
- mises 8y ago
  This is exactly the problem. Many of the unions I mentioned above are such ones, where in many places, you must be a member if you work in an industry. They are less unions and more guilds. Let's say you are a carpenter, a skilled trade you have likely spent a large number of years learning. It's quite hard to leave the union, because you will be forced to move to a different profession. This obviously isn't right. Unions can serve a purpose for collective bargaining; I think most agree on that. But they don't need to support political parties. It seems that some unions have shifted from representing employees in negotiations to representing a profession in all respects. I believe that's contrary to their original purpose and dilutes both their support and their credibility as simply advocating for the worker.
- asark 8y ago
  What do you do when all the best-paying companies in your industry lobby for things you don't like, leaving you few, poor, options for employment? If we must solve this problem for unions, it's surely at least as important to solve it for companies. As for closed shop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States It's illegal, so's the similar "union shop", and you can opt out such that you still pay dues but they may only go toward collective bargaining activities and services to members, which appears to solve this "I'm being forced to support the only viable political party that wants to make anything whatsoever better" problem. Maybe leaving others, sure, but this issue's... not an issue. Unlike employers. I can't sign a piece of paper banning them from using profit derived from my labor for political activity.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > What do you do when all the best-paying companies in your industry lobby for things you don't like, leaving you few, poor, options for employment? If we must solve this problem for unions, it's surely at least as important to solve it for companies. But the thousands of companies I could work for have healthy competition and diversity of approach to issues. An industry-wide union has no competition and no diversity. > Maybe leaving others, sure, but this issue's... not an issue. Say you were a Green supporter, and had a strong conviction against military intervention. How would you feel funding a union leadership that campaigns for Labour, following Iraq?
    - asark 8y ago
      Kickstarter's in the US, no? Did you check out that WP link? I don't mean this as a "did you even read the article" jab, but you mention Labour, but this is about the US and the laws in the US mandate that those working under union labor agreements may be required to pay dues, yes, but may also be allowed to (effectively) specify that their funds may not go toward (most forms of) political spending, but only bargaining and member services.
      - icebraining 8y ago
- magissima 8y ago
  In European countries where this is the model there are often several competing unions with different political affiliations.
  - mises 8y ago
    So let's say the far-left carpenters union is the one to successfully negotiate with an employer. I belong to a centrist union. Now what? Do I go against my political and personal beliefs or do I suffer because of them?
tomohawk 8y ago
Much worse. They collect dues, which ostensibly are to support what's going on where you work, and then just funnel it to politicians. So, it's your money going to political campaigns. If a company owner or corp funds a campaign, at least they're doing it with their own money.
- moate 8y ago
  Corporations aren't people. They don't have "their own money". They have the money their employees generated. I spend 40 hours a week working for someone to create value greater than my salary. They then use this money for all sorts of things (shareholder payouts, acquisitions, political activities). T
moduspol 8y ago
> Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest groups. Well, in one scenario it's their money being spent. In the other, it's yours. You don't draw a pretty clear distinction there?
- asark 8y ago
  You get upset that tenants are subsidizing a landlord's political spending without a say? Any time you give money to anyone else for any purpose, for that matter? And "their money" comes from your labor (plus their capital, in some share, yes) as surely as "your money" does. This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be, and may not be relevant anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States
  - moduspol 8y ago
    > This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be It really isn't. I think we can all make arguments as to why we're justified in taking from others, but that doesn't change the reality of what is happening. > may not be relevant anyway: AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to.
    - asark 8y ago
      > AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to. I'll pick out the part I think's most relevant, since yeah, that's a big ol' wall of text. "Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck that in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative known as agency fees.[12]" Collect fees? Yes. Spend those fees on political activities, if you're a non-member? No. Unless I'm misreading this. The public unions bit comes next and says that public sector unions can't even collect the agency fees from non-union members, which is a step farther and into union-busting territory. The original point was that union fees amount to compelled political speech, though (again, so does your company spending on politics, assuming they're making money off you even in an abstract way, but whatever) and this seems to make that moot, best I can tell. If that's wrong I'd like to know—I don't get off on going around spreading incorrect info.

spbaar 8y ago

You're kind of burying the lede here by saying "Completely correct" and ending with "There has been court ruling around this area in the past few years". Haven't workers under a union been able to opt out of political giving since Abood in 1977? And public workers have been able to completely free ride since Janus

tzs 8y ago

Speaking of Carpenters & Joiners, the article makes this claim: > If recognized, Kickstarter would be the first major tech company with union representation in the United States. But that's not correct. Engineers at Hughes Aircraft, including programmers, were unionized and represented by Local 1553 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. I think Hughes counts as a major tech company. Local 1553 also represents electronics and space engineers at other aerospace companies. How did a carpenter's union end up representing engineers whose work had nothing to do with wood? Briefly, in the 1940s when Hughes built the Spruce Goose, a huge plane built almost entirely out of wood, they hired a lot of union carpenters. After the Spruce Goose was cancelled, many of those carpenters stayed on doing other work at Hughes, and kept their union. More history of 1553 here [1]. [1] http://www.east1553.com/history.htm http://www.east1553.com/history.htm