Unions waste 10 million dollars of their members money!

[Corth]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ilet_.html

It's funny how the administration takes this source of campaign money for granted. Resulting in the following:

UPDATE: AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale responds that "labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party."

I agree. Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic party. It's an arm of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. And when you are talking about public unions, it is a taxpayer funded arm of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. It funds the liberal democrats who in return provide a specific group of workers with more taxpayer funded perks.

[kiryan]

wow, thats hillarious. A senior white house official called a private organization (union) and complained to them that they weren't spending their money properly. the frickin white house. I can understand the DNC, but not the white house.

WWHCD (what would hugo chavez do). Nationalize them so that the feds can cut the waste out and spend the money better.

[teflor the ranger]

You, the citizen, the consumer, pay union salaries. It's pretty simple math. The next union private jet flying union bosses to world class beach resorts for 'conferences' passing overhead are thanks to you.

[Sarvis]

You, the citizen, the consumer, pay union salaries. It's pretty simple math. The next union private jet flying union bosses to world class beach resorts for 'conferences' passing overhead are thanks to you.

This is different than corporate CEOs how?

[teflor the ranger]

You, the citizen, the consumer, pay union salaries. It's pretty simple math. The next union private jet flying union bosses to world class beach resorts for 'conferences' passing overhead are thanks to you.

This is different than corporate CEOs how?

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make, Sarvis.

[kiryan]

The difference is corporations actually make money by selling a product or service. Unions fight for laws and contracts that transfer wealth compulsory.

70,000 mostly independent Michigan child care workers unionized by 6,000 votes, they now owe 3.7 million in union dues. The state is goign to automatically deduct their dues from their subsidy checks (like nutrition programs or when the state pays for childcare).

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/12223

(ex marine, working at a school about to be fired for refusing to join the union and pay union dues or pay the "agency fee" which is usually around 90% of what you'd pay but you can say I'm not in the union even though you're basically paying to support it.).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/ma ... rmination/

and

So why the big brouja over corporations being able to spend unrestricted in elections like unions already do?

[Corth]

That's entirely correct. Nobody forces you to patronize any particular corporation. There are very few monopolies out there, and most of them are utilities that are highly regulated. On the other hand, if you work in certain fields you are forced to join the union or otherwise financially support it.

[Sarvis]

That's entirely correct. Nobody forces you to patronize any particular corporation.

There's also no actual difference between any of them, and absolutely no one makes purchasing decisions based on how many yachts the CEO has bought with company funds.

Your basic rant here is that people with power will abuse it, and corporations happen to have power too.

[Corth]

Not exactly - but not willing to argue over it.

[kwirl]

Did Sarvis and Teflor agree on something?

/Mods the thread +1

[Sarvis]

Did Sarvis and Teflor agree on something?

/Mods the thread +1

No, I don't see anything that Teflor said that comes close to mentioning CEOs... I think he's just trying to confuse things by saying he said what I said.

[teflor the ranger]

That's entirely correct. Nobody forces you to patronize any particular corporation. There are very few monopolies out there, and most of them are utilities that are highly regulated. On the other hand, if you work in certain fields you are forced to join the union or otherwise financially support it.

Public Sector Unions.

[teflor the ranger]

There's also no actual difference between any of them, and absolutely no one makes purchasing decisions based on how many yachts the CEO has bought with company funds.

Yes there is. CEOs of publicly traded corporations are regulated by business law, held responsible by the corporation's shareholders, and according to modern standards for corporate governance, have a significant amount of wealth tied up in their company's stock. (Most publicly traded corporations require that a significant amount of wealth given to their executives are in the form of ownership of the company they are leading.)

Union leaders are beholden to just about no one. Very loosely regulated by the government, they are for-profit organizations that mostly prey upon the uneducated, are not held responsible by anyone, do not have a significant amount of their wealth riding on the union's success (income, perhaps, but not what they've already made), all while generating CEO-like wealth while promising what they cannot deliver until they've destroyed the industry they've poisoned while abusing the industry's customers (you) for more money.

What they share in common is that union bosses and CEOs are fat cats living it large off the proletariat. What is so, so, incredibly ironic about that is that people unionized in order to avoid having all of their money go to support assholes with private jets - whoops.