Now I don't mind when individuals use a portion of their income to support their political candidate. And I understand that it is likely that the money would flow towards similar candidates. However this mandatory Union membership with mandatory dues that are spent at the discretion of the the Union leadership seems oh so wrong, and against our concept of American freedom. (especially when paid to their employer.. ie Government officials) Where is the citizen's freedom to donate as they wish, and the effort to avoid conflict of interests?
Assuming the "Unions" give $1,000,000 to their selected "DFL" candidates, here are some questions:
- If members had to write the check directly to their selected candidate, how many dollars would be donated?
- What % would go to DFL, GOP, Independent, other?
- If the employees had a choice, what percentage would be part of the Union and pay dues?
Fox News Unions Take Fight to States
CNN Money Union Fight to CongressTPMDC Massachusetts and CB
Defend Wisconsin
16 comments:
I am slightly confused by your post. Are you talking about union members advocating for tax increases in general? Or is there some specific bill to which you are alluding.
I believe once teachers are paid it becomes their money to use as they see fit, including paying union dues, some of which are used for political purposes. Teachers who prefer can opt out of union membership and the political contributions unions make and pay an agency fee instead.
When I went to the Education MN website I learned I can be come a member for a low fee, even though my school is nonunion. If I weren't already supporting them and receiving their puplications through my spouse I probably would.
Just in general...
It frustrates me to no end that Public employees can give money to the people that influence their compensation, and many people think this makes sense. Something that would be considered a terrible conflict of interest in private industry.
Imagine if an employee group was allowed to give the CEO of a publicly held corporation a large cash gift a few mths before contract signing. Would you want to be a shareholder in this company? Would you think this is acceptable?
According to this link it looks like dues and membership are mandatory in the MN Status Quo Public schools. Unions, Memberships and Dues
If "Agency Fees" are acceptable in MN, would any Teacher in their right mind choose to exercise that right? What consequences would it have if they did?
What are your guesses at my questions??? Would the individual Teachers still write out $1,000,000 worth of donation checks? Or would there be a severe drop in DFL campaign donations? I am guessing there would be a severe drop...
G2A RAS Campaign Funding
"It frustrates me to no end that Public employees can give money to the people that influence their compensation, and many people think this makes sense."
AND
"Imagine if an employee group was allowed to give the CEO of a publicly held corporation a large cash gift a few mths before contract signing."
I'm not sure I see how this is substantively different than, say, the Koch brothers directly and significantly financing politicians who pass legislation that gives them tax breaks, regulatory advantages, or ironically, helps busts unions. Individuals can't have significant influence on their own, so some pursue it en masse.
--Annie
The difference to me is that the Koch brothers are spending the Koch brother's money...
The Unions are spending the Mandatory Dues of their employees. Even if an Individual employee does not want to support Political campaigns or a particular candidate...
To me that is a big difference.
But neither one is spending your money. I'd be more concerned if it were Laurie were saying that she's being misrepresented by the union, but from what she's said about the agency fee opt-out, your needn't worry.
Political contributions generally make me ill, but unions lobby in their own self-interest, which is the financial well being of tens of thousands of middle class families. Koch & co lobby in their own self-interest, which is the generation of billions of dollars for one family. Again, I think your hand-wringing is misdirected.
--Annie
John,
If you read your link carefully you will see that
"teachers who are not union members can be forced to pay a FEE (not dues) to a union as a condition of continued employment...
...So far as the (supreme) Court is concerned, the only legitimate expenses for which a union can charge a nonmember are for contract negotiations and enforcement."
Teachers are required pay a fee, not to join the union and pay dues.
It's been a few years since I have worked in a union school, but how I recall this in practice is I was informed that I could opt for paying the "aganecy fee" only, rather than the full union dues. I sort of recall a pitch for the benefits of union membership and always opted for full enrollment. It seems to me aside from the union officers, other staff really wouldn't know or care who was or wasn't a full union member. I think nonmembers would forgo having union support if there were issues with administration. I am not sure of the details on this.
about that $1,000,000 in political contributions, when that is divided amongst 50,000 teachers it amounts to about $20 each. We give quite a bit more than that to candidates on our own. I also like the pro public school ads Education MN runs.
You seem to be impyling that teachers are adequately paid and are wrong to support candidates who would vote for higher levels of school funding.
I learned from a an EPI study that:
"Teacher earnings have fallen below that of the average college graduate in recent decades, losing considerable ground during the late 1990s,
as earnings of college graduates grew 11% relative to the much lower 0.8% growth in teacher earnings.....
...Trends in weekly earnings show that public school teachers in 2010 earned about 12% less than
comparable workers."
On the upside of low teacher salaries my kid qualified for much more financial aid than we expected.
John,
If you read your link carefully you will see that
"teachers who are not union members can be forced to pay a FEE (not dues) to a union as a condition of continued employment...
...So far as the (supreme) Court is concerned, the only legitimate expenses for which a union can charge a nonmember are for contract negotiations and enforcement."
Teachers are required pay a fee, not to join the union and pay dues.
It's been a few years since I have worked in a union school, but how I recall this in practice is I was informed that I could opt for paying the "aganecy fee" only, rather than the full union dues. I sort of recall a pitch for the benefits of union membership and always opted for full enrollment. It seems to me aside from the union officers, other staff really wouldn't know or care who was or wasn't a full union member.
about that $1,000,000 in political contributions, when that is divided amongst 50,000 teachers it amounts to about $20 each.
You seem to be impyling that teachers are adequately paid and it is wrong or unethical for them to give contributions to candidates who would vote for higher levels of school funding.
I learned from a an EPI study that:
"Teacher earnings have fallen below that of the average college graduate in recent decades, losing considerable ground during the late 1990s,
as earnings of college graduates grew 11% relative to the much lower 0.8% growth in teacher earnings.....
...Trends in weekly earnings show that public school teachers in 2010 earned about 12% less than
comparable workers."
So what you are saying is that you think the $1,000,000 would be donated to the DFL candidates whether the Union was involved or not? I the Teachers would feel that strongly that they would each write a check...
From Laurie:
John,
If you read your link carefully you will see that
"teachers who are not union members can be forced to pay a FEE (not dues) to a union as a condition of continued employment...
...So far as the (supreme) Court is concerned, the only legitimate expenses for which a union can charge a nonmember are for contract negotiations and enforcement."
Teachers are required pay a fee, not to join the union and pay dues.
It's been a few years since I have worked in a union school, but how I recall this in practice is I was informed that I could opt for paying the "aganecy fee" only, rather than the full union dues. I sort of recall a pitch for the benefits of union membership and always opted for full enrollment. It seems to me aside from the union officers, other staff really wouldn't know or care who was or wasn't a full union member. I think nonmembers would forgo having union support if there were issues with administration. I am not sure of the details on this.
about that $1,000,000 in political contributions, when that is divided amongst 50,000 teachers it amounts to about $20 each. We give quite a bit more than that to candidates on our own. I also like the pro public school ads Education MN runs.
You seem to be impyling that teachers are adequately paid and are wrong to support candidates who would vote for higher levels of school funding.
I learned from a an EPI study that:
"Teacher earnings have fallen below that of the average college graduate in recent decades, losing considerable ground during the late 1990s,
as earnings of college graduates grew 11% relative to the much lower 0.8% growth in teacher earnings.....
...Trends in weekly earnings show that public school teachers in 2010 earned about 12% less than
comparable workers."
On the upside of low teacher salaries my kid qualified for much more financial aid than we expected.
Studies have shown that about 40% of union households vote Republican, but 99% of union contributions go to Democrats. I have heard of people trying to "opt out" of the political action portion of union dues, and it's like getting an act of Congress.
To me, the whole problem of unions is a simple one. I wouldn't have a problem if they were completely voluntary for individuals.
J,
My point eaxctly... Mandatory enrollment and dues for political donation should not be required. If the Union is a force for good and spoke for the majority of its employees, why force the participation and collections... People would give freely.
To answer my own questions:
- donations would drop to less than $500K...
- I agree with J, $300K to DFL and $200K to GOP...
- ~50% would voluntarily join the Union... (similar to Laurie's choice to not join)
My friend Jason mentioned that the Koch Brothers are technically spending the money of the stock owners when they contribute to political candidates and lobbyists. Thus it is somewhat like the Union situation.
Though I noted that people are free to buy and sell those shares whenever they wish. The stock holders have free will and are not forced to invest in something they disagree with in order to to get a job or stay employeed.
I don't like the way we finance our campaigns, but that's a battle I have lost. In our system, politicians receive contributions from people who have an interest in what they do. The Supreme Court says that fine, and there simply is no appeal from that.
--Hiram
Just to clarify - (and be a broken record) membership in the teachers' union is voluntary. When I worked in traditional districts I always chose to pay full union dues. I currently work in a charter school where there is no union. I did briefly consider an associate Education MN membership, as I support their activites, but feel like we pay enough through my husband's dues. I give the union much credit for fighting for decent teacher salaries and believe charter school pay scale is also impacted, as they don't want to fall too far below.
Laurie,
So you are saying that your husband who is a Teacher in a status quo Public School can quit being a member of Education Minnesota at anytime with NO negative consequences to his job, or career aspirations?
As such he will only need to pay a nominal agent's fee to them? No fees to cover their politcal agenda?
And you opt to not join this worthy voluntary org because you deem your husband's contribution to be adequate for the 2 of you?
Did I get this correct?
John,
I am far from expert on union dues and membership, but this is how I understand it:
The so called agency fees are much more than nominal, I would guess at least half the dues. I don't know if one can drop union membership at any time or if it is something like once a year. Other than being informed at the time of hire of the option to pay a lesser amount for contract negotiations only, the unions operate under the assumption/appearance that everyone is and wants to be a member. Most teachers in the buildings I have worked are pro union and a good number attend union meetings.
Perhaps you are right, that I should make my own small contribution to an organization that advocates for teachers. The associate membership is only $40.
The nominal and $40 you mentioned seemed pretty reasonable... So I got curious and did some google time...
AH Ed MN Dues Structure
AH ED MN Services
AH Ed MN Benefits
That Fair Share thing seems a bit excessive... I mean up to 85% of the dues... Where exactly does that $563.49 go? To me it looks like even the Fair Share folk are paying for a lot of lobbying.
And a full time member paying $749.80 per yr for some insurance, training and grievance representation. Again it looks like a lot of lobbying and protecting poor Teachers.
In summary, if I got this right. A full time Teacher in AH has to pay ~$563/yr or ~$750/yr.
For my Conservative readers, you have to check out the ED MN Benefits link... Their lobbying statements read like the stop change playbook.
Post a Comment