unions now biggest spender of 2010 elections

#26
#26
I would liken the unions to the mob, but the word "liken" doesn't seem strong enough.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
Lexvol said:
What is a union boss pulling in these days? How about others in the upper echelon of union management?
Click to expand...

folks in the NEA upper echelons are pulling in well over 100k/year. You can bet that Richard Trumka, Andy Stern, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., etc. are living pretty comfortable lives on the backs of the people they claim to represent.
 
#29
#29
volinbham said:
You are assuming you understand the "best interests" of 1.6 million individuals. I beg to differ.

A personal example: I am a pseudo-public employee. My retirement program is part of the state retirement program. If the pension fund is short, the state (tax payers) make up the shortfall.

Under a simple view of my "best interests", I should support candidates that would push for my benefits to be maintained, and for annual CoLAs regardless of the fiscal state of the pension fund.

However, I support candidates that would be willing to alter the pension to my economic detriment (axe CoLAs, reduce benefits, change retirement age) if necessary.

Why am I voting against my best interests? Because I don't define my interests as personal gain at the expense of some other tax payer. I'd rather lose benefits than force tax payers to make up for times when the pension fund is in deficit due to mismanagement, market fluctuations, etc. I would bet there are plenty of folks in that 1.6 million who feel as I do - the union in such cases is working against their best interests.

In short, you have no idea what my best interests are and defining them simply in economic terms is a limited and cynical view. I don't want gain at other's expense - that is what I consider looking out for my best interests.

Forgive me if I get worried when someone else tries to tell me what is in my best interests.

Finally, Wal-mart isn't spending money it took directly from employees to support some political cause.
Click to expand...

I'm confused you're honestly arguing that the union is not going to act in the best interests of its' members. That is ridiculous. As for this "Finally, Wal-mart isn't spending money it took directly from employees to support some political cause." of course it is. Where do you think Wal-Mart's money comes from? They're using their employees, stockholders, and customers money.
 
#30
#30
Some of you people are so transparently dishonest. On one hand you're saying unions serve no purpose, don't have a right to exist, and the members get paid too much for doing too little work. Then you turn around saying the poor union members are being exploited by their union bosses.
 
#31
#31
Ed12111 said:
I'm confused you're honestly arguing that the union is not going to act in the best interests of its' members. That is ridiculous. As for this "Finally, Wal-mart isn't spending money it took directly from employees to support some political cause." of course it is. Where do you think Wal-Mart's money comes from? They're using their employees, stockholders, and customers money.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that union lobby efforts to keep the public paying more and more benefits at the expense of tax payers regardless of economic conditions is Machiavellian as all hell and assumes union members are monolithic in their quest to get theirs regardless of the consequences to tax payers. I don't buy it.

Second, Wal-mart is lobbying for business conditions that allow them to sustain and grow their businesses. Doing so benefits employees directly.
 
#32
#32
MG1968 said:
folks in the NEA upper echelons are pulling in well over 100k/year. You can bet that Richard Trumka, Andy Stern, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., etc. are living pretty comfortable lives on the backs of the people they claim to represent.
Click to expand...

Your dumb Jimmy Hoffa comments aside. 100k a year to represent such a large number of people is excessive. Just wait till you find out how much CEO's get paid.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
I'm arguing that union lobby efforts to keep the public paying more and more benefits at the expense of tax payers regardless of economic conditions is Machiavellian as all hell and assumes union members are monolithic in their quest to get theirs regardless of the consequences to tax payers. I don't buy it.

Second, Wal-mart is lobbying for business conditions that allow them to sustain and grow their businesses. Doing so benefits employees directly.
Click to expand...

Talk about Machiavellian. Employees shouldn't have a vehicle to voice their opinion, instead we'll let their bosses decide what's best for them. How do you think child labor laws, 40 hr week, decent pay etc... came into existence. All of these things were opposed by business interests. Yet for your "business conditions that allow them to sustain and grow their businesses. Doing so benefits employees directly" line to be logically consistent those things would have to be bad for employees. I don't think so.
 
#34
#34
Ed12111 said:
Your dumb Jimmy Hoffa comments aside. 100k a year to represent such a large number of people is excessive. Just wait till you find out how much CEO's get paid.
Click to expand...

I know how much CEO's get paid and, quite frankly, it doesn't particularly bother me.
 
#35
#35
MG1968 said:
I know how much CEO's get paid and, quite frankly, it doesn't particularly bother me.
Click to expand...

Shocking. Only when people representing unions are well paid do you get all huffy. Do you ever take a step back, and realize how logically inconsistent you are?
 
#36
#36
Ed12111 said:
Talk about Machiavellian. Employees shouldn't have a vehicle to voice their opinion, instead we'll let their bosses decide what's best for them. How do you think child labor laws, 40 hr week, decent pay etc... came into existence. All of these things were opposed by business interests. Yet for your "business conditions that allow them to sustain and grow their businesses. Doing so benefits employees directly" line to be logically consistent those things would have to be bad for employees. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I never claimed employees shouldn't have a voice or that unions shouldn't make campaign contributions.

I am arguing that the claim of "best interests" is misleading. Clearly a union member might prefer an R candidate in a particular race. Or a union member might like one position of a D candidate but not other positions and if given a choice would not support that candidate. I provided an example whereby my economic interests are secondary to my sense of fairness and responsibility. For these employees they have no choice. Money is taken from them and used to support candidates and causes that are counter to their best interests.
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
I never claimed employees shouldn't have a voice or that unions shouldn't make campaign contributions.

I am arguing that the claim of "best interests" is misleading. Clearly a union member might prefer an R candidate in a particular race. Or a union member might like one position of a D candidate but not other positions and if given a choice would not support that candidate. I provided an example whereby my economic interests are secondary to my sense of fairness and responsibility. For these employees they have no choice. Money is taken from them and used to support candidates and causes that are counter to their best interests.
Click to expand...

Okay... That would be true of everything then no? Unless a candidate is in 100% agreement on every position, and I vote for him am I not voting in my best interest. Also, if you think unions should exist and make campaign contributions then my disagreement is not with you.
 
#38
#38
Biggest spenders?

Maybe, THAT WE KNOW OF.

GOP has managed to hide most of their money in a shell game.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
Biggest spenders?

Maybe, THAT WE KNOW OF.

GOP has managed to hide most of their money in a shell game.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There's actually a good point here. The unions are at least spending their money openly, most corporations spend a ton of money through 501(c)(4)'s. Thanks SCOTUS.
 
#41
#41
Ed12111 said:
There's actually a good point here. The unions are at least spending their money openly, most corporations spend a ton of money through 501(c)(4)'s. Thanks SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Some of the unions have foreign members from whom they collect dues.

Likewise there are more left leaning 501(c)(4)'s than right leaning ones.
 
#42
#42
Ed12111 said:
Okay... That would be true of everything then no? Unless a candidate is in 100% agreement on every position, and I vote for him am I not voting in my best interest. Also, if you think unions should exist and make campaign contributions then my disagreement is not with you.
Click to expand...

The doing something in your best interests is a canard. The whole premise of the What's Wrong with Kansas assumes the public are simply passive recipients of government largess and they should be glad to vote in candidates that will start the resource flow.

I suggest that politicians start thinking of constituents as having brains and being the ones who understand their own best interests. The whole current administration is full of people who seem genuinely surprised that the public doesn't understand all the wonderful things they are being given.
 
#43
#43
Volinbham why did you respond to every post except mine? Amazing how hard it is for some people to admit when they are 100% wrong.
 
#44
#44
Ed12111 said:
There's actually a good point here. The unions are at least spending their money openly, most corporations spend a ton of money through 501(c)(4)'s. Thanks SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

A union apologist berating a decision of the SCOTUS. The end is laughably nigh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
It's still 55 or so per employee. You may be right that the 87.5 million is covering a two year period - hard to say when they started spending for the 2010 elections.

Happy now?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top