Sassenach wrote:This argument applies to all forms of political funding though doesn't it ? I appreciate the conflict of interest argument, but surely if a candidate is receiving massive funding from special interest groups and is then carrying out legislation which affects those interest groups (ie, almost all politicians) then he/she is in precisely the same position. So would you therefore support legislation banning corporations and wealthy individuals contributing enormous sums to political campaigns ?

Well, first, yes because money is not speech and therefore is not protected from infringment. Second off, there is a difference. If a person feels a special interest other then public sector unions has undue influence they have a recourse in not buying the product of that interest (and organizing other to do the same). That option is not available against public unions because one can not refuse to pay taxes.

Here is a good column by Peggy Noonan on the subject of public sector unions.

Archduke – so we agree on collection of dues, then, I take it. I think it would strengthen unions if they were to have that extra direct relationship with members, and it would hopefully encourage them to be more responsive to members’ needs as well. The only thing that needs to be managed is ensuring that when it comes to negotiations that both sides know on whose behalf the union is making representation.

The problem is that you no longer have a management looking out for the best interest of the stake holders, i.e. the Taxpayers

I would take issue with this on several levels:

Firstly, I see politicians as more like the board of directors than the management – the managers are the senior employees who run things, the directors set the parameters. It’s perhaps a trivial point, but I feel that the distinction is important to make.

Secondly, “Taxpayers” and “stakeholders” are not synonyms. There are stakeholders who pay little or no tax (children, the poor, the elderly), and there are taxpayers who have little to no stake in some matters, other than that they paid for it (but seeing as ex-pats pay tax, and foreign visitors do, and out-of-state citizens, and the estates of the deceased, their interest is far less than that of others). Similarly, stakeholders are not all voters (many people don’t vote, and some cannot). Again, perhaps you may think it a minor point, but it is a crucial one. It’s not just those who pay for something that have a stake in how it is run.

Thirdly, as Sass points out, the same issue arises whenever anyone makes significant donations. To restrict some and not others would appear to be to be unfair, and I’m sure would run up against the 1st Amendment, if limits on corporate spending did. People and companies (and their employees) who get any public money or state assistance for any reason are similarly potentially compromised. That includes recipients of agricultural subsidies, people in domestic industries which have protectionist tariffs applied to imports, companies that have contracts to supply any public body (from office cleaning to producing military hardware), people on welfare, Medicaid, or a Social Security pension, and (if we interpret it literally) elected and paid politicians themselves. Where do you draw that line? Hey, it’s not just by making contributions to campaigns or by directly putting out a message that they influence the political process, but these people also have votes – should we remove the vote from recipients of public money, lest they be cast for the cause of self-interest?

Perhaps the alternative to setting restrictions would be for opponents to point out this issue and appeal to voters to reject candidates supported by vested interests. Which I believe they do already. Let the voters decide who out of the (two?) candidates is best to make decisions despite/because of the make-up of their special interest backing.

As for why the restrictions placed on the Sons (can I call them that?) can’t be applied to unions, I think you are missing a key difference. The Sons were chartered by Federal statute, under Title 36, some 70 years after they were founded (I looked them up, see). Thus the organisation itself is now restricted by Federal Law and the restrictions are defined by Federal Law. Still, being a member of the Sons clearly does not restrict members from running for office, as I believe you have done so. So I guess you can make contributions as you see fit as well, even by proxy.

However, if people wanted to set up their own version of the Sons, not covered by Congressional charter, then they could set their own rules, couldn’t they? Until 1954 (when the charter was passed) that was the case for the Sons, and it also applied for some time to the Grand Army of the Republic, the organisation for civil war veterans which was the inspiration for the formation of the Sons. The GAR had a strong history of campaigning on political matters after the war, and was closely associated with the Republican Party in the late C19.

So it is with unions, regardless of who they represent. The countries that have or had the equivalent of state-charted unions are not models that the USA usually looks to follow (here’s a clue: many were substantially reformed after 1989, some are currently undergoing popular uprisings), and as I understand it, US unions are not set up that way but are rather voluntary membership organisations that in the early days had to struggle for the legal rights to exist and then to act. Of course, they are regulated by law, just as companies and other organisations are, and that includes some restrictions. But it should not include blanket restrictions on freedom of expression

Now, I will caveat that by pointing out that here in the UK we do have some restrictions which I don’t object to. Firstly, certain roles in state organisations are defined as ‘politically restricted’ and holders of those roles are bound by their contracts to avoid all political activity. This includes the top levels of management, and they are represented by unions or staff associations that are themselves politically neutral. However, this covers only a small minority of employees in the public sector. Secondly, we have a rule that if you are employed directly by a particular local government, you cannot at the same time be a candidate for elected office within it, but you can on a different local government. Accordingly, people working for the ‘Crown’ cannot stand for Parliament. They can, however, resign and then stand.

On your last point, I know what you are saying, but there are ways to deal with this. Firstly, you ensure that unions are democratic, and so campaigning has to be undertaken with the views of the majority of members who are paying for it borne in mind. Secondly, you can easily (as we do in the UK) have it so that campaigning funds are held separately from general monies and are raised from a distinct and voluntary part of the dues. So, if someone doesn’t want to pay for campaigns they may disagree with, they can opt out (but, of course, that may affect their right to have a say on what the campaigns are). If mandatory dues cannot be used for political purposes, the issue goes away.

Well, first, yes because money is not speech and therefore is not protected from infringment.

Really? I thought a recent decision on corporate donations to political campaigns had blown that out of the water?

Archduke Russell John wrote:I currently belong to a Federally chartered fraternal partriotic organization called the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. The authorizing statute that creates the Sons specifically prohibits any political activity by the organization. Nobody has a problem with it. Why can't this be transposed on to unions. .

That's not a union, that's a club. At least I assume so. The Sons don't provide any sort of goods or services do they? And pancake breakfasts don't count.

Archduke, you're not getting a straight answer from our lefty buddies on unions. They're trying to get you to focus on the individual trees instead of looking at the Wisconsin forest. I'll explain:

"What do you have against collective bargaining?". I'd be shocked if most people knew what collective bargaining really is. Basically it's a system whereby members of a union negotiate as a group instead of as individuals with an employer for wages and benefits. This gives the workers a gestalt of power. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If the union doesn't like a part of the deal, they call a strike of all the union members and the employer's good or service doesn't get produced and the workers don't get paid their wage. If the employer can't live with a stipulation, it locks the workers out as a group and the good or service doesn't get produced and the workers don't get their paycheck. This process saves time and money on all fronts. The employer doesn't have to endlessly negotiate with varying groups and individuals; one negotiation suffices. The union members get better wages and benefits than they could, as a rule, negotiate for themselves alone. So what's wrong with collective bargaining in and of itself? Nothing.

"What do you have against unions?". Again, nothing. Unions are enshrined in U.S. law as the great protectors of the workers. I cheered when Norma Rae got up on that chair. Unions exist, however, in the real world of business. If the union keeps upping its demands and management keeps capitulating, the cost for the good or service has to get passed on to someone else. Usually that's the consumer of the good or service. Pretty soon that consumer is going to look askance at the gewgaw he's plunking down cash for and realize that he's not getting a good deal. He'll stop buying the product and shift his custom elsewhere. That's fundamental market-driven economics.

"So what's the difference in WI?". Walker's trying to curtail collective bargaining for certain public sector unions. The difference here is that there is an inelasticity of demand for the services being provided. There are no other market alternatives for public services so a consumer can't go to a more reasonably priced competitor. If a consumer is unhappy with the public services he's receiving and/or the price of them he can move away, or lobby for change (voting, picketing, media exposes, etc.). But emigration and bellyaching are weak external motivators when compared to cutting off a paycheck...so for years public unions have, collectively, demanded higher wages and bigger benefits packages and have gotten what they wanted. And they've become grossly politicized as well. Public unions want public leaders who will be most likely to give them what they want. In exchange, the unions mobilize impressive voting blocs on behalf of their favored candidates.

"Well so what? Didn't the Supreme Court recently say that organizations can be as political as they want? That their speech is protected too?" Indeed it did. Unions can support and fund whichever candidate they like. Unsurprisingly that seems to be the pols most likely to give them an ever-greater piece of the pie.

"So what's your point?" My point is the lack of recourse available to the consumer. Teachers, EMTs, firemen, police, and the unions who represent them hold all the cards except two. If the voters feel like they've gotten too squeezed they can’t do anything but move away or vote. If they choose to vote, they vote the pro-unionists out and vote in union busters.

I'm not from WI so I don't know the score there. If the people there are, by and large, pleased with the services they get and the price they are paying for them, Walker will be thrown out very quickly. But if there's no more blood in the stone...the unions are playing a losing hand. I suspect, based on how quickly and how eager the unions were to cave in to Walker's monetary demands...but please don't touch our collective bargaining...that they realize the jig is up and are trying to minimize the damage...to themselves and not the people they represent.

Required watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJRhrow3Jws followed immediately by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfL7STmWZ1c

Danivon wrote:Firstly, I see politicians as more like the board of directors than the management – the managers are the senior employees who run things, the directors set the parameters. It’s perhaps a trivial point, but I feel that the distinction is important to make.

The problem with your analogy is that the middle manager are not the ones negotiating/approving the contract. Let's take a school district. The Teachers Union negotiate a contract not with the School District superintendent, i.e. the middle management in your analogy. Rather they negotiate directly with the elected school board members. The elected school board then votes to approve the contract. Police and Fire do not negotiate with a city manager. They negotiate directly with a mayor and the contract is approved by the elected city council. Therefore, the Unions influencing who is elected is directly effecting who is voting to approve the contract.

Danivon wrote:As for why the restrictions placed on the Sons (can I call them that?) can't be applied to unions, I think you are missing a key difference. The Sons were chartered by Federal statute, under Title 36, some 70 years after they were founded (I looked them up, see). Thus the organization itself is now restricted by Federal Law and the restrictions are defined by Federal Law.

And unions were granted the privilege to collectively bargain by government. Further the Unions existing prior to being granted the privilege to collectively bargain. Therefore you argument is moot.

Danivon wrote: Still, being a member of the Sons clearly does not restrict members from running for office, as I believe you have done so. So I guess you can make contributions as you see fit as well, even by proxy.

Here you are arguing against something I did not propose. I did not say that members of the Sons (yes that is the accepted nickname) can't be politically active or make donations. I said the Sons' can't. By this I mean The Sons of Union Veterans can not pay for a mailer, TV or radio ad saying vote for, support, or elect Candidate X. The Sons can not pay for a mailer, TV or radio ad that says vote for,support or elect a candidate that supports/oppose issue X. The Sons are not allowed to use money from it's collected dues to donate to candidate or issue X.

I have no problem with individual union members doing any of the above. What I oppose is the public sector unions doing so. Let me give an example. Starting about the beginning of October I received at least 4 mailers a week supporting the Democratic candidates for Senate, Governor, Congress, State Senate and State Rep that was paid for by the SEIU. The NJEA spent something like $4M to oppose Governor Christie's proposed budget last year. That is what I oppose.

Danivon wrote:Well, first, yes because money is not speech and therefore is not protected from infringement.
Really? I thought a recent decision on corporate donations to political campaigns had blown that out of the water?

And I disagree with that finding.

Sassenach wrote:This argument applies to all forms of political funding though doesn't it ? I appreciate the conflict of interest argument, but surely if a candidate is receiving massive funding from special interest groups and is then carrying out legislation which affects those interest groups (ie, almost all politicians) then he/she is in precisely the same position.

Generally, I agree. However, there is no more symbiotic relationship than unions supporting Democrats who then pay off union members. That's pretty direct.

So would you therefore support legislation banning corporations and wealthy individuals contributing enormous sums to political campaigns?

I wouldn't as I happen to believe that is unconstitutional--as the USSC ruled.

And, the President would be so upset. He's looking to be the first billion-dollar baby!

PCHiway wrote:Archduke, you're not getting a straight answer from our lefty buddies on unions. They're trying to get you to focus on the individual trees instead of looking at the Wisconsin forest. I'll explain:

Surely WI is a tree as opposed to the wider forest of all unions? Ah well, you get to define the debate how you like, I suppose.

I mean, I agree with Archduke about some things that happens with US unions that I disagree with, and you claim I'm being in some way evasive.

There is a two-word response that springs to mind, but one of them would be censored.

"What do you have against collective bargaining?". I'd be shocked if most people knew what collective bargaining really is. Basically it's a system whereby members of a union negotiate as a group instead of as individuals with an employer for wages and benefits. This gives the workers a gestalt of power. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

You think people are too dumb to know this is what it is? Perhaps I'm more likely to know because I am currently in a collective bargaining unit (it's taken us a long time to get the company to recognise unions, let alone negotiate with CBUs).

Still employers tend to hold more power, especially in times of higher unemployment.

If the union doesn't like a part of the deal, they call a strike of all the union members and the employer's good or service doesn't get produced and the workers don't get paid their wage.

If you think that's the only recourse that unions have, you clearly know a lot less about this that you purport to.

If the employer can't live with a stipulation, it locks the workers out as a group and the good or service doesn't get produced and the workers don't get their paycheck.

Again, that's not the only thing that employers can and do do in the event of disputes.

I'm not from WI so I don't know the score there. If the people there are, by and large, pleased with the services they get and the price they are paying for them, Walker will be thrown out very quickly. But if there's no more blood in the stone...the unions are playing a losing hand. I suspect, based on how quickly and how eager the unions were to cave in to Walker's monetary demands...but please don't touch our collective bargaining...that they realize the jig is up and are trying to minimize the damage...to themselves and not the people they represent.

The unions are the people they represent. By accepting financial restraint but retaining the rights of collective representation, they want to trade a short term loss for the longer term continuation of their power. But the power is for the union members themselves.

Doctor Fate wrote:Generally, I agree. However, there is no more symbiotic relationship than unions supporting Democrats who then pay off union members. That's pretty direct.

So we never see politicians who get backed by companies or whole sectors of the economy and then give out tax breaks and non-contested contracts?

Archduke Russell John wrote:The problem with your analogy is that the middle manager are not the ones negotiating/approving the contract.

And I wasn't talking about middle managers. I was talking about senior management, at the level just below the Board of a company.

Let's take a school district. The Teachers Union negotiate a contract not with the School District superintendent, i.e. the middle management in your analogy. Rather they negotiate directly with the elected school board members. The elected school board then votes to approve the contract. Police and Fire do not negotiate with a city manager. They negotiate directly with a mayor and the contract is approved by the elected city council. Therefore, the Unions influencing who is elected is directly effecting who is voting to approve the contract.

Well, you have a problem - your nation so distrusts bureaucrats that you have too few of them with responsibility to at the very least provide advice if not negotiate and draft contracts for approval, who are then accountable to elected politicians. You cut out the middle man and then wonder why things go wrong.

And unions were granted the privilege to collectively bargain by government. Further the Unions existing prior to being granted the privilege to collectively bargain. Therefore you argument is moot.

No, it is not. You are confusing regulation with state appropriation. If unions were chartered under something like Title 36, then perhaps it would be moot. Besides, unions could have collectively bargained without any laws, if employers were prepared to do it, and I don't understand how you can claim that it's only by Federal law that they can do so. Are you saying that the government banned companies from negotiating with unions?

Here you are arguing against something I did not propose. I did not say that members of the Sons (yes that is the accepted nickname) can't be politically active or make donations. I said the Sons' can't. By this I mean The Sons of Union Veterans can not pay for a mailer, TV or radio ad saying vote for, support, or elect Candidate X. The Sons can not pay for a mailer, TV or radio ad that says vote for,support or elect a candidate that supports/oppose issue X. The Sons are not allowed to use money from it's collected dues to donate to candidate or issue X.

Fair enough. But that's a result of them being federally chartered. Before then, they could do what they wanted, couldn't they? And didn't the GAR do what the Sons cannot do now - campaign for candidates for election to national office?

Basically, having been co-opted by the state, the Sons are more like an arms-length government body (self-funding and voluntary, but still chartered). I agree that such bodies should stay out of politics, just as actual government departments or state-level departments should But, as you agree, members of such bodies can engage in politics as long as it's not through that body. So they can do so by proxy as well, surely?

That was my point. You compare the Sons to a union, and conflate unions with public bodies.

I have no problem with individual union members doing any of the above. What I oppose is the public sector unions doing so. Let me give an example. Starting about the beginning of October I received at least 4 mailers a week supporting the Democratic candidates for Senate, Governor, Congress, State Senate and State Rep that was paid for by the SEIU. The NJEA spent something like $4M to oppose Governor Christie's proposed budget last year. That is what I oppose.

You oppose democratic organisations with their own money spending it how they see fit? You think it can't be answered by people on the other side expressing their own views that the SEIU and NJEA are biased? Democracy is all about presenting your arguments and getting the voters to choose. You want to exclude some people from that process because they work in the public sector. Why not do the same for anyone who receives any monies or benefit from the State? (you never responded to that part)

And I disagree with that finding.

[/quote]Maybe so, but it's been handed down by the USSC, and disagreeing isn't going to make it go away. Personally, I disagree with it too (because I don't agree that corporations should have the same rights as humans), but like the 2nd Amendment, we can't pretend that it doesn't exist (except for hypothetical debates).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Generally, I agree. However, there is no more symbiotic relationship than unions supporting Democrats who then pay off union members. That's pretty direct.

So we never see politicians who get backed by companies or whole sectors of the economy and then give out tax breaks and non-contested contracts?

Not what I said. Not even close. Actually, borderline shameful. You took cautious, qualified language and tried to turn it into something else.

danivon wrote:Well, you have a problem - your nation so distrusts bureaucrats that you have too few of them with responsibility to at the very least provide advice if not negotiate and draft contracts for approval, who are then accountable to elected politicians. You cut out the middle man and then wonder why things go wrong.

Either way it is the fact of how things work right now. And I don't wonder why things go wrong. I understand why they go wrong.

danivon wrote:and I don't understand how you can claim that it's only by Federal law that they can do so. Are you saying that the government banned companies from negotiating with unions?

Yes. Prior to the 1914 there were laws that made Unions illegal. As a matter of fact there was an 1806 Court decision said unions were criminal conspiracies. It wasn't until the NLRA in 1941 that specifically gave workers the privilege to unionize. That was in the private sector. Public sector employees didn't get the privilege until I believe the 1960's. As a matter of fact, I believe there are 5 states were public employees are not allowed to unionize.

danivon wrote:Fair enough. But that's a result of them being federally chartered.

and the unions are federally chartered via their status of 501c3 tax-exempt non-profits.

danivon wrote:And didn't the GAR do what the Sons cannot do now - campaign for candidates for election to national office?

Yes they could and because they abused ability they lost it.

danivon wrote: But, as you agree, members of such bodies can engage in politics as long as it's not through that body. So they can do so by proxy as well, surely?

No.

danivon wrote:You oppose democratic organisations with their own money spending it how they see fit?

If those funds are received via taxpayer supplied fund where the people paying those funds have no choice in paying them. Absolutely.
One of the ideas that I think is interesting is require the signature approval of a union member for their dues to be used for political purposes.

danivon wrote: Why not do the same for anyone who receives any monies or benefit from the State? (you never responded to that part)

I am not sure what this is in reference to. Since I specifically stated I had no problem with individual public employees being politically involved, I thought I had sufficiently answered the rest of your strawmen

ARJ, I agree that Ms. Noonan's take on the issue is excellent. If I could make one change it would be to require state and local governments to account for their back end pension and health care liability in the same way that private sectors companies do. This would ensure that the public knows how much their politicians are giving away and would satisfy conservatism as effectively as squashing collective bargaining.

Green Arrow wrote:Are businesses allowed to "Collectively bargain"? What would the uproar be if all the businesses joined together and gave a joint offer to the unions.

Isn't that double sided?

That's exactly how it works in Austria. Arbeiterkammer (mandated workers association) and unions on the one side and Wirtschaftskammer (that's the mandated association for businesses) and Industriellenvereinigung (not mandated) sit together and negotiate wages.
What they decided on is the Kollektivvertrag, which is the lowest wage that is legal to be payed in the specific sector.
We don't have lots of union protests.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Political involvement - Sorry, but I don't see a problem with unions representing any workers being politically involved.

The problem is that you no longer have a management looking out for the best interest of the stake holders, i.e. the Taxpayers, in favor of the unions that made it possible for them to get elected.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to any big political contributions ? Say the pharmaceutical industry gives alot to candidates that are elected, that would mean that those politicans now have less incentive to act in the interest of the people and more in the interest of the pharmaceutical lobbies who gave them money ?
I always saw a very obvious problem with American campaign financing no matter who the sugardaddy is in any specific case, money buys influence down the road.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I currently belong to a Federally chartered fraternal partriotic organization called the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. The authorizing statute that creates the Sons specifically prohibits any political activity by the organization. Nobody has a problem with it. Why can't this be transposed on to unions.

Unions were political entities from the beginning, so shouldn't the question be why do they have to stop political activism now ?
And i come back to the financing issue. If people say, well unions buy influence through contributions, it seems to me that the system of campaign financing is broken and not unions.