Simply because unions seem to have a really bad rep here on the boards, an example. The Germans had really powerful unions after WW2 that could pretty much shut down their whole economy (although they didn't do it quite as often as the French for example).
In the 90s though when the german economy had to digest the cost of the reunification and unemployment rose support for the unions and their hardcore stance fell, they lost massive public support and paying members and lo and behold they did indeed change. They regionalized their services and looked at the regional circumstances before negotiate for wages. They supported wage restraint in bad economic times and in the last crisis short time working to allow people to be employed. Thus when the economy rebounded the German companies had all the workforce alread in place instead of having to rehire and retrain new people. They received alot of credit for the recent resurge of the economy.
So from practical observation unions aren't the boogeyman, just another player in the economy. Not good or bad per se.

Faxmonkey wrote: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 answered this already. You think a private trade group has too much influence, boycott it and don't purchase its products. Organize other to do the same. The option is not avaliable when the outsized influence is public sector employees. You can't stop paying taxes. Sure you can send your child to private school but you still have to pay your property taxes to support the public school

Faxmonkey wrote:Unions were political entities from the beginning, so shouldn't the question be why do they have to stop political activism now ?

And you, like Danivon, are arguing something I did not say. I didn't say all unions. Just public employee unions. Oh and "because that is the way it has always been" isn't a valid defense. Laws change.

Faxmonkey wrote: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.

and have I not already said I don't think money is speech. My questions is why can some be limited and other not?

and have I not already said I don't think money is speech

You've obviously never bought broadcast air time

You think a private trade group has too much influence, boycott it and don't purchase its products.

Like Oil? If one thinks that oil producers and distributors have too much influence on govenrment energy policy through their lobby groups, political donations and paid adverising one should boycott oil? How? Everything about the modern economy is tied up in oil.

Fax, I think you need to differentiate between States and Federal to understand what is going on over here. You are right on the federal level. There's a massive spending game going on pitting various corporate and union interests against each other. It's a relatively fair fight except that organized corporate interests are better represented often to all of our detriments (e.g. ethanol).

But on the State level which is what Wisconsin, New Jersey and about 40 other states are dealing with is way too much power by the public sector unions. On the local level budgets are dominated by education, the expenditure of which is dominated by teacher unions. There's no comparable corporate interest. Politically, there's no counter force to reign them in except for strong willed governors. I'm neutral on the issue of collective bargaining for public sector unions; but I do recognize the tremendous problem of local governments bringing a knife to a gun fight with public sector unions. By the way, as I understand it, state employee pension and health care benefits are much better than those for federal employees.

Doctor Fate wrote:

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.

"No more symbiotic relationship" is not 'cautious' or 'qualified'.

My point is that there are other relationships all over politics, some of which are just as symbiotic (the military-industrial lobby, the agricultural subsidies lobby etc).

And after they bust the unions they sell off the States Utilities? Same bill.....

Check out Section 44.16.896 of Wisconsin Senate Bill 11, which reads–

(1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

What this says is that the State of Wisconsin can sell or contract out management of state-owned heating, cooling and power plants without the requirement that bids for such a sale or leasing be solicited so as to maximize what the government can pocket through such an arrangement.

Put another way, the state can pick who they want and make whatever deal they want without anyone else having a chance to bid on the deal

.

There are a few companies that seem best positioned to fill this roll. They are, courtesy of Current.com -

Flint Hills Resources, LLC, through its subsidiaries, is a leading refining and chemicals company. Its subsidiaries market products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, olefins, polymers and intermediate chemicals, as well as base oils and asphalt. A subsidiary distributes refined fuel through its strategically located pipelines and terminals in Junction City, Waupun, Madison and Milwaukee. Another subsidiary manufactures asphalt that is distributed to terminals in Green Bay and Stevens Point.

Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. operates a pipeline system that crosses Wisconsin, part of the nearly 4,000 miles of pipelines owned or operated by the company.

The C. Reiss Coal Company is a leading supplier of coal used to generate power. The company has locations in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan.

All three of these Wisconsin based companies are the largest –or among the largest – in their fields. And they all have one thing in common.

Each of these companies is a subsidiary of Koch Industries

.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/22/a-secret-deal-between-gov-walker-and-koch-brothers-buried-in-state-budget/

Archduke Russell John wrote:

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.

Wow. You guys really do hate freedom

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.

That's not quite the same thing as being registered as a Patriotic or Military society under Title 36 (and named in a codicil). The same would apply to almost every charitiable organisation, if it applied to any organisation that was regulated by the Federal government as tax-exempt.

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.

On what basis do you argue this? You can engage in politics, but not join a political party that you help fund along with other people (some of whom are Sons) to promote a political message?

Or did you mean to qualify that 'No'?

If those funds are received via taxpayer supplied fund where the people paying those funds have no choice in paying them. Absolutely.

Except that it's not direct taxpayer funding, is it? The taxpayer pays for the wages of employees. The subs are taken from their salaries (turns out that people can have the same thing here, but still membership of a union and political donations are voluntary, and it's by agreement of the employer), not by the taxpayers.

I disagree with closed shops and mandatory campaign dues. But absent those, I see no problem with unions representing people from having a political dimension. Only in a small proportion of sensitive posts would it be inappropriate.

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.

It's been law here for a long time. It alternated between being an 'opt in' and 'opt out' system (I prefer the 'opt out' that we have now, but I guess I would do).

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

Nope. Let's look at an example. Say.... the sugar industry. The sugar industry benefits from government subsidies. The individual producers as a result are in receipt of taxpayer's money. They also join industry bodies, with subscription fees and donations, and those bodies lobby politicians on agricultural subsidies. Sometimes, they even back candidates for election.

How is this so different? How far do you want to restrict political activity?

danivon wrote:]"No more symbiotic relationship" is not 'cautious' or 'qualified'.

Nice job skipping over the "Generally, I agree" part. That would mean: "I agree, in general, with your point." You responded with "So we never . . ."

That is a clear distortion of what I said.

My point is that there are other relationships all over politics, some of which are just as symbiotic (the military-industrial lobby, the agricultural subsidies lobby etc).

They are symbiotic. However, the union/Democratic relationship is not only symbiotic, it is also a closed loop. How much union money goes to the GOP? Compare that with Democrat money that comes from military contractors, etc., and this is the most symbiotic relationship there is in politics.

Doctor Fate - clearly you mean US politics. You should take a look at the Italian scene, where the Prime Minister and his media empire are between them running the nation.

danivon wrote:Doctor Fate - clearly you mean US politics. You should take a look at the Italian scene, where the Prime Minister and his media empire are between them running the nation.

Yeah, or China where the Party runs the media or Russia where . . . never mind.

This topic being "Wisconsin Legislature" I think we can assume Steve was talking about Wisconsin USA as opposed to that little known area of Italy called Wisconsin?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Doctor Fate - clearly you mean US politics. You should take a look at the Italian scene, where the Prime Minister and his media empire are between them running the nation.

Yeah, or China where the Party runs the media or Russia where . . . never mind.

In other words, yes by 'politics' you mean 'American politics'. Just checking, that's all.

Still, I don't think that this kind of symbiosis is easily 'worst' in the unions-Democrats case. It is at least open and public. Which in a way makes it easier to deal with if you can mount an effective campaign.

(Tom, do you need to be a dittohead? The repetition is soooo tedious)

Your childish attempts at picking on me are sooooo tedious
I don't know why, everything I say seems to draw childish criticism from you lately.
And it was in no way being a dittohead, I stated something similar in an attempt at humor, maybe humor is lost on you? Maybe my humor is lost on you? Maybe you simply want to be childish and you search for something to criticize? But you were the one who tried to claim Italy had anything to do with Wisconsin, not me.

Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 30 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. While only 14 percent of nonunion workers have guaranteed pensions, fully 68 percent of union workers do. More than 97 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but only 85 percent of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0P8qO-jVr0

Archduke Russell John wrote:and have I not already said I don't think money is speech. My questions is why can some be limited and other not?

I really don't have a problem with either. I'm just a bit sceptical about the motives of the Governor of Wisconsin and the republican majority there. Wasn't there something about police and firefiighters being exempt from the bill that strips collective bargaining powers from the unions ? And weren't those the unions that supported him ?
I'm a big believer in reform (and i know from where i live how hard truly substantial reform is) and that's why i get seriously irked if i get the impression that the "reform" is done in bad faith to realize some other primary politcal goal.
It taints the political discourse, poisons the idea of substantial reform and usually leads to one- upsmanship.
And i can help but feel that that is exactly what's going on here.