Unions decry the measure as an attempt to destroy the middle class, while supporters argue that taxpayers should not be forced to pay the administrative costs associated with deducting union dues and political contributions.
State Rep. Mike Schlossberg, another local legislator, argues, "Let me be as clear as possible: I strongly oppose this bill. Collective bargaining means a strong middle class with better wages, more jobs and a stronger economy. This bill will lead to lower wages, fewer jobs and hurt the economy while wasting taxpayer money by triggering multiple legal challenges. It's no coincidence, in my mind, that attacks on collective bargaining have occurred at the same time as the decline of the middle class. I will do everything in my power to oppose this legislation."
Ben Long counters, "It's unethical that union dues are automatically taken out of someone's pay check just to fill some rich union cats wallet and provide funds for campaigns that they may or may not support. Lets not forget that in the case of teacher and public employee unions it's tax payer dollars to begin with!!! You're not supporting the middle class, your supporting powerful unions."
35 comments:
This is a purely political attack by out of state Koch brothers and their bought supporters since the costs of collecting and remitting dues and COPE are miniscual.
I am sure you will also agree with Browns plan to screw the county retirees.
Unfortunately his plan may sound good now but will end up costing the county huge in a few years. Ask people who know about these things.
This is long overdue. Union members should be able to decide whether the union is worth the dues they are paying.
Schlossburg is a union tool.
This is a negotiated benefit the same as any pay or insurance benefit. The unions negotiate these issues with management and management agrees to it. Now Emrick wants to stick governments nose into an area that should be none of his business.
Looks like this came around in June of last year. Is it coming up for a vote?
I don't know what has sparked the sudden interest bc no vote is scheduled.
if it takes money out off union bosses hand then do it
There is no administrative nightmare to withdrawal dues, it's a keystroke on a computer and it's done. Just like your medical copayment a or you cheap 401k deductions and matches. Maybe we should charge everybody for every deduction they set up in their paychecks since this bogus legislation claims it cost money to do it.
rather have a sister in a whore house then a brother who is a union puke or a pol for that matter
How is a dues deduction fleecing the tax payer? It is taken out of the union members PAY not paid for by the taxpayer. How does this even make sense?
Schlossberg is a ninkompoop!
I'm no fan of public sector unions, but am not quite ready to kill them yet, I guess. I am surprised at my own thinking here, but I would oppose this, too. I am concerned at the increasing income disparity in this country.
Perhaps political contributions should not be deducted, if there is empirical evidence that it is time consuming.
If there was a legitimate reason to do this other than to weaken unions, I'd be for it. The first poster was correct, this is a power play from conservative Republicans to destroy unions and further depress salaries in this country.
How many public sector employees would pay union dues if it wasn't deducted by the administration.Let the public sector unions collect their dues.This has nothing to do with higher salaries at all.It has to do the union bosses not collecting their benefits.If public sector union members were so gratful to be in a union they will pay their dues
This isn't a cost issue, it's a freedom issue. If union members want to pay their union dues, they can pay them like any other bill. If they have a disagreement with the union, they will have the economic power to withhold their dues.
It is not government's place to make sure that public sector union dues are collected.
In addition to union members who are unhappy with their unions, many taxpayers might not be happy with public sector unions.
Those taxpayers deserve representation by their government as well, but instead their government is serving as a collection agent for the unions.
That's wrong!
My spouse is required to make a costly public employee union payroll deduction even though she persoanlly receives little or no benefits and would rather not belong in the union at all. At her workplace, nearly all union support is geared towards protecting the deadbeat, complete screw ups and incompetents who lack the personal skills and formal education to warrant their bloated salaries. The competent, qualified and responsible employees end up subsidizing union support for others and get nothing for their money.
You non union pukes are so stupid, we sign up for unions and pay dues and sign a card saying that they can deduct dues, we also sign a political action card that says they can deduct dues for that, no one does it for fun, they know that the money goes to pay for collective bargaining, arbitration, representation (for union and non union members by the way) contract negotiations and all things labor. But according to the fools on here union bosses are millionaires and drive around in Bentlys etc.
Think before you type
As go the unions, so goes the nation: End the assault on public sector salaries and benefits
A bad job is still a job: Lately, some hiring managers have been exploiting the desperation of the unemployed to force workers to accept this logic and the worst deals possible. Now pundits and politicians across the country are getting in on the action by claiming that public-sector employees must sacrifice more and act like private sector employees who supposedly feel blessed and thankful to get a paycheck, any paycheck.
Welcome to the new race to the bottom - a race that is doing terrible harm to many Americans. The absence of well-funded pensions, reasonable hours and decent pay in many precincts of the private sector is being used to stir up rage at the presence of those standards in the public sector. Teachers, firefighters, cops and sanitation workers are derided as privileged compared to "everyone else." They recklessly pursue financial gain and swindle taxpayers!
How absurd. I mean, really, really, absurd.
The truth is hardly tabloid material: Most public- sector workers earn a modest middle- class living and are as worried as anyone else about the economy.
But the perverse argument gaining traction is that what public-sector jobs provide - fair compensation, adequate benefits and dignified retirement options - sets the bar too high for everyone.
It's enough to rouse the labor leaders and activists of the past from the grave - people who fought for eight-hour days, weekends off and other basic employment standards now once again under attack.
We forget how recent - and still fragile - some of these victories are. Consider retirement. "Until the 1950s," New School economist Teresa Ghilarducci has written, "only the wealthy could expect to retire." Now guaranteed pension income is getting assailed as lavish, as long as its recipients are unionized employees, not CEOs with golden parachutes.
But when anti-government anger is expected to translate into lots of swing votes, attacking the public sector is a surefire electoral strategy for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to discredit the federal stimulus package as a special interest sop to unions, while Democrats want to look like independents who don't answer to the labor lobby.
Such posturing does nothing more than harm our prospects for national recovery. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that every 100 public sector layoffs result in around 30 private-sector layoffs, because the subsequent loss of income dampens consumer spending and thus weakens the economy.
And if public-sector workers become cheap, expendable labor, they will contribute less to the tax base and spend less, blunting private-sector job creation. A healthy public sector is just as good for the investment banker as it is for the unionized electrician.
If the march against the unions and the public sector continues, the recession could hang around like an unwelcome guest, costing businesses and government more over time through vanishing growth, productivity and demand. The ranks of the working poor will swell and public assistance rolls will expand.
Upward mobility and shared prosperity cannot be created this way. In earlier eras, a robust middle class was built and sustained not by making jobs worse for more people but by making them better: Standards improved across industries and occupations.
Rebuilding the middle class today will be difficult. But ending the plight of American families who see their livelihoods under assault must be an imperative.
The race to the bottom is a callous attempt to lower expectations for employment at a time when millions of people are counting on them to be raised. No victory worthy of the name can be achieved on those terms.
If public union dues are so terrific, what's the harm in making members pay voluntarily? They'll gladly do so, right?
Private industry unions and their right to collectively bargain are vital to a free market economy. Public sector unions and their right to collectively bargain are dangerous and destructive and no less a visionary that the great FDR warned us about them.
This is great legislation! Schlossturd can go pound sand!
Bernie is ther an administrative cost to deduct all the taxes people pay if so whats the problem.
12:16, thank you for your passionate words. They meant something to me.
2:16, my guess is there is a slight admin cost associated with automatic deduction.
12:15 said:
"...And if public-sector workers become cheap, expendable labor, they will contribute less to the tax base and spend less, blunting private-sector job creation. A healthy public sector is just as good for the investment banker as it is for the unionized electrician."
That sounds great until you think it through. Every dollar spent on public sector employees is taken from the taxpayers. Thus you're not adding to the economy.
Real job creation and economic expansion can only come from the private sector.
Economics lesson #1: Any dollar spent by the government must first be taken from someone.
I'm a public sector union employee and I applaud this move. Nothing irks me more then getting mailers from the union telling me who to support. My union only protects the lazy and incompetent. Screw them.
Hank_Hill
"Real job creation and economic expansion can only come from the private sector."
Ah yes, the teabgger credo. I think the job creators should have their prostate checked because the trickle down the leg economy hasn't even been trickling for the past twenty years
But it's true. Job creation, to be meaningful, has to be from the private sector. Public job creation just feeds on the private sector. This has nothing to do with trickle down economics or the vulgar way you put it.
Whats the problem? If they don't need union representation then , they don't.Teachers rebel , don't pay any more dues and we will get the issues squared away in this decade. If You are a deadbeat teacher that shows up late and -or can't teach ,guess what you will be gone!Being a union man myself, I say pay and select the best you can get,be honest, and know your shit so you can defend it.
Has anybody EVER suggested that Bernie be put on Morning Call pay roll and FIRE the other people they pay? The Morning Call and the Express times CAN NOT REPORT,- and do not have the established contraction apparently--- SOOOO Why don/t they pay Bernie to report and keep us the tax payers - public up to speed -in real time!
Lest's just say I was an unscrupulousness STATE CONSTABLE, and I was to take payment ,by forgetting you existed, and after time your payments might disappear to the foreground. Well , I have to believe that Bernie would figure me out and condemn me in the paper . That would sell a lot of papers and the guys that read at the coffee shops would want to be te 1st ones to know and away we go . See This sell/s news paper!!! But I think they are stupid and and don't see beyond selling add/s for now.
Peter, I like most of those people. I know there is no way I could keep up with Tom Shortell, Nicole, Lynn Olanoff or Colin McEvoy. I get tired just watching them. And whenever we are at the same event together, they always beat me in getting the story out. They are also nice people, while I tend to be ornery. Also, in office settings, I tend to fart a lot. I believe I set the record at the courthouse. It set off the fire alarms, and everyone thought it was the Chrin landfill.
Ironic that JT lives those union raises and the lifetime benefits upon retirement but is not supportive of the unions. That is so teaparyesque
the reason the deduction law exists is keep people from being free riders, i.e. getting services from the union without paying for them
Post a Comment