Trump is Niagara Falls when it does not count.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?108284-The-Labor-Union-Myth&p=2760359#post2760359
Calvin Coolidge, FDR, and many other well-known Americans spoke out against public sector unions. Since television took complete control of political discourse, I have not heard one man or woman with a public voice talk about the crushing difference between public sector unions and private sector unions. Call it a conspiracy of silence:
Public sector unions have held up better than expected after the Supreme Court in 2018 barred them from collecting fees from nonunion workers.
The landmark case, Janus v. the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, specifically dealt with agency fees from nonunion members who benefited from labor contracts negotiated by the union.
Mark Janus, the plaintiff in the case, was a nonunion worker who was hired as a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare Services. Despite the fact that he did not belong to the union, it collected roughly $535 per year from him in the form of agency fees. Janus protested these fees, arguing that they subsidized political speech.
When the Supreme Court blocked these fees from being collected, the prediction was that unions would lose members because being a nonmember would be more attractive due to no longer having to pay agency fees, which was previously not allowed, and without those fees, the resources for political contributions would dry up.
That prediction has yet to be fulfilled.
While agency fee collections have decreased since the high court's decision, unions have tapped another revenue stream by converting nonmembers to members, although the results have been uneven.
For example, the American Federation of Teachers had a net gain of 1,800 fee-paying members. Meanwhile, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which was the union involved in the Supreme Court case, had a net loss of 70,000 paying members.
Still, the number of workers represented by public sector unions increased between 2018 and 2019, according to the Labor Department.
A crucial factor has been that states have passed laws to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court ruling and transform nonmembers to members by making membership more appealing.
Some enacted laws that withheld benefits from nonmembers until they joined the union — benefits such as employer-supplied life insurance or legal representation in grievance proceedings. Others narrowed the time frame for members to leave their union.
Those efforts helped union coffers stay essentially intact, allowing them to make political contributions in the current election that exceed prior years.
Total political contributions by public sector unions so far in 2020 are $65.7 million, according to OpenSecrets.org. During the last presidential cycle in 2016, total contributions were $65.5 million.
Unions also contributed more in off-year elections in which presidential contenders are not on the ballot. In 2018, contributions totaled $55.9 million versus $54 million in 2014.
Democrats have historically gotten the lion's share of these contributions. This year is no different, as over 95% of that assistance from public sector unions is going to Democrats.
“Unless union membership is also voting 95% Democrat, that spending is inconsistent with the views of overall union membership,” said Stephen Delie, the director of workers for opportunity at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute located in Midland, Michigan.
The impetus behind the Janus case was the plaintiff did not want to subsidize organizations whose political activities he opposed.
"There seems to be a disparity between what the rank-in-file would like to see the money spent on and how the unions are actually spending it," Delie said.
President Trump received over a third of the union vote in 2016, with 37% of union members and 40% of union households supporting him, according to Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a German political think tank with an office in Washington, D.C. This level of union support for a Republican president has not been seen since President Ronald Reagan won reelection in 1984.
Many union workers still support Trump, according to Politico. The newspaper reported in September that rank-and-file members in some unions [Some means public sector unions] are firmly behind the president.
Incidentally, major government projects were usually began and completed in a year or two. Today’s government parasites will work on one project until they are old enough to retire on a government pension.
Finally, President Trump has been silent about the difference because he cannot veto a spending bill that will put the money he will spend on upgrading infrastructure into the pockets of public sector union members.
Indeed, Trump dare not object to enriching government employees because he bought and paid for their votes.
Two labor movements were diametrically opposed to one another from day one although private sector union members were shielded from that truth at all costs. Government employee unions organized against the American people while private sector unions are part of the American people.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?108284-The-Labor-Union-Myth&p=2760359#post2760359
Calvin Coolidge, FDR, and many other well-known Americans spoke out against public sector unions. Since television took complete control of political discourse, I have not heard one man or woman with a public voice talk about the crushing difference between public sector unions and private sector unions. Call it a conspiracy of silence:
Public sector unions have held up better than expected after the Supreme Court in 2018 barred them from collecting fees from nonunion workers.
The landmark case, Janus v. the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, specifically dealt with agency fees from nonunion members who benefited from labor contracts negotiated by the union.
Mark Janus, the plaintiff in the case, was a nonunion worker who was hired as a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare Services. Despite the fact that he did not belong to the union, it collected roughly $535 per year from him in the form of agency fees. Janus protested these fees, arguing that they subsidized political speech.
When the Supreme Court blocked these fees from being collected, the prediction was that unions would lose members because being a nonmember would be more attractive due to no longer having to pay agency fees, which was previously not allowed, and without those fees, the resources for political contributions would dry up.
That prediction has yet to be fulfilled.
While agency fee collections have decreased since the high court's decision, unions have tapped another revenue stream by converting nonmembers to members, although the results have been uneven.
For example, the American Federation of Teachers had a net gain of 1,800 fee-paying members. Meanwhile, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which was the union involved in the Supreme Court case, had a net loss of 70,000 paying members.
Still, the number of workers represented by public sector unions increased between 2018 and 2019, according to the Labor Department.
A crucial factor has been that states have passed laws to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court ruling and transform nonmembers to members by making membership more appealing.
Some enacted laws that withheld benefits from nonmembers until they joined the union — benefits such as employer-supplied life insurance or legal representation in grievance proceedings. Others narrowed the time frame for members to leave their union.
Those efforts helped union coffers stay essentially intact, allowing them to make political contributions in the current election that exceed prior years.
Total political contributions by public sector unions so far in 2020 are $65.7 million, according to OpenSecrets.org. During the last presidential cycle in 2016, total contributions were $65.5 million.
Unions also contributed more in off-year elections in which presidential contenders are not on the ballot. In 2018, contributions totaled $55.9 million versus $54 million in 2014.
Democrats have historically gotten the lion's share of these contributions. This year is no different, as over 95% of that assistance from public sector unions is going to Democrats.
“Unless union membership is also voting 95% Democrat, that spending is inconsistent with the views of overall union membership,” said Stephen Delie, the director of workers for opportunity at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute located in Midland, Michigan.
The impetus behind the Janus case was the plaintiff did not want to subsidize organizations whose political activities he opposed.
"There seems to be a disparity between what the rank-in-file would like to see the money spent on and how the unions are actually spending it," Delie said.
President Trump received over a third of the union vote in 2016, with 37% of union members and 40% of union households supporting him, according to Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a German political think tank with an office in Washington, D.C. This level of union support for a Republican president has not been seen since President Ronald Reagan won reelection in 1984.
Many union workers still support Trump, according to Politico. The newspaper reported in September that rank-and-file members in some unions [Some means public sector unions] are firmly behind the president.
Death knell decision by Supreme Court has yet to kill unions
by Jay Heflin
October 31, 2020 05:03 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/death-knell-decision-by-supreme-court-has-yet-to-kill-unions
by Jay Heflin
October 31, 2020 05:03 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/death-knell-decision-by-supreme-court-has-yet-to-kill-unions
Incidentally, major government projects were usually began and completed in a year or two. Today’s government parasites will work on one project until they are old enough to retire on a government pension.
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. Calvin Coolidge
Finally, President Trump has been silent about the difference because he cannot veto a spending bill that will put the money he will spend on upgrading infrastructure into the pockets of public sector union members.
Indeed, Trump dare not object to enriching government employees because he bought and paid for their votes.
Last edited: