/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Friday, November 02, 2012

Why Unions Suck (Redux)

--posted by Tony Garcia on 11/02/2012

Unions charge union dues and in many cases their membership is obligatory, which means their dues are obligatory. Don't give me the "fairshare" crap because it is a scam. After being forced to be in AFSCME and studying their books for years I know it is just a matter of claiming campaign pieces are pushing pro-labor positions and BAM those expenses can be paid for out of the fairshare funds...no matter how political the pieces actually are.

I also know that, at least the stewards at the University of Minnesota that I knew, did a lot of their literature preparation using office supplies (paid for by the U of MN) and their time was on the clock. So, fairshare comments are full of crap and the idea that the members are meticulous about how they divide those things up is less real than unicorn farms and dragon burgers. Honesty within the union's accounting is even less real.

Back to the story.

AFSCME has been sending campaign literature for an issue the is SO-O-O crucial to the labor movement: marriage.

That's right, somehow marriage has such important impacts on labor-management issues that they are spending money on direct mail literature.
Those of you following the issue know what side they are taking. I just cannot figure out how this is so important in employee-management bargaining laws.

It came from AFSCME Council 5 and demonstrates yet again that unions in general and AFSCME specifically are worthless to their original purpose. They should lose all of their tax benefits and be counted as just another PAC. We as a society should remember what they are...a lobbyist group. Nothing more.

Oh, wait, they are a hypocritical lobbyist group. Most of their positions, candidates and endorsements are wanting larger government intrusion and regulation. They lambaste opponents for wanting smaller government. So when their flyer says "too much government intrusion into our private lives" I have to laugh.

Crap like this make groups lose their credibility. But is it possible for a group to have "negative" credibility? Or is a big fat "none" the worst it can be?

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home