Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Probably a large fraction of them.

It would be a no-brainer for the Dems to run on economic populism; the only thing that could prevent them would be the threat of a large drop in campaign funding from wealthy donors. Unfortunately...

And all those idiots who say "Voting doesn't matter, they're all the same" are just empowering the right-wing loonies.

—R.J.

Can Unions and a ton of small donors, combined with the few rich guys who actually agree with you, make up for that?

edited 18th Apr '12 8:30:29 AM by Rationalinsanity

Probably not in terms of equaling the raw monetary numbers, given the ever-increasing gap between the lower classes and the upper.

The law guts Democrats' biggest contributors. They cant give tax dollars away for campaigning any more. Keep on trucking Walker

So the key to good governance is making sure that the other guy can't get elected due to monetary concerns? Classy.

Dont use non sequiturs please. Hey, as long as you dont get your campaign money from tax dollars.

It's not a non-sequiter. Your statement suggests that It was a good thing that democratic campaigns can be gutted period. Taken in context, it becomes clear that what you were stating was what was in your second post.

But that is not how public unions work. Workers are paid, then dues are deducted. Once the money is paid to the worker, it is no longer tax-payer money. It is the worker's money, at which point they deduct the union fees.

And to cut off the rebuttal of "automatically deduction," that is an option which can be used by the worker, not an absolutely automatic thing.

edited 18th Apr '12 6:47:36 PM by Enkufka

Unions were created to bolster ideal work environments for workers. Workers expect the dues to be used properly and not used on political campaign. Unions should stop wasting their members' money. And besides, the people who were targeted by the law were public sector teacher unions, who are paid by the tax payer. Then the worker is forced to pay a due they might not want to pay which is then contributed to more corruption.

Frankly this recall effort died when the schools were not exploding after it's passage. Democrats get a butt ton of contributions anyway.

If the Unions feel that donating to Democrat's campaigns are a way to protect themselves (which has proven true lately) then the Unions can do that if they want to. This is going to remain true as long as large companies and rich people keep in place laws that allow them to contribute boatloads of money; those groups that can work up the cash will also be donating to their possible opponents.

And no schools aren't going to implode immediately from anything. The price of these cuts come later, when kids graduate and are unable to deal with college or compete in the global economy. The effects of anything involving education tend to be felt years and years down the line. Education is, in fact, a very long term investment and taking money away from them just garauntees crippling the American economy years down the line.

The law helped the schools. When my mother worked in the public school system, she was forced to pay dues which were then funneled to those who she disagreed with. Letting workers choose to pay dues is going to kills unions, not the law. Because only a bare few actually want to pay for protections already guaranteed under a ton of states. Doesnt even touch Policemen or Firemen either

Education=long term investment. Since 1970s when the dept. of Ed was created we have dumped money on schools more than ever and rates still declined. It isnt money.

edited 18th Apr '12 7:03:29 PM by Flapjackmaka

Top 20 political contributors are businesses, save for two. All the businesses go to Republican campaigns, and the unions to Democratic campaigns.

Your first sentence, true. Your second sentence, however, I disagree with, as contributing to the campaign of a politician which supports the union would ostensibly bolster the union's ability to get shit done. Unions contribute almost entirely to democratic campaigns precisely because of the fact that Republicans constantly want to gut unions and workers rights, as evidenced by Walker's budget which removed the ability of unions to bargain for better pensions, compensation, or wages except for keeping in line with inflation. In other words, Walker made the public sector unions only ever able to lose wages for its workers.

Your last two statements are not backed up, as the first I explained in my previous post (the fact that once teachers are paid, it is THEIR money, not the taxpayer's money, and paying THEIR dues with THEIR money is their right), and the second is unsubstantiated, as not all teachers are in a teacher's union, nor is it necessarily true that the political funding is funding corrupt politicians.

Police and firefighters unions paid Walker. GASP, I know.

edited 18th Apr '12 7:03:30 PM by Enkufka

"the fact that once teachers are paid, it is THEIR money, not the taxpayer's money, and paying THEIR dues with THEIR money is their right"

You should be fine with taking away automatic due deduction from paychecks I assume and letting workers decide what they want to do with it? Because trust me, union funds will dry up faster than paint in a summer sun.

top contributors to obama in 2008. Lot a big name corps there.

edited 18th Apr '12 7:09:15 PM by Flapjackmaka

They still decide if they want the dues automatically deducted. It is not required. At all. And they can then opt out of it.

edited 18th Apr '12 7:09:03 PM by Enkufka

"federal workers"

Federal workers never had the same amount of power and leverage state unions have had. I believe Jimmy Carter took them away (smart move too, you dont want workers fleeing from there jobs am i rite?).

Flapjack, you're starting to sound like a troll.

Having unions in the end strengthens people's civil liberties, because it keeps corporations from just stomping all over their workers. In the case of teacher's unions, this helps prevent people like Walker from stomping all over them and cutting their pay. And yes, education is a long term investment. Money talks in all areas of life, this is a sad fact. And schools need money. If your mother didn't know she could opt out then that's on her for not doing her research.

If unions can't donate, then corporations shouldn't be allowed to either.

"Flapjack, you're starting to sound like a troll"

Come now. Just pointing out the counterarguments. Unions were dandy when workers were living in fear from death like conditions 100 to 60 years ago. It's much less need ed now that states have their own workers protections laws. Unions are fine for lberty, great, lets take away automatic dues and let workers decide where to spend it.

Schools have been getting flushed with money for decades since the deptof ed. was created. It may sound like a "too conservative" idea but school vouchers and school uniforms k-12

edited 18th Apr '12 7:19:42 PM by Flapjackmaka

Flapjack, Read this, and then decide if unions really should stop existing. This was just last year.

One, school vouchers are a completely shit idea. Second, school uniforms don't actually solve any of the structural and funding problems, and I'm not even sure why you brought that up. Three, we already have a thread on education. If you want to take this there, feel free. Unless we're talking about teacher's unions in Wisconsin, further discussion would be derailing this thread.

I will also point out that unions are a large part of how we got those worker protection laws. They were able to gather in large enough numbers in order get those laws instated. If we let the unions be destroyed now, we lose the strength that created those laws and the bargaining power that keeps such laws effective.

The gains that have been made have been because of unions. Do you honestly think that in their absence, we'll be able to maintain those gains?

You're the one who brought up school funding.

Implying unions have done anything great in the past few decades.

Ok. Unions gave us laws. Lets promote freedom, see what happens when people arent forced to pay contributions. Anyway, I'm going to bed soon. Good night

edited 18th Apr '12 7:36:14 PM by Flapjackmaka

Do you understand how unions work? Not as in structurally, but why it is that unions are a counterbalancing force?

Corporations want X. Workers want Y. They negotiate. But any given worker has very little power. In order for them to bargain, they need collective bargaining. But this is an ongoing process. In the absence of the union, it's not like the corporation is weakened compared to how it was prior to the existence of the union, and therefore, the corporations are able to revert to pre-union eras. The reason unions haven't made any great strides is because they've by and large reached an equilibrium with what can happen via unions.

If you want more rights for workers, strengthen those unions. Getting rid of unions will only cause a reversion to the pre-union era.

The problem with "Give people more freedom by removing dues/taxes" is that it ignores what they're purchasing with that money. Dues get you protections by unions, as well as better wages, thus making it so that you're making more than you were when not unionized even counting the loss caused by the dues.

In other words: Unionized Wages - Dues > Non-unionized wages

Same thing for paying the government, all that money you pay to the government pays for the police, the firefighters, the public pension, medical care, military, roads, low gas prices, protections from theft and swindling, and more. So instead of buying all those protections on your own, you're pooling with hundreds/thousands/millions of people to buy those services which protect you all equally.