teachers union endorses Obama's re-election with big bucks

[Janice]

Major teachers union endorses Obama's re-election

CHICAGO (AP) -- The nation's largest education union has endorsed President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.

Members of the National Education Association voted to support Obama on Monday at their annual convention in Chicago.

In a statement, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel says Obama and the union share a vision and members wanted early and strong support to help his election.

The endorsement comes a day after Vice President Joe Biden addressed thousands of educators at the convention. The association has 3.2 million members and bills itself as the largest labor union nationwide.

Obama's Price: $10 Tax for Union Teachers- You Pay

While the rest of us were celebrating the 4th of July with BBQs and parades and recitations of the Declaration of Independence, teachers’ union “delegates” from the far left were giving Obama the thumbs up. Not coincidentally they also voted to levy a $10 tax on union teachers nationally to help support “messaging” in front of his reelection bid.

And the messaging will largely consist of another call to “crisis” in education because the union goose has stopped laying golden eggs.  >>>

3.2 million teachers will pay the tax – out of your tax dollars- which is expected to double the amount of money normally put into the “crisis fund.”

Maybe teachers instead should look at why they need an annual “crisis fund” in the first place?     

It’s just the latest example of far-left union reps fleecing hard-working teachers by aligning themselves against teachers’, kids’ and parents’ interests, in a quest for power, money and greed.

And getting 0bama reelected is of course going to be a crisis situation. I wouldn't be surprised if they ask children to help raise funds in some way.

[formerlurker]

Shocked the NEA is endorsing a democrat.  Just shocked.   


 

[thelaughingman]

Link-a-doo!  I don't see you!

[Janice]

Sorry bout that. Here ya go ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/04/2299178/major-teachers-union-endorses.html

Btw .. my primary point was about how the union is using our money to help re-elect the schmuck on such a grand scale.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Wow.  Shocker.

Bastard don't even know who he's running against, but they endorse his useless ass over all possible challengers.

 

[Wineslob]

As Rush pointed out, this is not even close to legal, but they get away with it.

[Eupher]

Wow.  Shocker.

Bastard don't even know who he's running against, but they endorse his useless ass over all possible challengers.

 

I think they get free knee pads for that $10 donation ransom that Barry demands.

[formerlurker]

Sorry bout that. Here ya go ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/04/2299178/major-teachers-union-endorses.html

Btw .. my primary point was about how the union is using our money to help re-elect the schmuck on such a grand scale.

They are actually using the teacher's salary and we are in no position to tell them how to spend their salary.   The teaching staff perpetuates the talon grip of the union with their vote for this nonsense?  They can't complain much.

[zeitgeist]

As Rush pointed out, this is not even close to legal, but they get away with it.

What this might that be which is not even legal? I missed Rush.

A ten dollar surtax for teachers?  Bah, they got it the greedy rich baa-statds. Teaching is a lot like driving a bus once you get the route down. 

[Wineslob]

What this might that be which is not even legal? I missed Rush.
A ten dollar surtax for teachers?  Bah, they got it the greedy rich baa-statds. Teaching is a lot like driving a bus once you get the route down. 

Taking Taxpayer dollars and using them for political contributions..............

[zeitgeist]

Taking Taxpayer dollars and using them for political contributions..............

My answer to that is outlaw ALL public unions.  No exceptions.  That is one of the few things FDR was right about, no public unions. 

Public Unions have created the new Patronage Job.  Nothing makes me hotter than to have the town council say, well, there is nothing we can do, it is a contractual obligation.  I have no problem paying cops, firefighters, teachers or public works people a living wage.  I do take great umbrage at paying them more in retirement than they ever earned on the job because they gamed the system. 

[formerlurker]

Taking Taxpayer dollars and using them for political contributions..............

The limitations placed on taxpayers dollars ceased when they went into the bank account of the public employee.  The government has no control on how they spend their money.   

[NHSparky]

They are actually using the teacher's salary and we are in no position to tell them how to spend their salary.   The teaching staff perpetuates the talon grip of the union with their vote for this nonsense?  They can't complain much.

Actually, where I have the issue is that the union is demanding an ADDITIONAL $10/month which goes DIRECTLY to Obumbles, without any say on the teacher's part.  It's almost akin to a slush fund.

[formerlurker]

Actually, where I have the issue is that the union is demanding an ADDITIONAL $10/month which goes DIRECTLY to Obumbles, without any say on the teacher's part.  It's almost akin to a slush fund.

Of course they have a say, they can individually and collectively walk away from the union at anytime.   They don't so there you go.   

[NHSparky]

Of course they have a say, they can individually and collectively walk away from the union at anytime.   They don't so there you go.   

That's like saying I'm going to quit my job on principle because I live in a closed shop state and don't want to pay $8/week in union dues.

It's called, "picking your battles."  Some are worth fighting, some aren't.  While I'd discuss this with union leadership, I'm sure as hell NOT going to quit my job over it, especially in this wonderful "Oconomy" of 9.2+ percent unemployment, and a U-6 figure close to double that.

[zeitgeist]

Of course they have a say, they can individually and collectively walk away from the union at anytime.   They don't so there you go.   

Um, that is easier said than done.  I have seen unions require you to file on the aniversary date of joining and other such obscure requirements that make it near impossible to get out. And lets not even think about trying to stop a direct deposit and get a refund.  And when is the last time the Beck Law was enforced? 

It is not so easy to walk away.  Fat Tony would be envious of the tactics unions use to keep members in line. 
One guy ( who was on O2 for lung problems )  found his car on all fours after inquiring what he had to do to get out of the union. Concidence don't you think?

[formerlurker]

Um, that is easier said than done.  I have seen unions require you to file on the aniversary date of joining and other such obscure requirements that make it near impossible to get out. And lets not even think about trying to stop a direct deposit and get a refund.  And when is the last time the Beck Law was enforced? 

It is not so easy to walk away.  Fat Tony would be envious of the tactics unions use to keep members in line. 
One guy ( who was on O2 for lung problems )  found his car on all fours after inquiring what he had to do to get out of the union. Concidence don't you think?

Jeez, no way?  teacher's union?

[CG6468]

Jeez, no way?  teacher's union?

Thugs working for teacher's union, or alleged "educators."

[Wineslob]

The limitations placed on taxpayers dollars ceased when they went into the bank account of the public employee.  The government has no control on how they spend their money.   

So confiscation of said money through "dues" dosen't count?    Really?

[formerlurker]

So confiscation of said money through "dues" dosen't count?    Really?

No, it doesn't if you are trying to relate it somehow to public funds being used for political purposes.    Employee signs onto union, employee votes on union matters, employee is member of union.    How the dues are used are between the employees and the union.   

[cmypay]

I thought union members had the right to "opt out" of the political arm of the union. If there's no opt out clause, then I can see where this could be illegal.

[zeitgeist]

I thought union members had the right to "opt out" of the political arm of the union. If there's no opt out clause, then I can see where this could be illegal.

And if you opt out you are not a full member for voting purposes.  See how neat that works? 

Forced to pay for services you neither need nor want, you get to pay to carry dead weight bozos who would be long gone without the union.  What a great deal ( for the bozos). And as an opt out member you can bet yer bottom dollar the steward will really bend over backwards to help you out.  


Anyone who looks at the disbursment of union political contributions and does not wonder how it can be that 90% goes to democratics needs to re evaluate their belief that something isn't amiss in the public union system. One had washes the other or quid pro quo springs to mind here.

[delilahmused]

No, it doesn't if you are trying to relate it somehow to public funds being used for political purposes.    Employee signs onto union, employee votes on union matters, employee is member of union.    How the dues are used are between the employees and the union.   

And yet, that leaves those people paying those salaries AND those union dues (because they're paid before teachers see a dime of it and they're contractually obligated to pay if they want a job) have little say, neither in the way their children are educated or where their confiscated tax dollars go. The voice of the individual is drowned out by the power of the union. It SHOULD be illegal (it's definitely unethical) to use tax dollars to fund anyone's political campaign, especially when it continues to support one party over the other. It creates a situation where favors, salaries, perks, are given based on political contributions and as long as the cycle continues certain groups will be given favors over the benefit to the citizens of this country. I've seen this directly impact my state where PERS has helped to nearly bankrupt my state and teachers retire with a better salary than they earned while working.

Cindie

[formerlurker]

And yet, that leaves those people paying those salaries AND those union dues (because they're paid before teachers see a dime of it and they're contractually obligated to pay if they want a job) have little say, neither in the way their children are educated or where their confiscated tax dollars go. The voice of the individual is drowned out by the power of the union. It SHOULD be illegal (it's definitely unethical) to use tax dollars to fund anyone's political campaign, especially when it continues to support one party over the other. It creates a situation where favors, salaries, perks, are given based on political contributions and as long as the cycle continues certain groups will be given favors over the benefit to the citizens of this country. I've seen this directly impact my state where PERS has helped to nearly bankrupt my state and teachers retire with a better salary than they earned while working.

Cindie

It should be, but it isn't because of the reasons I stated.   

[Wineslob]

No, it doesn't if you are trying to relate it somehow to public funds being used for political purposes.    Employee signs onto union, employee votes on union matters, employee is member of union.    How the dues are used are between the employees and the union.   

If the Union is "Public" the public (me) is paying wages through taxes............


So, a Union member can tell the Union Bosses,"Don't you use MY dues for Democrat contributions"?