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

[formerlurker]

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"?

Union membership is not forced, and the union members vote on union matters -- the union collectively does not want their money spent this way, then yes they do have a voice in that.

The teacher's union is extremely powerful, but it is the members who gave and give them that power.    It's not right, but it is legal. 

[Wineslob]

Union membership is not forced,

 


Sorry mang, nothing personal, but you're kidding, right?

[formerlurker]

 


Sorry mang, nothing personal, but you're kidding, right?

Yes I am serious.   They don't want to join, they don't have to join.   

[thundley4]

Yes I am serious.   They don't want to join, they don't have to join.   

That's true enough , if they don't want to be a teacher.

[formerlurker]

That's true enough , if they don't want to be a teacher.

If they don't want to be a teacher with professional status (tenured).   That takes three years minimum anyway.   

I am not endorsing teacher unions (far the contrary).   However, trying to paint this as taxpayer money funding Obama's reelection campaign is too much of a stretch.

It's union money.  A disgusting corrupt union, but its a union perpetuated by its members.

[delilahmused]

If they don't want to be a teacher with professional status (tenured).   That takes three years minimum anyway.   

I am not endorsing teacher unions (far the contrary).   However, trying to paint this as taxpayer money funding Obama's reelection campaign is too much of a stretch.

It's union money.  A disgusting corrupt union, but its a union perpetuated by its members.

Show me where public school teachers at any level are teaching and NOT forced union members. Seriously, because the teachers I know MUST join the union and have dues taken from their paycheck before they even see it.

But let me see if I follow your logic here: I work & taxes are taken from my paycheck before I get it. This happens to every other working American in the country. A portion of my tax dollars (at more than one level of government) and those of my fellow citizens become teacher salaries. I have no control over this. I can homeschool or send my kids to private school but I still pay the salaries of people whose services I don't want, nor would I hire if they asked me for a job as an egg candler. Nor can anyone in the community get rid of a bad teacher (this I know from personal experience).

Now, even though my tax dollars are now sitting in the bank accounts of those teachers, it's not tax dollars. I'm not quite sure where that twisted logic comes from. BUT, before the teacher gets his/her paycheck, the union extracts its pound of flesh. Somehow, though, the money that goes to to the unions, though it came from the same coffers as the teacher's paycheck that's not tax dollars?

Besides, even IF the teacher wants to join the union, it doesn't mean I do or that I want my tax dollars going for that and I should have a say where my money goes. It's one thing to pay someone providing a service to this country, but quite another to pay for an organization serves to leach more money from working Americans by lining the pockets (with millions) of politicians who, in turn, are now more concerned with pleasing union bosses than the citizens who elected them. It's absolutely unconscionable that money we work for goes to support politicians I would neither vote for nor support who are going to turn around and support unions (as opposed to the citizens they serve) to the detriment of the children of this country.

Cindie

[Wineslob]

HI5 Delila. You said it better than I could.

[rich_t]

Show me where public school teachers at any level are teaching and NOT forced union members. Seriously, because the teachers I know MUST join the union and have dues taken from their paycheck before they even see it.

But let me see if I follow your logic here: I work & taxes are taken from my paycheck before I get it. This happens to every other working American in the country. A portion of my tax dollars (at more than one level of government) and those of my fellow citizens become teacher salaries. I have no control over this. I can homeschool or send my kids to private school but I still pay the salaries of people whose services I don't want, nor would I hire if they asked me for a job as an egg candler. Nor can anyone in the community get rid of a bad teacher (this I know from personal experience).

Now, even though my tax dollars are now sitting in the bank accounts of those teachers, it's not tax dollars. I'm not quite sure where that twisted logic comes from. BUT, before the teacher gets his/her paycheck, the union extracts its pound of flesh. Somehow, though, the money that goes to to the unions, though it came from the same coffers as the teacher's paycheck that's not tax dollars?

Besides, even IF the teacher wants to join the union, it doesn't mean I do or that I want my tax dollars going for that and I should have a say where my money goes. It's one thing to pay someone providing a service to this country, but quite another to pay for an organization serves to leach more money from working Americans by lining the pockets (with millions) of politicians who, in turn, are now more concerned with pleasing union bosses than the citizens who elected them. It's absolutely unconscionable that money we work for goes to support politicians I would neither vote for nor support who are going to turn around and support unions (as opposed to the citizens they serve) to the detriment of the children of this country.

Cindie

I'd say that sums it up about right.  H5.

[formerlurker]

Show me where public school teachers at any level are teaching and NOT forced union members. Seriously, because the teachers I know MUST join the union and have dues taken from their paycheck before they even see it.

But let me see if I follow your logic here: I work & taxes are taken from my paycheck before I get it. This happens to every other working American in the country. A portion of my tax dollars (at more than one level of government) and those of my fellow citizens become teacher salaries. I have no control over this. I can homeschool or send my kids to private school but I still pay the salaries of people whose services I don't want, nor would I hire if they asked me for a job as an egg candler. Nor can anyone in the community get rid of a bad teacher (this I know from personal experience).

Now, even though my tax dollars are now sitting in the bank accounts of those teachers, it's not tax dollars. I'm not quite sure where that twisted logic comes from. BUT, before the teacher gets his/her paycheck, the union extracts its pound of flesh. Somehow, though, the money that goes to to the unions, though it came from the same coffers as the teacher's paycheck that's not tax dollars?

Besides, even IF the teacher wants to join the union, it doesn't mean I do or that I want my tax dollars going for that and I should have a say where my money goes. It's one thing to pay someone providing a service to this country, but quite another to pay for an organization serves to leach more money from working Americans by lining the pockets (with millions) of politicians who, in turn, are now more concerned with pleasing union bosses than the citizens who elected them. It's absolutely unconscionable that money we work for goes to support politicians I would neither vote for nor support who are going to turn around and support unions (as opposed to the citizens they serve) to the detriment of the children of this country.

Cindie

Wow.

Teacher's salaries are paid with tax dollars, but once that check is cut it is their money.  Your control over it ends.  Your concerns for how their paycheck is being spent is most admirable, but really none of your business -- they want to blow it all on porn, and donations to planned parenthood then Godspeed.  That is their business and right. 

But wait, let's say they donate their entire paycheck -- comes right out of their paycheck (much like the united way etc. does) to planned parenthood.   Does the same logic apply -- your tax dollars are going to abortion clinics?  Public funds are appropriated for public employees.   The municipality pays them a salary.   What they do with their salary is not subject to public scrutiny/or approval.

Now the staff can certainly makes some considerable noise about the union dues and how that money is spent, however making the leap to we have the right to dictate those terms is quite the leap indeed.   

That all said, let's look at what actually happened.    Union delegates from across the country attended their annual conference, at which those delegates voted on certain matters:

Despite a lot of hand-wringing, delegates to the National Education Association's Representative Assembly approved an early endorsement for President Barack Obama, and by a good margin: 5,414 delegates, or 72.04 percent, voted in favor, according to results that were just released here.

It looks like I was right after all. (The measure required a 58 percent "yes" vote in order to pass.)

The approval triggers the flow of NEA PAC dollars toward Obama's re-election campaign.

And that's not all: 70.1 percent of the body, or 5,258 delegates, approved the amendment to the bylaws that authorize the $10-per-member annual assessment, 60 percent of which will be used primarily to support the Ballot Initiative/Legislative Crisis fund, and the other 40 percent for national and state media efforts. These funds can't support political campaigns but can support messaging and action against things like anti-collective bargaining legislation.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/07/neas_delegates_approve_obama_e.html

Scott Walker?  yeah they are coming for him, and Deval Patrick.   Obama?   maybe - all depends on who is running against him.   If Christie throws his hat in the ring I can see them running ads about his union busting ways, but the NEA PAC money is going to Obama, not the revenue generated from this new fee.

[NHSparky]

Problem is, until all 50 states are right-to-work and the NLRB is a historical footnote, abuses like this are going to happen.

Hey, do I like the fact that I MUST be a union member to be employed in my current position?  No, but at least they're not NEARLY as pervasive as when I was "in the tools" with SCE (IBEW Local 47).  Dues of $100+ every two weeks, and being "advised" how to vote, who to support, etc.

But I'm not about to quit my job just because I don't want to be in a union.  Yeah, we gotta suck it up and deal with it.  I'm just grateful my unit isn't as pushy as most I've seen.

[zeitgeist]

Problem is, until all 50 states are right-to-work and the NLRB is a historical footnote, abuses like this are going to happen.

Hey, do I like the fact that I MUST be a union member to be employed in my current position?  No, but at least they're not NEARLY as pervasive as when I was "in the tools" with SCE (IBEW Local 47).  Dues of $100+ every two weeks, and being "advised" how to vote, who to support, etc.

But I'm not about to quit my job just because I don't want to be in a union.  Yeah, we gotta suck it up and deal with it.  I'm just grateful my unit isn't as pushy as most I've seen.

According to Fl you should be voting your union leaders out.  How about that?  Could you lead a palace coup to do that

We need to over turn the Lunch man's veto of RTW.  I would love to see him force fed that tid bit. He really is a grining jackass.

[formerlurker]

According to Fl you should be voting your union leaders out.  How about that?  Could you lead a palace coup to do that

We need to over turn the Lunch man's veto of RTW.  I would love to see him force fed that tid bit. He really is a grining jackass.

According to Fl???   

NEA = extremely powerful union.  Who gives them power? 

Bueller........ bueller....

That would be the union delegates, who are union members from across the country. 

Despite a lot of hand-wringing, delegates to the National Education Association's Representative Assembly approved an early endorsement for President Barack Obama, and by a good margin: 5,414 delegates, or 72.04 percent, voted in favor, according to results that were just released here.

It looks like I was right after all. (The measure required a 58 percent "yes" vote in order to pass.)

The approval triggers the flow of NEA PAC dollars toward Obama's re-election campaign.

And that's not all: 70.1 percent of the body, or 5,258 delegates, approved the amendment to the bylaws that authorize the $10-per-member annual assessment, 60 percent of which will be used primarily to support the Ballot Initiative/Legislative Crisis fund, and the other 40 percent for national and state media efforts. These funds can't support political campaigns but can support messaging and action against things like anti-collective bargaining legislation.

Are they corrupt?   Absolutely.     Are most unions corrupt?  again, yes.   However what they are doing here is L-E-G-A-L.

My comments in the thread are directed to the degrees of separation that exist between regulating the appropriations of taxpayer money, and how public employee union dues are collected and spent.    There is a delta of difference between the two.

[formerlurker]

According to Fl you should be voting your union leaders out.  How about that?  Could you lead a palace coup to do that

We need to over turn the Lunch man's veto of RTW.  I would love to see him force fed that tid bit. He really is a grining jackass.

Also note, there is quite a bit of difference between Sparky's position, and a municipal employee position.  I don't recall ever seeing a statute that stated teachers must be union members.    If I am wrong, please correct me with link to the statute.

[formerlurker]

Why wouldn't a teacher want to be a union member?
The reasons a teacher might not want to join or support a union are as different as people are different. The scope of this information doesn't allow a thorough discussion of all of them, but it's important to deal with at least some of the factors.

A great deal of discussion about teachers objecting to unionism has focused on the positions national and state teacher unions have taken on controversial political and social issues having little, if anything, to do with education. If a teacher has conservative political views or deeply held moral or religious beliefs contrary to the positions taken by unions, they have a very legitimate reason not to want to do anything to support the union.

In some states with laws sanctioning contracts under which a teacher who isn't a union member can be forced to pay a fee to a union as a condition of employment, teachers who have religious objections to supporting a union are permitted to pay an amount equivalent to union dues to charity.

That practice, however, concedes to the union the idea that union representation is a benefit to all teachers and that they should be required to pay for it. Unions, and unfortunately the courts, have adopted the idea that teachers who don't want to pay for union representation are so-called "free riders." What this argument overlooks is that many nonmembers may not consider union representation to be a benefit at all and rather than being "free riders" they are in fact "captive passengers."

Allowing religious objections has also allowed the unions to characterize and isolate teachers who don't want to support a union by labeling them as the "religious right."

Many fair-minded teachers who agree with union positions on political and ideological issues realize that it is wrong to force their colleagues who disagree to support a union. In addition, just as some teachers who disagree with union political positions agree with union positions on employment issues, so do some teachers agree with union political positions but oppose unionism on employment issues.

Indeed, there are many other very practical, work place related issues that might cause teachers to question whether union membership is in their best interest.

Teacher unions perform several different functions in representing their members.

The first and most important of these is political. In fact, some public sector union officials have admitted that their unions are essentially political organizations. It is political activity that has raised the most concern about compulsory fee payments to public sector unions.

Teacher unions also negotiate and enforce contracts. As mentioned below, the Supreme Court regards this function as the only legitimate use of compulsory union fees. A careful analysis of these activities, however, raises questions about whether they are legitimate.

Since public employers often face constraints on the total amount of money that can be allocated to personnel costs, unions do not always achieve higher benefits for their members at the expense of the employer. Frequently, higher benefits for one group of union members are achieved at the expense of another group of employees, sometimes even at the expense of employees within the same bargaining unit.

For example, teachers with more seniority may be more concerned with extra steps on the salary schedule based on seniority while newer teachers may be concerned about increasing entry level pay. In a bargaining unit where the union's bargaining position is dominated by a majority of teachers who have long job tenure, the extra steps in the seniority ladder may be achieved at the expense of increases in entry level pay.

This is a particular problem for teachers because unions tend to insist that most new money available for compensation be devoted to the top end of the pay scale. This has made it increasingly difficult for many districts to offer entry level pay sufficient to attract well qualified new teachers.

Some teachers would prefer that their compensation be based on their own merits and productivity rather than on subjecting it to a group decision. Teacher unions have historically resisted efforts to base teacher pay on performance. To these teachers, union representation may be perceived not as a benefit, but as an insult.

Unions, of course, deal with matters other than compensation. They also represent teachers in grievances. In this area, the invalidity of the "free rider" argument is even more obvious.

Unions represent teachers in job related grievances. These are usually portrayed as disputes between management and labor, but they are quite frequently really problems between teachers. For example, if a grievance is about being passed over for promotion or transfer, it may appear to be a dispute regarding management's decision about the promotion or transfer, but it may in reality be a dispute between the teacher who was not promoted or transferred and the one that was.

Unions also spend quite a bit of time defending individual teachers in "adverse actions" regarding their own employment. These issues often involve absenteeism, misconduct, poor evaluations, etc.

Typically, only a few teachers require such representation and their need for it is chronic. All the other teachers suffer from the few teachers who are constant problems. They may be required to do the work of those who are absent in addition to their own work or find that they are frequently asked to perform certain less desirable tasks because of reluctance to give such assignments to teachers who will "raise a stink" about them.

Teachers who have had union representation imposed on them and who are not union members may have decided not to join the union because they resent the union's role in defending the small minority of teachers who are incompetents and chronic malcontents. For these teachers, union representation may be the exact opposite of a "benefit." Requiring them to pay for it would be a classic case of rubbing salt in a wound.

The Legal Situation:
All public employment is exempt from the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Policies dealing with unionism and collective bargaining in public employment are governed by state law. As a result, the situation teachers find themselves in will depend on the laws in the state where they teach, whether the district for which they work has a contract with a union and the terms of that contract.

In some states the law giving teacher unions monopoly representation power also sanctions contracts under which teachers who are not union members can be forced to pay a fee to a union as a condition of continued employment. These laws have been the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to a teacher's right to refuse to support a union. Even though state laws only permit compulsory union fees for teachers in 19 states, because these states are the more populous ones, they impact the majority of all teachers.

States where it is legal to force teachers to support a union.
Alaska   Massachusetts   Oregon
California   Michigan   Pennsylvania
Connecticut   Minnesota   Rhode Island
Delaware   Montana   Washington
Hawaii   New Jersey   Wisconsin
Illinois   New York2
Maryland1   Ohio
1 In Maryland the sanction for compulsory agency fees is done by the state legislature on a county by county basis. At the present time teachers can be compelled to support a union in only a few highly populous counties.

2 In New York the law provides that agency fees are automatic and mandatory. As a result they are not subject to contract negotiations.

In 1977, in the Abood case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that forcing teachers to support a union political and ideological activity violates their First Amendment. It did, however, allow unions to force teachers, who are not union members and who object to unionism, to pay for the cost of representation. Unfortunately, they left the union in virtually complete control of determining the amount objecting teachers could be forced to pay.

In 1986, in the Hudson decision the Supreme Court gave teachers who objected to being forced to support a union due process rights in the determination of the amount of the fee. This requires the union to provide fairly detailed, audited financial information about their expenses before they can deduct a compulsory fee and gives teachers who object to the amount the right to have their objections heard.

Despite this these legal protections, unions still attempted to include in the chargeable expenses items that were clearly not for contract negotiations and enforcement. The Supreme Court revisited the issue again in 1991 in the Lehnert case where it set forth some clear guidelines on what union expenses a teacher who wasn't a union member could be forced to pay.

The Supreme Court's restrictions on what union expenses were chargeable in union representation fees go far beyond political and ideological expenses. So far as the Court is concerned, the only legitimate expenses for which a union can charge a nonmember are for contract negotiations and enforcement.

Most agency fees are assessed at the same rate as union dues. The Supreme Court decisions only give teachers the right to object to paying the full amount and to have the assessment reduced to the actual cost of union representation.

While unions charging non members agency shop fees are required to provide financial information about their expenses, the information provided by many teacher unions in these so-called "Hudson notices" is generally couched in terms that obscure the fact that a teacher has the right to object and to have the fee reduced to the actual cost of representation.

As a result, many teachers who are not union members and who object to union activity are paying the same amount as their union member counterparts.

In other states with monopoly bargaining laws, but without sanctions for compulsory union fees, teachers are free to decide for themselves whether or not to join or support a union.


States with laws giving teacher unions monopoly representation
privileges, but without a sanction for compulsory agency fees.
Florida   Maine   Oklahoma
Idaho   Nebraska   South Dakota
Indiana   Nevada   Tennessee
Iowa   New Hampshire   Vermont
Kansas   North Dakota
In these states, however, unions are granted monopoly bargaining privileges so even though a teacher is free from being forced to join or support a union they are still compelled to accept union representation. The only escape from unionism for teachers in those circumstances is to decertify a union as their representative.

Many other states have no law giving teacher unions monopoly bargaining privileges so union membership would appear to be entirely a matter of individual choice.


States without laws giving teacher unions
monopoly representation privileges.
Arizona   Mississippi   Utah
Arkansas   Missouri   Virginia
Colorado   New Mexico   West Virginia
Georgia   North Carolina   Whoming
Kentucky   South Carolina
Louisiana   Texas
While teachers can't be forced to join or support a union in states without sanctions for compulsory agency fees or without union representation laws, they can't afford to be complacent about their right to resign from a union, if they should choose to do so. Even in states without mandatory bargaining laws some school districts have negotiated contracts with teacher unions.

Many teacher union contracts contain very narrow '' escape clauses" - very brief windows of time during which a teacher who is a union member may resign. These windows are frequently set during a time, like the middle of summer vacation, when union membership is the furthest thing from a teacher's mind. Thus, teachers who decide to resign their union membership may need to check the language of their union contract before resigning.

Such contract provisions are almost certainly illegal, but teacher unions faced with a lawsuit on this issue have decided to allow individual members to resign in order to avoid the establishment of a legal precedent that would be of value to all teachers. As a result, teachers attempt to resign from a union and are told that the contract requires them to wait a year or two for the right time. If they don't know about the law and don't have the resources for a lawsuit, they may be discouraged and let the matter drop.

Fortunately, there is a source of free legal assistance for teachers faced with such difficulties. Any teacher who believes that their rights to not be a union member or to object to being forced to finance union political activity are being violated may contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense foundation for free expert legal advice and, if necessary, representation. The Right to Work Foundation is responsible for all of the U.S. Supreme Court victories against compulsory union fees mentioned above. It has a toll free number, 1-800-336-3600 and a web page "www.nrtw.org" teachers can contact for further information.

http://www.psrf.org/issues/teachers.jsp

So in certain states (my own included, however I know of teachers who are most definitely NOT a part of the union), they can choose not to join, however the state grants contract bargaining rights exclusively to the union, so the non-union teacher must pay a fee for the negotiation of their contract renewal.  

If you pay the fee, you may as well join so you have voting rights on matters within your local district.  

Interesting read.  

[zeitgeist]

Also note, there is quite a bit of difference between Sparky's position, and a municipal employee position.  I don't recall ever seeing a statute that stated teachers must be union members.    If I am wrong, please correct me with link to the statute.

I quit doing homework years ago.  But lets just assume for a moment that they are not required to join anywhere across the fruited plain.  That would mean the majority of teachers are died in the wool union members out of choice who support only democrats. Is that your position?  90 % of educators are liberals who support unions and this differs from Sparky's union how exactly?  NH is not yet a RTW state; however, not all the smaller municipalities have unions, this is true, but in those that do, membership is not VOLUNTARY you have to pay a 'fair share' or pay full freight.  

ETA timed out reading your last post which pretty much explains why RTW legislation is so important.  Even teachers deserve a choice. 

[zeitgeist]

One more thing on public unions.  Teachers, cops, and firefighters are taxpayers too.  Here in my blue heaven the compensation is generous and the pensions can get quite large (although the city ended spiking several years ago once they realized the potential they could be on the hook for). 

What use to happened was the state was picking up some of the cost of pensions to encourage the towns to join the state pension system.  It now wants out of the pension business and will force this cost back on the cities and towns.

My question is, is it fair for the taxpayers of a small town, which does not have union labor contracts to be burdened picking up part of the cost of the cities which do?  Or, should the folk who will receive the money be forced to contribute more?  Also note, many of the 'union employees' do not live in the city because it is too expensive, should they be forced to live in a city that pays their salary and pay the same rate as the citizens paying their wages and benefits package?   Are they getting a 'free ride' if they do not?

[formerlurker]

One more thing on public unions.  Teachers, cops, and firefighters are taxpayers too.  Here in my blue heaven the compensation is generous and the pensions can get quite large (although the city ended spiking several years ago once they realized the potential they could be on the hook for). 

What use to happened was the state was picking up some of the cost of pensions to encourage the towns to join the state pension system.  It now wants out of the pension business and will force this cost back on the cities and towns.

My question is, is it fair for the taxpayers of a small town, which does not have union labor contracts to be burdened picking up part of the cost of the cities which do?  Or, should the folk who will receive the money be forced to contribute more?  Also note, many of the 'union employees' do not live in the city because it is too expensive, should they be forced to live in a city that pays their salary and pay the same rate as the citizens paying their wages and benefits package?   Are they getting a 'free ride' if they do not?

* Definitely no to residency requirements -- talk about limiting your field of qualified candidates (although a great deal of cities and towns in MA do have them, or provide extra points to civil service ranking for those who are city residents);

* Along those lines, MA has something called "school choice" in which  you can send your child to any school district that accepts school choice students (which is required of the school district unless they can demonstrate there is no available seats).   The sending district only pays $5K per student, and has no say whatsoever if the student can go or not -- in fact, they are never consulted, just advised what they are paying.   While some districts may view these funds as revenue, it really isn't when you look at what it costs per student for education in that district (which runs anywhere from 10K per student for regional districts, to upwards of $13-15K per student).    It turns out to be the receiving district is subsidizing that student's education.   Is that fair?

* MA has just implemented the final phase of pension reform, which was rather a major overhaul (these are some of the areas that I have to give Deval Patrick props for) -- the entire Commonwealth foots the bill for public pensions, always has and always will.   Even the City of Worcester that has it's own pension system pays.   Fair? hell no.   However that is the Commonwealth -- where local control is really just a nice idea and never a reality. 

[formerlurker]

Quick note - the Commonwealth provides "local aide" which can be substantial, depending on which town/city we are talking about.  So the non-town resident employee is in fact paying for some of his salary as he/she pays state taxes.

[Wineslob]

You have to admit, as Rush said, "it's the greatest money laundering scheme ever created".

[delilahmused]

Wow.

Teacher's salaries are paid with tax dollars, but once that check is cut it is their money.  Your control over it ends.  Your concerns for how their paycheck is being spent is most admirable, but really none of your business -- they want to blow it all on porn, and donations to planned parenthood then Godspeed.  That is their business and right. 

But wait, let's say they donate their entire paycheck -- comes right out of their paycheck (much like the united way etc. does) to planned parenthood.   Does the same logic apply -- your tax dollars are going to abortion clinics?  Public funds are appropriated for public employees.   The municipality pays them a salary.   What they do with their salary is not subject to public scrutiny/or approval.

Now the staff can certainly makes some considerable noise about the union dues and how that money is spent, however making the leap to we have the right to dictate those terms is quite the leap indeed.   

That all said, let's look at what actually happened.    Union delegates from across the country attended their annual conference, at which those delegates voted on certain matters:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/07/neas_delegates_approve_obama_e.html

Scott Walker?  yeah they are coming for him, and Deval Patrick.   Obama?   maybe - all depends on who is running against him.   If Christie throws his hat in the ring I can see them running ads about his union busting ways, but the NEA PAC money is going to Obama, not the revenue generated from this new fee.

There's a huge difference between what ONE teacher spends his/her money on and money taken from their paycheck BEFORE they even see it. Because they're given the same choice I am: NOTHING. And you still haven't answered my question please show me where joining a union is optional for public school teachers. If it IS optional then I know a lot of teachers who are incredibly misinformed and have been paying union dues for decades simply because they want to teach children.

What it boils down to is NO public sector union should be able to contribute to ANY politician or political party because it cancels out the votes of the people that pay their salaries. It gives them an unfair advantage of the people who MUST use their services whether they want to or not.

But I'm not sure I made myself clear last time so I'll try again. Teacher works. Teacher gets paid. Before teacher gets paycheck, union dues are extracted. He/she has no choice. There is no opting out. The portion of the salary that goes to the teacher is his/her individual earnings for work in the service of his/her community's children. He/she may do as he/she wishes with money earned. If they want to spend it on porn, more power to them. However, if X% of their paychecks (collectively) were taken out monthly before they even saw that money and given as a lump sum to the porn industry, that's a problem. They neither get to decide what lobbying the porn industry does on their behalf nor do they get to decide whether they even want to contribute to the next "Debbie Does the 6th Grade".

Here's the cycle that I find rather incestuous: Taxpayer has money extracted from paycheck before paycheck is given to him/her. Tax dollars go to teachers' salaries, except before they get to the teachers union dues are extracted. So here we have tax dollars going from the taxpayer to the government to the unions. Unions take that big wad of cash (from tax dollars, NOT teachers) and give it back to politicians (democrats). Every time teachers (or public employees in general) go on strike, we are held hostage. They negotiate for better benefits/wages, etc. with the very same people their unions "donate" to. IF they had to take their "demands" to the people and have the people vote whether to pay for greater salaries/benefits that would be different. No organization should have more power than the individual citizen who pays for their very existence.

Cindie

[CG6468]

Do the teachers pay taxes on the extra amounts immediately sent to political jamokes?

[formerlurker]

There's a huge difference between what ONE teacher spends his/her money on and money taken from their paycheck BEFORE they even see it. Because they're given the same choice I am: NOTHING. And you still haven't answered my question please show me where joining a union is optional for public school teachers. If it IS optional then I know a lot of teachers who are incredibly misinformed and have been paying union dues for decades simply because they want to teach children.

Um, I did -- see above. 

What it boils down to is NO public sector union should be able to contribute to ANY politician or political party because it cancels out the votes of the people that pay their salaries. It gives them an unfair advantage of the people who MUST use their services whether they want to or not.

Ok.

But I'm not sure I made myself clear last time so I'll try again. Teacher works. Teacher gets paid. Before teacher gets paycheck, union dues are extracted. He/she has no choice. There is no opting out.....

Not true, see above.

Here's the cycle that I find rather incestuous: Taxpayer has money extracted from paycheck before paycheck is given to him/her. Tax dollars go to teachers' salaries, except before they get to the teachers union dues are extracted. So here we have tax dollars going from the taxpayer to the government to the unions. Unions take that big wad of cash (from tax dollars, NOT teachers) and give it back to politicians (democrats). Every time teachers (or public employees in general) go on strike, we are held hostage. They negotiate for better benefits/wages, etc. with the very same people their unions "donate" to. IF they had to take their "demands" to the people and have the people vote whether to pay for greater salaries/benefits that would be different. No organization should have more power than the individual citizen who pays for their very existence.

Cindie

Actually the NEA PAC money goes to politicians.   The dues in question cannot go to politicians.   Again, see above.

[formerlurker]

Do the teachers pay taxes on the extra amounts immediately sent to political jamokes?

Do teachers pay taxes on the amount that goes to union dues?   yes.   

[unbiased]

Yes I am serious.   They don't want to join, they don't have to join.   

That is not true in Ohio. We are not a right to work state. If your job is a union job then you have not choice but to join. They take membership dues out of your check whether you want them to or not. Believe me, I have been a victim of it. Other states who have right to work laws allow you to join voluntarily or not. But not where I live. I paid 15bucks a week for almost 10yrs and still got laid off and my dues went straight to the party I did not support. That is one of the fights going on in Ohio right now. Normal people want the option to not join a union, unions are fighting to make them join.

[Janice]

Guess thats what Card Check is all about with this regime. I have no doubt Zippy will ram it through some how (remember 0bamacare?) if hes re-elected. Or maybe sooner. Who knows? The skys the limit with this clown. Screw the courts, the federal judges, the legislature and the constitution. Forget about checks and balances. This is Zippys Utopia. Like a Chicago thug he will doubtless use all the powers of his office + $1B or so + plus tax payer funded agencies and teachers unions (remember the school children made to sing the praises of Obama) to get re-elected. With a little help from our spineless Repuke "leadership" of course and the knee pad media.

These people are evil. I dont put anything past them anymore. Hopefully the Calvary (the tea party) gets here sooner than later.

6 Videos Of School Children Singing Songs That Praise Barack Obama