Who Are the Freeloaders?

posted at 8:01 am on December 13, 2012 by Mike Antonucci

This week Michigan became the 24th right-to-work state, although to hear the uproar you would think something unprecedented was going on. There are more than enough commentators to debate the effects on Michigan’s economy and politics, but not too many ready to discuss what it will mean for Michigan unions internally.

First, let’s not overestimate the effect, particularly when it comes to teachers’ unions. Alabama, Florida, Nevada and Idaho all have effective unions despite right-to-work laws. The biggest direct change is the inability to collect dues or agency fees from those in the bargaining unit who don’t want to pay.

There is a lot of misleading rhetoric about agency fees, illustrated by Michigan Education Association president Steve Cook, who said last week, “No one is forced to join a union – that’s already illegal. This allows workers to get out of paying their fair share of what it costs to negotiate the contract they benefit from. Whether proponents call this ‘right-to-work’ or ‘freedom-to-work’, it’s really just ‘Freedom to Freeload.’”

Leaving aside the question of those who may not benefit from a contract they are forced to pay for – math and science teachers, low-seniority teachers, high-performing teachers, teachers who might want a different insurance provider – unions are required by law to represent everyone in a bargaining unit, regardless of membership status, because they insist on it. The very first thing any new union wants is exclusivity. No other unions are allowed to negotiate on behalf of people in the bargaining unit. Unit members cannot hire their own agent, nor can they represent themselves. Making people pay for services they neither asked for nor want is a “privilege” we reserve for government, not for private organizations. Unions are freeloading on those additional dues.

And it is mostly dues. Though we hear a lot of squawking about agency fees, the fact of the matter is that they account for only a very small percentage of union income. That’s because the high cost of agency fees persuades a typical employee to avoid the bad will and ostracism afforded to fee-payers. They simply join the union instead and pay the full amount – including, of course, the percentage that goes to political causes.

The “freeload” crack is especially ironic coming from MEA, which ran an $11 million budget deficit in 2010-11 and is a cumulative $113 million in the red. In other words, the union has spent millions of dollars in dues it hasn’t collected yet, some of which will be paid by people who might not even be members yet. Who is freeloading?

Finally, you have to wonder about the value of claiming solidarity on behalf of all workers during protests in Lansing, while at the same time claiming that a large percentage of your membership will bail out and become freeloaders when given the chance. This may help explain why more than 88 percent of the American workforce somehow muddles along without a union.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I guess the true test of the usefulness of the unions will be how many people will chose to be paying members.

DAT60A3 on December 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Mornin’ y’all…and the unionistas are freeloaders.
In RTW Texas I get paid a better salary and get more perks because I’m being given them based on MERIT. In unionized Illinois I’d be getting 12 hours a week-because of lack of seniority-and much would be taken out of my paycheck to fund political causes that I couldn’t stand.
Yea unions.!
///

annoyinglittletwerp on December 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Unions have no worries…….

Who do you think is going to be employed in all those millions of OBAMACARE jobs?

Unions are the wave of the future.

TeaterMerica!!

PappyD61 on December 13, 2012 at 8:14 AM

It is always funny to hear the Union folks worry about whether their customers will pay for the product.
Almost universally, they conclude not.

Jabberwock on December 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM

“Look for…
…the union libel…”

Shy Guy on December 13, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Finally, you have to wonder about the value of claiming solidarity on behalf of all workers during protests in Lansing, while at the same time claiming that a large percentage of your membership will bail out and become freeloaders when given the chance.

It’s the same symptomatic liberal logic fail that allows them to on one hand claim that the Bush tax cuts were only “for the rich”, but then sit here today and argue over keeping them in place for “everyone BUT the rich” because letting them expire for “the middle class” would be a bad thing.

Lying now, or lying then?

*bzzzt* The answer is “lying all the time”.

Midas on December 13, 2012 at 8:16 AM

It is always funny to hear the Union folks worry about whether their customers will pay for the product.
Almost universally, they conclude not.

Jabberwock on December 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Yeah, weird, eh? Don’t seem to have very much faith in the value they’re providing, do they?

Midas on December 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

“No one is forced to join a union – that’s already illegal. This allows workers to get out of paying their fair share of what it costs to negotiate the contract they benefit from. Whether proponents call this ‘right-to-work’ or ‘freedom-to-work’, it’s really just ‘Freedom to Freeload.’”

The irony here is stunning. So, living off the benefit of other people’s effort is a bad thing now? Who would have guessed that there are those on the left who believe that it is wrong to not pay anything into the system, but sit back and reap the benefits?

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Since the UAW drinkers and pot smokers got reinstated with full pay it further convinces me never to buy a Chrysler product again. On another note I had someone tell me yesterday their food stamp application was delayed because they had not filled out the voter registration form in the packet! We all know where there has lead us in the last election and it is corruption at the highest form. Revolution is getting to look like the only solution.

wepeople on December 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

It is always funny to hear the Union folks worry about whether their customers will pay for the product.
Almost universally, they conclude not.

Jabberwock on December 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM

This.

The irony here is stunning. So, living off the benefit of other people’s effort is a bad thing now? Who would have guessed that there are those on the left who believe that it is wrong to not pay anything into the system, but sit back and reap the benefits?

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

And this too.

visions on December 13, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Unions, welfare, entitlement,crazy checks , socialism here we come

RAGIN CAJUN on December 13, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Unions are nothing more than organized crime with government approval. If the Mafia were to start calling itself a union, no Don would ever again have to fear arrest.

I’m all for a worker being paid what he or she is worth, according to skills when hired. And commensurate pay raises as affordable and based on the worker’s performance. I’m all for a safe workplace, with the company providing all the safety equipment a worker needs to do the job and go home in one piece after the shift is done.

But being paid $25 an hour to screw four bolts into an engine block every ten minutes is way over the top. And a company losing three hours’ production time on a machine because, as designated by the contract, only the electrician is allowed to reset the circuit breaker is nothing more than sheer thuggery.

You can imagine what I think of the ‘social services’ unions. But if you can’t, I assure my opinion is pretty ugly.

I look for the union label all the time. Then I go buy something similar made in China.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Everyone needs a union tax on their paycheck so they can see the. costs of these crony organization

Mormontheman on December 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM

In RTW North Dakota. And I am a teacher union member.
I had a few experiences here in ND and SD as a teacher that convinced me being a member was in my best interest.
The union isn’t really a strong armed organization here.
But they provide services and support I deem useful, i.e. legal representation, etc.
Many teachers in one of the districts I teach in didn’t used to be members.
But bcs of problems with the administration being incompetent, most decided to join.
There are labor laws for a reason. The Federal govt doesn’t let you get worked to death etc anymore. So for that purpose, unions are worthless.
But they can add value, if they are run right.
Unfortunately, my membership in the NEA is REQUIRED if I want to be a ND union member.
I chafe at this.

Badger40 on December 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Everyone needs a union tax on their paycheck so they can see the. costs of these crony organization

Mormontheman on December 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I say to just tax the unions on their dues revenue at corporate rates. Obama wants money so bad? The unions would be a major cash cow, then.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM

The irony here is stunning. So, living off the benefit of other people’s effort is a bad thing now? Who would have guessed that there are those on the left who believe that it is wrong to not pay anything into the system, but sit back and reap the benefits?

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Freeloading off of American taxpayers = good.

Freeloading off of union dues payers = evil and wrong.

AZCoyote on December 13, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Here’s a start for the free loaders::::::::http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml ::::::

mixplix on December 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM

something else I find funny … when these union workers retire to retirement
villages … they do not want the staff there to unionize … because they know
their fees and costs are going to go up …

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Were this not such a serious subject, the sheer absurdity of the Left’s entire agenda hilarious.

People who steal from their fellow citizens in exchange for votes are perfectly acceptable to the left.

But when it’s one of their scared cows that are getting gored with the same thing – well that just won’t do!

Galt2009 on December 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM

My opinion on the unions could be in a distinct minority, but I’ll lay it out anyway. I have no problem with private unions, in a form that they were originally envisioned in: voluntary aggregation of people with the purpose of exerting leverage on their employer by legal means, such as protesting or withholding their labor. The Constitution grants people freedom of association, and the employer is free to fire them for cause if he believes their cause to be unjust and his decision to be economically justified. My grievance is with the public and semi-public (employed by governmentalized TBTF companies) unions. They are an abomination rammed up our collective rear by Kennedy and Bush, one of whom already warms his behind in Hell and the other will hopefully follow.

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Freeloading off of American taxpayers = good.

Freeloading off of union dues payers = evil and wrong.

AZCoyote on December 13, 2012 at 8:47 AM

LOL! You expressed that better than I did.

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 9:02 AM

This is a terrific post. I, and many others, didn’t comprehend all of the these arguments against agency fees.

burt on December 13, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM

In the model you describe, I have no problem with people choosing to unionize. Sometimes it needs to be done, because some place might follow the law but they’re otherwise hell for the workers.

I don’t believe at all in social services unions, because the union leaders ‘negotiate’ with the very people they got elected, the results dumped on the heads of taxpayers.

I also have a problem with unions that are so huge that the CEO sitting in DC can call a strike at a small business in Oregon over three lousy cents an hour during contract negotiation. Then those wildcat strikes of a place or entire industry where there is no affiliation to business being disputed.

I say to tax the unions at corporate rates, for starters. Because, really, they’re a business operation. If Al Capone could be sent to prison for tax evasion, I see no reason to not tax unions.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:09 AM

My wife is a public school math teacher in Michigan, and we couldn’t be happier about the legislation. On the mid term and final district wide exams, her scores are the highest by a significant margin. She works her students very hard (and gets a lot of grief from some parents in the process!) She is working at least a couple of hours every evening, and often for several hours each weekend. She makes a good wage, but she also makes the same wage as the art teacher with a masters degree and equivalent years of seniority. That’s wrong for many reasons.

She’d love to be able to negotiate her salary and benefits directly with the district. And if the district she works for currently isn’t willing to compensate her better than the art teacher, then I’m sure another one would, and she’d be free to go there, rather than having to “start over” at the bottom of the pay scale for the new district.

moo on December 13, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I’m pretty sure the free loaders are fat old men who punch Steven Crowder

Slade73 on December 13, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Long ago there was a union rep that visited one of my shops while I was away, he tried to pass out cards and arrange a few meetings with the guys.

Poor thing, he probably still has nightmares.

Bishop on December 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM

moo on December 13, 2012 at 9:09 AM

You pointed out another problem with the teacher unions: they actually fight merit raises! That is insane, and further reason the teacher unions need to go.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Since the UAW drinkers and pot smokers got reinstated with full pay it further convinces me never to buy a Chrysler product again. On another note I had someone tell me yesterday their food stamp application was delayed because they had not filled out the voter registration form in the packet! We all know where there has lead us in the last election and it is corruption at the highest form. Revolution is getting to look like the only solution.

wepeople on December 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

You can’t pin that on Chrysler; they fired the employees, but the UAW and the arbitrators forced Chrysler to re-hire them. Do you think Chrysler wants the liability associated with an factory accident caused by one of these lowlifes? I doubt it.

Ward Cleaver on December 13, 2012 at 9:16 AM

She makes a good wage, but she also makes the same wage as the art teacher with a masters degree and equivalent years of seniority. That’s wrong for many reasons.

She’d love to be able to negotiate her salary and benefits directly with the district. And if the district she works for currently isn’t willing to compensate her better than the art teacher, then I’m sure another one would, and she’d be free to go there, rather than having to “start over” at the bottom of the pay scale for the new district.

moo on December 13, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I tried to do that but here in ND they have a law that prohibits a screwl district from hiring a teacher off the district pay scale (meaning offering me more $$ to come over).
The district tried everything they could, but their hands were tied.
So we agreed to share me btwn 2 schools.
It is ridiculous to pay a science teacher the same as a PE teacher. My degree is worth a lot more than that. But not in public screwl.
And it is one reason why we have $hitty teachers in these high level fields.
Why am I teaching with my degree when I could be working in the oil fields?
Lifestyle choice.
We ranch & it allows me to work at home where I love to be.
But I often think of leaving for these reasons.

Badger40 on December 13, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Badger40 on December 13, 2012 at 9:16 AM

It really sucks that unions don’t respect the credentials you worked hard to earn. That’s yet another problem with unions: they always aim, and fight hardest for, the lowest common denominator.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Unions are not corporations. They are, technically, exemplary non-profits. And as much as I’d like to nail them for being shamelessly in bed with Democrats, the law is clearly on their side. As for unions being too large, well, conservatives believe in the power of individualism but there’s strength in numbers. As long as the aggregation is completely voluntary, they’re constitutional to a tee.

Chambers of Commerce were supposed to be the balancing counterpart but their power was severely curbed due to populist, anti-business politics promoted by Democrats under the guise of “equality”, “diversity”, and “social justice”. That is the true source of the problem; that, and public unions.

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Wife teaches 1st grade … private Christian school … much less drama … mostly better kids
because the parents are paying extra to go there. and as the principal tells em
you do not have a right to be here … it is a privilege do not abuse that privilege or you could lose it and return to public school … 99% of the time parents back the teacher … yeah we get a lot less money … but learning actually takes place …
and the atmosphere is so much better .. she has been teaching private Christian for almost 30 years now …. has taught part time in public … it is okay but
really likes where she is at …

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Since the UAW drinkers and pot smokers got reinstated with full pay it further convinces me never to buy a Chrysler product again. On another note I had someone tell me yesterday their food stamp application was delayed because they had not filled out the voter registration form in the packet! We all know where there has lead us in the last election and it is corruption at the highest form. Revolution is getting to look like the only solution.

makes you wonder what kind of product they produced when they got back to work.

RonK on December 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM

My view is that once they have enough money to contribute to a candidate to the tune of millions of dollars, decided only by union executives, they’re no longer a non-profit organization. They’re a business or a lobbying group. They’re a political entity, a PAC. And PACs should be taxed, too.

Under the law, unions aren’t considered corporations. But they are structured as such and operate accordingly. Time to change the tax laws, I say, to include unions.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM

In other words, the union has spent millions of dollars in dues it hasn’t collected yet, some of which will be paid by people who might not even be members yet. Who is freeloading?

The MEA had a sweet deal. They raked in dues from “members” at the unionized socialist incubators we laughingly call public schools. But up until a few years ago they mandated that school systems provide health benefits through the grossly overpriced but union-owned healthcare system. They are feeling the pain because they got too greedy over time. My guess is that their already dwindling membership rolls are going to take a huge hit. That is why they were out there screaming their heads off as Michigan became a member of the 21st century.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Worse is the fear that those pension plans have been raided for the cash, and the union leaders might be looked at for possible embezzlement.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:45 AM

makes you wonder what kind of product they produced when they got back to work.

RonK on December 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

It was a product of Detroit. Who would notice crappy quality when that is a design feature?

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Worse is the fear that those pension plans have been raided for the cash, and the union leaders might be looked at for possible embezzlement.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:45 AM

that would be sauce for the goose …

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Worse is the fear that those pension plans have been raided for the cash, and the union leaders might be looked at for possible embezzlement.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Yeah, they definitely are scared the money is drying up. They couch it as ending the “protection of the workers” but this is really about losing revenue that they were counting on and have already spent on themselves.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

This allows workers to get out of paying their fair share of what it costs to negotiate the contract they benefit from. Whether proponents call this ‘right-to-work’ or ‘freedom-to-work’, it’s really just ‘Freedom to Freeload.’”

…but it’s ok for 50% of the country to not pay federal taxes…enjoy all the benifits…and even get money back.
You think the day will come where unions will be forced to issue ‘credits’ for people that don’t make enough to ‘use’ their services?

KOOLAID2 on December 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I bought my house I did because it was close to a Christian School I could switch my daughter to if I didn’t like the public school. Turns out that the Christian School is where the problem children go when they run into trouble at the public school. Luckily, our district is very conservative so I don’t have to worry about much of the indoctrination others worry about.

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 9:56 AM

…but it’s ok for 50% of the country to not pay federal taxes…enjoy all the benifits…and even get money back.
You think the day will come where unions will be forced to issue ‘credits’ for people that don’t make enough to ‘use’ their services?

KOOLAID2 on December 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

It will only be fair when they have to send checks to people who don’t work at all!

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

What I find most amazing, and typical of the breed, is that liberals never complain about unions when they are protesting against ‘the man’ or ‘the establishment’.

Far as I’m concerned, unions ARE big business. They get favors, like many locals being allowed to opt-out of Obamacare. And liblets have the nerve to scream against corporate welfare? What about Planned Parenthood, too?

But I digress.

This isn’t 1930. Unions were useful back then, maybe truly needed at the time to make necessary changes. But their time is over now; unions are an anachronism that has reached the point of being self-defeating. Unions have become, like any other unfettered capitalist entity, destructive.

I don’t believe in lazzes faire (sp?) capitalism. So, it’s about time unions got into Obama’s 21st Century and be taxed like every other corporation in America; unions need to finally pay their fair share for once.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Worse is the fear that those pension plans have been raided for the cash, and the union leaders might be looked at for possible embezzlement.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Yeah, they definitely are scared the money is drying up. They couch it as ending the “protection of the workers” but this is really about losing revenue that they were counting on and have already spent on themselves.Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Eh ?
Is it possible to have a “Union Bubble” ?
And is it about to burst ?

Jabberwock on December 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I’m pretty sure the free loaders are fat old men who punch Steven Crowder

Slade73 on December 13, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Named Tony Cummings.

In Lansing, MI. from Cleveland, OH.

Facing theft charges for stealing over $6k from his IBEW local last June.

For example…

DanMan on December 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM

…but it’s ok for 50% of the country to not pay federal taxes…enjoy all the benifits…and even get money back.

KOOLAID2 on December 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

That’s one of the more fascinating things about the union outrage. Apparently, they were okay with electing a candidate who ran as a combination of Santa Claus and Oprah in the way he offered “free stuff” to certain parasite groups while demanding the productive classes pay for it out of “fairness.”

Yet, they are not okay with workers who don’t drink the union Kool-aid or at least pay protection money to the mafia.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM

My view is that once they have enough money to contribute to a candidate to the tune of millions of dollars, decided only by union executives, they’re no longer a non-profit organization. They’re a business or a lobbying group. They’re a political entity, a PAC. And PACs should be taxed, too.

Under the law, unions aren’t considered corporations. But they are structured as such and operate accordingly. Time to change the tax laws, I say, to include unions.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Agreed. They should be paying 45%+ or whatever it is going to be once taxes go up. The first thing Rs should do should they ever get back in power is to do this. Dems want to tax churches as business, so this is a fair shot across the bow.

antisense on December 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Named Tony Cummings.

In Lansing, MI. from Cleveland, OH.

Facing theft charges for stealing over $6k from his IBEW local last June.

For example…

DanMan on December 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Penance. Union Style

Jabberwock on December 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I agree with all you wrote but I’ll go one step further. Why is there such a thing as a public sector union? Are the laws written in such a way that teachers or DMV clerks work in a sweatshop for pennies? The SEIU and MEA/NEA really are nothing more than lobbying groups that are not held to the very specific rules that such groups have to follow by law.

That is where there is all the outrage. Unions know just how unjustifiable their role is in the employer/employee relationship and they are not willing to go down without a fight. That’s fine until they start rioting as they did in Lansing. Women and children got hurt when that tent was pulled down by people from groups including the UAW, Local 17 of the IBEW, and the Millwrights Local 1102.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Agreed. They should be paying 45%+ or whatever it is going to be once taxes go up. The first thing Rs should do should they ever get back in power is to do this. Dems want to tax churches as business, so this is a fair shot across the bow.

antisense on December 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I’m tired of shots across the bow. Time to go thermonuclear against liberals. Fine–tax churches. And tax every other entity as well, including those the Dems love. No one is exempt.

Can you imagine the screaming if Planned Parenthood got taxed?

And, along those lines, a total end to corporate welfare. That includes PP as well.

Imagine the screaming, weeping, and gnashing of teeth!

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Here’s a funny one from 10 years ago here in Houston.

http://dukeemployees.com/unions4.shtml

Scroll down to “A sorry day for the Teamsters”. I was tricked into joining that union in the 80′s and man did they regret it. I was on the brink of winning shop steward for my shift until they figured out I was a scab of the highest order. It was a pain in the a$$ to get out of it but I did.

DanMan on December 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Steve Cook is flat out wrong! When I interviewed for a job at Meijer Supermarket stores in the Fall of 2004 to be a cashier, I was asked point blank if I was ok anout being in a union since that was a requirement for employment period!

I was never instructed that had a choice in the matter.
He has apparently no clue about Michigan.

Varchild on December 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Scroll down to “A sorry day for the Teamsters”. I was tricked into joining that union in the 80′s and man did they regret it. I was on the brink of winning shop steward for my shift until they figured out I was a scab of the highest order. It was a pain in the a$$ to get out of it but I did.

DanMan on December 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I’ll never forget taking a job at a union shop. After three months, I was charged an ‘initiation fee’ of $100–taken by the union in one lump sum. Never mind the bills and rent I had to pay. The Teamsters got theirs first.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM

My view is that once they have enough money to contribute to a candidate to the tune of millions of dollars, decided only by union executives, they’re no longer a non-profit organization. They’re a business or a lobbying group. They’re a political entity, a PAC. And PACs should be taxed, too.

Under the law, unions aren’t considered corporations. But they are structured as such and operate accordingly. Time to change the tax laws, I say, to include unions.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I do agree with your opinion but not with your means. While tax laws are long overdue for a haul, altering them to suit one’s political goals is no better than what’s being done to them now. And taxing PACs is tantamount to charging people for expressing and supporting their opinions.

The right way is to restore RTW to every state, to destroy the abomination that is public unions, and – for future generations of conservatives – to abolish public education outside 3R’s and civics.

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I’m tired of shots across the bow. Time to go thermonuclear against liberals. Fine–tax churches. And tax every other entity as well, including those the Dems love. No one is exempt.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Cool. While we’re at that, let’s also tax your mom’s favorite knitting club because they discuss politics once in a blue moon.

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Imagine the screaming, weeping, and gnashing of teeth!

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM

lets go one step further …

tax trust funds and endowments …..
Yale, Harvard and another ivy league school are sitting
on 70 Billion … go after all of that as well …
it is only fair.

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM

The right way is to restore RTW to every state, to destroy the abomination that is public unions, and – for future generations of conservatives – to abolish public education outside 3R’s and civics.

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You won’t get any debate from me on that, but it’s not going to happen. We’re stuck with reality, and it’s like have an abusive spouse we can’t divorce.

I see no reason what PACs and unions can’t be taxed. they’re both entities, corporations that make money and pay people to do a job. I don’t consider PACs to be part of my free speech, or the lack of them to somehow inhibit my First Amendment rights. I don’t need a PAC to be able to say Obama can go f*ck a fluffy duck, but PACs need our money. And their execs want the cash.

I don’t need r want a middle man, who siphons off my donations so he can take a trip to Hawaii every other month. That might be okay with some, but not for me.

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:34 AM

lets go one step further …

tax trust funds and endowments …..
Yale, Harvard and another ivy league school are sitting
on 70 Billion … go after all of that as well …
it is only fair.

conservative tarheel on December 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I’m in for it! Hit them up, too.

No entity is exempt. They have money? Tax it!

Liam on December 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM

When I interviewed for a job at Meijer Supermarket stores in the Fall of 2004 to be a cashier, I was asked point blank if I was ok anout being in a union since that was a requirement for employment period!

Varchild on December 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM

In what state? A co-worker’s son got a job as a bagger at the local Meijer (in MI). He didn’t have a choice but that turned out to be a good thing. When he saw just how much the parasites of the union took out of his very small paycheck he became a committed capitalist!

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM

the voter registration form in the packet!

I looked at the CA online registration form, and the voter reg page is the first one! Gee, I wonder why.

As for union fair share fees, check out the Hudson case, which states that no one is obligated to pay for union political donations. We won a lawsuit under this case and my “fair share” dues went from $40/month to $8.

PattyJ on December 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The irony here is stunning. So, living off the benefit of other people’s effort is a bad thing now? Who would have guessed that there are those on the left who believe that it is wrong to not pay anything into the system, but sit back and reap the benefits?

Night Owl on December 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

That is exactly why I started chuckling when I saw the Michigan thugs yesterday.

Unions had no problem with intimidating and thuggery to get Owe voted into the White House. They were all for his “fair share” meaning stealing from those that have to give to those that have not and won’t work to get. Now the tide has turned on them. Suddenly EVERYONE should pay (skin in the game) and pay alike. We don’t see the Unions offering dues on a sliding scale based on ability to pay (taking into account all factors such as number of children, spouse working etc.).

And the media, the liberals and even Owe seem totally unbothered by the threats of blood in the streets, beating up the opposition, destroying millions of dollars in private and public property.

Where is our sanity?

katablog.com on December 13, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I want to comment about Steve Cook’s comment regarding the Michigan Education Association. I *WAS* a member of the MEA, and what he says is true by technicality only. When I was hired for my job there in the Upper Peninsula, I was told that I did not have to join the union, but that my contract would be null and void if I did not. So no, I didn’t HAVE to join. I just would not get the job if I didn’t. Unemployment or join the union.

Some choice.

And I am not presently a member, because the union did nothing to help keep my job available a year later. They had the choice between retaining a few jobs for their more senior members and retaining jobs for a few of us younger ones who had joined by “non-compulsion compulsion”. We naturally got the chop.

And that’s why I moved to another job in another state, which curiously happens to be a right to work state. I miss Michigan, but the MEA made quite sure that I wouldn’t be able to stay there.

DrUrchin on December 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM

for future generations of conservatives – to abolish public education outside 3R’s and civics.

Archivarix on December 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM

How do you propose to do that. All states require teachers to obtain credentials from Schools of Education. With the exception of probably Hillsdale all Schools of Education are clones of Columbia Teachers College and indoctrinate their future teachers in art of being change agents.

chemman on December 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM

A thorough financial audit of these unions might help illuminate this debate.

Mason on December 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Named Tony Cummings.

In Lansing, MI. from Cleveland, OH.

Facing theft charges for stealing over $6k from his IBEW local last June.

For example…

DanMan on December 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Tony Camargo

53, of Detroit

an official with the IBEW

Solaratov on December 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM

makes you wonder what kind of product they produced when they got back to work.

RonK on December 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I once owned a Dodge truck, so I can tell you what they produced – a CRAPPY POS. I’ll never buy another Chrysler product. I’ve had lots of chevys, but thanks to Gubmint Motors I probably won’t buy another of those either. My most recent new car purchase (for my son) was a Toyota.

dentarthurdent on December 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM