Ace nails the bottom line on allowing public sector unions

The point of a union is that it has political heft.  One of the ways in which we demonstrate political heft in this country is money.  Unions (just like corporations) can donate money directly to candidates and parties.  The result, as Ace pithily says, is “nothing but legal corruption: they are currently permitted to bribe the government officials signing their contracts.”

As you watch the anarchy in Wisconsin, which sees infuriated teachers, ignorant students in tow, storming the capitol, while Democrats hide in order to prevent a fair vote, keep Ace’s point in mind.  (By “fair vote,” I mean of course that, in a representative democracy, on some issues, the party that won the majority wins the legislative votes too — unless the sore losers cheat.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    I’m too young to know the unions as anything other than vote/money machines for the Dem party.  I’ve come in contact with a lot more union people since coming to Missouri but at least some of the people are starting to notice that the unions only think of them in terms of the dues they represent.  I don’t have a good feel for how large a group is realizing the “union money supports Dems who then support unions” closed loop isn’t saving or creating the jobs they were promised, but hopefully they will be able to explain that to other members.

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    Very interesting, Book.
     
    Does this point the way to a solution? Is it possible to pass laws prohibiting all but individuals from contributing to public campaigns as well as serving as financial conduits to others for political contributions?
     
    I believe that this is already the case for corporations, but if unions were prohibiting from contributing to elected officials’ campaign coffers (thereby eliminating PACs), would this help solve the problem?
     
    Maybe this is a good question for DQ as well.

  3. says

    I believe that this is already the case for corporations, but if unions were prohibiting from contributing to elected officials’ campaign coffers (thereby eliminating PACs), would this help solve the problem?

    It wouldn’t solve the problem. The unions would still be alive. But it would mitigate it. That counts for much given how much evil is being done

  4. says

    Finally, the Republican politicians are doing something effective. Crushing the unions themselves through legislative writ backed by majority rule.
     
    I have said time and time again, elections don’t really matter when you cannot break the Power of the Left. And much of their power is in the unions, public sector unions. Not all, but a significant portion.

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    Suek, those are very powerful graphics. Thank you.
     
    I find it curious that “teachers unions” are broken out separately from “labor unions”.

  6. says

    Look at the beer industry. Significantly tilted towards Republicans. Then there’s teacher’s unions. Zero Republicans. It’s almost like when a country votes 99% for their dictator and then the dictator says “this is democracy at work”.
     
     

  7. suek says

    >>I find it curious that “teachers unions” are broken out separately from “labor unions”.>>
     
    You’ve got to be kidding, Danny.  Laborers are, after all, _laborers_.  Teachers are _professionals_.  There’s a _differenct_.  :)

  8. Charles Martel says

    suek, years ago when I was on the local grammar school district’s board, I made the mistake of asking the head negotiator for the teachers to clear up my confusion. “You say you’re professionals, yet you bargain like blue collar laborers. Which are you?” That earned me growls and sneers from some in the room, and a roll of the eyes from the superintendent. Apparently I had violated the Doctrine of the Emperor’s Clothes, something every board member was supposed to know.  

Leave a Reply