Recently the Supreme Court ruled against a California public
workers union that used money for political reasons. The problem was they raised the dues rate to
cover the commercials and ads against the special election that the governor at
the time had to determine funding and cuts to public institutions. The use of the money to benefit the union
could be argued, and I would agree with it.
The problem is: they didn’t give
the right to members to opt. out of it, which I have a problem with too. A lawsuit was filed against this union and
taken all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling stated that the union was wrong to use dues
without notifying members and allow them to opt. out. Then the court stated something that went
over their ruling and stated that it was the opinion of the court that unions
should have their members opt. in (not out) regarding any political
spending. I don’t believe that people
should get something for nothing, but I agree that the union should have had a
stipulation for members to opt. out of the political spending. Because that is the right thing to do, all
members feel like they have power in the union, and I know that making ends
meet sometimes takes that $20 in your paycheck.
This added statement of opinion of getting all members to opt. in to a
political fight seems as if that limits the organization from fighting
something that comes up quickly. Having
members opt. out seems to be a better way because it allows more time for the
members to be informed and action can happen at a faster rate.
In the end, the proposals were defeated in the special
election and the workers did not face the cuts that were proposed. (On a side note: The special election cost
the government 12 million to put on.
They could have paid a public worker like me 120 years on that
amount. Yet, they complain that they
spend too much money on public workers?
This example sounds like they spend too much money trying not to pay
public workers.) While the court case
was being pushed up the chain of courts, the union gave the money back to those
members that were against the spending of their dues against the measures. So, in the end the right thing was done, but
it was too little too late.
Why do I bring up this?
This deals with a voice in politics.
There are only two voices in politics when it comes to money: The workers and the Corporations. OK…I am over-simplifying things to make my
point; I know there are more factors than this.
Workers join together to fight for issues in which they
believe. These groups take care of an
injured co-worker, protect those who are being harassed or falsely accused by
superiors, fight for a living wage and health benefits to take care of their
families, fight against outside powers that will minimalize their profession,
fight against policies that will lay-off their members, and/or fight against
policies that will worsen the work environment. In the case of teacher unions: Fight for the students in which we serve
because contrary to popular belief we did not go through all that education and
bashing for the ‘money’. In CA, a lot of these protections are found in a
contract that is agreed on by both the workers and the management. So, a contract should not be something
unreasonable, but something that both sides compromise on to achieve a balance
between workers’ rights and the bottom line. I will
talk about the attack on contracts later because that is a long blog in itself.
Corporations join together, or work alone because they have
a total capital greater than all of the workers combined, to fight for issues
in which they believe in too. The bottom
line is the biggest issue. I don’t
begrudge them for this thought process, because if I owned a corporation I
would want it to be extremely profitable too.
The thing is: The workers are the
biggest cost to corporations. So, if
they can remove contract rights and/or remove unions they will have the biggest
voice in politics. Limiting ‘special
interest groups’, such as teachers, will eliminate the voice behind having to
pay for education/public services. This
also saves their bottom line, because they want keep as much money as they can
and not pay taxes on it. They will spend hundreds of millions on a CEO
and an ad campaign against public workers, higher taxes, regulations, or a
politician that will fight against these profit cutters. (Once again:
If you think about how much they spend on a single person and ads, then
you realize how much money they are saving on taxes, or the profits that they
actually have. You also realize that
they can pay someone like me for 2,000 years on 200 million. This includes all the extra costs in having
an employee, because my salary is around 77,000 a year.)
Now if the Supreme Court’s opinions about opt. in, or even
opt. out, is enforced in unions, then
why shouldn’t public corporations have to go their stock holders to have them
opt. in/out of their political support?
I know how they will get around having to do this: Give their CEO a bonus of 20 million and then
they give it to the political campaign, but still… shouldn’t they have to tell
their stock holders how they spend their money on attack ads against unions or
for politicians and give them an opportunity to remove their profits from that
expenditure?
Workers and Corporations need to share the voice in
politics. The corporations need to
remind us that receiving profits and being successful are an important part of
a healthy economy. Workers need to
remind us that they are the majority and deserve to be seen as more important
than a bottom line, or that an extremely large profit is all going to a
relative few at the top of the corporation structure. To take away one of these voices would be
detrimental to America. We need to
encourage debate and thinking, not create an environment that silences the
opposition because they have less/more money.
The only way workers will be able to compete with the trillion dollars American
corporations have right now in savings (seriously hire someone with that money,
you could hire me for 10,000,000 years with that!) is to come together
collectively with $20 each and a voice.
That is called a union and that is why I support them.
