Unions	Email me
Norm's Soapbox- My corner of Hyde Park

Unions vote. They are taxpayers. The big anti union money is from out of state, hence not eligible to vote. Why should out of state money have more of a say than resident voters?

Government and business has much power, and only by joining together do employees get enough power to have any say. They can choose to drop pensions and health care and get it all in cash, or take less cash and get other benefits, and negotiate for that. The result is a contract that needs to be honored. Effective negotiating is honest. Saying "we'll give you pension money instead of cash now" requires the pension be funded or it is a lie. I can't blame the union for the company's pension going under.

Why do Republicans insist that it is good for corporations that can not vote to spend millions in elections in locations they are not in, yet object to unions, who's members can vote, spending money in elections?

Walker lies in saying that unions must loose collective bargaining in order to balance his budget, proven by his omitting police and fire unions.

Negotiating is just that: a means of coming to an agreement on what is to be traded. What work will be done under what conditions for what pay and benefits. Failure to negotiate within your ability to fulfill the terms of an agreement is a failure, be it a union contract or mortgage and legally applies to both sides. Kaslich and Walker are admitting they are not competent.

The Right has complained about Unions' involvement in politics who's members vote in elections. They have tried to prevent Unions from spending any money in politics. As a Union member I have consented and voted to use designated funds politically for my interests.

To advance the Idea of one man, one vote, eliminate complaints that their money used against their wishes and to increase the democracy would be to would be to require specific permission from each person in an aggregate group eligible to vote, restricting all funds not from a consenting registered voter. That would mean every Union member, association member, club member, business owner, and share holder (business owner) would have to confirm thier registration to vote and specifically assent to the use of their money for political purposes. Since Funds are commingled aggregates from many people, often retirement plans, they would not be able to separate proportions and determine eligibility, those would be eliminated as would foreign money. No voter under this plan would be funding political causes they oppose. Restricting financial political speech to voters will involve more citizens, eliminate foreign money, and insure more accurate representation.

10/2/2012