Ohio Discussion > Ohio Politics

Ohio "Right-to-Work" Movement

<< < (8/12) > >>

E Rocc:

--- Quote from: cortlandgirl79 on February 15, 2012, 08:26:29 AM ---My dad always says that most companies that have a union probably deserve one (or deserved one when the union was formed). If business/managers treated people right you would never see union organization.

--- End quote ---

That's pretty much my view, and I've worked in management in both union and non-union places.  Places where the decision makers are offsite are particularly likely to "need" a union.  Hell, sometimes the on-site managers can use it as an excuse to treat people right.

I'm a conservative that has no use for the Democratic Party, so this view isn't in line with the "party line".  But I do think a secret ballot is absolutely essential, so "card check" is a horrible idea.   I also think you need strict bans on using union money for political advocacy, and it needs to be just as easy to decertify a union as to certify one, and vice versa.

Gramarye:
I agree about card check and the need for secret ballots.

As for using union money for political purposes, that should be an issue for the members of the union internally once the union is certified; I have serious problems with any legislative restraints on such spending.  I no more support a ban on union political activity than on corporate political activity (indeed, the two are essentially legally indistinguishable).  Corporations are, in the abstract, associations of owners of capital; unions are associations of owners of labor.  That conceptual distinction is meaningless under the First Amendment and meaningless under most laws other than the enabling laws and resulting regulations of the Department of Labor itself.

The one practical distinction is that it is often much easier for a dissatisfied shareholder to exit the arrangement than it is for a union member--a shareholder can generally sell his shares with less disruption to his life than a union member who chooses to leave his job due to dissatisfaction with his union's political spending.  However, it isn't always so easy even in the corporate context, because most corporations out there are not publicly traded, and minority shareholders in closely held corporations can't always get out on a dime, either.

Hts121:
I was going to say what I think Gramarye sort of hinted at...... wouldn't a ban on using union funds for political advocacy be in violation of the Citizens United decision?

Gramarye:
At the very least, bans on any expenditures to facilitate or disseminate union political speech would be.

The distinction that advocates of restraining mandatory contributions for political activities make is that they're proposing restrictions on where unions can get money from, not what they can spend it on.  I'm not sure how well that holds up.  No other shareholders, partners, members, donors, etc. of non-natural legal persons have the automatic right to receive partial reimbursements of their financial contributions if they disagree with all or part of the speech of their organization.  This goes well beyond the for-profit corporation context.  I do not have the right to demand a partial refund of my Federalist Society dues even though I don't espouse every single position of the organization.

Large, multipurpose nonprofits are the most sophisticated about this, actually; their dependence on voluntary support often makes them uniquely accommodating of donor concerns, and their multipurpose missions make them able to accommodate a wide variety of requests.  For example, while Ohio State might prefer that I make a completely unrestricted gift, they will absolutely work with me and other donors to establish funds earmarked for particular purposes if there is enough interest from the donor community.  In fact, they have hundreds of separate funds set up for specific purposes to make channeling donations easier, because they know that voluntary contributions are generally larger when the donor has more control over the use of their money.  Thus, even if Ohio State does adopt a position that I oppose, I really can say that I didn't directly fund it, notwithstanding the fungibility of money.  Granted, if it's serious enough, donors dry up anyway just out of protest, but at least the money they actually gave is relatively separated from the activities they oppose.

Hts121:
Here we go again.  Just as a majority in the U.S. Senate apparently doesn't count for sh!te....... 65% of the Ohio electorate rejecting attempts at union busting apparently means nothing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page