begin quoting Chris Mauricio as of Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:17:22AM -0700: [snip] > I said support for unions using dues in a political context ( ads, > contributiuons etc ) was low. The proposed bill would allow for those union > members who *disagree* with the use of dues for a particular political > statement or direction to request a refund or refuse to contribute: case in
Once unions do their job and becomes sources of political power in and of themselves, is it _possible_ to prevent 'em from being co-opted by the politically-minded for their (the politically-minded) own ends? > point- the teachers union just 'assessed' additional dues of $780 / per > year (I may be off on the figure ) for political positioning ( my words ) > mostly attaking Arnolds stance on tenure, merit pay etc. Under current law, > all union members pay, regardless of their feelings about the stance of the > union. Last I heard, non-union members paid dues to the union for the ability to NOT be a member. > Under the proposed bill they could request a refund. In states with > similar laws, the participation in these contributions have fallen from a > mandatory 100% participation to a voluntary 7% participation. The message is > clear at least in the area of political arean regarding unions. People are cheap? Yah, that's a message I can agree with. -Stewart "Something for nothing. And right now, dammit!" Stremler
pgpIjQjNgbXnQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
