Unlike MOST Indo-Americans, Haley is an idiot.

Attacking working people just because they belong to a union is also a display of a huge degree of ignorance. As far as union leadership its much like our political system.

Why any surprise? This is a typical response from the low-brow, knuckle-dragging union leadership....and this is NOT a knock against union members, the vast majority of which are hard working people just trying to care for their mailies. Unfortunately, they are way too often easily duped by leadership and fail to employ critical thinking that takes them beyond the immediate.

My family,including myself, have also been in labor unions for generations. I find this act disgusting!

It was a tasteless joke, but they weren't taking food out of Haleys mouth as she is trying to do with American middle class taxpayers (union members)

The unions of the 40's & 50's were find back in the day. The unions of today are destroying America. We don't need the likes of Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. and his thugs.

Cold War Vet,
I'm a teamster and I don't think unions are destroying America at all. Unions didn't cause the housing bubble or the collapse of the big banks which caused my home value to plumet and my grocery and gas bills to sky-rocket. Corporate greed is destroying America.

@Cold War Vet: "The unions of the 40's & 50's were find back in the day. The unions of today are destroying America. We don't need the likes of Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. and his thugs."

well you are entitled to your opine...but perhaps you should do some research...it's as easy to google as it is to listen to rush, laura, beck, etal.

my opine: its is the greedy bastards and GOP economic policies that have/are destroying america...the abject 1929 and 2008 failure of the GOP policies make it painfully obvious voodoo economics do not work...it's trickle UP not down as indicated by the 1% controlling the majority of the wealth...

on what are your "unions destroying america" comments based...

Oh my, Robert, what planet do you live on? Union ARE corrupt and greedy. Most of the dues paying people in these unions are not. They are being mislead by the unions that are trying to be the third political party of this nation. Unions need to be unions once more and get out of politics.

They once where a good idea.....now they are self serving. They are ripping themselves off, by increasing they costs of everything the government touches. There is a reason that the in the non-government arena they are not even used. So an electrician that works on your house or Red Lobster earns 25-30 and hour while a union electrician earns 60-80 an hour. Also they get 12 and hour into the pension and 15 an hour into the Cadillac health programs....but hey the government has the money right??

Especially PEOPLE running the Unions!!! They are truly the only ones getting rich!!
I can't undestand how people, who work so hard, could be fooled by these Unions into giving them money to "Take care of Them" when what the unions are doing is really sitting back and collecting money and laughing all the way to the bank with your hard earned money!! Unions will break this country and push more and more businesses to leave this country. Has any union worker figured out that you may be getting paid more but figure out how much is actually going into these Unions and deduct that from your pay and I think you might be surprised how much your really making! Are you better with the unions? I think not

Greg, get real. Do you think people who view this site are so dumb as to believe you without checking a source? "The median annual wage of electricians was $48,250 in May 2010. The median wage is the wage at which half the workers in an occupation earned more than that amount and half earned less. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $29,400, and the top 10 percent earned more than $80,890." BTW - $12 an hour into pension? Not only is *that amount* bunk, but do you think we don't know who pays that pension? THE WORKERS DO. And health insurance you claim costs $30,000 annual? *Do you think we're that dumb?* Do everyone - especially YOURSELF - a favor: don't post anything here unless you have legitimate source to back your claims up. I'll start, too- here's mine: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Construction-and-Extraction/Electricians.htm#tab-5

@LA Mary Contrary: "...Unions need to be unions once more and get out of politics."
without the unions in politics the greedy bastards (TGB) would buy and rule our country...

do you suppose TGB are not misleading all the people...do you believe TGB are altruistic folks who really care more for the workers (the common good) than the unions...

REG

I am an employer....That is the direct cost for an electrician in San Francisco. Call the IBEW #6 and they will tell you the same thing. To the 77.00 cost then you add the indirect cost FICA, SS, W/C and then you have a loaded cost of 98.00 an hour that is before any profit or overhead is added.

Yes an Electrician makes 53.05 and hour on his weekly check. He also makes 10.42 and hour on his pension (6.00 goes to a personal pension) and 11.63 for his health insurance an hour, and additional 2.71 an hour goes for Union costs.

Please before you go off know your facts. these are only journeyman rate not foremen...110K on the check & 51.5K in benefits a year direct cost for one electrician. With a cost to the public of over 200K a year. (before you go off again within this cost are the indirect costs with O/P)

Greg - if you're an employer, then your business is about to go bust because you can't understand the documents you cite. And you don't know math, either, it seems. You're also trying to add FICA/SS in a new category while failing to realize that they were already listed in the same chart you cite. You're claiming health insurance costs $11.63 an hour - which is about $25,000 a year - when it only costs total for a family of four in that area just $7400 a year (and which the employee himself assumes much of the cost for). Your claim of $2.71/hour for union costs (~$5600/annual)- when union membership is only $400 annual on average? You're using made-up pension figures - without even acknowledging who pays for most of an actual pension amount (the employee himself)? You don't know what you're talking about AT ALL on this subject, Greg - or you're hoping that someone dumb enough to believe won't know much about it and will believe your wild interpretations of made-up numbers. If you are an actual employer in this trade, and want us to believe these made-up numbers, then tell us where to meet you when you bring your accounting records for us to peruse.

REG
Those are real costs, easily verifiable. Its apparent that those figures make you pause and you don't want to admit that those numbers are 100% union driven costs that are impacting costs but also their own members.

"Those are real costs, easily verifiable." you say? Then why did your own source defeat your claims that those were real costs. Ooooooh, that's right - you didn't understand your own source (and/or are hoping no one else can). Again - you say you are an employer, and can prove these costs - then tell us when and where to meet you so you can show us your payroll books.

Thanks MM, from reading the last post from reg, I forgot that these "blog"s are over run with paid spin doctors that talk and talk and say nothing of importance or even close to being on point.

It clearing shows the adversarial attitude in America today, where a meeting of the minds in clear and logical conversation is not possible.

I clearly shows my motto of Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story" but hell these spin doc's don't even make sense.....no wonder the easily influeneced in our country spew utter nonsense.

Retirement FDR and Social Security....Unions have had 3-5% increase every year including the present years when they are not working....there is no other money after the unions take all the excess government money with bloated payroll and benefits...the rest of the country are luck to get minimum wage...

Are plumbers and electricians worth 160k a year (San Francisco Wage) 12 an hour in pension and 17 and hour for health (36K a year)

This is totally unbalance and out of control

Hey Reg,
Union bosses are like executives, right, and they eat at fine Italian restaurants, while the lowly union worker eats boloney sandwiches and are TOLD how to vote in a union block, right. The way I see it, they're on the same plateau! There are working place wrongs that need to be addressed, but unions are not the road to correction, it's like the fox watching the hen house!

Please cite your sources for that "information," Mr. Vivaldi. (using SF #s, too! SF has a cost of living 4 times the national average!!) "The median annual wage of plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters was $46,660 in May 2010. The median wage is the wage at which half the workers in an occupation earned more than that amount and half earned less. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $27,580, and the top 10 percent earned more than $79,920." http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers-pipefitters-and-steamfitters.htm#tab-5

Janet: Annual salary of the national director of the Teamsters is $340,000; average wages of members of the Teamsters is $48000. Compare to: annual salary of the CEO of General Electric earned $21.4 million; average wages of non-execs at GE? $34,700. So what's wrong the picture here?

Unions have nothing to do with the above mentioned. Little Union story, the union representing the "workers" at a paper mill in Maine insisted that they go on strike that Internation Paper was sticking it to them. so the UNION workers went on strike and the Paper mill hired new workers, "scabs" as the Union leadership would tell you they were, all the while the leadership continued to insist that the "striking workers" stand their ground. IP made the workers/"scabs" permenant. What did the money grubbing, power sucking Unions do? Well they went in and signed up the "scabs" to be in the Union. Now who do you think came out the winner here? The workers that were striking at the bequest of the the Union leadership? I THINK NOT. Who supported NAFTA being passed? A DEMOCRAT, that is who, and with all the screaming from the Union leadership, who did they support in the next election, THAT VERY SAME DEMOCRAT that pushed it through. So when all you UNION workers line the pockets of the leadership, so they can do stuff like bashing a pinata, don't think for one moment that your pleas will fall on "we give a crap" ears. CLEAN UP YOUR OWN CORRUPT MESS, the rest of us are busy with the crap in DC.

Here is the site for the California Department of Industrial Relations that determine the prevailing wages in California.
www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/pwd/index.htm
look up electricians in San Fransico,
INSIDE WIREMAN 8/22/2011 05/31/2012** 53.050 11.630 K 10.420 F - 0.795 0.320 N 7.0 77.810 O 105.130 P 132.450 132.450
Werein they Cost 77.81 an hour then the employer fees so a union electrican costs are 100.00 an hour. Government projects have to pay this wage, that means the public pay these wages.

As you said the average wage is 45.00 that means that the Unions are ripping off the California public for 55.00 an hour.....an every State is like this, I guess you like being broke..

Greg, Greg, Greg - you're obviously not understanding your own sources. That's how much a company may charge the state of California for particular projects by particular employment classes. That's not how much those people make. For example, when you have your car repaired and are charged $45 an hour - do you think the mechanic got that $45 for every hour? The mechanic didn't get half that much - the employer got the rest (and notice on your source that the info you cite is grouped as "Employer Payments" and not "Employee Pay"). You're overlooking that of that amount charged by the company, and which it's "employer" (customer, this case the state) paid, much went to that company, its own liability insurance, its advertising, its rent on the building it uses, the utilities on that building, its vehicles and vehicle costs .... you're defeating your own argument yet again. And not only are you not understanding your source, but your source is from a metropolitan area that has COLA/CPI that are four times the national average, too.

@Greg Vivaldi

$77.81 sounds about right...but not the complete story...on many projects union contractor's have to compete with non union contractors and with other union shops...

as mentioned: many year ago, in CA, as an union shop i competed favorably with non-union shops...but to the point comparing union v non-union wages are not indicative of cost to taxpayers...ie, it can cost the taxpayer less to do business with a union shop.

and certainly does NOT indicate unions rip off taxpayers...unscrupulous contractors (especially defense contractors) rip off the taxpayers with outrageous construction extras...bid em low, stick it to em with extras...

FYI cost of living comparison: one making $61,000 in chas would have to make a $100,000 in SF to live a comparable life style...union rate reflect cost of area living.

my opine: your CA logic is faulty at best...and "every State is like this" doesn't compute...further:

re: I guess you like being broke...

CA is not broke...they have to balance their budget...so education, police, firemen, programs for the least, will be cut as GOPs prefer to give tax breaks to rich folks and big oil...

re: Are plumbers and electricians worth 160k a year (San Francisco Wage)
evidently in SF, they are being hired...unemployment %: SF 8.9; nationally 8.2; SC 8.8;

all is interesting...but does little if anything to show unions are destroying the USA...unions are T-GOPs scapegoat

I saw a corrupt policeman one time. A corrupt mailman. And a corrupt cashier at the local grocery store, too. So, according to aaron, we need anarchy?

When did the Obama administration try to block SC from operating in SC? That's the stinkiest piece of garbage on this thread. Boeing broke a law in Washington State that had nothing to do with its South Carolina facility. At no time was this one here any part of the circumstances. You don't know what you're talking about.

On those three principles: 1) less taxes for who? We have lowest taxes on wealth of all developed nations, but are the only one that taxes poverty 2) less government for who? People or businesses? We keep hearing screams about less govt for businesses - no business tax, no business regulations - but those same Tea Party officials (like Tim Scott) voted to make it legal for you to have to surrender your password to your employers; if you don't comply, you can be fired. So its less govt for companies, Big Brother for people? 3) personal responsibility? You want to talk personal responsibility? *Then take personal responsibility for the lie you just told about "implanted chip"* That's garbage, and if you don't know it, then I feel very very very sorry for you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

@reg: "...Then take personal responsibility for the lie you [KJC] just told about "implanted chip" That's garbage, and if you don't know it, then I feel very very very sorry for you."

well perhaps Kevin J Churchill just hasnt read the latest news (2009)

in addition to reg's snope's factcheck:

[CLIPs]
September 8, 2009 by Donny Shaw: There’s a new rumor going around about the Democrats’ healthcare bill that’s so absurd and off-base that I hesitate to even bring it up here in order to debunk it.

For more debunking of false rumors about the healthcare bill see this post linking the rumors to the actual bill text.

The portion of text people have been referencing to support their claims can be read here, in Title V, Subtitle C – “National Medical Device Registry.” If you read the actual bill text, it’s very clear that this microchip rumor is just completely made up.
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1202-The-Latest-Healthcare-Rumor-Microchip-Implants

NONE SO BLIND as those who will see or read...

You are a liar about the healthcare bill, and a liar about being an independent. You can't be a radical, right wing, extremist TeaBagger and say you are an independent.

Well, Joy, *I* am steamed that you're buying that lie about unions blocking Boeing's expansion into SC. *THAT'S A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD* Boeing broke a federal law in Washington; that had nothing to do with Boeing in SC. At no time did anyone or anything suggest Boeing would not be able to do anything here in SC because of the circumstance in Washington. All the union in Washington requested in settlement was that its facility would get first dibs on any overproduction that the new SC facility couldn't accommodate at order time. BTW - did you know that Boeing is paying SC employees 17% less than its Washington employees for the same job title/same work/same work hours? (still amazed that people claim how unAmerican it is to complain that Boeing got charged for its illegal actions in Washington, because those people apparently forget that Boeing is still paying the fine it was charged for selling military secrets to China - also has not paid its fine for hiring illegal aliens who were not trained to do welding on jets)

"We work for our living down here" - of course, we rank 42nd in income in the US - almost 20% below national average, too, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income) but rank 23rd in cost of living (http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm). Meanwhile, states with higher union presence have above average income, and below average costs of living. So pack your bags and hags like Nikki Haley, and head back 600 years to serfdom with all your other money-losing infidels. Better yet - just move to North Korea or China; those are the countries with govts and economies and earnings most similar to those under the GOTea in SC (which has held the governor's office, state senate and state house combined for the last 12 years, which is when our state headed toward the toilet).

That is an argument as old as the union bosses that have stolen millions from it's members and it doesn't mean anything anymore. Every benefit I have gotten I have earned, it hasn't been given to me because of some worthless union that has forced an employer to give it to me. I have been extremely successful in life, working for myself, with no help from some high and mighty union that thanks it knows what is best for me. Talk about dumb leeches; what about union members that continue to pay dues to line the pockets of the bosses and don't even have a choice in the matter. Unions are no better than organzed crime, forcing you to pay protection money. The only thing unions have sacrificed is the future of our country by forcing it's members to pay dues that are given to Obama and his cronies and forced companies to pay exhobitant salaries and benefits for lazy, you owe me-mentality, workers that can only get a job that a union has forced some company to give to them.

"forcing you to pay" - complete and utter garbage, morphus. There is no forced membership. There is no forced payment. You're just repeating the made-up lies the GOTea tells you to post on various blogs while using various made-up names in hopes of hiding your true identity. Pack up, Marcommunist. We'll miss you when you return to your fatherland of North Korea.

Michigan is broke because the three automakers laid off workers, then moved their production outside the US - mass unemployment, and an economy that could not afford the cars they once made there. California is broke because the GOP in its state congress eliminated all luxury taxes - no taxes on yachts or private planes, dropping its annual income by $480 million. It's technology companies then bailed out and moved production overseas - the state had no money, and its citizens had no money. THAT is what happened to calif. Illinois? currently with lowest unemployment its had in three years? So much so that it no longer has any long-term unemployment claims? Whatcha talking about, 'marcus'? And there you go with the "more to quality of life than money" GOTea line - lessee, we rank bottom education (now at lowest funding its had in 15 years), highest domestic violence, and still very very very high in unemployment. EXPLAIN THAT TO US, Marcus AuRepublicanius

@Marcus Aurelius: "...we could head to Michigan, Illinois, California, and all the other states dominated by unions that are broke and its citizens are flocking to the non-union controlled states...

re CA: "you know not of what you speak"...

people NOT flocking fr CA to SC or other states: CA 2010 pop, 37.3M; 2011 pop,37.7M...with me the exception, i know of no one who would flock to SC from LaLaLand...

there are many nonunion shops in CA...in another life, as a union (building trades) contractor i competed favorably (thanks to great union productivity) with non-union shops...paid over scale and shared profits(union was not officially aware of this)

BTW CA has deficit ibc GOPs blocked all measures to increase revenue...and the terminator GOP gov rescinded vehicle license fees in 2003...costing CA $4-6 billion annually.

further CA is not broke...by law they have to balance their budget...so education, police, firemen, programs for the least, will be cut as GOPs prefer to give tax breaks to rich folks and big oil...

oh/and, i didn't know "Marcus Aurelius"...but your comments indicate, "you are no Marcus Aurelius."...:) eg you seem to take all that limbo rush say as fact...

OTOH, Marcus Aurelius say:

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”

PS@reg

CA has not eliminated all luxury taxes...to my knowledge.

PPS@reg

re: CA has not eliminated all luxury taxes...to my knowledge

my mistake...sudda googled furst...there are no CA lux taxes...there is a federal lux tax on purchases of on jewelry over $10,000.

look at you parading your socialist let's spend spend spend attitude. And what the heck are you talking about receipt of a buck 35 for every buck sent to the federal government...maybe you should do a little more comparing and contrasting there buddy because SC refused to accept government mandated additions to the welfare rolls that the feds would only fund for 2 years SC actually receives less than other states. Go take a read of something professional and move your eyes away from liberal yellow journalism that's created to market a lie. Be responsable.

Don't worry, mm; it's apparent Archer can't read well. Let me translate this for him: Archer: for every $1 in federal taxes paid by people in SC, the federal government returns $1.35 back to SC. Because SC folks don't make any money. And they make no money because they have no rep-re-sent-ta-tion. (Funny - same guys defend professional athletes having an agent; don't care if they themselves get represented by anyone, though.)

reg I read just fine. I fail to see any logic in mm's statement. Most if not all states receive more in federal spending than they pay in tax. That's my point it's out of control spending that the problem and as for red states or blue states or slamming folks because the union hasn't taken over you may want to check some stats. If you were to really get into some data and statistics you may find it's more a rural situation and yes that's correct the farmer out there working their tail off isn't making what a rep-re-sent-ed union owned soul would make. And you know he and she probably vote according to their values instead what their rep-re-sent-ta-tive tells them to. Be responsable for yourself stop counting on some communist union shop to take care of your butt. Stand up be American--want to act European float on over to France. I hear they really like Americans over there.

Sorry, being the southern boy and native that I am, I ain't go nowhere, boy marcus. I think it's you who needs to go - straight to North Korea, since that's the economy and labor laws you're promoting here. Send us a postcard. And after you're gone, don't worry - we'll tend the graves that your American forefathers are rolling over in at the moment because of their disgust with you; deep disgust, too, since you're trying to defeat everything they fought for when they founded this country.

workers' compensation, right to representation at work .... add in the training that unions do, too - shoot, union members have work injuries at 1/5 the rate of non-union, too.

@Archer 45: "...I pay $30,000 for an $18,000 car today largely because of unions that have out lived their usefulness...ETCETC" Your being fed a spoon full of crap and you’re eating it up.

think inflation had anything to do with it...ie,

in 2010 yo car cost $30000; in 1990 same car cost $17561...in 1990 $30,000 would have been worth $49400

think perhaps Archer 45 is 'being fed a spoon full of crap and eating it up.'...no problem; but he should not try to get us to eat it as well.

A vast majority of the vehicles made in the US are *not* union made, Archer. Very few are, in fact. On union-made vehicles, the average clearing profit when the manufacturer sells it to a dealership - after all expenses, including labor and benefits - is $1700. That's how much the manu pockets on each one made by a union. On the non-union vehicles (that aren't even made in the US)? The average markup from manu to dealership - not including any stickerprice you pay - is $10,915. That's how much the manu clears on each of the millions of non-union vehicles made and sold in the US. They have them made outside US, pay low wages for them, bring them back and sell them here - and clear more than is imaginable. The workers can't afford them. That's why they almost flipped before - because US workers weren't making enough to buy the same cars. Add in flops in currency exchange ...

Continued: These pensions often to $100,000 a year and come with cost of living adjustments and free lifetime medical care. Getting a government job and sticking with it is like winning the lottery. This plundering of treasuries, made possible by aggressive union tactics and spineless politicians, results in higher taxes and massive debts that ultimately will be borne by our grandchildren. The current situation is "unsustainable." The problem goes beyond finances. Government unions protect even the worst public employees from accountability. Schools don't attempt to fire incompetent teachers-and union protections make it nearly impossible to even fire ones accused of abuse and other misdeeds. As government gets bigger and more powerful, government officials have more uncontrolled power over the rest of us-to enrich and protect themselves at the expense of the public good. The public's servants have truly become the public's masters.

It's becoming more and more obvious that anti-union people contributing to this site don't know diddly about unions. Y'all make up figures, cite FOX News stars, and have never been in a union, either. You don't know that unions can drop folks who don't do the work up to quality, for example - you make up pension figures, and cite the guy who's the front man for an organization made up and paid for by corporations.

Continued 3: Here's an excerpt from "Save the Children, Lose the Teachers’ Unions". Teachers’ unions are the new empire of evil. The word “evil” is the patent dishonesty the teachers’ unions use to advance their agenda. The steelworkers’ union doesn’t talk about looking out for the steel; they say they are looking out for their members. The UAW union doesn’t talk about looking out for the cars, they say they are looking out for their members. The Teamsters union doesn’t talk about looking out for the trucks they drive; they say they are looking out for their members. But listen to any pitch from the NEA or the American Federation of Teachers and they are always “fighting for the children.” Nonsense. If that's true they should all be horsewhipped for the awful job they are doing. Who are they fighting with? The parents? The taxpayers? It is a bald faced lie. They are fighting for the teachers and the children be damned. The TEA gives the same speech every year. They demand more money and make a bunch of promises to improve education all in the name of helping our children to be smarter and better able to face life's challenges.

Teachers should be horsewhipped for the awful job they are doing? .... did you ever stop to think that, because they are so low-paid in our state, that maybe all the best teachers packed up and went elsewhere? Here's a good one for you: the five states that are the worst in school test scores are the five states where teachers can not join a union (SC is at the bottom): http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-23/news/30101220_1_union-battle-teachers-unions-test-scores

Continued 4: Bull hockey! Citizens give money to schools to educate children NOT to lobby politicians. Union members pay dues to support paying the salaries and/or benefits of full-time or part-time union leaders and staff; union governance; legal representation; legislative lobbying; political campaigns; pension, health, welfare, and safety funds; and/or the union strike fund. BUT, union members have no say-so in how their dues are spent. Millions of union members have money taken from their paychecks to support a union presidents' political agenda.

Continued 5: Here's some stats -- 68% of registered voters say they are concerned that public employee unions have too much influence over politicians who, when elected, must negotiate with these groups. -- 66 percent of government and private union employees say it is unreasonable that union leaders across America can spend their dues on politics without getting their approval. -- 89% of private and government union employees agree that union workers should have the right to know how their dues money is being spent and believe the Department of Labor should disclose union spending on the Internet to ensure accountability.-- 89% of private and government union employees agree that union workers should have the right to know how their dues money is being spent and believe the Department of Labor should disclose union spending on the Internet to ensure accountability. -- 69% of private and government union employees believe union officials need to stop spending union dues on partisan politics and invest it in creating more jobs, as well as focus on the membership, not the elections. -- Use of members' money for political goals was second only to corruption as the reasons Americans disapproved of unions. That poll also found that 63% of all employees, and 61% of unionized employees, agreed that union members shouldn't be forced to contribute. -- A McLaughlin & Associates poll indicated 67% of workers were unaware of their right to withhold mandatory dues for politics.

Continued 6: A Nov 2008 exit poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research found that 67% of union members voted to elect Democrat Barack Obama president, compared to 30% who voted for Republican John McCain. -- CNN exit polls showed that 38% of union members voted for President Bush in the 2004 election, but more than 95% of union funds went to support Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. -- A 1999 Zogby poll found nearly 55% thought people should be given a choice of investing their Social Security taxes in some form of personal retirement accounts. But union officials spent millions of dollars to oppose private accounts in the Social Security system. -- The San Francisco Chronicle reported: “California unions spent $88,000 (public employee unions' share was $68,000) in opposing Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman”; a Los Angeles Times exit poll found that 58% of union households had voted yes on the measure. The Chronicle added: “California unions spent $32.7 million (public employee unions' share was $25.7 million) to oppose the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis, yet exit polls found half of union members voted for the recall and 56% voted for a Republican candidate to replace him—43% for Schwarzenegger and 13% for Tom McClintock.”

In 1992, the Teamsters reportedly gave a massive amount of political money to the presidential candidate it knew its membership did not support. According to author Duke Zeller, “As for the actual amount of Teamster money poured into the Clinton-Gore campaign, Gene Giacumbo, a former elected member of [former Teamsters president Ron] Carey's board, believes the total figure to be even higher. 'Carey himself bragged to me that the union gave $56 million to Clinton,' he confirmed, 'and this was after an independent, outside poll the union paid for showed the membership responses preferred Perot, then Bush, with Clinton in third place.'”

Teachers have a lot to learn. Between 1990 and 2010, 93% of donations made by NEA political action committees and individual officers went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. According to the NEA's own “Status of the American Public School Teacher 2005-2006,” (latest available data produced March 2010) only 41% of public school teachers are Democrats. A Wall Street Journal editorial revealed that the NEA, the nation's largest teachers union, "Is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on 'political activities and lobbying' and another $65.5 million on 'contributions, gifts and grants' that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.” The Journal added that the NEA's financial disclosure forms “expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.”

More falsehoods from the self-declared "Vet" - union dues contribute to, and pay for the management of, retirement funds for its members. Union dues pay for legal representation. Union dues pay for much of the training and consistent additional education of teachers. Union dues do NOT pay for - in fact, *legally cannot, according to federal law* - any type of political donations or campaigns. It's becoming more and more apparent that you don't know squat about this topic. Either you're repeating what you hear on FAUX News, or you're just typing up what's on the troll handbook they GOTea gave you.

@reg: "... and cite the guy who's the front man for an organization made up and paid for by corporations.

the guy: Greenhut was deputy editor, senior editorial writer and columnist for The Orange County [OC] Register in Santa Ana, Calif...Steven Greenhut is a Senior Fellow and contributing editor of the Pacific Research Institute's Journalism Center

Pacific Research Institute (PRI)
PRI's John R. Graham, spoke at a Workshop at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting

some PRI funders:
Altria, ChevronTexaco, Cypress Semiconductor, Exxon Mobil, Freedom Communications, Microsoft, Pfizer, PhRMA, SBC (now AT&T), Verizon, White House Writers Group

The White House Writers Group (WHWG) was founded in 1993 by "five former White House speechwriters", many colleagues from the George H.W. Bush Administration...Media Transparency calls WHWG "an umbrella firm of former ghostwriters for Republican presidents and bureaucrats now at the service of anyone willing to pay.

BTW OC is reder than SC...

@COLD
yo unsubstantiated party line hyperbole adds nothing to my understanding of the issues...nor do they offer any solutions...except the elimination of unions...which would be as big a mistake as the iraq war...

Your citation doesn't support your argument, vet. No legal decision pertaining to Citizens United, or any other legal ruling, ever overruled the long-standing law that says union dues can not ever be used for political campaign donations of any kind.

Look who you're quoting! I participated in the conference calls with Romney when he was campaigning here - he and his supporters all kept mentioning false info about Boeing. I called them out on it, but they wouldn't answer my question - because they COULDN'T answer. They were making it up. CITE LAW, VET - DON'T GIVE US WHAT ONE SIDE SAID. Since 1981, it's been federal law that union dues can't be used for political contributions. Unions can set up separate funds, and its members may or may not contribute to it, that go to campaign donations. BUT UNION DUES CAN'T BE USED IN THAT FASHION. FEDERAL LAW. STOP THE LIES.

When you say unions, you mean middle class AMERICAN taxpayers and workers. The billionaire in Vegas gave $21.5 million to Gingrich for president. Now, in your mind, how many American middle class workers are needed to match this one man's campaign contribution.

National Labor Relations Act 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169, made into law almost 80 years ago when unions were first recognized in federal law, clearly states that union dues cannot be used for political contributions. In a Supreme Court case from about 30 years ago, (Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735), that ruling was enforced. Union dues are only used for union function. Other funds, and which union members have no obligation to contribute to (under same 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169), are where unions make political donations - and only to candidates that a majority of its membership supports.

You're making it clearer and clearer what your true purpose is in your anti-union (and pro-communist) arguments: you're whining that they contribute to political campaigns that you don't like. You're also making it clearer that you're spreading these lies here for political purposes. Give it, 'vet' - you're a GOTea/pro-Marxist/anti-American troll.

Oh, that's good, Give us an article about a so-called "meeting" that got organized by marxist rep Darrel Issa (the same guy who wasted our tax dollars by having a hearing in Charleston about something that happened in Washington State). At least that article mentions the laws that say union dues can't be used for political campaigns, no matter what Issa and "vet" keep trying to say.

LOL @ marxist Rep. Darrel Issa. The real marxist occupies 1500 Pennsylvania Ave.

By 'real marxist,' vet, i think you mean WAITING TO OCCUPY 1500 Penn ave. Because it's Romney who's promising practice of Marxist Economics in the US - just like he practiced them in his business. Do you even know what Marxist Economics is?

@ CWV and reg: I think you mean 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., unless you're calling Tim Geitner a Marxist - which could be a possibility I guess.

It's not up to corporations to decide who should be elected or re-elected to a particular office; I don't hear you complaining about Citizens United, which allows unlimited donations from companies and without them even being identified. and if unions were so politically influential, like you claim, then why have wages in the US been stifled - no growth, in loss, over the last 30 years, while CEO wages have quadrupled? You're also forgetting (or are hoping everyone else forgets) that *union members ARE American citizens* - corporations that skip US taxes, and move production outside the US, and whose CEOs give up US citizenship to play around with one country's funky tax laws - ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Editorial by the Wall Street Journal (part 2): "This is the same financial industry that the same liberal critics say is full of greedy schemers when it comes to padding their own pay or ripping off consumers. But financiers can't be both knaves and diabolical geniuses at the same time. Learning about Bain successes like Staples or Gartner or Steel Dynamics confirms the logical conclusion that Bain had to be creating value along the way -- for investors, for lenders, and that means for workers too."

I'm not making this stuff up. Read the news.

"I'm not making this stuff up." Sure - it's the writer of that editorial who's making it up.
"Read the news." Last minute school lesson for you, vet - AN EDITORIAL IS OPINION, NOT NEWS. And here's another one for you - do you know who owns and operates the Wall Street Journal? RUPERT MURDOCH - the same guy who owns and operates Fox News. And why is that pertinent? In 2002, Murdoch and Fox News argued in federal court that they have no legal obligation to tell the truth, and can even knowingly provide false information. They won that case, too.

@cold..."...I'm not making this stuff up. Read the news."

read ALL the news...eg WSJ and NYT...maybe even the liberal rag Mother Jones and GOP Cato institute...

re: 'Unions have become way too powerful and influential in political campaigns and it has to stop. Unions are funding and buying political candidates and elections. It's not up to the unions to decide who should be elected or re-elected to a particular office, it's up to the American citizens.'

OTOH

THE GREEDY BASTARDS have become way too powerful and influential in political campaigns and it has to stop. THE GREEDY BASTARDS are funding and buying political candidates and elections. It's not up to THE GREEDY BASTARDS to decide who should be elected or re-elected to a particular office, it's up to the American citizens.

the greedy bastards fough/fight for cheap labor and profits for gen bullmoose...the unions fought/fight for a living wage and justice for all...the greedy bastards have/are destroying the middle class...the union made the middle class.

all said “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” (the real Marcus Aurelius)

And? again, you're revealing your true grip here. You have no valid complaint against labor unions. You're just upset that they're not supporting your GOTea heroes. My advice? If you want to support those GOTea folks, then move to the country that currently uses their Marxist Economics policies they keep trying to force upon us - you have a choice between China and North Korea. Be sure to send us a postcard!!

I fear unions, but I fear folks like you more. You're the kind of person that thinks banks are trying to “lynch currency” when they ask you to show a photo ID before cashing a check. 7/11's are trying to “lynch parties” when they ask for a photo ID before selling you the MD 20/20, but oppose Voter ID.

And this is yet another GOTea/Karl Rove tactic - when your false argument gets you caught in the corner, try to misdirect by spewing out even more false information on a completely different topic.

Ah, Linda Chavez. on the board of directors of two Fortune 1000 companies. A Fox News analyst. George W. Bush's secretary of labor. Yeah, so-called Vet, we'll believe what she has to say.....

That sure is real, 'vet' - "unions represent millions of working Americans, struggling under the weight of austerity policies and a stagnant economy, who are getting increasingly fed up with their treatment by politicians." Thanks for finally using some valid source, especially since it deflates your made-up argument.

@reg: '...that are owned by the GOTea, which uses them to use what's known as "confusion tactics" in advertising...'

sad it works (with sheep)...COLD does not mention unions in his last message (hyperbolic ,T-GOP, harangue...has moved goal posts...to multi ailments..."A-Z of What's Wrong With America"...matbe COLD WV believes unions caused the A-Z's...