From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Union Dues or Taxes -- King George is Exactly Right!
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:22:00 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Brett aka Stupendous Man, 15 Apr) writes:
(Subject: Re: Union Dues or Taxes -- King George is Exactly Right!)
|
|In article B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice, 13 Apr) wrote:
|> Amazing. Chairman Bush is moving to enforce the restriction that
|> union dues not be used to support political action against an
|> individual worker's wishes. (This is an '88 supreme court ruling.)
|>
|> Doesn't this set a precedent that an individual's *taxes* should not be
|> used for political actions against an individual citizen's wishes??
|>
|> Correct me if I'm mistaken...
|
|    You left out the fact that it was *non* union members forced to pay
|dues to unions who can now prevent the unions from using that money for
|political purposes.
|
|    Changes the scenery a bit, eh?

Sure does. It's a lot more like me being forced to pay for the insanity
of the republicrats who are in office, though I'm an independent moderate.

But let's see what it says here in the paper (Dallas Morning News 14 Apr),
"Bush moves to limit labor; union backs Clinton" ...

        From Wire Reports

          WASHINGTON -- President [sic.] reinforced a Supreme
          Court decision granting workers more control over unions'
          political spending on Monday, ....

          Mr. Bush signed an executive order that requires
          federal contractors to tell non-union employees who
          have to pay union fees that the money cannot not [sic.]
          be used for political purposes against their wishes....

          At issue are the fees that non-union workers sometimes
          are required to pay when they are covered by a union
          contract. The fees ensure that the non-union workers
          do not get a free ride from collective bargaining
          agreements negotiated by a union.

          The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that the fees from non-
          union workers could not be used to finance political
          activities such as phone banks, newsletters and get-out
          -the-vote campaigns -- if the workers objected. Workers
          would be eligible for refunds in such cases....

The obvious liberal/pro-labor/democratic slant of this article notwith-
standing -- this is very interesting. Lets apply a very restrictive
interpretaion limiting the issue to just campaigning (as described by
the news article), rather than to politics in general .

If non-union workers can not be forced to support the political campaign
efforts of unions, then I as a non-partisan taxpayer should not be forced
to pay for =any partisan action= made by any member of government during
the time that an officholder is performing their official duties. The 
difference is that there's no way to get a refund or to exclude a specific 
taxpayer's particular "contribution," so absolutely no partisan politickin' 
should be legal on the tax-payers' time.

As SM points out about a "scenery" change, it's tolerable when your own
chosen representatives are feathering their re-election with your
"contribution," but when a politician spouts party idolatry directly
counter to your wishes, whether using dues or tax money -- well, a person 
just shouldn't have to pay to have their own throat cut.

In application, I think that means that *no* politician should be able to
forego work time to campaign. If they want to do it on their own time fine,
but not on tax-payers' time.

Whether it's non-union workers, or non-partisan tax-payers, the principle
is the same -- No one should be forced to pay for political action against
their own political stance. The '88 Supreme Court decision might be a way
to get tough on *all* incumbents seeking re-election, since they act
against the public trust to do so.

I think Mario Cuomo would agree since he didn't run for a similar reason,
and based on president Bush's move on the unions, I don't see how he can
disagree. Bill Clinton... I think we all know where he'd stand.

  / Stephen D. Tice \      |      /                                    \
  )                 (   -- S --   )  No campaigning on tax-payer time. (
  \ Arlington Texas /      |      \                                    /