When I worked at the National Citizens Coalition, I always made sure to push for the rights of unionized employees who objected to union bosses using their forced dues for political purposes.
I am glad to see the Fraser Institute is picking up the fight.
The opt out idea is wrong because again it places the burden on the union member to withdraw from making political contributions via the union. The law should require that the member opt in to paying a sum (quantum in the discretion of the union member), either lump sum or regular contributions to the political activities of the union. The best solution is simply to outlaw use of union dues for any political purpose in the same way charities are unable to use contributions for political purposes.
ReplyDeleteProhibiting unionization within all public sector "industries" is a primary consideration with relation to this specific topic, IMO.
ReplyDeleteCan I opt out of the portion of my taxes that subsidizes agriculture, as well as the portion that subsidizes the Fraser Inst. through their charity status?? How about Sky Boxes and business "lunches".
ReplyDeleteOr "the Mission". Or preferential tax treatment for "investment" income.
Phil:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to equate union dues to taxes.
Does that mean you see unions as some sort of alternative government.
Do you think union bosses should also set their foreign policies and command their own armies?
No, I don't see unions as an alternative government, but in this context I absolutely equate union dues and taxes.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, by subsidizing the Fraser Inst., I am being forced to pay for political lobbying I don't support.
Gary is quite mistaken. The Fraser INST. has charitable status and everything they do is political. Obscene, but true.
How do you define political lobbying? The Fraser Institute simply makes information available to politicians, while the unions get actively involved in political campaigns. This seems a crucial distinction to me.
ReplyDeleteMD