Defund the Police?

[ghbucky]

You might start by explaining how it is that (in your opinion) public unions screw the taxpayers.

I already did up-thread. I'll try again.

1) taxpayer funds go to the police. The union skims off the top of their salary in the form of dues.
2) The union dues are then used to fund the campaign of a key friendly politician. Nudge, nudge, wink wink.
3) Contract renewal time comes up and the union reps sit down at the negotiating table across from the politician they helped elect.

Who represents the taxpayers? Not the politician, that is for sure. The union? Give me a break.

That's how you end up with taxpayers on the hook for making up the difference in ridiculously underfunded pensions.

These are the facts. It is not a logical debate. This is how it works.

 

[Metal god]

That's how you end up with taxpayers on the hook for making up the difference in ridiculously underfunded pensions.

That's what happened here in San Diego with city council pensions . Not the same as far as unions but is when it comes to our own reps screwing us . We tax payers literally can't afford the pensions they voted them selves to have . If you serve one 2 or 4 year term you get your yearly salary for the rest of your life or something like that it might be more . It's been a few years since we ( San Diego ) have talked about it but we got screwed for like 15+ years with what was city council votes helping them selves . I believe we had a ballot measure a few years back to stop all that but we are on the hook for all that came before it .

Elected officials do this stuff all the time , most times they think its a good idea . We once guaranteed the NFL we would pick up the tab for any unsold seats at the Charger home games so all the home games would be televised . That cost the city SO MUCH MONEY because the team owner nor the NFL had any incentive to actually sell tickets , they were guaranteed a sell out no matter what . It didn't help we had a terrible team at the time so nobody went to go see them . It was meant to help the fans see the home games but we have a 70k+ seat stadium and we were barely selling half the seats . I think it was costing the city over 2 million dollars a game . These were the same city council members voting them selves raises and secured pensions when it's not your money it's very easy to spend .

I know of two retired teachers that make more a year in retirement then they ever did in any given year when they actually worked . I actually think I'm OK with that one . They don't get paid all that well for what they do . The least we can do is give them a good retirement but to be honest I've not thought that theory though much but it seems reasonable to me .

 

[HiBC]

It is my opinion that there is an incestuous quid pro quo between union donations to political parties and how those parties spend taxpayer dollars.

You might browse here and see what conclusions you draw.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/top-donors

 

[SIGSHR]

There seems to an attitude among some that police budgets are like the Pentagon's, a cash cow to pay for social programs and somehow having a strong defense establishment increases the chance of conflict.

 

[heyjoe]

GH Bucky and Tennessee gentleman you are both factually incorrect again. Union Dues cannot be spent on political contributions. Separate voluntary PAC's have to be set up for political contributions. No one is forced to contribute to those PAC's.

Tennessee Gentleman forced at the point of a gun? histrionic much?

 

[PocketCamera]

were i live, the average school teacher earns 48,000 dollars per school year.

the average walmart employee earns 10.10 per hour and works at best 30-40 hours per week. and gets paid Bi WEEKLY after all state and federal deductions, health care costs, etc. the paycheck is about 500$

the teacher works perhaps what, 8 months a year. and cant be fired for anything due to union contract.

the walmart employee stocking your food, risks getting fired any time they dont bow, scrape, and kiss the grimey ass of whatever diseased, filthy, drug using customer is yelling at them to find the meijer brand catsup....

 

[ghbucky]

GH Bucky and Tennessee gentleman you are both factually incorrect again. Union Dues cannot be spent on political contributions. Separate voluntary PAC's have to be set up for political contributions. No one is forced to contribute to those PAC's.

This is a naive statement. A web search for "union dues political contributions" will list pages of links.

Here is an example
https://www.nrtw.org/illegal-pac-funding

It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees’ money taken without their written authorizations.

Emphasis mine.

[edit] Note that this is only for Federal elections. There is no tracking done at local levels, which is where the real corruption occurs.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Tennessee Gentleman forced at the point of a gun? histrionic much?

Nope, factual. All taxes are forced with the threat of violence for non-compliance. Makes the point of the corruption and the lack of not being able to opt out.

GH Bucky and Tennessee gentleman you are both factually incorrect again. Union Dues cannot be spent on political contributions.

Just a money shell game played by the unions. They often get around that with Super PACS. Janus helped that partly with the "opt in" requirement but as stated above at the local level particularly it is naive to believe that those dues don't get funneled to candidates friendly to the union.

 

[Metal god]

Supreme court says money is speech . What about passing a law that says you cannot contribute to politicians that can directly or indirectly affect your collective-bargaining negotiations ? reasoning , conflict of interest .

Nevermind , You would just have police unions from LA agree on funding San Diego politicians if San Diego PD unions fund LA politicians . Loophole complete

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What about passing a law that says you cannot contribute to politicians that can directly or indirectly affect your collective-bargaining negotiations ? reasoning , conflict of interest.

Here's a better idea. Neuter public sector unions.

 

[zukiphile]

Supreme court says money is speech . What about passing a law that says you cannot contribute to politicians that can directly or indirectly affect your collective-bargaining negotiations ? reasoning , conflict of interest .

My objection would be that Congress shouldn't have the right to regulate union speech any more than it should be regulating any other speech.

Money is speech, but so is speech and campaigning. Where a union can "persuade" its members to work for a campaign it is also capable of the same kind of conflict and abuse of employees.

Where we are worried about an abuse of influence, the better course is to discourage the abuse, not the influence. If all aspects of labor union participation were voluntary, and racketeering aspects of union activity were reliably prosecuted, you'd be left with people acting voluntarily and within existing law, but not impairing anyone's free association rights.

 

[dahermit]

were i live, the average school teacher earns 48,000 dollars per school year.

the average walmart employee earns 10.10 per hour and works at best 30-40 hours per week. and gets paid Bi WEEKLY after all state and federal deductions, health care costs, etc. the paycheck is about 500$

the teacher works perhaps what, 8 months a year. and cant be fired for anything due to union contract.

the walmart employee stocking your food, risks getting fired any time they dont bow, scrape, and kiss the grimey ass of whatever diseased, filthy, drug using customer is yelling at them to find the meijer brand catsup....

The "average" school teacher has gone on from their bachelor's degree and obtained a Master's degree. They generally spend their time getting that Master's in the Summer months between June 10 and Labor day. You seem to have not noticed that teacher's "hours" include conferences, off the clock meetings and many hours at home at the kitchen table correcting papers (many from students who do not give a rip). Your post also begs the question: How much should a person with a master's be paid...have you compared private sector pay and benefits for a person with a master's with teacher pay? Lastly, if the pay and "all that time off" is so wonderful, why did you not choose to become a teacher?

Also notable is that many teachers leave the profession shortly after seeing what they have to put up with where as person's in other professions where master's degrees are requied, seem not to leave. Here in Michigan, with a "right to work law", teachers are not required to join a union anymore, but if they run into a problem with the administration, the union is still required to represent them at no cost to the non-paying, non-member.

 

[zukiphile]

Your post also begs the question: How much should a person with a master's be paid...have you compared private sector pay and benefits for a person with a master's with teacher pay?

A masters degree in what? A person with a masters in petroleum engineering may be qualified to do things a person without that degree usually can't. A person who teaches freshman english before and after his masters degree in education is doing the same job. It isn't obvious that simply having an additional degree would entitle that person to greater pay, yet that is a feature of the CBAs under which many teachers and librarians are employed.

It's a curious notion that a person with a masters should be more generously compensated. If a person has a masters of science in equity and diversity, PocketCamera may have accurately identified the reasonable compensation for having that degree. $10.10 an hour isn't great, but it is more than zero.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A masters degree in what?

Good point. In fact I have always questioned the need for a Masters degree in teaching especially in elementary education. My suspicion is that this degree requirement was "baked into" the system by the education lobby because in the academic world degrees are how you keep score. I've seen similar "qualifications" in other professions that I find dubious to the good executive of that profession. But you're right in that the salary should be determined by the demand and hence the value of it(advanced degree). Not just having one.

 

[ghbucky]

I would have no issues with teachers pay being high if there was any correlation between teacher pay and the educational result. But there isn't.

Unions, inevitably create an adversarial relationship with the ownership. Which should be intolerable for public employees to be in an adversarial relationship with taxpayers. But here we are.

Think about LE officers who don't have union representation. They seek out their own training, maybe through a vocational program. Then they take their training and seek an entry level position in a police department at starting pay. They gain experience and maybe specialize. Maybe this guy has a talent for solving cold cases. So he learns his chops and opens a consulting firm where he helps departments clear their cold cases.

Teaching could be the same. A teacher goes through an annual review where they make the case that they have helped x number of kids through y problem, and justifies why they are providing value. Maybe a teacher sharpens their skills teaching math to developmentally disabled children. They find a school system struggling in this area and can demand a premium for their skills.

Instead in today's unionized world, public employees face arbitrary milestones, like years in, or getting a masters degree for pre-programmed raises that have no bearing on their performance.

And to take this back (sorta) to topic, you end up with police who are represented to their employees (the public) in an adversarial relationship. Cops who get multiple complaints of misbehavior or records of brutality are protected by unions until and unless they are part of some highly publicized event. And even then there are highly publicized cases where they get re-instated with back pay despite egregious failings of duty.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Accountability is always the issue with gubmint workers. They want authority and no responsibility. This is endemic to gubmint work and so must be fought always. Also, gubmints tend to grow and get more power if they can. This too must be fought.

However, with the topic of police, there must be accountability for EVERY SINGLE TIME force of ANY type is used. Most times the force will be deemed appropriate I have no doubt, but subject to such scrutiny it must be held.

Unions have till now help thwart such scrutiny and so their power should be curtailed. I believe this will occur in the not so distant future.

 

[heyjoe]

National Right To Work is not an unbiased source. You of course believe what you want to believe despite the facts. You present no facts.....only a statement that says suggests this or that. You can spin it anyway you want,but it is against the law for a union to use union dues for political contributions period. If they were doing so they right would and should be prosecuted. I get it that you dont like unions but you have yet to counter with a fact and only your "feelings"

 

[heyjoe]

Nope, factual. All taxes are forced with the threat of violence for non-compliance. Makes the point of the corruption and the lack of not being able to opt out.



Just a money shell game played by the unions. They often get around that with Super PACS. Janus helped that partly with the "opt in" requirement but as stated above at the local level particularly it is naive to believe that those dues don't get funneled to candidates friendly to the union.

Janus had nothing to do with the opt in for union political pacs. they have always been opt in by law. you have a far right libertarian philosophy about the coercion of taxes or asa usually put that taxes are theft, which is in the minority in this country. you have also responded with your "feelings" and with nothing but incorrect "facts". You also have a big problem as most on the far right do with some of the other amendments such as the first, freedom of association.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

National Right To Work is not an unbiased source.

What sources have you presented? I must have missed them. What sources will you accept? I think the issue with feelings belongs more with you than us. I'm guessing you or family members were big union folks? Sorry if we've touched a nerve but police unions are a big part of the problem of police brutality. Unions really have no place in the public sector and we have laid out strong facts for why that is so. You may call them feelings that's not true.

Janus had nothing to do with the opt in for union political pacs.

That's true. I misspoke Janus changed the opt in for non-union employees where as in many states in order to not be automatically in the union you had opt out each year. Now they can't make you do that and you must opt in.

against the law for a union to use union dues for political contributions period.

But he showed you evidence that in practice unions are doing just that. Also, not every state prohibits doing such at the state level which is where the real problem lies.

Further, as I stated the unions give dues to Super PACS which then support candidates so yes it is a shell game they play. As to freedom of association, have at it....just not on my (taxpayer) dime!

As to taxes I think pretty much everyone agrees they are not optional.

 

[ghbucky]

You present no facts....

Fair enough.

Link

Wash. Union Charged in Campaign-Finance Case

The Allegations
The commission's report alleges the union:

Failed to properly disclose a total of $162,255 in donations from its general funds to its political arm, the WEA-PAC, in September 1994 and January 1995;
Failed to properly disclose approximately $170,000 in contributions given to the WEA-PAC in the form of free office space and other overhead expenses from September 1994 through this past August; and
Formed a second political-action committee, its "Community Outreach Program," which has not registered as a political committee.

Per OpenSecrets
These figures only account for federal election spending:
The American Federation of Teachers, for example, spent $17.5 Million during the 2016 election cycle.
The American Federation of State/Cnty/Munic Employees spent $25.6 Million during the same cycle.

Lets say that they gathered all of that money legally. Why are public employee unions spending that amount of money to influence elections? The money they are donating originates from taxpayers. There is a glaring conflict of interest happening there.