Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Union reform sought

October 22, 2013

Taxpayers should be out of the equation regarding government union dues and political funding....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(29)

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 3:59 AM

"During the 2005-12 election cycles, government unions in the state spent $50 million, which resulted in $4 per resident in higher taxes, she said."

I call bullcrap on this one. Most, if not all, of the money spent is through PAC (political action committee) funds voluntarily collected from Union Members. It's not taxpayer money, it's the Union Members money. I also call bullcrap on the part about automatic withholdings. It's 'automatic', so it required no effort once it is set up, just like any other deduction. If you don't like Government Employee unions I get that, but why not use facts in you assessment of them?

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 4:05 AM

"To address the issues on a statewide scale, "paycheck protection" legislation could be rolled out to ensure unions don't spend member dues on political activities without a member's consent"

When I was a member of AFSCME I was able to file a claim yearly to have that portion of my union dues returned to me that was spent on political activity. 'Fair Share' fees are strictly regulated and can only be used for representation purposes, no political activity. There are so many misrepresented facts in this article that one could almost go line by line and pick it apart.

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-22-13 5:57 AM

If the purpose of a union is to protect employees from abuse management, and the purpose of gov't is to protect workers, why do gov't unions even exist?

It is unnecessary and a means of channeling taxpayer funds only to pro-union candidates.

Gov't unions should not be allowed to engage in any political activity.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enoughalready

Oct-22-13 8:18 AM

Mikekerstetter, I call bullcrap on your knowledge of how deductions work in reference to the payroll department. The employer withholds the money from the paychecks and then must submit a check to the main union, or insurance company, or credit union or domestics.. . If the employer is a public entity this most certainly does use taxpayer funds to execute.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Oct-22-13 8:37 AM

The article brings up good points to think about. However, it should only be a starting point for discussion or action. For example, regarding "forced unions" -I wonder if the State Government would really like to have to deal with each of the non-union employees on an individual basis regarding wages, benefits and other terms of employment. Now regarding pensions, I love how Ms. Meling said the past legislation did contribute to the pension crisis as well. It didn't just contribute to it, it was the major cause of the pension crises. All that being said, I do agree that employers shouldn't have to take dues out of paychecks. It is very easy for union members to have their dues taken out of their bank accounts automatically and deposited with their union.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

djzlucky

Oct-22-13 8:56 AM

"why do gov't unions even exist?"

"Gov't unions should not be allowed to engage in any political activity."

erik, that's another flaw in her argument. Government unions don't exist, unions formed by government employees do.

As for fair-share payers, they took their positions knowing full well what that meant. They reap all of the benefits their union co-workers fight for (holidays, health insurance, sick time, vacation, etc.) and still pay less out of their paychecks.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrFredErikson

Oct-22-13 9:05 AM

The fact is: Texas has a higher level of poverty than PA and a lower standard of living.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

weldnpipe

Oct-22-13 9:27 AM

"We're paying union-inflated wages," she said, and it cuts down on competition. "We're paying extra money for the same type of work."

What a stupid statement to even make. Inflated wages? What is that statement even based on? Are these wages inflated, or are the "non-union" wages substandard? If everyone enjoyed the benefits of union negotiation, the whole ObamaCare deal wouldn't even be an issue, now would it, because everyone would have the insurance they deserve!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-22-13 9:30 AM

purpose of gov't is to protect workers-eriklatranyi

In which way are you saying government is to protect workers? There is OSHA & MSHA. Is this your point?-Scott

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-22-13 9:33 AM

Gov't unions should not be allowed to engage in any political activity-eriklatranyi

Oh come on!! The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are "people". So they could donate politically to a much larger degree. Let alone, why are you trying to limit the freedom of speech of working people?-Scott

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-22-13 9:38 AM

The fact is: Texas has a higher level of poverty than PA and a lower standard of living.-MrFredErikson

Well I remember our current Governor stating that Pa. could "be the next Texas". Seems like he meant it too.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Oct-22-13 11:22 AM

weldnpipe - 9:27 AM

"We're paying union-inflated wages," she said, and it cuts down on competition. "We're paying extra money for the same type of work."

"What a stupid statement to even make. Inflated wages? What is that statement even based on?"

Her question isn't as "stupid" as your question!

PREVAILING WAGES!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 1:30 PM

enoughalready-"Mikekerstetter, I call bullcrap on your knowledge of how deductions work in reference to the payroll department. The employer withholds the money from the paychecks and then must submit a check to the main union, or insurance company, or credit union or domestics.. . If the employer is a public entity this most certainly does use taxpayer funds to execute."

Sure, in this day and age of electronic banking and automatic systems, you want me to believe they have people who physically write, address, stamp and send out checks to the unions. I don't think so. Common sense would tell you it's done all automatically via computer. At the very least an automated system prints the checks, stuffs the envelopes and addresses/stamps them based on a computer generated report. My guess is that it's all done via electronic transfer much like automatic payroll deposit. Either way, the cost is miniscule.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enoughalready

Oct-22-13 1:37 PM

Again, bullcrap mikekerstetter...If you'd like to sit in my office while I perform these tasks you are more than welcome. Automatic deposits still require a certain amount of human "touch." These are the facts you alluded to being used in your first post.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 1:48 PM

Sure, I'd love to come sit in your office and watch you perform this time consuming and costly fact. Tell me where to show up and what time. If it turns out that the time involved and the cost is anything more than miniscule I'll publically report what I find.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 1:48 PM

*fact should be task.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BassMan

Oct-22-13 2:18 PM

Not a nickel of PSEA dues goes to support political candidates. No PSEA member is required to contribute to our political action committee. And that committee supports both Republicans and Democrats. If the Commonwealth Foundation had its way, public schools would be privatized with the interest of corporate profits placed ahead of the educational needs of children.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shulski

Oct-22-13 3:06 PM

So unions spent four dollars per person over seven years. Less than a dollar a year. Of course ppl. will hate them fox news tells them to. Brainwashed by big money interests

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-22-13 3:22 PM

Scott36:

Public sector unions are very different from private sector unions.

Public sector unions should not be allowed to give money to people who negotiate with them because that money does not belong to the union nor to the managers....it is taxpayer money.

Private sector unions can fundraise for candidates as they have an interest in protecting their industry.

Use your brain.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 3:59 PM

Erik, you're under the mistaken impression that the politicians negotiate the contracts with the unions. I can assure you that the Governor or any member of congress sits down at the bargaining table and negotiates with the union for their contract. Professional negotiators, usually lawyers, do the negotiating. And if you think that any of the government bodies give away the farm at contract time you are sadly mistaken. Even during the good years in the 90's negotiating was tough. During the 2000's state employees went a few years without raises while paying more towards their benefits, effectively losing money those years.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-22-13 4:07 PM

That should read "neither the governor nor any member of congress sits down....."

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Oct-22-13 8:06 PM

"Public sector unions should not be allowed to give money to people who negotiate with them because that money does not belong to the union nor to the managers....it is taxpayer money." Erik, the money unions (public and private) get comes from their members. And those members get the money from the salary paid to them for working. That makes the money private money, not taxpayer money.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-23-13 3:39 AM

Bobbie2-"Whaaa, Whaaa, and just what improved performance justifies more money?"

It's called cost of living. Even my kids get a raise every year working their part time jobs after school.

I asked you on another thread, and never got an answer.... Here it is again, just to refresh your memory - Bobbie2-"The majority of government "workers" actually perform no usefull work." And who would they be? Firefighters? State and local Police? Corrections Employees? Municipal workers? Penndot? DMV? Our Military? FBI? AFT? Judges and Court employees? Sheriffs? District Attorneys? Or many of the other essential workers who perform work for the citizens each and every day?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-23-13 1:09 PM

Still avoiding the question Bobbie? No, my panties aren't in a knot nor am I insecure. Nice try at the diversion. If you can't answer the simple question, why not just say so?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-23-13 1:42 PM

Bobbie, you're the rights version of Chuck. No substance, no answers, just constantly trolling and flaming with you're cute little one liners.

Let's try this one more time. You said most public employees do no work. I asked you who it was that did no work. Do you have an answer, or, as I have suspected all along, was that just another one of your trolling remarks?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web