For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Mich. House Moves to Ban Union Dues Deducted from Teachers’ Paychecks
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

A new measure has been introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives that would ban school districts from automatically deducting union dues from teachers’ paychecks and handing that money over to unions.

The practice of having state governments deducting dues automatically from state employees is quite common in northern and western states that are in thrall to the unions. It is a major payoff to unions to have governments automatically deduct dues from the paychecks of government employees, too.

It does seem odd that government is handling union dues, of course, but the reason it is done is because if government didn’t automatically deduct the dues and hand the cash over to the unions, those unions would have a harder time getting timely dues payments from members. If employees were responsible for paying their own union dues — as they should be required to do — then unions would find payment a bit less reliable than when government does the job.

Naturally, this is all a big favor, a big payoff to unions but a bad deal for taxpayers. You see, when governments remove union dues for unions then taxpayers are paying for the procedure. Taxpayers are paying for the paper work, the accounting, and all the work needed to transfer union dues from government employees to union bosses.

Unions, on the other hand, get all this banking and records keeping totally free of charge to them.

The fact is, taxpayers get ripped off by unions for the costs of the records keeping and banking efforts needed to automatically deduct union dues. In other words, every taxpayer is essentially paying his taxes to support unions in states that automatically deduct union dues. It doesn’t matter if the taxpayers is a union member or a union supporter or not, he is supporting unions with his tax dollar.

How did this practice start? Pliant, sold-out Democrat politicians that take millions in donations from unions made these laws, rules, and regulations to favor their union patrons. They did so to save unions money at the expense of taxpayers.

There is little doubt that this is a practice that should be eliminated everywhere. After all, it is not a very American practice! In fact, it goes against the sort of American principles that foster personal responsibility and fairness.

Not only should government union members be responsible for paying their own dues but taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to help union members pay their dues.

Let us hope that Michigan’s union controlled Democrats will not be able to stop the elimination of these auto deductions in the Wolverine State.

10
  • TheDarkKnight

    Oh boy!

    I am gonna go grab me some popcorn and iced tea and wait for JoeyB to chime in on this one.

    3… 2… 1…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

      We all know it will be just another massive tirade written by some other idiot commie…. Why bother waiting…

      Just pop over to Ihateamerica.com and read it early.

    • Anonymous

      Well you see Reagans tax cuts for the rich caused record income disparity leading to the necessity for stronger unions which must be forced on workers if they are too stupid to realize the obvious benefits of being unionized. 

      And then something something Bush.

      • TheDarkKnight

        It’s all so clear now…

      • Martin Hale

        Smithwick, I’ve thought for some time that a clever programmer could produce a Shergald-bot which might even be more entertaining than the human (?) original.

        Features:

        * Randomly selects from a table of six or seven standard response types;
        * Copies large tracts of text from one of a number of websites contained in a table, the subject of which are selected by matching “buzz words” found in articles and/or previous comments;
        * Every X (with a modifer to keep it from becoming too predictable) comments it includes a plea to stop the horror of ad hominem attacks;
        * Every X comments (again with a modifier)  it makes disparaging remarks about all members of a group which is pulled from another table.

        I think that pretty well covers it, no?

        • TheDarkKnight

          I’m fairly adept at that sort of thing…  26+ years in the IT industry and all.

          Never thought of taking that on but it might be a fun side project.

          :-)

          • Martin Hale

            Go for it – maybe you could toss up a quickie iPhone app called Sherbot or RoboJoe.

          • Martin Hale

            Go for it – maybe you could toss up a quickie iPhone app called Sherbot or RoboJoe.

          • TheDarkKnight

            The only issue, Martin, is that I am afraid the app would be so effective that there would be no way to distinguish it from the real Sherbot.

            What to do.. what to do…

          • Anonymous

            Modern day chia pet.

            When it tosses out a lefty talking point it gains a sprout on it’s digitally represented head.

            Che-a-pet™

        • Anonymous

          Sherdumb is already for all intents and purposes a bot.  So a Sherdumb-bot would be redundant.

        • Anonymous

          Shouldn’t be hard.

          He already fails the Turing test. 

      • Anonymous

        And if you don’t agree clearly you must work as a butler getting coffee from some super-rich guy.

      • Toastrider

        You forgot the part about how Reagan and Bush suppressed the development of the Turbo-Encabulator!

    • Anonymous

      Well you see Reagans tax cuts for the rich caused record income disparity leading to the necessity for stronger unions which must be forced on workers if they are too stupid to realize the obvious benefits of being unionized. 

      And then something something Bush.

  • Anonymous

    The NC General Assembly passed a bill that did the same thing after the Reps took over in 2010. The Teachers’ Union and Democrats having been caterwauling and suing ever since. I’d love to see how many teachers aren’t paying their dues/have opted out of the TU altogether now that they have some small modicum of choice in the matter.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never understood the argument for mandatory union dues. Even if you think unions can do no wrong and are the most awesome thing to ever exist, how do you justify forcing every worker to fund them?

    Of course every time I ask this question a union-whore pops up to say that it’s not fair if some employees benefit from the things unions do without paying their fair share of dues.

    Setting aside the automatic assumption that everything the unions do is always good, isn’t the obvious solution here to not let non-union benefit from the union’s efforts? If the union negotiates higher wages, don’t include non-union workers in the package. Let the non-union workers negotiate their own wages individually. If you really believe your own arguments that unions are necessary to ensure fair wages, then surely the non-union workers would be unable to negotiate a fair wage without union help.

    Here’s another reason I don’t buy this argument. Why do unions need mandatory dues from all workers? There are plenty of non-profit groups all over the country that do a lot of good without needing to force large groups of people to fund them. They survive just fine on voluntary donations. Why can’t unions do the same?

    • Anonymous

      Everyone benefits from the efforts of the NRA.  Even those who don’t own guns are having their hypothetical rights to one day get one protected.

      So everyone should have some of their paycheck deducted to fund the NRA.  They may not like it but they’re benefiting too so it’s not fair that they get a free ride.

    • Anonymous

      Everyone benefits from the efforts of the NRA.  Even those who don’t own guns are having their hypothetical rights to one day get one protected.

      So everyone should have some of their paycheck deducted to fund the NRA.  They may not like it but they’re benefiting too so it’s not fair that they get a free ride.

    • Anonymous

      They dont, if you dont want to pay union dues, dont join the union in Michigan, pretty simple actually.

      • Martin Hale

        WU, MI has an agency-shop law which means that you still have to pay the core dues to the union even if you don’t join as a voting member.  If you’re offered a job in an organisation and that job is “covered” by a union, you’ll pay dues in the amount which the union has determined compensate them for their efforts to negotiate wages and benefits for that position.  The only part of the dues you don’t have to pay is that portion which the union claims is politically related.

        • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

          Exactly, I was fired from a job because I wouldn’t pay dues or join the union.

        • TheDarkKnight

          Darn-it Martin and your blasted facts.

          • Martin Hale

            Yeah, those pesky facts – ooh how I hate them.

        • Anonymous

          Again Martin, I dont believe this is accurate since their are districts in MI where non-union teachers pay no “agency fee”.  On that note I would agree with you that this is wrong and sholdnt be allowed, if you want to be part of the union fine and dandy, if not you shouldnt be charged anything either.  However to claim that you must join a union to be employeed is false, but yet Conservatives get a pass when they tell an outright lie.  Why do you think that is?

          • Martin Hale

            It’s permissible under Michigan law for a union to waive its right to an agency fee through the collective bargaining process – doing that doesn’t violate any statutory law of which I”m aware.  While maybe a few teachers associations have done that, it’s neither representative of the law regulating labour relations in Michigan, nor is it the prevalent practice there.

          • Martin Hale

            It’s permissible under Michigan law for a union to waive its right to an agency fee through the collective bargaining process – doing that doesn’t violate any statutory law of which I”m aware.  While maybe a few teachers associations have done that, it’s neither representative of the law regulating labour relations in Michigan, nor is it the prevalent practice there.

        • Anonymous

          The only part of the dues you don’t have to pay is that portion which the union claims is politically related.

          Which of course doesn’t guarantee that your dues won’t be used to fund the union’s political causes.

          There’s a trick used by political organizations like this where before you give them your money they deduct funds from the main pool in the exact amount you will be paying them and funnel it into their political efforts. The end result is that because of your “contribution” they have more money to push their political agenda.

      • Anonymous

        Except you’re forced to join the union if you want to work there.

        See why we have issues with the unions?

        • Anonymous

          No, he doesn’t.  You see, to the troll, union = Democrat = good. 

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, I just was curious how he would defend it.

            WU: “if you don’t like the union rules just don’t join!”

            Sane human beings: “uh, you’re forced to join, not-joining is never an option”

            WU: “well yeah, they should force to join, look at all they do for you”

        • Anonymous

          Actually no you arent forced to join the Union, where did you get this idea?

          • Anonymous

            You are forced to pay dues if you wish to work.

            Saying you are free to not join the union, but you’re still going to pay them and be held to their edicts, is pretty silly isn’t it?

          • Anonymous

            You are forced to pay dues if you wish to work.

            Saying you are free to not join the union, but you’re still going to pay them and be held to their edicts, is pretty silly isn’t it?

          • Hologram5

            If you need a job and the only one available is in a union shop then you MUST join the union or you don’t get the job.  Get it?  That’s the way it is with these thugs.

      • Anonymous

        Michigan is a closed shop state. You are required by law to pay union dues if you work in any unionized industry.

        Idiot.

      • Anonymous

        Michigan is a closed shop state. You are required by law to pay union dues if you work in any unionized industry.

        Idiot.

      • Anonymous

        Michigan is a closed shop state. You are required by law to pay union dues if you work in any unionized industry.

        Idiot.

        • Anonymous

          I dealt black jack at Motor City Casino as a proud, (GAG), member of the UAW. No membership, no job. So much for pro-choice.

        • Anonymous

          Idiot, there is no closed shop for teachers in Michigan, perhaps you should actually educate yourself before spouting off like the dumbass you are.

          • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

            So what you’re claiming is that teachers are the one employment opportunity in the state of Michigan which is immune to the closed shop law?  Is that your position?

          • Anonymous

            I dont know if they are the only one, but they are one where there is no closed shop, had you read the article that Warner cited you would have seen this.

    • Anonymous

      They dont, if you dont want to pay union dues, dont join the union in Michigan, pretty simple actually.

  • Martin Hale

    For me, the ideal solution is leave the decision for how a union member pays dues up to them, not the union or the employer.  If you opt for the convenience of an EFT payment through the payroll office, and your employer decides to extend that service to its employees, then fine, so be it.  But I don’t think it should be the default position.  Why should any employer have to involuntarily serve as the collection agent for any union?  There’s a cost to the employer in payroll accounting complexity and a legal obligation for accuracy which accompanies such a duty.  It’s the union’s money, they should be the ones responsible for collecting and accounting for it.

    And believe me, I understand full well, that the answer is that the unions are scared to death that by giving their members a free choice in the “if, when, and how” of paying dues, some percentage, perhaps some considerable percentage, of those members would choose to stiff the union.

    The thing is if the unions were clever, value-oriented, forward-facing and member-responsive organisations (and let’s never accuse them of that), having stewards going around to each employee each month and collecting their dues could easily be used as an opportunity to remind each employee each month what their union is doing in support of them, and a chance to gather input/feedback from the membership on a one-to-one basis.  If having a steward collect the dues is not feasible because members are scattered about geographically, it would still be an opportunity to interact with each member through the billing mailer or email reminder.

    In the big SWOT analysis in the sky, that seems like more of an opportunity than it seems a threat.  At least for the flexible organisation which chooses to make it one.  Unions, I’m not so sure.

  • Anonymous

    That seems blatantly illegal and unamerican. I didn’t realize this was a common practice in so many states.

    Doesn’t this make unions a quasi government entity?

    • TheDarkKnight

      Doesn’t this make unions a quasi government entity?

      Yes.  Yes it does.

      • Anonymous

        So Unions are pretty much run by the government and the mob.

        I’m surprised the mob is willing to get in to bed with big government.  I thought they had standards. 

        • TheDarkKnight

          They may have standards (not saying how I know.. *whistles looks the other way*) but…

          Can you think of a larger source of continuous funds backed by the power to enforce ‘da rules’?

          Mobs, unions and politicians love money and power.

      • Anonymous

        So Unions are pretty much run by the government and the mob.

        I’m surprised the mob is willing to get in to bed with big government.  I thought they had standards. 

  • Anonymous

    That seems blatantly illegal and unamerican. I didn’t realize this was a common practice in so many states.

    Doesn’t this make unions a quasi government entity?

  • Anonymous

    As usual Warner glosses over the story.

    “school districts aren’t required by the state to collect the dues. It’s
    negotiated at the local level as a matter of convenience,” she said.

    • Martin Hale

      Have you ever tried to negotiate a check-off clause out of an existing contract or keep one from becoming part of a new contract?   Be honest now.  You’ll never do it.  Ever.

      As an employer, standing firm on the check-off clause is a guaranteed strike waiting to happen.  Most unions will just get up an leave negotiations if you mention getting rid of, or not implementing a check-off clause.  That’s the one thing unions are universally prepared to go the distance on, because they know that without check-off, they’re going to have to work for their money.

    • Anonymous

      But why are they doing it at all?

      And should you be held to this if 51% of your union votes one way?

      You can’t opt out of the union so you’re stuck with it.

      Well that or quitting. 

      • Anonymous

        Should we be held to the decision that 51% of the voters make?  Is this not the same thing, democracy in action?

        • Anonymous

          Not the same thing at all.

          Unions =! governments.

          They are, or ought to be, a voluntary group of workers who agree to collectively argue for their rights.

          You should be free to opt out of it at any point. 

        • Anonymous

          Not the same thing at all.

          Unions =! governments.

          They are, or ought to be, a voluntary group of workers who agree to collectively argue for their rights.

          You should be free to opt out of it at any point. 

        • TheDarkKnight

          If only we lived in a democracy…

          I.d.i.o.t.

        • Anonymous

          We and not a socialist nation where the whims of 50.1% of the population decides what is right for the other 49.9%.

          In our country even the lowest % has a say.

          We are a democratically elected representative republic – with a clear and defined set of rules – not socialistic whim of the day laws.

        • Anonymous

          Additionally even in a democracy there are things 51% of the population is not allowed to do to the other 49%. 

      • Anonymous

        Should we be held to the decision that 51% of the voters make?  Is this not the same thing, democracy in action?

      • Anonymous

        Should we be held to the decision that 51% of the voters make?  Is this not the same thing, democracy in action?

      • Anonymous

        Should we be held to the decision that 51% of the voters make?  Is this not the same thing, democracy in action?

      • Anonymous

        Should we be held to the decision that 51% of the voters make?  Is this not the same thing, democracy in action?

      • Anonymous

        How many times are you going to lie about this?  YOU DONT HAVE TO JOIN THE UNION IN MICHIGAN TO TEACH!!! Why do Conservatives have to lie to make their point?

        • Anonymous

          It’s not a lie.

          If you have to pay union dues you are effectively in the union.

        • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

          This from the biggest liar on this board; David Duke/Bush 2004.

    • Anonymous

      Why can’t individuals be given the choice to do pay dues or not?

      You do favor choice right?

      • TheDarkKnight

        Of course they favor choice…

        As long as it is the one they support.

  • Anonymous

    As usual Warner glosses over the story.

    “school districts aren’t required by the state to collect the dues. It’s
    negotiated at the local level as a matter of convenience,” she said.

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    History has shown that when people are forced to pay dues on their own instead of through deductions, they tend to leave unions – not always, but often.

  • http://profiles.google.com/oatscarter Oats Carter

    Let them pay the dues annually and let’s see if they still like paying them.

    • Anonymous

      I like that.

      And if people won’t voluntarily pay their dues the union is clearly not worth the money in their eyes and should disband. 

    • Anonymous

      I like that.

      And if people won’t voluntarily pay their dues the union is clearly not worth the money in their eyes and should disband. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/oatscarter Oats Carter

    Let them pay the dues annually and let’s see if they still like paying them.

  • Anonymous

    Much like Social Security…….the unions are such a good idea, that you FORCED to pay into it.  If it was so good, than people would have no problem paying on their own free will.

    • TheDarkKnight

      .. and, if union labor is so much better than non-union labor why not open up every opportunity to non-union competition at non-union wage?

      Surely the consumer will make the right choice, without coercion that is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.spurlock Michael Spurlock

    Go, Michigan!

    • Martin Hale

      S-a-a-a-y, you’re not one of those Big Blue types, are you?

  • Anonymous

    We need to go a step further than this.

    We need to eliminate all deductions from paychecks including taxes on both the state and federal levels along with everything else, then have and the people write monthly or quarterly checks to the federal and state governments.

    Once the people of this country realize how much money the government is taking from them they will want a change. As it sits currently the money was never in their hands so they really don’t care.

    • Toastrider

      That’s pretty much the whole reason for withholding. Granted, many companies print ‘current’ and ‘for this year’ data on withheld taxes on pay stubs, so it’s easier to track than you might think.

      *sigh* Still, point made. The tax system is broken. Even the accountants in the IRS know it. Believe me, NOBODY can hate on the tax code quite like the poor bastard stuck with enforcing it.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info