|Huge SEIU union to endorse Dean||Live Steam|
Nov 6, 2003 12:17 PM
I am not a union member nor have I ever been one. To me the endorsement of a candidate by a union, should not be allowed. If I were a member of the union that endorsed a candidate I did not intend to vote for, I would be really pissed. Why should my vote be put under pressure by a union I pay dues to? My voting rights as an individual member of our society is guaranteed under the Constitution. The same does not apply to a union. Why are they entitled to hijack the entire union when only a few at the top may have the consensus to vote for a particular candidate? Now you know why campaign finance reform is not a viable alternative if things are to remain on an equal plain.
|It's because they think that george is a dope..............nm||MR_GRUMPY|
Nov 6, 2003 2:00 PM
|the union doesn't have a vote||rufus|
Nov 6, 2003 2:56 PM
|it's still the individual members of the union. no constitutional rights have been violated. i suppose you could argue that the union gives your dues money to people whom you don't support, but is that a constitutional issue? once that money leaves your hand for the union coffers, it's no longer your money. you're still free to donate your money to whomever you wish.|
|In a rare moment, I agree,||TJeanloz|
Nov 6, 2003 3:10 PM
|The union doesn't cast the ballots for its members, it merely recommends who they should vote for. Not unlike the NRA, NOW, or the NAACP.
The issue that is a little more thorny is in non-right-to-work states, where union membership is required for certain jobs, they are effectively forcing you to financially support a particular candidate. That's shaky ground in my book.
|Sigh. OK, I'll say the totally expected ...||OldEdScott|
Nov 6, 2003 3:37 PM
|Then corporations can't give either, since their stockholders presumably don't agree 100 percent with the position the corporation's contribution indicates.
Give me a break. We can argue campaign finance legitimately, but this is a red herring of the worst sort
|I agree||Live Steam|
Nov 6, 2003 3:53 PM
|Corporations shouldn't be allowed to get in the mix either. If I recall, the bill proposed for campaign finance reform did not include unions, only corporate donations.|
|I wouldn't have included either one.||OldEdScott|
Nov 6, 2003 4:23 PM
|Money is speech in politics, and I don't give a damn who spends it. Another position that makes my Leftist brethren worry over me.|
|oh, he's gonna win now||mohair_chair|
Nov 6, 2003 3:16 PM
|If you are a member of the union, you are required by law to vote for all candidates they endorse. It's part of the deal. You aren't allowed to think for yourself. What the union leadership says, you must do.
You take this all too seriously. I've never found endorsements useful for anything other than mutual adoration. The idea that all members of whatever group vote in lock step with the leader of the group proclaims is absurd. Maybe if the group is a cult, but otherwise, it changes nothing for most people.
|Thanks for pointing out ...||Live Steam|
Nov 6, 2003 3:49 PM
|the obvious. I know the "Union doesn't get a vote", etc. I also know that an endorsement by any particular union doesn't mean a victory. But there are other issues. In many cases membership in the local is "almost" mandatory - it's either join or you don't get hired or placed. The union is supposed to represent "all" of it's membership and not some - majority or minority, whatever. They endorse a candidate that not all of the membership is supporting. That somewhat negates the votes of it's members that are supporting the other candidates in the election, by making monitary donations to the other campaign. Many union members also feel pressured to vote in line with the union's recommendation. If it weren't such an important issue for candidates, they wouldn't pander to these unions for their backing.|
|and a president gets elected that not all of the country support||rufus|
Nov 6, 2003 4:51 PM
|or all of the people in a candidate's state, or district, or whatever. does that make his election any less legitimate? that's democracy, isn't it?
never having been in a union, i'm not sure how it works, but i'm sure there must be some provision for them to ascertain how the majority of their membership feels about an endorsement.
again, how different is it from the corporate exec twisting his worker's arms to donate money to his favored candidate, or even giving them money to donate in their own name, thereby skirting political donation laws? if you want to eliminate union support, that's fine with me, but corporate support has to go as well.