SEIU and AFSCME

Consider two of the current unions, SEIU and AFSCME. Both would force stay-at-home parents into union membership and take money meant for the disabled children those parents care for. Fair being value received for value given, the parents get nothing in exchange and the kids lose a bit of healthcare to enrich a union. And, where the courts have ruled against the practice, the unions refuse to refund the money unless forced to. And it’s not about union survivability, it’s about money for paying the union leaders

And where is the “fair share” that unions don’t give since they are tax-exempt. Where is the job building instead of the greed? A union member making $40 an hour is quite well off and within the 1% the Occupy Movement complained about. Helping burger flippers get $15 an hour, there is no downside for the union if it fails, and the upside is those people are out of work because automating is cheaper, as has been proven repeatedly by the loss of union jobs to automation. Doubt the burger flipping can be automated? The machines are built and ready and one burger chain supports $15 because they are already automated and while the other chains switch over, they will have the price advantage because people want high wages and low prices.

And where are unions with their fair share? they are tax-exempt because they use their money – the dues – to buy elections and bribe politicians to do what they want with legislation.¬†Liberals insist the rich pay their “fair share” but the wealthy of the left don’t seem to be so required. Just backroom, good ole boy politics.

And disappointed that the money donated by liberals don’t get any better results then they have? That’s just the same bribery that the Koch Brothers are accused of. Of course the liberal donations are “for the cause” so the bribery is ok.

Unions use to be about the common man and the common good. Now they are about themselves first and their members second and the common good doesn’t matter.¬†

Advertisements