General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul might merely want to dot some i's and cross some t's
Consider what seems to be merely a technical legal distinction:
#1. You are required to pay the same union dues as unionized employees at your workplace, but you aren't required to be an official member of the union.
#2. You are required to be an official member of the union.
Ron Paul talks about eight billion dollars being raked in, but it seems that his real concern isn't the money. His real concern is freedom of association. By changing the law from #2 to #1, the problem will be solved.
Alternatively, perhaps there should be a distinction between two kinds of union organizations. One kind would be like a political party, and the other kind would be like a government. You pay taxes to governments, but not to political parties. You pay taxes regardless of your political affiliation and regardless of the political affiliation of people who are members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Freedom of association is one of the foundations of a free society. The Founders clearly understood this, which is why they sought to protect this God-given right in the First Amendment.
While Ron Paul supports the right of every American to join a private sector union if they wish, he believes, like most Americans, that forcing workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job is wrong.
Unfortunately, over 75 years ago, the right to decide freely whether or not to join a labor union was taken away from American workers by Congress.
BIG LABOR’S FORCED-DUES EMPIRE
As a result, national union bosses rake in $8 billion every year from workers who are forced to pay dues to a labor union just to provide for themselves and their families.
Then, to add insult to injury, Big Labor uses this forced-dues money to bankroll the campaigns of tax-and-spend, big government politicians all across the country like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama!
From:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/
Now, what about shareholders? If a corporation has money to spare for politicians, then why can't it pay out that money in the form of dividends and allow the shareholders to decide? The corporation can send the shareholder a message explaining why corporate management believes that a particular politician is the right choice. For example, maybe the corporate managers agree on questions of partisan politics. Maybe the corporate managers are very concerned about human rights. Whatever the basis for their choice, they can explain it to shareholders and try to influence shareholders. However, the shareholders will decide what to do with the dividends.
This train of thought suggests a question: if some money received in the form of dividends is donated to a politician, then why should money received in the form of dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income?
Taxing money as it is transferred to the person who receives it as income seems to be primarily a technique to prevent tax evasion, and to reduce the odds that failure to successfully manage the timing of cash flows and set aside money for taxes will create an inability to pay tax money owed.
If you aren't going to invest your dividends, then what is the theoretical justification for taxing your dividend income at a lower rate than somebody else's wage income? If an organization doesn't qualify for tax exempt status and it receives a large percentage of its income from people who get most of their income from dividends, then maybe it should be taxed as though it received donations from wage earners who by mistake had not been taxed and had received their gross income.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
freshstart
(265 posts)Ron Paul is not explaining the whole truth. From what I understand (and the NLRB site is down right now) union dues for the most part are used in representational activities (i.e. bargaining, legal representation, etc.) for union members and often non-members. Those who choose not be be full members of a union pay a representation fee that is less than full dues (but typically not too much less, here it is 85% of the full dues.) This money is used to represent non-members because the union is bargaining on their behalf even though they are not full members....non-members get the benefits of contracts, etc. negotiated by the union. Non-member dues are NOT supposed to be used for political purposes, from what I understand.
http://congressionalresearch.com/97-618/document.php?study=The+Use+of+Labor+Union+Dues+for+Political+Purposes+A+Legal+Analysis
It appears to me that what Ron Paul is after is union busting. He is closely associated with the "Right To Work" anti-union group.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Not to mention, there are a trillion other issues and on those, he is impossible to satisfy.
He doesn't want the Civil Rights Act.
How can you say that someone who feels this way isn't so hard to satisfy? I think only if you don't know much about him.
right on maude...
(29 posts)Sounds a bit raunchy if you ask me...
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)Why is it that unionization is the only condition of employment Ron Paul finds offensive? Whatever happened to private companies setting their own rules? Whatever happened to "my way or the highway", and if people don't like it, nobody will work there? That's his argument when it comes to the Civil Rights Act.
How odd.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)Such as:
Buying their own uniform if needed.
Buying their own tools for work.
Drug testing as a requirement of employment and continued employment.
Changing to work clothes before starting time and from work clothes after work without pay?
Paying for parking.
Does anyone have anything else to add they have been personally required as term of employment?
freshstart
(265 posts)What he understands is that union wages are typically higher than non-union wages and unions typically drive wages up even for non-union workers. That is what he doesn't like. It is the same reason he opposes the minimum wage.
I read his comments on the congressional record, I believe it was from 2001. He said that globalization had "good effects" by allowing companies to move to lower wage, less regulated countries. He's a corporate stooge.
SixthSense
(829 posts)the "freedom of association" means you get a choice. If you're forced either way you have no choice.
In general forcing people to do things doesn't sit well with me.
freshstart
(265 posts)"It stands to reason that a union will reduce a company’s profits somewhat, by obtaining a higher share for workers. But over the last three decades, economists have found that unionization has a minimal impact on growth and employment in an entire state or country. In fact, six of the 10 states with the highest unemployment have right-to-work laws. North Carolina, a right-to-work state, has a private sector unionization rate of 1.8 percent, the lowest in the nation. It also has the sixth highest unemployment rate: 10 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/continuing-assault-on-unions.html?_r=1
"From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent among women. Inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent in this period. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the shrinking weight of the union wage distribution. We also argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for the effect of unions on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of
organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality—an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education."
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/western/pdfs/Unions_Norms_and_Wage_Inequality.pdf
He wants your "freedom" to work for less...that is what he is after.
