Unions spent $2B on politics in 2018

[Common]

2billion and it didnt help the workers


Unions spent more than $2 billion on politics in 2018, according to a study released Tuesday by the nonprofit National Institute for Labor Relations Research.

Union spending was up $300 million from 2016, a presidential election year, indicating that unions are now spending more at the state and local level.


Nearly a quarter of the 2018 spending (https://nilrr.org/files/NILRR-Big-Labor-Politics-2018-election-cycle-published.pdf), $479 billion, went directly to state politics, more than double what the Labor Research group found in the previous election cycle (https://nilrr.org/2017/04/17/2016-election-cycle-big-labor-exceeds-1-7-billion-political-spending/). That finding is based on data from the Labor Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. The amount of state and local spending may actually be higher than reported, the Labor Research group said, due to the fact that unions have limited disclosure requirements in their federal filings and much of the funding may be "heavily misclassified."



The switch comes as unions are fighting a trend by states to adopt right-to-work laws, which prohibit workers from being forced to either join a union or pay one a regular fee. Four states have adopted the laws since 2013, but a fifth one, Missouri, voted to repel such a law in 2018. The same year, a Supreme Court decision, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, effectively said that state and local public sector workers are under right-to-work protections. Unions are pushing friendly state legislatures to counter the ruling.


"It’s no surprise that Big Labor unloaded their multi-billion-dollar warchest in the 2018 election cycle to push for candidates willing to grant union bosses enormous privileges in direct opposition to worker freedom," said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Union bosses spend employees’ hard-earned money to support political agendas that undermine the rights of the employees they claim to ‘represent.'" The National Institute for Labor Relations Research group is the foundation's research arm.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/unions-spent-2b-on-politics-in-2018

[Luther]

Maybe Common you should add this to your new "Union" thread?

[Tahuyaman]

The union probably spent that money supporting candidates the membership did not support.

[ripmeister]

I wonder what that is per capita say compared to the Koch brothers.

[alexa]

Unions are people too, my friend.

[Chris]

I wonder what that is per capita say compared to the Koch brothers.

Not sure how you'd measure either unions or the Kochs per capita but to the unions $2B the Kochs spent $400M on politics in 2018. 2016 I see they spend double that, around $800M. https://www.google.com/search?ei=yM3BXL_DG8yAtgWcw5SYDA&q=koch+brothers+political+spending+2018&oq=Koch+brothers+political+spending&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l2j0i22i30l4.3532.8187..12067...0.0..0.142 .2079.5j14......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67.FM5K8EgKY_U

[ripmeister]

Not sure how you'd measure either unions or the Kochs per capita but to the unions $2B the Kochs spent $400M on politics in 2018. 2016 I see they spend double that, around $800M. https://www.google.com/search?ei=yM3BXL_DG8yAtgWcw5SYDA&q=koch+brothers+political+spending+2018&oq=Koch+brothers+political+spending&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l2j0i22i30l4.3532.8187..12067...0.0..0.142 .2079.5j14......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67.FM5K8EgKY_U

So for the Kochs that would be 400 mil per. The unions would be whatever that number is divided by the total number of members

[ripmeister]

Oops. 200 million per the two Kochs.

[ripmeister]

Oops. 200 million per the two Kochs.
So if my math is right that 2 B would cover 10 union members compared to the Kochs.

[MisterVeritis]

I wonder what that is per capita say compared to the Koch brothers.
The Koch brothers are spending their own money, not money forcibly taken from captive union members.

[Tahuyaman]

Oops. 200 million per the two Kochs.






The Koch brothers are spending their own money, not money forcibly taken from captive union members.

Yeah. Oops......

[Chris]

So for the Kochs that would be 400 mil per. The unions would be whatever that number is divided by the total number of members


Oops. 200 million per the two Kochs.


$400M / # libertarians.

Or $2B / 1 union.

Why I said I don't see how per capita applies.

[Tahuyaman]

Not to mention one is spending their own money as they choose.

[gamewell45]

The Koch brothers are spending their own money, not money forcibly taken from captive union members.

My union has a voluntary PAC fund in which members voluntarily donate monies to be spent on candidates who are friendly towards labor in general. If you don't like who they donate to, then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.

[montgomery]

It's time for America to ban unions. Employers obviously have a right to pay minimum wages or less.

It will raise a real issue with keeping out illegal aliens who will happily work for a couple of bucks an hour but that can be dealt with later.

Who says America's industries and agriculture is not viable without cheap labour?. Trump has this all figured out too!

[MisterVeritis]

My union has a voluntary PAC fund in which members voluntarily donate monies to be spent on candidates who are friendly towards labor in general. If you don't like who they donate to, then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.
Haven't dues become voluntary as well?

Unions are coercive. They always have been.

Are the donations completely anonymous? Are the people who do not donate identified in any way?

[MisterVeritis]

My union has a voluntary PAC fund in which members voluntarily donate monies to be spent on candidates who are friendly towards labor in general. If you don't like who they donate to, then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.
Do you (foolishly) believe the unions raised two billion dollars in voluntary contributions -- used in turn to support Crooked Hillary and other Democrats?

In 2016 there were 14.6 million union members. Are you claiming 14 million members voluntarily donated two billion dollars to be spent to elect Democrats?

Every one of your members, in addition to the union fees used to prop up the union leaders gave an additional 137 dollars, to be used to support democrats. Is that your argument?

[montgomery]

Ban unions!

Maga!

[gamewell45]

Are the donations completely anonymous? Are the people who do not donate identified in any way?

As far as I know, donations can be anonymous if the member requests such; no list is published that is available to the public that I am aware of. Those who choose not to donate are not identified in any way.

Keep digging, maybe you'll find something. :)

[gamewell45]

Do you (foolishly) believe the unions raised two billion dollars in voluntary contributions -- used in turn to support Crooked Hillary and other Democrats?

In 2016 there were 14.6 million union members. Are you claiming 14 million members voluntarily donated two billion dollars to be spent to elect Democrats?

I make no claims on how much money unions raised in voluntary contributions nor does it interest me in the slightest; what I do know is that the monies are used to support candidates that are friendly to labor; why would unions donate your monies to politicians who are unfriendly to unions?

Keep digging. :)

[montgomery]

Lock them up, lock them up, lock them up!

[MisterVeritis]

Are the donations completely anonymous? Are the people who do not donate identified in any way?

As far as I know, donations can be anonymous if the member requests such; no list is published that is available to the public that I am aware of. Those who choose not to donate are not identified in any way.

Keep digging, maybe you'll find something. :)
I made no mention of the public. Is donation status visible to the union leadership? That is where the coercion lies. Union thugs muscle coercers encouragers don't work for the public. They work for the union leaders.

Keep trying to hide things.

[gamewell45]

Are the donations completely anonymous? Are the people who do not donate identified in any way?

I made no mention of the public. Is donation status visible to the union leadership? That is where the coercion lies. Union thugs muscle coercers encouragers don't work for the public. They work for the union leaders.

Keep trying to hide things.

My answer is this: yes; no, no, no, no & no.

Keep trying, maybe you'll uncover something. :)

[MisterVeritis]

My answer is this: yes; no, no, no, no & no.

Keep trying, maybe you'll uncover something. :)
I am certain you will not mind if I do not believe you.

[gamewell45]

I am certain you will not mind if I do not believe you.

Of course not, you are free to believe what you will :)

[MisterVeritis]

Of course not, you are free to believe what you will :)
The good news is that in 2016 there were two million fewer union members than there were earlier. I think we ought to give unions help finding their way onto the ash heap of history by absolutely outlawing all public sector unions.

[gamewell45]

The good news is that in 2016 there were two million fewer union members than there were earlier. I think we ought to give unions help finding their way onto the ash heap of history by absolutely outlawing all public sector unions.

You should write to your congressman and transmit your request to them. That's what I'd do if I felt as apparently you do. :)

[The Xl]

I hate that any entity can influence politics in such a way. It's bribery, which is supposed to be illegal.

[gamewell45]

I hate that any entity can influence politics in such a way. It's bribery, which is supposed to be illegal.

I'd have no issue outlawing formally and enforcing it as long as it applies to corporations, unions, lobbyists and other public entities

[MisterVeritis]

You should write to your congressman and transmit your request to them. That's what I'd do if I felt as apparently you do. :)
Great idea! Thanks.

[Chris]

I hate that any entity can influence politics in such a way. It's bribery, which is supposed to be illegal.


If it's bribery then lock up the damned politicians for selling out the people.


If it's just influence, supporting politicians who support your self-interests, then, be it unions or Kochs, I'm OK with it.

[Captdon]

I'm a strong union supporter. Unions should not be spending money on politics. It's not their job. It is not the purpose of unions.

[Tahuyaman]

I’m trying to remember the specific case, but a while back a union claimed victory when they forced a business to shut down permanently and hundreds of jobs were lost.