Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That said, I find the implication that there are pro-GOP union workers out there interesting, given that the GOP would see unions banned nationwide.

[lemon10]

That said, I find the implication that there are pro-GOP union workers out there interesting, given that the GOP would see unions banned nationwide.

No, the implication is that corporations can do it (who DO support the GOP).

[Sheb]

No, the implication is that there are pro-"Let me spend my afternoon watching TV rather than pestering people for a candidate I don't care about" union workers. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

[kaijyuu]

These are union employees. Who knows if they even support the union's existence beyond giving them a paycheck.

Besides, if my boss told me I had to campaign for someone (I don't care who, even if I agreed with the candidate) I'd be pretty pissed.

[mainiac]

These are union employees.

Ah, this makes sense.  It's a matter of personal conscience vs. "this is what you were hired to do, genius."  In that case I come down on the latter.  Corporations and unions are perfectly free to hire people to lobby for a cause whatever way they see fit.  Maybe they shouldn't be but that's a matter of arguing how much they should be allowed to influence people, a completely different matter.  It would also be a different matter if organizations that weren't political in nature demanded that people do politics.  That would be a troubling precedent.

[Sheb]

The problem is that apparently the Union wanted them to support the candidate on their spare time. Not as part of the job.

[Nadaka]

The problem is that apparently the Union wanted them to support the candidate on their spare time. Not as part of the job.

They should join a union that would fight for their workers rights.

[kaijyuu]

The problem is that apparently the Union wanted them to support the candidate on their spare time. Not as part of the job.

They should join a union that would fight for their workers rights.

Har har



To me the issue is whether it's in the job description. A random secretary shouldn't be expected to picket for the union they're working for. A pizza delivery boy shouldn't be expected to put "vote so and so" stickers on their car. But a campaign manager should be expected to express support for their candidate.

[GreatJustice]

That said, I find the implication that there are pro-GOP union workers out there interesting, given that the GOP would see unions banned nationwide.

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states) are largely apathetic when it comes to their union. They pay their dues, strike/etc when requested, do their jobs, and go home happy but no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else. A small minority (again, moreso in non-RtW states) actually dislike being in a union and having to pay dues for things they disagree with, but have to due to agreements between the employer and union. It varies quite a bit, really.

[mainiac]

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states) are largely apathetic when it comes to their union.

no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo that it was opposite day again?

The implication that unionized workers aren't supportive of unions in a country where it's very difficult for unions to organize is just silly.  If a majority of the employees at a workplace don't actively support the union, there is no union.  In fact unions in this country are still fighting for the right to organize with just a simple majority.  Right now they need more then majority support in a shop and they need to sustain that support through an average of three years of stalling by management during which time management looks for excuses to fire the pro union workers.  And that's three years on average, sometimes management actually plays fair and lets a vote go straight away (unionization wins over 90% of the votes where management plays let's votes go forward without delay or suppression) while other times the stalling goes for a lot more then 3 years.  And the NLRB hands out wrist slaps at worst for interfering with unionization votes.  So no, there is no freakin' way in hell that most union workers don't support their unions, if a majority did not actively support their union there would be no union.


The notion that unionized households don't vote democratic has a certain Steve Levitt-esqe counter-intuitive appeal but is just wrong.

[Sheb]

What's RtW? Right to Work? What does it mean actually?

[mainiac]

http://bit.ly/TnUlhb

tl;dr a law that makes it virtually impossible for a union to be successful at accruing real power.

[Sheb]

I wasn't even sure it was Right to Work, and googling RtW didn't bring anything significant.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

CNN is declaring North Carolina a toss up.

If CNN is at all right about this, then it's a big problem for Romney. He can't win without NC. Getting the entire South doesn't even guarantee him a win, so losing any one state from it would be devastating.

[GreatJustice]

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states) are largely apathetic when it comes to their union.

no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo that it was opposite day again?

The implication that unionized workers aren't supportive of unions in a country where it's very difficult for unions to organize is just silly.  If a majority of the employees at a workplace don't actively support the union, there is no union.  In fact unions in this country are still fighting for the right to organize with just a simple majority.  Right now they need more then majority support in a shop and they need to sustain that support through an average of three years of stalling by management during which time management looks for excuses to fire the pro union workers.  And that's three years on average, sometimes management actually plays fair and lets a vote go straight away (unionization wins over 90% of the votes where management plays let's votes go forward without delay or suppression) while other times the stalling goes for a lot more then 3 years.  And the NLRB hands out wrist slaps at worst for interfering with unionization votes.  So no, there is no freakin' way in hell that most union workers don't support their unions, if a majority did not actively support their union there would be no union.


The notion that unionized households don't vote democratic has a certain Steve Levitt-esqe counter-intuitive appeal but is just wrong.

Have you ever worked at GM or Chrysler? Ever known someone who has? You're not describing the attitudes of most union members here.

A lot of unions aren't terribly anti-management and are effectively another job requirement for members. Yes, some unions are extremely anti-management/political, but that hardly characterizes all of them.

Naturally, those union members who vote are more likely to vote Democratic, but compare the percentage of Democratic voting union members compared to, say the number of Democratic voting blacks or Republican voting millionaires and you'd find that union members obviously aren't as radical as you think.

By the way, the provided sources actually show a measure of disagreement with you. To quote:

While being in a union is a statistically significant predictor of Democratic voting, this characteristic competes with, and is often outweighed by, any number of other factors. That means that, on the one hand, there is significant risk for Republicans in alienating union members: a lot of them are the very epitome of swing voters. On the other hand, it means that while Democrats are likely to do fairly well with union voters, those votes are far from certain. A union man is a union man, and also a lot of other things: he may be a father and a veteran and Hispanic and a churchgoing Catholic and a resident of Denver— and all of those things will tug in different ways on the choice he will get to make as a voter.

Whoops!