Regarding state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe's letter “Voter ID & unions” : He's wrong about state employees being used to finance union political activities.
Rep. Metcalfe stated he is merely “protecting the taxpayers” from unions by sponsoring “right to work” laws and stopping the unions from collecting dues from their state employees. But Metcalfe omitted that there is already a Supreme Court ruling on this: Any union member can opt out of paying dues for political purposes but is required to pay dues for benefits received from collective bargaining.
Taxpayers do not “finance” unions; members pay for their union.
Republican politicians want to end union involvement in politics. Look at Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. He told Volkswagen plant employees in Chattanooga that the company would assemble a new SUV there if they rejected representation by the United Auto Workers. Wrong. VW quickly said the workers' vote would have no bearing on manufacturing the SUV there.
Like Metcalfe, Corker wants to muzzle unions because unions won't support him.
Peter Morici's column “Unions Must Change to Survive” stated: “Unions would do better to burnish their image by becoming less confrontational.” Really? Why should unions turn the other cheek when people like Metcalfe brag that it's an “honor” to be inducted into the state AFL-CIO's “Hall of Shame” and misinform about taxpayers financing unions.
People like Metcalfe and Corker represent the people who sign the front of your paycheck; unions represent the person who signs the back of it. It's that simple.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.