{"id":19634,"date":"2022-10-12T00:05:57","date_gmt":"2022-10-12T07:05:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=19634"},"modified":"2022-10-12T00:05:57","modified_gmt":"2022-10-12T07:05:57","slug":"california-politicians-subsidize-unions-unions-subsidize-politicians","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2022\/10\/12\/california-politicians-subsidize-unions-unions-subsidize-politicians\/","title":{"rendered":"California: Politicians Subsidize Unions & Unions Subsidize Politicians"},"content":{"rendered":"

     Unions take their members dues and use it, in part, to buy off politicians. That\u2019s hardly news. Politicians doing favors for unions is also not news. California has decided, via<\/em> AB 158<\/a>, to be open and indirectly subsidize<\/a> those same unions via<\/em> a refundable tax credit for dues paid to said unions.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cConsequently, this new law could run afoul of the First Amendment\u2019s free speech protection. The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 in Janus v. AFSCME that public sector unions are inherently political and thus states cannot force their employees to pay public employee union dues.<\/p>\n

\u201cCalifornia politicians and public sector unions likely think they\u2019ve found a workaround\u2014forcibly extracting union dues from taxpayers instead of workers. But that\u2019s arguably an even more atrocious free speech violation, because politicians are forcing taxpayers to fund the political speech of a private organization that they are prohibited from joining.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"

Pictured: The moment before the government and union bosses apply their first to the taxpayer’s tax-hole.<\/p><\/div>\n

     Cui Bono?<\/p>\n

     Certainly not the taxpayers or any business that has to subsidize their own opposition.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cConsider one possible scenario: California politicians agree to $10,000 wage increases for public employees, unions increase workers\u2019 dues by $1,000 (since they just delivered $10,000 wage gains), taxpayers pay for roughly $333 of that increase (the exact amount is to be determined), and then unions spend $500 of those additional dues on politicians\u2019 campaigns and the other $500 on their own personal benefits (including political causes that gain them power and money).<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a win-win-win for everyone who has a seat at the table.<\/p>\n

\u201cPublic sector employees: plus $9,333.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnion bosses: plus $500.<\/p>\n

\u201cPoliticians: plus $500.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd a giant loss for those excluded from negotiations who have to foot the bill.<\/p>\n

\u201cTaxpayers: minus $10,333.<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover, while taxpayers don\u2019t directly pay the compensation of private sector union members, they are nevertheless affected by their political activities. Unions were the source, for example, of California\u2019s AB 5 law that\u2019s cost thousands of California independent contractors their livelihoods and contributed to an estimated quarter of a million people leaving the state last year alone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     The bill can be read here<\/a>, or below:<\/p>\n