.... that unions can be openly political in nature, while technically being an organization designed to represent workers? To be perfectly realistic to the make-up of union members, they may lean Democratic to some degree.. but in the last election four in ten union members voted for Mitt Romney, while slightly less than six in ten voted for Obama. Why is it that Unions feel entitled to take union dues from their members and work diligently in a political manner that is 180 degrees from the interests of 40% of their members?
Certainly some may argue that this is a matter of checks and balances... as a corporation can make political donations that some of their employees may disagree with. The main differences, however, is that there is no automatic payroll deduction being taken to fund those corporate donations. Likewise, most corporations donate across the board to politicians of both Parties, in many cases sort of "hedging their bets" to some degree. There is not an automatic political partnership with one Party or the other, as you see with the Unions and Democratic Party.
The bottom line is that most of the new "anti-union" legislation is aimed at neutering the political power of unions, rather than actually ending the concept of what a union is "supposed" to be doing. I guarantee you that the Scott Walkers of the world would not be signing "anti-union" legislation if those unions were not hell-bent on defeating them in elections.
I think it's time for unions to make a decision. Do they want to exist as an entity that represents workers in labor negotiations.. or do they want to cease to exist as political organizations in a blatant and open quid pro quo relationship with the Democratic Party... that poses as an entity that represents workers in labor negotiations? Pretty simple in reality...
Is union management smart enough to see the writing on the wall?