As a union member going in you know you have to pay dues so nothing was forced on you. Almost always the union will spend those dues to your unions benefit whether that be bribing pro union candidates or whatever. Consider it part of your benefits package whether you think of it positively or negatively. Don't take the job if you don't agree with it. [End quote]

Not forced, so paying dues isnt mandatory? The Bush rule about exempting dues money to opposing candidates was very unpopular. Ive been in two unions. Ask a union rep what they make... Indeed public employee unions donate money to candidates to get in the door and the taxpayers ending up paying for all of it. Taxpayers are forced to pay. Taxpayers are now showing some spine and fiscal sanity.

[ Quote] Shareholders own the Corp. ANY money paid out politically is done so without the approval of minority shareholders. Even if given a vote show me where minority shareholders have ever won a vote against the majority shareholders in a large corp.

That is just flat out wrong. First you assume they completely disagree. Second you assume that only one candidate received money. Third you assume that the minority shareholder (private or public was not on the board of directors.) Anytime a CEO gets the boot, its the board who did it.

This must be a first for stlhead, standing up for any shareholder of a company. If the minority shareholder does not like who the money went to, they are free to sell their shares. (or quit). Unlike you, they may not pout if they dont get their way. If they don't want to be minority shareholders, then they should buy more shares. A minority shareholder is not necessarily prevented from serving on the board. If you own any stock in a company, you are sent a ballot to elect board members. You are able to go to the shareholder meetings if you desire. You may own shares with voting rights. Who the [Bleeeeep!] would know how anyone in any corporation voted. They buy and sell shares, depending on their pay package. Karl Icahn loses all the time. Go hug Karl. To say that minority shareholders always vote against the majority shareholders is pathetic. You have some mental image of the minority in any scenario, being stepped on. There is no connection. I know a minority shareholder of AOL and he was worth several million when he sold and left. Poor guy. The fact he was a republican bother you much, in light of the AOL leanings? Come on, take up for a republican in the minority.

[Quote] As for non-union employees...if there are cuts to pay, cuts to benefits, layoffs, etc and the amount of political donations does not decrease then you paid for it against your will. That was not negotiated going in. You got F'd and there's nothing you can do about it. { Quote]

Rather single minded outlook. IF donations did not go down? Really? What about the light bill? Your outrage is misdirected. The guys who build highways and pipelines, who are not working are not really bitching about their skin in the game. They just want bills passed, so they can go back to work. Since when do political races cost less in an economic downturn? I get where you're coming from. No matter what, the guy who is trying to hold the company together for the future of his own family, is the bad guy. His investment is secondary to the needs of the 99%. Where is the 99% when the doors about to close for good? Some end up with employee owned companies. They still dont make the same as the president of the company. Grow up. People who go back to work on a new job, who think the way you do, have one foot in the grave.