Replies

Read the EO it is there on post #73. Then read the Beck decision and the "rights" that decision laid out for members withholding a portion of their dues equal to the percentage the Union uses for the objectionable purposes. Why would Clinton make an end run around a Supreme Court decision if the Beck case was a toothless tiger? Either know your facts or don’t try to argue them.

I was merely trying to point out the fallacy of your claim. The EO does NOT equal the stated goal for CFR by Bush, which is written consent by a union member, BEFORE, the fact. A noble goal - and one much more effective.

Would you happen to have the statistics as to how much money was returned to union members during the year when the original EO by Bush Sr was signed? I don't have them myself, but I would be willing to bet it is so puny as to be totally insignificant.

The point is that Beck actually gave Union members prior restraint over paying their dues without the threat of losing membership. Beck stated that 79% of his dues were being used for support of the DNC and won the right to withhold 79% of his dues until the situation was corrected to his satisfaction. That has more direct impact than on the union than after the fact authorization.

One other thing. Unions being Unions are going to intimidate their members regardless. Written authorization OR a supreme court decision such as Beck, will hold little value to the poor member that goes against the grain. It takes a brave individual to risk his livelihood because of how his dues are spent.