Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Unions back DNC -

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Unions back DNC -

    As a dues paying Union Member - I was talking last night to fellow Union Employees - mainly Democrats.

    Not one of them could say who their Unions PAC Money has been promised to. Not one could say their Union supports Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

    The only thing the know is their Union has a healthy PAC Fund funded by Union Members Money. Not one could say they have seen questionnaires from their Union relating to who they should or would vote for or why. They seem to be waiting for the primary to end - why is that ?

    Maybe because their Union PAC Funds have mostly passed money to the DNC and other lessor race Democrats. That is about all they know for sure - WHY ?

    Some believe it is because the DNC is betting on Hillary
    - the DNC Super-delegates have already moved behind Hillary.


    But how could the DNC already know who their people/voters want ? How do they know voters don't want Mr.Sanders ? Or don't they care ?

    With the Super-delegates already behind Hillary - is it a DNC backed conclusion that she will be the candidate - regardless of the popular vote?

    Could it be the DNC knows they will receive all the millions from the Unions PAC funds and their holding off to funnel it to Hillary ?

    Yes, we know they will try to say they are waiting to see who the people want - then why are so many DNC Super-delegates already behind Hillary ?

    Just seems a bit like the Status Quo DNC Washington Controllers have already decided on Hillary.

    Just askin.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  2. #2
    Member Mr. Lackawanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,900
    Where did you get the idea that National Union leaders ever thought of what their members wanted.
    The union hiericary has supported politicians that supported NAFTA and other programs that have reduced union membership in this country.
    It only seems to me the only unions that have grown in this country are the unions that support the government workers.
    Russia didn't make me vote for Trump, Hillary did.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497
    You have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.

  4. #4
    Member Mr. Lackawanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,900
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDude View Post
    You have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.
    Can you be a little more specific?
    Has the Union membership, excluding Government workers grown any larger lately?
    Russia didn't make me vote for Trump, Hillary did.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Lancaster's controlling voters - tax funded employees

    For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Thursday, January 28, 2016 USDL-16-0158
    Technical information: (202) 691-6378 • cpsinfo@bls.govwww.bls.gov/cps
    Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov
    UNION MEMBERS — 2015

    Highlights from the 2015 data:
    • Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (35.2 percent) more than five times higher
    than that of private-sector workers (6.7 percent).

    Workers in protective service occupations and in education, training, and library occupations had
    the highest unionization rates (36.3 percent and 35.5 percent, respectively).


    • Men continued to have a slightly higher union membership rate (11.5 percent) than women (10.6
    percent).

    • Black workers were more likely to be union members than were White, Asian, or Hispanic
    workers.

    • Median weekly earnings of nonunion workers ($776) were 79 percent of earnings for workers
    who were union members ($980). (The comparisons of earnings in this release are on a broad
    level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings
    differences.)

    • Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership rate (24.7 percent),
    while South Carolina had the lowest (2.1 percent). (See table 5.)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One thing that’s a little easier to examine is the effect that being a member of a labor union, or being in a union household, has on someone’s likelihood of voting Democratic.

    In 2008, for instance, 59 percent of people in union households voted for Barack Obama, as compared to 51 percent of people in non-union households — a difference of 8 percentage points, according to the national exit poll. An extremely simple analysis might conclude, then, that the presence of the labor union vote boosted Mr. Obama’s share of the vote by slightly under 2 points overall: the 8 percentage point “bonus” that he received among union voters, multiplied by the 21 percent of the sample that was in labor union households, which is 1.68 percent.

    Google it !
    Last edited by 4248; February 20th, 2016 at 07:00 PM.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Lightbulb The self serving "Party" agenda is clear . Says Mr.Obvious

    The study’s findings including:

    The effect of union membership on a range of political behavior was significant: Members were 18% more likely to vote in presidential elections than non-members, 43% more likely to volunteer for an election campaign, and 73% to 93% more likely to participate in protests.
    Union members are 13% to 20% more likely to join other voluntary associations, but they tend to be political in nature. In general, higher levels of political participation by union members did not carry over into broader civic engagement. For example, they were no more likely to donate money or carry out civic acts (such as blood donation) for programs or causes that were not related to their union or its political agenda.

    The impact of unions was greatest for those with low levels of education. For example, “the predicted probability of having participated in a protest is around 0.04 for a union member with no formal education, which is five times higher than the estimated 0.008 probability for a nonmember. Among those with a high school degree, the probabilities are about 0.10 for union members versus 0.05 for nonmembers, still a sizable gap.”

    While the study found that the impact of union membership on low-income members was too small to constitute a significant difference, other studies have identified substantial effects: A 2010 study from Notre Dame University and Texas A&M University found that membership increased life satisfaction for workers earning below-average incomes compared to those earning higher incomes. “It is the most vulnerable members of society who are most positively affected by membership and the influence of organized labor in the industrial world,” the authors concluded.

    Unions were more likely to have political issues on their meeting agendas than other organizations: 75% of union members reported that political issues were on meeting agendas, compared to 56% for members of neighborhood organizations and 31% for members of religious organizations.

    The probability was greater of unions taking stands on political issues: 72% of union members reported that their organization did so, compared to 53% for neighborhood organizations and 32% for religious organizations.

    “Unions are very explicit in their efforts to cultivate political participation among the working class and those that lack civic skills. It appears that those efforts are remarkably successful, given the large participation effects that we observe,” the researchers write.

    The long-term decline of unions — U.S. membership peaked 34% of the workforce in 1955, and was 12.4% in 2008 — could have significant negative impact on political participation. “Union decline … has implications for the composition of public life, shrinking the voice of those with less education.

    Unions are powerful engines of political participation, and their decline betokens a less democratic future for American politics.”
    Overall, “it appears that unions build ‘political capital’ more than generalized ‘social capital,'” the authors conclude.

    Union membership does increase the probability of joining other voluntary associations, but these are often political in nature.

    “These patterns are broadly consistent with our structural arguments: American labor unions face strong pressures to mobilize members to prepare for collective action with employers and to maintain political capital with the Democratic Party.”


    Keywords: labor unions, political participation, organized labor, social capital

    - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studi....wjFJgshQ.dpuf
    Last edited by 4248; February 20th, 2016 at 07:34 PM.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cuomo needs Unions - yet his insiders predict he can turn his back on them and win
    By 4248 in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Kathy Hochul
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 1st, 2014, 11:48 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •