This page was last updated on March 18, 2014.
Smokescreen to weaken unions; Dan Sainovich; Beaver County Times; March 13, 2014.
Confusion I had dealing with “Dan/Danny Sainovich” letters from Industry/Ohioville is over. After he read an April 2011 critique of one of his letters, Mr. Sainovich was kind enough to clear things up. In an e-mail note, Mr. Sainovich wrote, “I thought I would shed some light on Dan vs Danny Sainovich. Danny is my father and we both live in Ohioville. His name is Danny and mine is Dan - you are correct that we do have opposite views on politics. Actually there is no jr or sr but we have come to an agreement to use jr and sr so that folks don’t get us mixed up.”
Previous critiques of Mr. Sainovich’s letters are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mr. Sainovich is/was an administrative organizer for SEIU District 1199P. According to its 2010 LM-2 report, SEIU National Headquarters spent over $55 million for “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In 2008 and 2006, that figure was $67 million and $27 million, respectively.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“In response to Rep. Jim Christiana’s op-ed in The Times on Sunday: Tax dollars are not used to collect union member dues.
“Computerized payroll systems apply automatic deductions to paychecks every week such as federal, state, municipal taxes, state unemployment insurance, health insurance employee co-payments even donations to charitable organizations such as the United Way. The deductions are then forwarded to the proper organization.”
[RWC] “Tax dollars” pay for the “Computerized payroll systems,” the accounting/data-entry/human-resources personnel, and the external transfers “to the proper organization.”
For the record, the government should not be involved in charitable deductions either. Why? Government should not be allowed to guide charitable giving by determining which charities are “worthy” or “unworthy” of automatic deductions. It’s also none of the government’s business.
This is probably a good time to repeat my long-held position that taxes also should not be subject to automatic/forced deduction. I believe a good way to keep taxation in check is by “hitting taxpayers between the eyes” with the magnitude of taxes by making us write tax checks every month, quarter, or whatever. Paying taxes is necessary but should not be painless. Automatic deduction tends to mask the magnitude/pain of taxes. I’d also like to see gas stations reinstate the practice of itemizing the diesel/gas taxes on their signs, pumps, and receipts.
“This is not about taxpayer-funded political contributions. The vast majority of union membership dues and fees go to maintenance of the organization, bargaining contracts and representation costs associated with operating and being a member in a union.”
[RWC] Though he didn’t mention union spending on political activities, at least Mr. Sainovich didn’t claim it doesn’t exist as did fellow letter-writers here and here. It is true direct contributions from unions (and other businesses) to candidates and government officials are illegal. It is also true no part of collective-bargaining fees collected from non-members may be used for any political purpose. It is, however, legal and standard operating procedure for Big Union management to use member dues for “political purposes” such as lobbying, taking positions on political issues, and so on. According to their U.S. Department of Labor LM-2 forms (Labor Organization Annual Report), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $70 million in 2012 on “Political Activities and Lobbying,” the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) spent $21.5 million, the National Education Association (NEA) spent $39.9 million, and the AFL-CIO spent $45 million. Mr. Sainovich’s employer (current or former) and union, SEIU, outdid all of these unions, spending $113.8 million in 2012 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In comparison, during the same year SEIU spent $69.4 million on “Representational Activities,” only 61% of that spent on political activities. These expenditures were by the unions themselves, not their affiliated PACs. In fact, union-affiliated federal PACs spend “chump change” compared to the unions themselves. Those five unions alone spent $290.2 million in a single year on “Political Activities and Lobbying,” vs. $192.4 million by all union-related federal PACs over six years. During the 2008, 2010, and 2012 election cycles (two-year periods), PACs directed by Big Union management made 92%, 93%, and 90% of their contributions to Democrat candidates for a total of $176.3 million. Should we expect direct union spending on “Political Activities and Lobbying” to show a different distribution? Are we to believe only 7% - 10% of union-represented employees are Republicans?
Representing employees is simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities. Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.”
“This bill is a smokescreen to weaken unions and inconvenience union members. Why would a union member want to write a check once or twice a month when he or she can have it automatically deducted?
“When a bill is brought forward with a ‘cost or cost-savings benefit,’ the politician boasts what the cost savings are and he has failed to show a link with any cost savings to the bill. The only link here is an attack on unionized teachers, road crews, social workers, nurses and others who provide services to the community and commonwealth as well the rest of the workers in the state.”
[RWC] How is HB 1507 “an attack” on public-sector employees?
“This legislation was not written or sponsored by state legislators. It is written and funded by outside influences to destroy the labor movement.”
[RWC] I don’t know from where Mr. Sainovich gets his info. HB 1507’s “Prime Sponsor” is State Rep. Bryan Cutler (R-100, Lancaster County) and 49 other reps joined in introducing the bill.
How does making a labor union bill its customers like any other business “weaken unions” and “destroy the labor movement?” As I wrote in a previous critique, “You have to love Mr. [Sainovich]’s view of union members and the union product. The employer must deduct union dues because union customers – the employees – are “deadbeats” and/or don’t see the value of the product they are forced to buy. Could you imagine any other business making that argument – and surviving?”
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.