the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Labor to take its ball and go home - take that Dems!

Posted by Scott "The Piper" St. Clair - July 14, 2009

Over at the Strange Bedfellows blog at the SeattleP-I.com is word that the Washington State Labor Council, its knickers firmly in a knot due to a lousy showing on its issues in the last legislature, is taking its political-contribution ball away from the Democrat Party and going home.  And it's going home mad, frustrated, and feeling jilted.
 
Claiming that many Dems in the Washington Legislature are too pro-business, the WSLC has, per Bedfellows:
 
"...created a new political action committee that would funnel money directly to candidates it feels supports their causes and not to House and Senate party funds controlled by party bosses. Washington State Labor Council President Rick Bender said labor had previously given hundreds of thousands of dollars to those funds
 
Now the Labor Council will urge members and individual unions to give to the 'Don't Invest in More Excuse' (DIME) PAC. Bender also said the Labor Council would change how it evaluates candidates and look beyond individual votes taken. Bender said unions will take a more holistic approach, considering things like action not taken as opposed to how politicians vote on certain bills."
 
Uh...what's a "holistic approach?"  Sounds like a lot of organic hooey.
 
Well, all I can say to this effort by WSLC is PA-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE do it!  And the sooner the better...Pa-leeeezzze, pa-leeeeeze, pa-leeeeze, pa-leeeze, pa-leeze!
 
What a great way for them to marginalize their influence and free many in the Legislature from being under labor's domineering thumb!  Given that labor's influence in the private sector nationally is an abysmal 7.5 percent (2007 figures) with Washington states' an admittedly better 13.1 percent, you have to wonder how it is that the flea has so much influence over the dog.  At these numbers, the flea could be an irritant, but a healthy scratch or a dose of the right powder ought to take care of it.
 
It's in the public sector that unions gnaw enough raw meat to cause taxpayers pain and suffering.  Nationally, 36.8 percent of public sector workers pay dues to a union. But in Washington state, the number is a whopping 53.6 percent.  That's one freakin' big flea!
 
But the WSLC has been known of late for shooting itself in the foot.  This new political-contribution policy is Dirty Harry in its .44 Magnum force, and, in the end, it will make my day. How many legislators will now be relieved of the worry about whether they'll get labors' so-called "support?"  The whispering that so many hear from them about how they live in fear of union retaliation will stop.  And the number of them who openly support a better business climate and tax policies may increase irrespective of party affiliation.
 
The WSLC, long a bully in Olympia, is going to get its nose bloodied with its own DIME.
 
The Piper

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

Elaine said on Jul 15 2009 at 7:16am
Wouldn't it be nice if we taxpayers could just stop paying our taxes when we didn't like the way some legislator's vote?

Isn't it interesting that we taxpayers have zip, zero, nada influence on these same legislator's while Big Labor has had many of them in their pocket for years?

Christina said on Jul 15 2009 at 8:02am
Completely agree Elaine. If we could get rid of the unions by making this a right to work state, the public (you and me) could have more infulence over our goverment since the cash cow from the unions would all but be elimitinated.

Piper, splended news!!

km said on Jul 15 2009 at 10:51am
Piper: Unlike you and the other commenters so far, I don't see labor's actions as diminishing its influence in Olympia. The dollars to be spent remain the same, it's just the method of endorsement that's changing. Labor is cutting out the middle man, so to speak; by withholding its money from the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. That money will still go to Democratic candidates, but directly from labor and not from the House or Senate campaign committees.

Your effort to encourage labor to withhold its funds, given you belief that it will damage Democratic party political efforts, come close to supporting direct political action. As a non-profit, that could harm your status.

Trent said on Jul 15 2009 at 1:27pm
km, do you also spend your time going around threatening pastors (only ones you disagree with, of course) that they can't mention current events or else you'll sic the government lawyers on them? If so, study law first, and then you can at least get the law right (that is to say, here you are very plainly wrong) and be in the same league with The Piper.

km said on Jul 15 2009 at 2:06pm
Trent: My, my, my, aren't we sensitive! There was no threat involved in that comment; more like "consider this" and protect yourselves?

Now, as for pastors discussing current events, that alone generates no concern. Since the progressive era of civil rights improvements had at least part of its origins in Southern Black churches, and I agree with what it produced, I'd be pretty hypocritical to object to the reactionary era ushered in by many current pastors, even though it's clear I may disagree with much of it. I've had some pretty heated discussions with my liberal friends, who behave as you described, but don't see any conflict with their support of pastors favoring civil rights changes. Can't support one and object to the other on anything other than the content of the message. The messenger is pretty much the same.

Trent said on Jul 16 2009 at 2:52pm
Glad we agree on that, km, and that you recognize the hypocrisy of those you mention. There's too much hypocrisy on both sides; I really do appreciate your comment.