Watch In_Significant Others Download Full
Download RealPlayer Cloud and any MP4 video you upload to your account you will be able to watch on a phone, tablet, computer, and even TV. Watch Beyond The Rising Moon Online Full Movie. No conversions required.
The ‘Paycheck Protection’ Racket: Tilting the political playing field toward corporate power and away from working Americans. Executive summary. In the spring of 2.
Human Rights Watch’s research indicates that security forces repeatedly used lethal force, including live ammunition, to break up many of the 500 reported protests. Missouri lawmakers are debating two bills that seek to limit the ability of state employees and Missouri workers in general to pay union dues that help fund political. Get the latest science news and technology news, read tech reviews and more at ABC News.
Missouri lawmakers are debating two bills that seek to limit the ability of state employees and Missouri workers in general to pay union dues that help fund political advocacy. These bills—dubbed “paycheck protection” by their supporters—are part of a national effort to restrict the role of unions in politics. Proponents of Missouri’s Senate Bill 2. House Bill 6. 4 claim that these bills will save taxpayers money, will remove the government from the role of collecting money used for political purposes, and will increase workers’ control over how their wages are spent. The Missouri bills are part of a 1. U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the National Federation of Independent Business, and other corporate lobbies. This history sheds critical light on the logic of the bills currently under debate in Missouri.
On close examination, it is clear that these bills will not create new rights for Missouri employees, and will significantly tilt the political playing field by enabling unlimited corporate political spending while restricting political spending of organized workers. Neither SB2. 9 nor HB6. Missouri employees with any new rights that they do not possess under existing law. Under federal law, unions may contribute to congressional or presidential campaigns only through a political action committee funded through separate, voluntary contributions by individual union members. Furthermore, unions’ campaign contributions at the state level—and more general political activities such as lobbying, issue advocacy, ballot initiative campaigns, and independent union advocacy in support of particular candidates—cannot use dues from any individual who objects to these priorities. In other words, it is already the case that under both federal and state law, no employees—whether in the private sector or the public—can be forced to pay to support a political cause they oppose. In voicing its support for HB6.
Missouri Chamber of Commerce claims that, under current law, “employees who pay union dues have no say whether campaign contributions are taken out of their dues, or where those contributions are directed” (Missouri Chamber of Commerce 2. This is false: All union members have a voice in how dues contributions are used, and any employee who doesn’t want his or her dues used for politics is free to either withhold that portion of dues (in the private sector) or withhold the entire dues payment (in the public sector). While providing no new rights, SB2. HB6. 4 would impede union political activity with extensive and onerous bureaucratic roadblocks that would waste valuable resources and hamper unions’ ability to respond to political attacks against labor rights.
SB2. 9 and HB6. 4 tilt the political playing field toward big corporations by imposing restrictions on workers’ political activity while leaving corporations free to engage in unlimited political spending. Watch Modern Family Season 7 Episode 22 more. While the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and ALEC insist that unions shouldn’t be able to spend money on politics without individual member approval, the groups vigorously oppose proposals that would require corporations to get shareholder approval before donating to political campaigns. Even in the treatment of payroll deductions themselves, SB2. HB6. 4 establish a stark double standard for labor organizations versus business. ALEC promotes “paycheck protection” on the grounds that “taking political contributions from workers without their fully informed consent violates these workers’ rights” (American Legislative Exchange Council 1. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce declared that it supports HB6.
Missouri Chamber of Commerce 2. Americans for Prosperity similarly promotes SB2. Americans for Prosperity–Missouri 2. But these principles apply only to unions, not to corporations. Missouri currently allows 4. These include: Health insurance payments to United.
Health Group, which spent $3. Prescription drug benefit payments to Express Scripts, which spent nearly $1. Congress and $3. 40,0. Missouri lawmakers in 2.
Life insurance deductions to Allstate, which spent over $1. Supplemental insurance payments to Aflac, which made campaign contributions totaling $2. These political and lobbying activities are untouched by either HB6. SB2. 9; both bills restrict contributions only to labor organizations, while leaving corporations completely free to deduct monies out of employee paychecks and use them for political purposes without employees’ knowledge or consent. “Paycheck protection” does not save administrative costs, because the expense of electronic payroll deductions is minimal, while the bureaucratic requirements associated with “paycheck protection” are likely to impose significant extra costs.“Paycheck protection” is not a sound strategy for addressing state fiscal deficits.
The record state budget deficits of recent years were caused by a falloff in revenues, not an increase in expenses. Statistical evidence shows no correlation between the presence of employee unions and the size of a state’s budget gap.“Paycheck protection”—both in Missouri and elsewhere—appears to function primarily as a political strategy that serves to impede the political voice of organized workers while allowing free reign to business corporations. Corporations can be expected to pursue a political agenda that furthers their economic interests.
But there is no conceivable justification for lawmakers to confer political rights on corporations while diminishing or violating the rights of working people. What is ‘paycheck protection,’ and where does it come from? SB2. 9 and HR6. 4, which Missouri lawmakers are debating in the spring of 2. Dubbed “paycheck protection” by their supporters, these bills are part of a national effort to restrict the role of unions in politics. Proponents of the legislation claim that these bills will save taxpayers money, will remove the government from the role of collecting money used for political purposes, and will increase workers’ control over how their wages are spent. Before evaluating each of these claims in detail, it is important to understand the larger historical and political context of “paycheck protection” in order to assess the likely impact of the bills and to make sense of their political purpose.“Paycheck protection” proposals did not originate just in the past year or just in Missouri.
The nation’s largest corporate lobbies—including the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Business—have been promoting such measures for at least the past 1.
Norquist 1. 99. 8; Broder 1. The first “paycheck protection” bid—California’s Proposition 2. The defeated backers of the voucher law concluded that their failure was due to the opposition of the teachers’ union; they launched “paycheck protection” not in order to safeguard the rights of teachers but rather to remove the teachers’ collective voice from state politics (Sabato 1.
Orange Net News 2. Despite its defeat by California voters, Proposition 2. At the center of this campaign to promote “paycheck protection” laws is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national network that brings state legislators together with the country’s largest corporations, including Wal- Mart, Coca- Cola, Koch Industries, Exxon. Mobil, and leading tobacco and pharmaceutical firms.
Among other activities, ALEC sponsors conferences where corporate lobbyists sit with sympathetic lawmakers to draft model legislation. The resulting model bills must be approved by ALEC’s corporate donors before they are circulated.
These corporations pay ALEC’s expenses, contribute to legislators’ campaigns, and fund the think tanks that promote legislation; in return, legislators carry the corporate agenda into their statehouses (Wilce 2.