🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.general George T. Kramer <geomoto@sprynet.com> wrote:
: Hello Merlin.

:>> You write: "Tell it to the Teamsters."

: The AFL-CIO already knows.

:>> You write: "You've pretty much got it backwards.  It is the line officers
: who are union members, and the chiefs who are anti-union because the union
: wants to interfere with decisions on raises, promotions, policies, etc. If
: the unions that represent police (as distinct from groups like the IACP,
: which represent chiefs) are pro-gun-control, it's not because they reflect
: the views of the chiefs.  In my ciy, the police association and its
: president are often at severe odds with the chief and the mayor."  

: Like the FOP, IACP is a political animal. It curries favor the the party
: that represents them. It is generally true that the Chief of Police will be
: at odds with the FOP, but strangely they agree upon gun control, even if the
: vast majority of rank and file police officers don't. I already know why the
: FOP marches lockstep with gun-control activists - the are in bed with the
: Democratic Party. It is much less clear why the IACP is generally in favor
: of gun control, except that a great many city managers, mayors, and city
: councilmen favor gun control, whereas the Chief of Police reports to them.

:>> You ask: "Who elects those union and association executives, anyway??"

: Rank and file union members, of course. However, gun control is not an issue
: that plays any part of the election process. With the local, it is all about
: pay raises, benefits, and job security, spiced liberally with insider
: politics. This I am quite familiar with. In addition, many local union
: presidents use their position as a starting point to launch their own public
: political careers.

     I don't have any trouble believing this.  It is very reasonable
that gun control would be pretty far down on the list of issues of
importance to the rank-and-file police officers.  I also have no
problem believing that it is far down on the list of criteria for
selection of chiefs.

:>> You state: "If you live in a state where unions have more power than
: (other) lobbyists, you are just about unique"

: Hardly. The AFL-CIO collected (e.g., embezzled) 15c per paycheck (where
: union dues were collected) from each and every union member, nationwide, for
: almost an entire year in order to raise $35 million for the Democratic
: Party. Very few lobbies can match this level of fundraising for campaign
: contributions.

     I don't know about the specific figures, but the biggest union
(the Teamsters) support the Republicans because Democrats have been
too tough on Union corruption; and the Republicans raised considerably
(50%?) more money than the Democrats during 1996 so somebody is
matching and exceeding the AFL-CIO.
     BTW you would have to have 233,000,000 paychecks at 15 cents
each to get to $35 million.  IIRC the AFL-CIO has about 10
million members, including the Teamsters, so that is a lot of
weeks' paychecks!
     Finally while money and power are correlated, they are
certainly not identical.  The most compelling evidence of this
is the relative lack of success of the Union agenda in Congress
and the state legislatures.