Unions are political entities, because their existence in their current form (i.e., not throwing dynamite at the cops, blowing up bridges, kneecapping scabs, or dragging the foreman out of his home in the middle of the night and killing him in the street) is a legal construct, that the bosses would love to eliminate.
If you're disjointed enough to belong to a union, benefit from a union, and yet hold political views that want to eliminate unions, then it really shouldn't come as some shock that your union is supporting politicians you don't.
> Unions are political entities, because their existence in their current form (i.e., not throwing dynamite at the cops, blowing up bridges, kneecapping scabs, or dragging the foreman out of his home in the middle of the night and killing him in the street) is a legal construct, that the bosses would love to eliminate.
Those things are covered by law enforcement already. Unions didn't invent thou shalt not kill.
I think you're lacking historical context: Unions were the ones doing the fighting and killing. That's why we have workers rights to be eroded: people fought, killed, and died for them.
The government enshrining protections for collective bargaining was a compromise to end such violence. Today, if a workplace is violently suppressing your right to collectively negotiate your working conditions, you can sue them, as opposed to having to kick off the largest insurrection in the United States since the civil war. This is good for everybody.
Specifically, the events I was referring to were
"Throwing dynamite at the cops" - The Haymarket Massacre, where when the cops were called to break up a rally for the 8 hour workday, workers threw dynamite at them. The resulting fight and subsequent executions left 8 dead workers, and 7 dead pigs from the Chicago Police Department.
"Blowing up bridges" - International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers's bombing campaign of non-union projects, which ultimately escalated to the an anti-union rag The Los Angeles Times getting bombed (21 dead propagandeers).
"Kneecapping scabs" - Not a specific event, just a thing that happened, or was threatened with happening, across the country
"Dragging the foreman out of their house and shooting them" - The Coal Wars, fought in West Virginia ultimately escalating to the famous Battle of Blair Mountain (~150 deaths between the miners, the the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, and a couple US army grunts)
Not sure disjointed is the right word though. Just as a company without a union can have Norma Rae types pushing for a union, there's nothing to say that someone working in a place that requires union membership to be employed can't have their anti-Norma Rae types as well.
Well, the right wing also wants to destroy education, which is pretty bad for teachers in or out of a union.
The teaching profession also has a tendency (far from a universal rule) to select for people with higher compassion and empathy, which has been outright called a "sin" by the right wing.
So yeah, if you're mad at teachers' unions for supporting left-wing political causes & politicians, you're, uh, kinda barking up the wrong tree. Or upset at water for being wet. Or something.
> Well, the right wing also wants to destroy education, which is pretty bad for teachers in or out of a union.
Teaching has been demolished over the last 30 years under left-wing teaching practices. This isn't even close.
> So yeah, if you're mad at teachers' unions for supporting left-wing political causes & politicians, you're, uh, kinda barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not, and didn't say that, which probably means you were taught by someone from the US teachng profession in the last 30 years. I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to support political causes they don't believe in.
...Where do you get that what demolished teaching over the last 30 years is "left-wing teaching practices"?
The biggest change in teaching in the past 30 years was No Child Left Behind, and...I don't know how to tell you this, but that was not under a left-wing administration.
> which probably means you were taught by someone from the US teachng profession in the last 30 years
Nope.
> I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to support political causes they don't believe in.
And you're not! No one is forcing you to support the causes the union supports. (Even if some of your dues might go toward supporting them.)
Just like no one is forcing me to support the causes our current President supports. (Even if some of my taxes go to supporting them.)
If you're disjointed enough to belong to a union, benefit from a union, and yet hold political views that want to eliminate unions, then it really shouldn't come as some shock that your union is supporting politicians you don't.