Deunionize the IRS

[Locutus]

Here’s a headline from Forbes that caught my eye:

“IRS Employees Union Is ‘Very Concerned’ About Being Required To Enroll In Obamacare’s Health Insurance Exchange”
​

You can’t blame ’em. Workers in the private sector are also “very concerned” about getting dumped into Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges as, one by one, employers are forced to give up providing health insurance for their employees.

It’s possible that, like me, you are entertaining an un-Christian feeling of Schadenfreude about this happening to a large, widely loathed, and deeply politicized government agency.

But thing thing that should really arrest your attention about this headline, and the story it introduces, is contained in the first three words: “IRS Employees Union.”

The government’s tax collecting agency is unionized? Think about that for a moment.

The union in question is the National Treasury Employees Union. According to the web site of the NTEU, the mission of the union is “to organize federal employees to work together to ensure that every federal employee is treated with dignity and respect.” That’s a tall order, in part because there are so very many federal employees. The NTEU’s web site includes a nifty interactive graphic that shows you just how many there are in each state: 279,622 in Texas, for example, 350,544 in California, 165,943 in New York, etc., etc. There are, in short, millions of them.

And what political party do you suppose they support? In the 2012 election cycle, 94% of its PAC contributions went to Democrats, 4% to Republicans. That’s only one year, of course. How about 2010? That year 98% of its contributions went to Democrats, 2% went to Republicans. 2008 was a bit more balanced: that year only 96% went to Democrats. As Andrew Stiles pointed out at National Review, the NTEU is a “powerful, deeply partisan union whose boss has publicly disparaged the Tea Party and criticized the Republican party for having ties to it.”


more



Roger’s Rules » Deunionize the IRS

 

[Walter]

Everything improves when the union is gone.

 

[taxslave]

Government employees should not have unions in the traditional sense. They are either essential services or redundant.

 

[gopher]

Government employees should not have unions in the traditional sense. They are either essential services or redundant.

This is especially true for police unions who should be forced to pay the $40 million NYC taxpayers have to pay in settlement of the ''wilding'' case.

 

[BaalsTears]

FDR said that unions have no place in the public sector. He was right.

 

[lone wolf]

You wouldn't have unions if you didn't have unscrupulous employers

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Government employees should not have unions in the traditional sense. They are either essential services or redundant.

Federal government employees don't have unions in the traditional sense.

 

[Corduroy]

If corporations are people then so are unions.

 

[BaalsTears]

Federal government employees don't have unions in the traditional sense.

...which is an admission that federal employees are unionized...excluding management.

You wouldn't have unions if you didn't have unscrupulous employers

The American people employ federal employees.

 

[lone wolf]

The American people employ federal employees.

Do you get to write their wages off as an expense on your tax bill?

 

[Corduroy]

The American people employ federal employees.

The American people don't employ federal employees. The federal government employs federal employees. The American people pay them to do it. It's the same as buying a magazine at 7-11 and declaring you pay the cashier's salary. It's an absurd thing to say.

 

[BaalsTears]

Do you get to write their wages off as an expense on your tax bill?

Taxes? You need better advisers if you're paying taxes.

The American people don't employ federal employees. The federal government employs federal employees. The American people pay them to do it. It's the same as buying a magazine at 7-11 and declaring you pay the cashier's salary. It's an absurd thing to say.

US taxpayers pay federal employees through the mechanism of the federal govt. Substance over form.

 

[lone wolf]

Taxes? You need better advisers if you're paying taxes.

I'd love to be earning enough to pay taxes - and I wouldn't be so cheap that I wasn't pulling my load. What I have is Ontario's version of a Disability allowance. No taxes - but no frills either

 

[Nuggler]

Solidarity folks. You gonna need em an they gonna be gone.

 

[taxslave]

Federal government employees don't have unions in the traditional sense.

Yes they do. That is why our teachers are on strike.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yes they do. That is why our teachers are on strike.

Oh, you think teachers are employed by the Federal government?

That's so cute!

 

[captain morgan]

Private sector teachers (in Canada) don't strike.... Gubmint (Provincial) teachers strike all the time (read: a year or months prior to the contract expiring)

 

[taxslave]

Oh, you think teachers are employed by the Federal government?

That's so cute!

Provincial governments. No difference since the coin still comes from the same pocket.

Matter of fact there are teachers employed by the feds in some remote northern communities.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Provincial governments. No difference since the coin still comes from the same pocket.

Not in the U.S. (the subject of the thread). In the U.S. only 7% of educational funding comes from the Federal government's pocket. 93% is state and local.