Florida Republicans ban automatic deduction of union dues

From the Orlando Sentinel.


After a largely party-line vote, the Florida House delivered a major blow to public employee unions, approving a bill that would ban automatic dues deduction and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.

Democrats and Republicans fought over the legislation for just under two hours. Democrats and labor unions have accused conservatives of “union-busting” and for trying to weaken Democrats’ political power because unions are a major backer of Democratic candidates.

Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary, said this was simply the state’s movement to get out of the dues deduction business and let the unions take care of their own business.

“It’s a bill that empowers membership of labor unions,” Dorworth said.

The bill passed 73-40, with two Republicans siding with Democrats. Rep. Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater and Rep. Ana Rivas Logan, R-Miami broke ranks with Republicans and sided with Democrats for the vote.

This is the way to beat the Democrats. Cut off all of their funding. A federal right-to-work bill and a federal voucher program should be the top priorities of the Republicans in 2012.

5 thoughts on “Florida Republicans ban automatic deduction of union dues”

  1. I agree. Now if we can get businesses out of the tax collecting business things will start smoking… metaphorically speaking of course.


  2. It’s ridiculous that government is in the business of mandatory collection of money from private individuals to give to a third party, not as a matter of justice (like child support), but simply because the individuals work in a certain industry. Regardless of party politics, it’s a power that federal government just shouldn’t have.


    1. I only believe in child support in the case where joint custody is awarded. And if the terms of the joint custody are not met then the child support is suspended. It’s actually quite a serious issue where the terms of no-fault divorce are so skewed against the man that it encourages women to be lax about who they marry because they know they can get out of it on favorable terms. Having said that, the man is to blame if he marries a woman who is capable of basically abusing her children, which is what divorce with sole custody is, in my opinion. Men have to make sure that they don’t marry child abusers. Sorry to be harsh, it’s nothing personal. And no one in my family is divorced. This is just something I feel strongly about because of fatherlessness and economics research.


  3. Thanks! I’ve been awfully busy the last few days but I plan on posting something “real” on there tonight or tomorrow. Wish me luck! My sister and I are doing it together. You’ll love her – she’s absolutely hilarious. We’re very different so I’m interested to see where it goes. :)

    With child support, I think it’s a tricky issue. Since the purpose of child support (not that it always gets used this way) is to make sure that the child is taken care of, I don’t think that only awarding it in joint custody cases is the way to go. If either the man or the woman is so horrible that (s)he can’t be trusted with his/her kids, that’s no reason (s)he shouldn’t be required to contribute financially. I do agree with you that the laws are skewed in favor of the mother, generally, and a lot of kids get deprived of a decent dad as a result. I’m not sure withholding child support would help that very much. Maybe… But then I think you would often get into a cycle of “she didn’t let me see the kids!” – “he didn’t pay child support!” – “I won’t unless I see the kids!” – “You won’t unless you pay child support!”… And, in a venomous situation like that, the kid may hear that the Dad isn’t paying child support, whether it’s justified or not… I think it’s better for all parties to consistently do what they can (including visitation, child support, acting decent) and if the other party doesn’t, at least the overall damage to the kid is minimized.

    There is really no good way to handle child support. Those situations are already broken, and for the most part anything you do legally is just a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

    Alimony is a different matter. If one party breaks the marriage contract the other party should not be penalized and made to pay alimony. If both parties are “even,” maybe the one with the larger income should pay some, if the other has put his/her household duties ahead of his/her income for many years and therefore might not be able to support himself/herself. Gender shouldn’t be the issue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s