Saturday, April 4, 2015

Representation, Dues & Taxes

Two Journal Sentinel readers responses to the right-to-work travesty make great points and are well worth the read.

Sunday March 1, 2015

Make taxes optional
What does it really mean when our state's Republican legislators think an individual should not be required to pay union administrative dues for representation by their union? 
The representatives of union members receive a wage to help achieve improvements to wages, benefits and working conditions for employees of contractors and companies. When members vote on their representatives' compensation within each union, it is often with the knowledge that union rep positions are demanding and often stressful jobs. 
I ask people to consider if there is a difference between a union representative and a legislative representative. Both are there to represent our individual interests in a collective manner. 
I believe if Republican legislators believe so firmly that paying for union representation should be an option, then it is time for taxpayers such as myself to have the same opportunity to decline payment for my representation as a citizen. 
I no longer want to pay taxes that support the wages, per diems, benefits, perks, travel expenses and office costs of state legislators and their staff. I no longer want to pay toward the governor's salary while he is campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, traveling to Europe or conducting other "representation" responsibilities on my behalf. I want to be given the same option as a state citizen to withhold my financial support for the costs of my representation. 
I look forward to fast-track legislation from one of our Republican legislators that gives me the same right-not-to-pay as those granted to other individuals in our state under the right-to-work legislation. Let's call it Representation-Without-Taxation. 
Brent D. Emons

Sunday March 8, 2015

Dues and taxes
In John Breest's letter of March 3, he says he doesn't want his union dues going to liberal causes ("Unions and politics," Letters). 
As an atheist and taxpayer, I don't want my taxes going to private religious schools. Will I be afforded the same "right" to opt out of taxes that go to superstitious organizations such as churches? 
For some reason, I can't see that happening. 
Steve Burek

No comments: