Fairness

Obviously the state of “Fairness” is not easily identified. The acting governor of California wants to remove union dues as a source of funding for political activism. As a union member I would pay my dues so that the union could conduct business on my behalf. Where else would they get that money if the members didn’t support them? We would vote on the amount of money to be assessed monthly. That certainly seemed fair. And the business I expected them to engage in was to protect the trade I was involved in; carpentry. I didn’t pay dues so that the union leaders could sit in an office all day, reading the sports pages. I wanted them doing something for the salary that our dues paid.

Looking at the other side now…A corporation (or a state) exists for the benefit of its shareholders (or citizens). On the face of it, that seems to be quite similar to the purpose of a union. Are corporate shareholders told that they can expect less money to be returned to them as dividends because the money was used for political activism? As a matter of fact, no, they aren’t. Are citizens of the state ever allowed a vote on how much politicians can spend promoting their own agenda instead of the citizens? No, they aren’t…our only recourse is to elect another politician in their place. And it starts all over again.

So “fairness” is all in the eye of the beholder isn’t it?