douglas wrote on March 24, 2008 10:46 PM: i'd be curious to know if those u.s. companies which recently lost large contracts weren't encumbered with regulations, gubmit, legal, and union, not enjoyed by the winning competitors.

same as pharmaceuticals may cost less to consumers in countries which don't have inch thick yellow page sections of slip and fall lawyers. or companies abroad that do not have to hire less qualified employees in favor of some racial/age/sexual preference/religious "balance". or companies which do not have to featherbed some minimum number of union employees for any job. or where there has to be some multiple, different unions represented on any job. or where some phenomenal insurance policy has to be in force. [remember the scramble of u.s. lawyers trying to get that bhopal india plant leak, moved to the u.s. courts ?]. those added costs, the union featherbedding, the enormous liability insurance costs, the costs for compliance with u.s. "feel good"/"politically correct" laws, all have to be added to the contract's cost when bidding.

oldlawdawg wrote on March 24, 2008 07:10 PM: Mr. Szduka:

And your point is?

Peter Szduka wrote on March 24, 2008 04:38 PM: ollawdawg;
Thank you. I note your reply, "the propaganda sent to the membership", and I wonder about the four color mailer mailed to voters' homes by people running for office from the president on down and now you make me wonder, do you patronize everybody just the same?

In this article, the big question is if Bob Seale is involved with Munn and Sheldon Adelson on the intiative and how does this fold into the ex-State Controller, republican Steve Martin's, initiative for a 2/3 approval of all initiatives?

Look people, aside from the teachers initiative, ALL the other initiatives are being pushed by republican party operatives. WAKE THE HECK UP!

Everyone should remember that 100% of every taxpayer dollar goes to a business entity. That is right, your taxpayer dollar subisidizes every single business in America!

Clark Davies wrote on March 24, 2008 04:06 PM: Why is the water authority giving a government contract of 450 million, eventually one billion to an Italian company named (Impreglio) instead of an American company? This smells awfully fishy. Last week the the airforce gave 100 billion airtanker contract to Airbus of France,instead of Boeing. This is totally unamerican Thank you Clark DAVIES

RandolphRed wrote on March 24, 2008 11:04 AM: Conservative activists always scream smaller government. But the reality is just the reverse... More government control on everyday life. Either through religion or regulation... I believe the people of Nevada are smarter than that..

oldlawdawg wrote on March 24, 2008 10:24 AM: Mr. Szducka:

"Unions do not make contributions. Members make contributions via their union."

Without a doubt, that is the biggest piece of sophistry I have heard so far this year from somebody not running for president.

To the extent union leadership provide a payroll deduction for candidates it doesn't support, the propaganda sent to the membership and pressue by shop stewards, etc., during election cycles makes sure the bulk of membership money goes toward "approved" candidates to - the extent the union has not already endorsed a candiate of its own. Then, when the union "passes on" the money from its members (as you would have us believe), it uses the exercise as a show of political "muscle," and the media records money coming from the union. Union "endorsements" would not mean anywhere near as much to candidates if they were not accompanied by large union "payroll check-off" plans, oversight of which is done with a nod and a wink.

If your pretense were real, the unions would not be opposed to the Nevada initiatives since union members remain free to make all of the contributions the law allows any other individuals to make. Suggesting as you do that the union is merely some sort of functionary of "membership will" is a total and complete fantasy, right up there with the notion that union leadership does not cook the books in order to funnel campaign money wherever leadership wants, regardless of to whom the money was actually donated by the individual members.

If unions did not exist, the practice would no longer exist, plain and simple.

Not all unions are corrupt, but union involvement in politics is so unique and disproportionate when compared to other organizations as to be corrupting in and of itself.

Peter Szducka wrote on March 24, 2008 08:31 AM: 1. Union do not make contributions! Members make contribution via their union.

2. Dear Molly Ball; Was, Kris Munn backed by Bob Seale, to replace him as assemblyman from district 21? Is Bob Seale pushing two initiatives that some say are on behalf of and will benefit Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Sands, palazzo and the venetian casinos and convention centers? Does Adelson absolutely hate uninons?

Sherry wrote on March 24, 2008 08:16 AM: Sounds like a great idea!! Union Bosses and local Politicians = Both Corrupt....... perhaps on laws will curtail their abuses.
Of course, as LV aggresively becomes more uneducated and immigrant, the odds of common sense inititives passing declines.

br wrote on March 24, 2008 08:08 AM: The stuck pig squeals...

oldlawdawg wrote on March 24, 2008 07:30 AM: The initiative may prevent unions from making large political donations and weilding unue political power, but it most certainly does NOT prevent union MEMBERS from making individual donations and engaging in the political process. Why should unions, as opposed to their membership, be exempt from restrictions on campaign contributions that apply to any other corporation of entity? Where does it say that collective bargaining is required to allow unions, as opposed to union members, to exercise power in the political arena as well as in the workplace? Why are we supposed to act as if unions are somehow altruistic organizations free from taint of corruption or unue influence, especially given the history of union involvement in politics in this country? Indeed, I would not be at all surprised if the initiative gained support if its drafters came right out and said the initiative was designed to, amongst other things, put an end to certain offensive union activities without infringing upon the political activities of union members. Yes, limits on union activites limit the ability of union members to act through their union, but they do not limit the rights of individual union members to engage in the political process to the same extent as any other individual. Unions, especially government workers unions and the Service Industry unions, weild far too much political power, and many of them do so for the stated purpose of "enfranchising" immigrants in this country illegally. Unions should have no more political influence than any other business or organization, and it is time this nation addressed the extent to which many unions lie to and manipulate their membership in order to weild political power, treating union members like means to an end rather than the ends in themselves.

Read All Comments