Trump Puts an End to Taxpayer Subsidies for Government Employee Unions

Well, about time this happened. It is crazy that we have "unions" in Government who bargain (generally outright steal) tax-payer money to pad their salaries, jobs, pensions, and make a good portion of them "unfireable". Even worse, taxpayer money used to pay union business travel, hotels, rent, etc.


www.dailysignal.com...
www.ac2news.com...

Government employee unions have enjoyed an absolute boondoggle in recent years, receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds. But the boon could soon be over thanks to a new executive order from President Donald Trump.

The president signed an executive order requiring that federal government employees who work full-time for the public employee unions at taxpayer expense spend at least 75 percent of their paid time on the government’s business. The administration estimates this will save taxpayers $100 million.

Those orders do not eliminate taxpayer subsidies for public employee unions altogether—that is Congress’ job—but they do end the taxpayer subsidy of travel for union business; mandate that unions be charged fair market value for rents of government office space; streamline the public employee appeals process so that bad apples can be fired more rapidly; and force taxpayer-funded union workers to spend at least three-quarters of their time doing the people’s business.

Most people are shocked to learn that taxpayers have been footing the bill for public employee union salaries, but they become incensed when they learn that in 2016, union employees were paid $177 million by the federal government, not counting office space and travel expenses.

Trump Puts an End to Taxpayer Subsidies for Government Employee Unions

Works for me.

I'm tired of my money going to corrupt left wing politicians.

If I was going to blow my money I'd cut a check to corrupt right wing politicians.

Most people are shocked to learn that taxpayers have been footing the bill for public employee union salaries, but they become incensed when they learn that in 2016, union employees were paid $177 million by the federal government, not counting office space and travel expenses.

Who did they think were paying the salaries of public workers? 177 million to how many employees? seems like chump change when big business just got a trillion dollar tax cut.

How much do you think Ivanka will make off her new trademark deals in China? Do you think she will make 1 million of it? Thats one person. anti union folks are ok with that.

177 million spread out by how many people?

Trump just saved us $1.7 billion dollars.

An analysis by The Huffington Post found that labor unions spent more than $1.7 billion on politics and lobbyingin the 2012 election cycle.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Yeah people let's get the MONEY out of politics right?

It's a step in the right direction. Hopefully the SCOTUS ruling on public sector unions completes this chapter and, once and for all, drives a stake unto the heart of this huge conflict of interest known as public sector unions.

originally posted by: neo96
Trump just saved us $1.7 billion dollars.

An analysis by The Huffington Post found that labor unions spent more than $1.7 billion on politics and lobbyingin the 2012 election cycle.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Yeah people let's get the MONEY out of politics right?

Now watch as 40 million Democrats suddenly start screaming about how important Citizens United ruling was and how this action violates the spirit of it.

a reply to: neo96

An analysis by The Huffington Post found that labor unions spent more than $1.7 billion on politics and lobbyingin the 2012 election cycle.

how did that save us money? private sector money... not tax payer money...

a reply to: burdman30ott6


I don't know about 40 million Democrats, but the unions have already filed lawsuits, citing a 1st Amendment violation, which is what I believe Citizen's United was based on, corporations are people and money is speech.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

At least corporations play both sides.

D's just want the only people allowed to buy election is just them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The primary difference, and why the union lawsuits will fail, is that the corporations and private unions were using their own money to speak... Public sector unions are using tax payer money to speak. They have no Constitutional right to subsidies.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's a step in the right direction.

So getting rid of unions is a step in the right direction? How so?

a reply to: tinner07

Because collective bargaining by a minority when the majority is footing the bill, and then there's forced dues.

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's a step in the right direction.

So getting rid of unions is a step in the right direction? How so?

Public sector unions are a direct conflict of interest where the tax payer is concerned.

Trump making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the Presidency is a bigger conflict of interest, not to mention illegal and treasonous. If you had a shred of objectivity you would be calling be Trump to resign or be impeached.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The primary difference, and why the union lawsuits will fail, is that the corporations and private unions were using their own money to speak... Public sector unions are using tax payer money to speak. They have no Constitutional right to subsidies.

But, this specific issue isn't about money, it's about managing federal employees' right to free speech and when they can use it, in this case only for 25% of their time.

I'm sure that these federal employees who work full time for the unions have job descriptions that conflict with Trump's 25% mandate.

originally posted by: CB328
Trump making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the Presidency is a bigger conflict of interest, not to mention illegal and treasonous. If you had a shred of objectivity you would be calling be Trump to resign or be impeached.

Care to provide a source for that? Oh, and not some leftist opinion piece.

I want a citation that shows he is making hundreds of millions of dollars, considering your talking about objectivity, most provide a source for such an outragous claim.

I suspect, however, you're talking out your arse as usual.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The primary difference, and why the union lawsuits will fail, is that the corporations and private unions were using their own money to speak... Public sector unions are using tax payer money to speak. They have no Constitutional right to subsidies.

But, this specific issue isn't about money, it's about managing federal employees' right to free speech and when they can use it, in this case only for 25% of their time.

I'm sure that these federal employees who work full time for the unions have job descriptions that conflict with Trump's 25% mandate.

Actually, it is. The issue is about money, always has, always will be.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The primary difference, and why the union lawsuits will fail, is that the corporations and private unions were using their own money to speak... Public sector unions are using tax payer money to speak. They have no Constitutional right to subsidies.

But, this specific issue isn't about money, it's about managing federal employees' right to free speech and when they can use it, in this case only for 25% of their time.

I'm sure that these federal employees who work full time for the unions have job descriptions that conflict with Trump's 25% mandate.

Nowhere in any law does it say that tax payers have to foot the bill for anyone's speech to remain free. The "Free" part doesn't mean your time is paid for by someone else, it simply means they are free to say, campaign, etc as they choose. That's not changing at all, but the tax payers will no longer have to pay 100% of the sallary of the ones using their paid time to try to get paid even more simply for showing up to work.

No public job should be unionized.

Not police.

Not EMTS.

Not Nurses.

Not Air Traffic controllers.

Not Grope squad called the TSA or any other.

PUBLIC jobs.

The state is suppose to be awesome right ?

So it sucks to work for them unless you rip me off to pay their wage and benefits?

Hell no.

What's this 75% BS?!


Gee, when I worked it was expected I give 100% of my time to the job.

I work hard for the money..

Worked hard for it honey..