And another union revealed as source of large pro-Walsh cash infusion

Remember that woman from Roslindale who suddenly had $480,000 burning a hole in her pocket that she decided to spend on ads backing Marty Walsh in the last week of the campaign? The Globe reports she got the money from the American Federation of Teachers, which apparently decided Walsh's support of charter schools was nowhere near as bad as Connolly's support of charter schools.



Free tagging: 



The facts are simple - if they didn't want to hide their support, they could have just supported the candidate. Instead, this teacher PAC chose to deliberately hide their support.

These are not the actions of a group which is interested in any kind of open discussion about what's best for the families of Boston, just about getting teachers paid the max and screw the rest of the city budget.


Not much different

From the money flow coming from corporations through PACs.

The problem isn't teachers and it isn't unions - the problem is Citizens United and the US Supreme Court.

The only likely answer is an amendment to the US Constitution.


Half a million bucks

Wow, the unions sure are scared of competition! All that money could have educated a lot of kids or paid a lot of teachers. I'm so glad our "educators" spent it on TV commercials to sway the election.


Do you know where union dues come from?

Private funds.

Once you get your paycheck, that's your money ... NOT your employer's money.

As for "how many kids would that educate", well, a typical teacher spends hundreds to thousands of dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY on classroom supplies each year as it is.

Are you saying that you get to decide how they spend more of their own money?

Deal with it. Or amend the US Constitution to prevent private or corporate money from being labeled free speech.


They aren't private funds

They aren't private funds when membership is mandatory and dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck to keep a job.

If you want to be a teacher you have to join and pay dues to a union which may be using your money to get people contrary to your beliefs elected. You have no freedom of association and your freedom of speech is shat on if the union takes your dues, money which could have been donated to another candidate, and gives it to someone you don't like.

Unions don't have to listen to their membership or even do a remotely good job representing their membership when membership and dues are mandatory. They are nothing more than another parasitic layer of HR level management.

The people that hate unions the most are the ones which were forced to join one and watched thousands of dollars over the years go to an organization which didn't do a damn thing for them or resulted in their parent company going bankrupt. Ask anyone that worked in the local steel, shipbuilding, or firearms industry how much they liked their SUICIDALLY STUPID AND TERMINALLY GREEDY "representatives" negotiating the majority of membership out of jobs.


Still paying a fee to the union

It's an "agency fee." That money has to go towards contractual items, which would include a business rep, the cost of the Teachers' Union Hall (even if they have paid the mortgage, they still have to turn the lights on), and the like. One of the things agency fees cannot go towards is political organizing.

Assuming that this money came straight from the BTU (which it probably didn't) and that the BTU does not raise political money separately (the AFT might, but I am too lazy to check, though other unions do keep their PAC fundraising separate), agency fee members can get that percentage of their "dues" that went to political campaigning back. Of course, when they realize that it is something like 3% (and I am guessing on the high side) of what gets taken out for the BTU, they might be disappointed.


As a BPS teacher I can assure you that union dues are in fact automatically withdrawn from our paychecks.

As much as the union drives me insane with the majority of their decisions, they are a necessary evil. The teaching conditions and academic performance in "right to work" states are downright dismal.


They are private funds

They are not paid for by the employer. They aren't even mandatory in Boston, and even where they are, union dues are STILL PRIVATE MONEY. They are not tax money and not public money.

Please do yourself a favor and learn something about unions before spewing generic talking points that aren't even true here, and please learn the distinctions between private and public funds.

As always Swirly Grrl, your

As always Swirly Grrl, your posts are rather boisterous and repetitive, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. I was in the UFCW, local 1245. Yes, my union dues came out of my paycheck. They were not private money by any means. And union membership was required for the job. There was no "choice". I would recommend you take your own advise and learn something about unions.

I repeat myself because the errors are repeated

Both you and the anons are making the same error repeatedly.

Union Dues are PRIVATE MONEY. They are not a tax. They are not owned nor administered by the government.

It does not in any way, shape, or form matter if they are mandatory, they are still held by the union.

Unions are not government entities. A union is a private organization. Union dues are private money. Period.

It doesn't matter if they are public employee unions, they are still private organizations.

I will repeat this until you understand it, or you and the others stop making the same error. Look at the public annual reports for supporting information. You will see that they are incorporated per IRS as non-profit organizations. Not government organizations. Nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS are private.

FTR: I don't need to learn about unions at all, as I have belonged to and participated in unions, served as a steward, and my late FIL was head of the Carman's Union. Unions are private organizations, and their funds are private funds. Period.


If it was not private money, what kind of money was it?

You didn't have a choice at union meetings to vote for presidents, vice presidents, treasures, contracts, etc? Did the government make the union charge each member dues? Was union membership required for the job because the government told you it was?

I mean, unions are a group of private individuals who get together in an attempt to get better wages/benefits/working conditions. If the majority of a union doesn't like what is going on, they can change things. The government has no say in what these unions can do, unless there is some sort of an agreement/contract.

Agreed, except with the

Agreed, except with the exception of "one Boston" most of the large donations to Connolly or Walsh were easily traceable to groups or individuals, but this was a dirty move right of the Koch Brothers play book to purposely prevent anyone from finding out the source before the election. And now we know it was by a group allegedly dedicated to educating our children? Teachers, and particularly city public school teachers, do important and often life-changing work. This move by the union does a disservice to its members, even if by playing dirty it helped win the election.



I'm just excited that the right guy got the job and we were not stuck with someone who never really spent a day with the working class folk of Boston who make up the backbone of this city.


This is bad

And I'm a Walsh supporter.

Sure, this can be done, and has been done all over the ideological spectrum, but that don't make it right.

The only silver lining is that the ads were not negative, but my gut is that if you don't want your name associated with an ad campaign, you shouldn't be running the ad campaign.


Sure Hutt signed her name

But that wasn't her half mil. I would imagine someone has done research on her by now, but not me.

If somehow I got a half million dollars that I had to burn in a few weeks, couldn't donate it to charity or do other things a la "Brewster's Millions," I'd bankroll an ad campaign. Unlike this, it would be noncontroversial. Perhaps something like "close the doors. What, were you raised in a barn"



More like 30 seconds on Google. The blatant hypocrisy is what I find insulting.If Trayvon Martin can become an icon, so can Jocelyn Hutt. 1.4 million people in this country just lost their unemployment insurance. OVER TEN PERCENT of them are in one state, MA, (me among them). Meanwhile these pigs have a half million dollars to buy an election? Who is working for who, again?



The teachers work for us, and the BTU works for the teachers, and the AFT works for the BTU.

So, what is the connection between Hutt and the AFT, or great researcher?

Is this why Menino is boycotting the Walsh inaugural?

Menino proves, for hopefully the last time, what a classless, overgrown, petulant child he really is by snubbing Marty Walsh's inauguration. Great to see Professor Tom Whalen criticize Menino as "mean and small minded." Whalen is a highly respected member of the faculty at BU where Menino will "work", so it must come as a rude awakening for Menino to finally face harsh criticism from someone drawing a paycheck from the same place. Lord knows that no city employee (except those union leaders with federal protection) ever criticized him while the media dutifully carried his water, each in the hope that they'd be the next plucked for a $100,000+ media relations position. Priceless!


gotta love unions

My first day in a federal job, the office's NTEU rep appeared at my desk informing me that union membership was mandatory. (She lied.) I tried to avoid the three figure monthly hit and was told by my supervisor "this isn't the way you want to start off here, suck it up." When I finally got laid off 5 years later, (I was "non status"), the union did nothing for me. Guess who magically got tenure and was the only one in the office not to get laid off? Yep, the union rep. (And his mistress, actually.) These people are thieves.


Dishonest union

A lot of what drives public employee union endorsements are candidate positions on pension benefits and the retirement age. What unions cannot get at the bargaining table, they get through a vote of the legislature. Teachers can retire and start collecting at age 55, thanks to the state. Endorsements have nothing to do with improving the quality of education.

This whole episode is disgraceful. If it continues, it could radically change the shape of politics in Boston. Imagine if floods of anonymous money start to be spent in city council and state rep elections.


No one has bothered

To mention the money that Stand for Children, a pro-charter group, was ready to spend on Connolly's campaign (and which he had initially sought out) until people started voicing objections. Then, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) spent money on ads supporting Connolly. So, it's not like Connolly's support was local either.


At least we knew they which

At least we knew they which groups were making those contributions to Connolly so objections could be voiced. Only the AFT used a straw to purposely mask their half million at the most influential point in a tight campaign. Oh, and it was a campaign between two democrats. It's not like Walsh was running against Dick Cheney. I support AFT's right to donate, but think their method for doing so was sleazy and could send a dangerous precedent for local elections.