In Sunday’s edition of the Republic’s “Political insider”, the paycheck protection bill that was defeated in the legislature was described like this. “The bill is actually about paycheck deductions and unions hate it because it would prevent them from having dues deducted from members paychecks.”

I have no way of knowing whether that’s an outright lie or just pathetically sloppy reporting. But it’s wrong on several counts.

The bill would have prevented government unions (only) from making deductions, UNLESS THE MEMBER AUTHORIZED IT, in which case, unlike any other nongovernment entities, they could still go ahead.

That’s totally different from what the reporters described. Their depiction makes the bill seem punitive toward unions. It shifts the focus away from workers’ rights to have their paychecks protected from unauthorized deductions.

Moreover, it justifies the votes of all the union dominated Senators (all the Democrats, of course, plus three Republicans) who voted against it and gets them off the hook for voting against a pro-worker bill. And it rationalizes the reporters’ own obvious bias against the bill.

The “Insider” was reporting what they wish the facts
to be rather than what they are. It’s a big deal. In states where union workers have been given the right to authorized deductions from their paychecks, fewer than half do so. Of course, that takes away a lot of the walking around money that union leaders have to support their politicians of choice which often are not the ones supported by the rank-and-file who are having their paychecks raided.

But it’s a neat trick. If the real terms of the debate don’t support your position, just change the facts. Nice work if you can get by with it.