Originally Posted By SFH The unions are spendings lots of their members' dues money (tens of millions of $$$) on advertisements against Proposition 75. Ironically, the Proposition would require that unions get annual written permission from each member before they can spend that member's dues on political campaigns/ads/activites. You have to wonder about your union when they want you to have fewer choices of what you do with your own money. This Proposition is limited to PUBLIC employees... government workers, tax-supported school staff, etc. Union: "This will take away the voice of workers!" No, union members can still CHOOSE to let you spend their dues money on your pet political agenda. Or, they can take that money and spend it on the political causes of their own choosing. Or spend it on, oh, clothing for their children. Unions: "Unions are run democraticly! People don't support the war in Iraq, and they still have to pay taxes!" So now unions are tax collectors? Union: "This will weaken unions!" It may weaken the clout of unions in poltical campaigns... IF members DECIDE they'd rather not let the union spend THEIR money on poltical campaigns. Here's a novel idea: why not try BARGAINING WITH EMPLOYERS instead of legislating "one size fits all" workplace regulations in regards to pay, vacation, benefits, etc? Concentrate more on what is going on at work, and less on schmoozing politicians, and maybe you'll make more progress. If I have the power to legally walk around and yank money out of the pockets of anyone I see on the street, will I be "weakened" if the law says I can no longer do that? You betcha. Doesn't make it wrong to restrict me. Union: "This does nothing to stop corporations from advancing their political agendas!" Most corporations and business groups give bipartisan support. Unions almost always support the same political party. Besides, people can CHOOSE not to buy products or services from those corporations, or choose not to invest in them. Do you really think waste will ever be eliminated in government or government will ever stop growing faster than the governed when the government employees MUST be union members and MUST contribute to the unions' agenda, which will invariably involve creating more government (union) jobs? Hey all California citizens (and citizens of other countries that still manage to vote in California elections): Vote YES on 75. I await the horse head in my bed... SFH
Originally Posted By cmpaley Sounds like something from the California Republican Party talking points memo for today. Public employees' ONLY voice is their unions. No one is required to join; in fact, it's illegal to require membership in any employee organization. ON THE OTHER HAND, corporations and business associations are unrestricted in terms of what kinds of monies they can spend and no one is talking about limiting their voices. Funny that, huh?
Originally Posted By SFH >>Sounds like something from the California Republican Party talking points memo for today.<< Really? Well, I came up with it all by myself. No one from a union call bank had to call and tell me how to think, nor did I read it in Spanish in my union newsletter. >>Public employees' ONLY voice is their unions.<< Really? They're not allowed to vote? They're not allowed to freely give money/time/skills to any cause they want to? >>No one is required to join; in fact, it's illegal to require membership in any employee organization.<< Ask public employees who are union members if they had had a choice about whether or not to join. Some did, most are unaware of the option NOT to join. And sure, many may have the right not to join, but they will STILL be forced to give their money to the union. >>ON THE OTHER HAND, corporations and business associations are unrestricted in terms of what kinds of monies they can spend and no one is talking about limiting their voices.<< Did you read my message? If you don't like what a corporation is doing with their money, don't buy their products/services and don't invest in them. Meanwhile, some public employees are subjected to closed shop conditions after taking a job when things were different, and not their money is spent supporting candidates and causes they are completely opposed to. SFH
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>the Proposition would require that unions get annual written permission from each member before they can spend that member's dues on political campaigns/ads/activites.<< I like this idea. But will the portion of union members' dues that would have been spent on political stuff stay with the union, or be refunded to anyone who opts out?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer We just had a election in San Diego for Mayor, everyone was limited to a $250 maximum donation, including companies. But the Union was allowed to spend unlimited funds to run a phone bank, to get folks to go door to door, etc..... How is this fair?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>I like this idea. But will the portion of union members' dues that would have been spent on political stuff stay with the union, or be refunded to anyone who opts out?<< The Proposition states that the Union Member must pro-actively agree to contribute to the Political funding (more withheld from their paycheck), if they don't sign the form, then the extra money goes back to the union member. Also, the Union Member will be allowed to send in a lesser amount to the union, but they will have to write a check to the union to do that.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Meanwhile, some public employees are subjected to closed shop conditions after taking a job when things were different, and not their money is spent supporting candidates and causes they are completely opposed to.<< This is a lie. The enabling legislation on these matters all specifically say that public employees may NOT be forced to join. There are fees collected from non-members that can only be used for representational purposes (such as labor contract negotiations and access to the grievance process). Union membership form have a box where a person can opt-out from contributing part of their dues to political purposes. So to say that people are forced to contribute to causes they don't believe in is yet another lie. On the other hand, everyone who buys gas, shops at a Walmart or goes to a restaurant has indirectly helped Schwarzenegger and Bush in their quests to eliminate public services. The ONLY purpose of this proposition is to silence the public employees and their unions that have been a thorn in the side of Schwarzenegger and his corporate raider buddies. And to say that public employees can vote is a non sequitir. Like trade associations (like the restaurant group that gave millions to Schwarzenegger got a veto on the minimum wage bill out of it) are the voice of business, unions are the voice of working people. By the way, I will go on record saying that I do believe that labor unions should limit their advocacy to issues that relate to the rights and benefits of working people. But this is not the way to do that.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But the Union was allowed to spend unlimited funds to run a phone bank, to get folks to go door to door, etc.....<< No one is required to participate in this. The people on the phone banks and canvassing are unpaid volunteers. The only money spent there is for the phone lines and flyers.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer "Unpaid volunteerers" that got gifts, including meals, baseball tickets, etc paid for by the union.... They also spent a lot of money in mailers.... reportely over $100,000.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Unpaid volunteerers" that got gifts, including meals, baseball tickets, etc paid for by the union.... They also spent a lot of money in mailers.... reportely over $100,000.<< Just like political parties and corporate-funded "coalitions." I don't see the problem. But the corporate funded "coalitions" do see a problem, so they're trying to shut working people out so they can't get in the way.
Originally Posted By friendofdd CMP, I hsve not had much contact with unions. They do not and can not exist in what was my chosen work arena, before I retired. I can understand your desire to have your union involved in politics to help balance the impact caused by other big giving groups. I am uncertain as to how you feel about the possibility of the union representing you only with your permission. Is there some way that thier asking for your written permission will diminish the impact they have? Are you ever concerned they might represent a position opposite your personal political stand? Do you think the union's political positions always represent the positions of all members? There are probably more questions I should ask, so please share anything that will help me understand what the impact is if they must seek your permission to use your due/fees for political puroses.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I am uncertain as to how you feel about the possibility of the union representing you only with your permission.<< When it comes to representation relative to job benefits and the like, the law is written in such a way that requires that people are represented by the union, but it also says that one cannot be forced to join or contribute to the union's political program. There is an "opt out" box for dues being used for political purposes on the membership application as well as the option to tell the union that you don't want your dues money being used for political purposes. >>Is there some way that thier asking for your written permission will diminish the impact they have?<< Only because people will probably not bother to send in the form every year (which is what the Righties that are pushing this deal are hoping for). >>Are you ever concerned they might represent a position opposite your personal political stand?<< Sure. I don't think that unions should be dealing with issues like abortion or gay "marriage." They should limit their advocacy to issues relative to issues that relate to people at work. >>Do you think the union's political positions always represent the positions of all members?<< That would be completely impossible. No group always represents the positions of all its members, so the question is a non sequitir. It becomes an issue when the political program blatanly goes against the beliefs and benefits of the membership that it becomes a problem. That's why unions are supposed to be run in a democratic fashion, to ensure that this doesn't happen. Right now, all unions are united in this: Arnold Schwarzenegger is the enemy of working people. It's only obvious to anyone with open eyes. He has done nothing to improve the lot of any working person in this state whatsoever. In fact, he's made life harder.
Originally Posted By SFH >>Right now, all unions are united in this: Arnold Schwarzenegger is the enemy of working people. It's only obvious to anyone with open eyes. He has done nothing to improve the lot of any working person in this state whatsoever. In fact, he's made life harder.<< Union management is, not all members. It isn't any politician's job to target someone for help based on what kind of job they do. Schwarznegger has helped the "working people" of California the same way he has helped everyone else - by replacing a Governor who, along with the State legislature, was increasing spending of their tax money at too fast of a rate and regulating businesses (thereby sending jobs elsewhere) with more and more micromanagement. No Governor is ever going to please more than a third of this diverse State in everything he does. But when people had the choice of Gray Davis or Schwarzenegger, they chose Scharzenegger. Some of those people were union members working for State and local governments. With Prop 75, they wouldn't have had to support Davis or Bustamante. SFH
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>Right now, all unions are united in this: Arnold Schwarzenegger is the enemy of working people. It's only obvious to anyone with open eyes. He has done nothing to improve the lot of any working person in this state whatsoever. In fact, he's made life harder.<< Union management is, not all members.<, >>It isn't any politician's job to target someone for help based on what kind of job they do.<< Oh, but it is. Pete Wilson spent his entire term in office attacking public workers one way or another. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been doing the same. >>Schwarznegger has helped the "working people" of California the same way he has helped everyone else - by replacing a Governor who, along with the State legislature, was increasing spending of their tax money at too fast of a rate and regulating businesses (thereby sending jobs elsewhere) with more and more micromanagement.<< First, Davis made a grave error in not keeping the legislature's poor fiscal management in check...on BOTH parties. You may not like this, but taxes were cut WAY too fast and spending was increased way too fast. That's the TRUE cause of the budget problem...you simply cannot decrease revenue and increase spending without expecting problems. Davis failed to heed that important fact. Second, Davis did go overboard in regulation but that does not make ALL regulation of business in California a bad thing. I work for the agency that is involved in workplace safety. As a Repbulican, you may not care two wits about the safety of working people, but as a someone who believes that each human life is precious, I do. I've heard about far too many workplace fatalities that were completely preventable if the employer had DONE THEIR JOB in ensuring that the employee was trained or given the tools needed to keep him or her safe. Do you think that those kinds of regulations are micromanagement? >>No Governor is ever going to please more than a third of this diverse State in everything he does.<< Well said, considering Schwarzenegger's numbers are approaching 33% quickly. >>But when people had the choice of Gray Davis or Schwarzenegger, they chose Scharzenegger.<< And do you SERIOUSLY think that the fact that Schwarzenegger was well known as a popular figure who can deliver lines had nothing to do with it? >>Some of those people were union members working for State and local governments. With Prop 75, they wouldn't have had to support Davis or Bustamante.<< Once again, let me get past your little talking point here and speak the truth: NO ONE HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. Every member has the right to indicate that they do not want their dues not be used for political purposes. Also, people who do not believe in labor unions at all have the right to have their fair share fees donated to charity. So, let me say once again, to get past the talking point: NO ONE HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. Got it?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>>>Right now, all unions are united in this: Arnold Schwarzenegger is the enemy of working people. It's only obvious to anyone with open eyes. He has done nothing to improve the lot of any working person in this state whatsoever. In fact, he's made life harder.<< Union management is, not all members.<< I didn't respond to this talking point before. Let me do that here: I don't think you'll find many public employees who are union members out there today who consider Schwarzenegger their friend. In fact, you'll find that the vast majority realize that he is their sworn mortal enemy and oppose him vigorously.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Well, my strategy for this expensive, unnecessary special election is simple: If the Governor wants it, it's getting a No Vote. Remeber. I voted for him in the recall election. Now I'm thinking we would have been better off voting the porn actress into office.
Originally Posted By SFH So, what exactly is wrong with having the unions ask each member if they want their dues spent on political causes? If they are all in agreement with their union management, it shouldn't be a problem for them, should it? Or should union management rely on the ignorance of their members regarding their options? Prop 75 will make sure the members aren't ignorant of their options. SFH
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>So, what exactly is wrong with having the unions ask each member if they want their dues spent on political causes? If they are all in agreement with their union management, it shouldn't be a problem for them, should it?<< Because it imposes requirement that are ridiculous. It requires that the union, every year, mail a form out to each member and that the member fill out and mail back the form...every year. In an ideal world, everyone will send back their form, but in the REAL world, only the highly motivated will. Most of the time, unions aren't under heavy duty attack, so people tend to become complacent, so people will just consider it another piece of mail It's only when they ARE under heavy-duty attack, like the last two years, that people become aware of what's going on and feel compelled to join the fight. Schwarzenegger's Corporate Special Interest buddies are counting on that. ON the other hand, if this is REALLY about "paycheck protection," then it would be more reasonable to require that the unions to send out information about the union's political program and include opt-out forms for those who believe that the union is not representing their interests. But the truth, this is NOT about "paycheck protection," it's about preventing public employees and their organizations from having any real voice in their own government.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Because it imposes requirement that are ridiculous. It requires that the union, every year, mail a form out to each member and that the member fill out and mail back the form...every year. In an ideal world, everyone will send back their form, but in the REAL world, only the highly motivated will.>> The easy answer is to default a "yes" if the form isn't returned in a certain amount of time.
