Originally Posted By TomSawyer The part where it will reduce the effectiveness of their representation in labor issues.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>What part of letting the Union Member decide is anti-worker?<< I've already explained it. I'll do so again: 1. Employees already have the right to opt-out of having their dues used for partisan politics. If this is *really* about that, then all that is needed is a requirement that the union actively inform members of their right to opt out. 2. Public employment inherently includes the political sphere. That makes politics an integral part of representation and bargaining. Unions representing public employees are going to throw their support and campaign contributions behind candidates and issues that support public employees. That's only logical. Generally, that means that they will support Democrats because, as a rule, Democrats believe in things like public service and worker rights. One other thing...to clear up a misconception that has arisen. If 75 passes, dues will NOT go down. Again, dues will NOT go down.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Opting-out isn't just opting-out of political spending, it is opting of the entire union in many cases (aka you will not be a union member), but you still pay the majority of the dues. Let's go back and look at some examples.... Post #39 >>“I joined the union when I started teaching because of the benefits it provided and I’ve always been a proud member,†said Diane Lenning of Huntington Beach. “However, despite the many good things the union does, it forces me to contribute a portion of my dues to political candidates and campaigns I often disagree with. That’s simply unfair. I want to be a member of the teachers union, but I don’t want to be forced to contribute my money to the union leaders’ political agenda.â€<< Post #42 >>My union just increased our dues by 50 percent for political activity. I had no choice. There is a current procedure for opting out - withholding dues that are slated for political purposes. But in some cases if you opt out of submitting your dues for political purposes, it is more difficult for you to receive other services through the union.<< Post #70 >>The lawsuit was filed on behalf of teachers who said they don't want their dues going to the campaign. While they acknowledged that there is a process to refund the money, they said it takes too long and is too difficult. "It means that I will have to give them a forced loan," said Judy Liegmann, a fifth-grade teacher from Sunnyvale. "They get to use my whole $60 to fight a political battle that I don't necessarily believe in." Liegmann is not a full CTA member, but under state law pays dues to the organization for representation in collective bargaining. << Post #128 >>"I would like to inform the general public about public school teachers and CTA in response to Mr. Malcolm Carmichael's letter to the editor (Union-Tribune, Saturday, 24 Sept. 2005, page B7). In his letter, Mr. Carmichael said "Persons not wanting their union dues or a portion .....used to help elect lawmakers and lobby.....should not belong to a union." Mr. Carmichael and others, you should know that when I became a public school teacher in California 18 years ago, I HAD NO CHOICE regarding "union" membership. It is court mandated that public school teachers will be in either CTA/NEA or CFT/AFT, whichever union has bargaining rights in the school district. As a member of CTA/NEA, I have very little say in anything; I cannot vote for my state union officers, nor do I have a say in who represents me at the local Uniserv office. CTA has the power to raise my dues whenever they wish, give my dues money to any political office candidate who tells them what they want to hear, and spend money to support any proposition or social cause they wish. I personally do not support the political candidates they spend my money to endorse. I am in favor of Proposition 75. CTA and other public service unions should have members permission before spending our hard earned money on political office candidates. << Post #130 >>>>What's a fair share that a union member should gladly pay? I was a union member for 18 years. I chose to exercise my Beck rights and insist that my union not use my dues for political action. I was labeled as disloyal, told not to attend the union meetings because they couldn't 'ensure' my safety, and then after my attorney found that over 30 percent of my dues were spent on politics, they had the audacity to offer me dues-free membership if I would just drop the case. I said no way - I'm not anti - union, but it's wrong to cancel out my vote using my own money to do it.<< Post #153 >>For the 2005-06 school year, roughly $922 will be seized from my paycheck and the other 300 teachers in my district for unified union dues, including the $60 increase CTA is using to fight the ballot propositions. No one asked my permission. Of that amount, CTA will rebate approximately 34 percent or $313 that it admits has used for expenses not related to collective bargaining. Those monies fund political causes, candidates and issues I rarely support. Although CTA is using the $60 increase primarily for politics, it will only rebate part of the increase. To get my money back, I have to ask permission. The union presumes I want it to have this money and to spend the money on politics. Any silence, inaction, missed deadlines or apathy on my part is interpreted as consent. To have the money returned to me, I must be a nonmember. Nonmembers are denied certain benefits such as the $1 million professional liability policy. Nonmembers can not hold office in the union or vote on the final contract. Learning about being a nonmember and triggering a rebate is difficult. The purpose of local union officials making presentations is to get teachers to join. Rarely is there a discussion of how dues are spent as it relates to politics or of the process of getting this money back. School officials have no obligation to notify employees of union membership options or union expenditures. They simply act as a collection agency for the union. No one else is allowed to make a presentation or place a flyer in teachers' mailboxes because the union has exclusive representation rights. Consequently, most teachers simply don't know their options. For those teachers who do know their rights, they still must identify themselves every year by writing and asking for their money to be returned. This must be done within a 30-day window. When a teacher does nothing because he or she may not know what to do or how to do it, the union presumes consent and spends a portion of the money on politics. << Post #166 >>"I don't need the union to do that for me. It's kind of a goofy presumption that they should be taking my money and speaking out on political and social issues that have little or nothing to do with negotiating the contract." << Post #190 >>As a fifth-grade schoolteacher in the San Francisco Bay Area, I am forced to hand over part of my paycheck to the CTA because of California's compulsory unionism laws. Even nonunion members like me still have to pay roughly 70 percent of full dues to a union we want nothing to do with. Many teachers don't even know about this right not to join and to pay less than full dues. Recently, I learned that CTA officials had decided to increase all teachers' dues by another $60 a year, purely for the purpose of fighting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reforms on the ballot this November. They never asked our permission, nor even informed us of the purpose of the new fee. I found out purely by chance. Furthermore, when I asked for the money to be returned to me, CTA officials indicated that I could have to wait one or two years. Even if teachers like me are able to get the money back in a year or two, forcing us to give a loan to union bosses so they can play politics violates our constitutional rights. An election cannot be undone. The merits of Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions are beside the point. Union members and nonmembers should have the right to object to this extraordinary use of their dues. << Lets see what some of that union political money was spent on.... <a href="http://www.organizenotpolitics.org/understanding.the.issue/union.spending.chart" target="_blank">http://www.organizenotpolitics .org/understanding.the.issue/union.spending.chart</a> Make it easier to raise taxes (Support Prop 56) Support Healthcare Tax (Prop 72) Signature Gathering (Prescription Drug Initiative, Energy Re-regulation, Car Tax Measure) Oppose Recall of Gray Davis End Run Prop 13 (raise property taxes) Oppose Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22) And as for the dues decreasing, no, the dues will remain the same, but many union members will end up paying LESS after you take into consideration that if they don't "opt-in" for political spending, their monthly deduction will be LESS. So, the actual amount of union "dues" WILL go down for those Union Members who decide to not agree to the Political portion of union spending.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Your "union member" statements notwithstanding (they don't answer any of the things I've actually said, are inaccurate, to say that least, and are repeats of the usual talking points foisted upon Californians by Schwarzenegger's friends), I have to respond to this mistruth: >>And as for the dues decreasing, no, the dues will remain the same, but many union members will end up paying LESS after you take into consideration that if they don't "opt-in" for political spending, their monthly deduction will be LESS.<< No. In terms of how it would affect dues, what Prop 75 would do is require that the 20% or so of dues that would have gone to partisan political campaigns be allocated elsewhere, such as printing up the stupid form and mailing it out every year. Which brings up another part of the goal of this stupid proposition: it will tie up the union's time and resources in collecting the stupid forms instead of representing and bargaining. That way, they can't be out in the marketplace of ideas advocating for employee rights...which is what Schwarzenegger and his corporate special interest buddies want...less dissent.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.temeculavalleynews.com/story.asp?story_ID=3254" target="_blank">http://www.temeculavalleynews. com/story.asp?story_ID=3254</a> >>As a retired teacher of 36 years, I fully support Proposition 75. I’ve never understood why CTA/NEA should use my money to support issues and candidates to which and to whom I am totally opposed. Recently, the Union assessed the teachers an additional $60, taking it out of their paychecks without their permission, to pay for a $50,000,000 loan on a building to pay for Union politics. It disturbs me, too, that the Union doesn’t tell the truth. They say that the Governor has cut education when, in fact, there is an additional $3 billion in the budget for education, hardly a cut. The budget crisis in California will never be solved unless we get legislators who are willing to cut spending and not insist on paying for every ridiculous pork project they can imagine. Those are the only legislators the Unions support. I think the bottom line is that California is in a mess because of the out of control spending. Can the state continue to spend at the rate Gray Davis spent, greater than the rate of population and inflation? Do teachers want to pay more taxes, experience unchecked inflation and/or bankrupt the State of California? Please vote yes on Proposition 75. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Come on cm, please quit the BS!!!<< YOU quit the BS. Admit the truth, DB. This is NOT about choice. This is NOT about "paycheck protection." The very title is a lie. Proposition 75 is about eliminating the influence of working people in State government. It does this by forcing unions to expend time and resources in a paper chase and to keep records on political contributors. Aside from ensuring that a person wants their dues to go to political causes that support them and their fellow working people, what else can that information be used for, I wonder? There are so many reasons that this Proposition is a bad idea, the least of which is the fact that it's only purpose for having been put on the ballot is to eliminate the voice of public employees from politics, not the LIE that it's about choice or "paycheck protection." As I've said before, it protects no one's paycheck...instead it puts the paychecks of every single public employee in California in danger of extinction.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Why does anyone need a union today anyway?<< Because one employee alone cannot do anything to improve his or her working conditions, but when employees of a company band together, they have power to demand that their employer listen to their needs and bargain fairly with them. Something that the extremist right cannot stand...the notion that common people banding together for a common cause is powerful over the strong.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>Aside from ensuring that a person wants their dues to go to political causes that support them and their fellow working people, what else can that information be used for, I wonder?<< Straight from the Attorney General description of Prop 75, in the Official Title and Summary... >>These records are not subject to public disclosure<< And Prop. 75 is about CHOICE, the choice of the WORKER to decide if part of his/her dues will be used for political spending. That simple... Go read the actual wording of the law!
Originally Posted By cmpaley >> Prop. 75 is about CHOICE, the choice of the WORKER to decide if part of his/her dues will be used for political spending.<< Another lie.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer In regards to Post #210 Based on the wording of the Official Title and Summary by the Attorney General of California, that is EXACTLY what Prop 75 is.... >> Prop. 75 is about CHOICE, the choice of the WORKER to decide if part of his/her dues will be used for political spending.<< <a href="http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections /bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By cmpaley I have the booklet. Those words to not appear in any of the nonpartisan sections of the voter guide. Something similar does appear in the Argument in Favor and the Rebuttle to Argument Against. The Official Title and Summary reads: >>Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute. > Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form. > Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care inruance, or other purpuses directly benefitting the public employee > Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees' and organizations' political contributions. > These records are not subject to public disclosure.<< Now, let, unpack that: >>Public Employee Dues. Restriction on Political Contributions.<< At least they were honest there. This is the true purpose of the entire initiative and it is a lie to say otherwise. How will they fulfill their goal of restricting political contributions? >>Employee Consent Requirement.<< >>Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form.<< This is the means that the extremist right-wingers and corporate special interests will effectively silence their opposition. The proposition will require a costly and time-consuming paper chase that will tie up the resources of public employee unions in red-tape requirements. >>Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care inruance, or other purpuses directly benefitting the public employee<< Except...it will make it effectively impossible for public employee unions to advocate and contribute to politicians and for causes that DO benefit public employees because of the costly and time consuming red-tape requirements. >>Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees' and organizations' political contributions. These records are not subject to public disclosure.<< Actually, politicians CAN get a hold of this information. It says in (e) of the proposed language: "Copies of all records maintained under subdivision (d) shall be sent to the commission on request but shall not be subject to the California Public Records Act." Politicans are not subject to the same restrictions as you or I when it comes to obtaining public records (whether they are subject to public disclosure or not). Any politician can get a copy of those records by making a phone call or writing a letter. I'm sure they'd be quite useful in making up an enemy's list. Considering the Republican tendency to try to squelch opposition wherever and however possible...I don't trust this one bit.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>From The Desk Of Lillian Perry, Fontana Teacher Larry Sand, Los Angeles Teacher October 12, 2005 Dear California Teacher: We are also California teachers and are writing to you because we’re concerned about what the leaders of our union, the California Teachers Association (CTA), are doing to our union and with our hard earned dollars that we send to them in Sacramento every month. Here’s the bottom line: Our current leadership is on the verge of bankrupting the CTA to fund a political agenda that many of us do not support. Every year, union leaders in Sacramento take more than $100 million dollars from California teachers’ paychecks. This is approximately $300 per teacher per year. Much of this is used to fund a political agenda over which individual teachers have little control. Even worse, this is taken from our paychecks without our permission. Earlier this year, the CTA leadership decided it still didn’t have enough money to spend on politics, so the union leadership decided to take an additional $60 each year from our paychecks for the next three years. This forced assessment gave the union leaders an additional $50 million or more of our money for their political agenda. According to court documents filed last week, the CTA has at least $34 million in outstanding loans. Now, these same union leaders are trying to borrow ANOTHER $40 million through a line of credit. When will enough be enough? Where has the money gone? To dozens of consultants and political firms (getting paid millions of dollars), pollsters, television and radio advertising, direct mail firms and the list goes on and on. Much of this “Sacramento slush fund†has been used to oppose Prop. 75 – a very simple measure that says the CTA must ask our permission before political campaign funds are taken from our paychecks. Why would CTA be so opposed, and spend tens of millions of dollars, to having to ask our permission? Could it be that union leadership is concerned that we might not agree with their political agenda – like spending millions to qualify a measure that would have raised property taxes and millions more for measures that have nothing to do with education? Proposition 75 will give teachers a choice, a voice and a say. It will bring accountability to the CTA. Please read the measure for your self. If you agree with us, please join us in voting “YES†on Proposition 75. Prop. 75 is about union democracy, a voice for teachers and guaranteeing us the right to choose how our money is spent. Visit www.organizenotpolitics.org to learn more. Thank you for your time and consideration. Date: 10/13/2005<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.joinarnold.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=itJUJ9MTIuE&b=1033349&ct=1502377" target="_blank">http://www.joinarnold.com/site /apps/nl/content2.asp?c=itJUJ9MTIuE&b=1033349&ct=1502377</a> >>Want some evidence that Prop. 75, the Paycheck Protection Act, is necessary? Let’s take a stroll through some campaign finance reports. California’s Three Strikes and Your Out Law is one of the hallmark successes of our initiative process. The legislature wouldn’t act to toughen sentence laws against repeat felons, so a grieving dad from Fresno who lost his daughter to a senseless murder took an initiative to the streets and changed started a movement that has led to plummeting crime rates in California. Three Strikes passed overwhelmingly and last year the effort to roll it back, Prop. 66, was swatted away by the voters. Guess who spent union dues AGAINST Three Strikes and FOR Prop. 66. Ding ding ding. That’s right. Public employee union bosses. In 1994, the California Teachers Association PAC spent $10k to defeat Three Strikes. Think most California Teachers voted against that measure??? Or the better question is, what did Three Strikes have to do with the mission of the teacher’s union? Just last year, the committee to support the passage of Prop. 66 reported contributions from: California Council of Service Employees American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees SEIU California Faculty Association Political Issues Committee No wonder half of California’s union members support Prop. 75 and the right to keep their money from being spent on issues they don’t believe in and issues that are TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THEIR JOBS!! Date: 10/14/2005<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Schwarzenegger's liars, sorry, spin doctors, have been using a buzzword that shows the lies behind the entire push of Prop 75: "union bosses." Public employee union leaders are public employees who are elected by the membership to represent them and lead their respective unions. Every member has a vote and every member has a voice. So, the real question becomes: why don't more "conservative" people run for elective office in the unions?
Originally Posted By cmpaley Schwarzenegger Lies on the radio: <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13752316p-14594073c.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/ politics/story/13752316p-14594073c.html</a> Governor alleges union bullying That's why Prop. 75 is needed, he says; others see no issue. By Andy Furillo -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, October 22, 2005 Story appeared on Page A1 of The Bee >>Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave voice this week to an issue simmering beneath the surface of the Proposition 75 campaign when he said that public employees who opt out of their unions face intimidation and harassment from their fellow workers. But the chief counsel of the state's Public Employment Relations Board said that as far as he knows, the matter has never come to his agency's attention. Of the 1,100 complaints filed with the board last year, the chief counsel said, he is not aware of a single one that accused union supporters or their bosses of intimidating or harassing state or local government workers who opted out of membership in their labor organizations. "I don't see every case, but I don't recall where people were asserting that they were being in some ways intimidated or harassed by union people," board lawyer Bob Thompson said Friday. "I would have to say that's my anecdotal recollection."<< SNIP (I'm honest about where I snip) >>Opponents of Proposition 75 have argued that the measure - which would require public employee unions to obtain the annual written consent of individual workers before spending their dues money on politics - is unnecessary because public employees already can "opt out" of official membership and thereby not have any of their fees designated for political purposes.<< SNIP (More honesty) >>The No on 75 campaign took strong exception to Schwarzenegger's comments. California Teachers Association President Barbara Kerr said: "It makes for a great sound bite, but it's not true." Tyrone Freeman, president of the Service Employees International Union home health care workers local in Los Angeles, said it was "outrageous; the governor acts as if this is a movie and not reality." Benee Hopson, a Luther Burbank High School social studies teacher and union representative, said Schwarzenegger "doesn't know what he's talking about." "It's just another example of their deceptive campaign," said No on 75 spokeswoman Sarah Leonard. "They continue to lie to the voters of California about the need for Proposition 75 when the truth is that current law protects workers. It's sort of sad to see an elected official spewing complete untruths to his base on conservative radio."<< SNIP
Originally Posted By cmpaley Interesting and True Blog Entry <a href="http://www.betterca.com/speaking_out_of_the_corners_of_their_mouths" target="_blank">http://www.betterca.com/speaki ng_out_of_the_corners_of_their_mouths</a> >>Speaking Out of the Corners of Their Mouths .... Drew Tappan Friday, Oct.21, 2005. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of hearing anyone who opposes the governor's nasty little November Agenda labeled a "union boss" by the Schwarzenegger media machine. Are all of the hundreds of people who turn out to demonstrate against the governor's agenda "Union Bosses"? Are all of our thousands of precinct walkers "Union Bosses"? Are all of those commenting here "Union Bosses?" Are all of those union members who voted in their union's elections, choosing to speak out to protect their voice and those they serve from the governor's attacks and cuts "Union Bosses"? No, they're angry everyday working Californians - rank and file members, concerned community members, parents, police, teachers, firefighters, and nurses - all of whom want to see California built into a better, stronger, smarter, safer place. SNIP The Schwarzenegger campaign is spending millions trying to convince you that their oppositions is something that just doesn't exsist. It's a fairy tale, and not a nice one. Don't believe it.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting that a court case was filed over the matter.... <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_703969.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/homepage/article_703969.php</a> >>What's a fair share that a union member should gladly pay? I was a union member for 18 years. I chose to exercise my Beck rights and insist that my union not use my dues for political action. I was labeled as disloyal, told not to attend the union meetings because they couldn't 'ensure' my safety, and then after my attorney found that over 30 percent of my dues were spent on politics, they had the audacity to offer me dues-free membership if I would just drop the case. I said no way - I'm not anti - union, but it's wrong to cancel out my vote using my own money to do it. Proposition 75 is long overdue. A large percentage of union members vote the opposite of their leadership, but they are kept ignorant of their rights by unions that have become big businesses themselves. Just look at the billions spent attacking the governor month after month. Private businesses don't force their employees to subsidize the political whims of their owners, and neither should public unions. Shane Borgess Anaheim<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>Opponents of Proposition 75 have argued that the measure - which would require public employee unions to obtain the annual written consent of individual workers before spending their dues money on politics - is unnecessary because public employees already can "opt out" of official membership and thereby not have any of their fees designated for political purposes.<< So, they have to LEAVE the union, and lose benefits, for example, Deogge's Mom would lose her Dental and Vision Insurance and Life Insurance, and other union benefits, and then would have to go thru the hassels of filing forms to get her money back (basically a free loan to the union)....... I don't think that is fair, especially with some of the non-union related political spending that has been going on.....
