Originally Posted By Darkbeer From the Sacramento Bee article... >>"Let me tell you something," the Republican governor said, amid a discussion of the Proposition 75 union dues measure that he has embraced as part of his government overhaul package slated for the Nov. 8 special election ballot. "People have tried to opt out in the union. They get intimidated, they get harassed," he said. "There's all kinds of things that happen to them after that. It's not that easy to opt out. That's why we say, why don't you just give a written statement, and then the union can do whatever they want."<< >>Schwarzenegger special election campaign spokesman Todd Harris said the governor's comment on the radio came from "firsthand knowledge" based on union members approaching him at campaign events and saying, "Governor, I'm with you all the way, but of course I could never say that at work." Told of the board's statistics, Harris said, "It's a Catch-22. People are afraid to speak out because they are worried about intimidation. Then, because of the intimidation, they don't speak out."<< >>Supporters of the initiative first raised the intimidation issue last month when a Fountain Valley schoolteacher allegedly received a nasty letter in her mailbox at work after she was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as favoring the initiative. "You not only deserve to be shunned by your colleagues, you deserve to be ... (punished) in public by all the teachers you work with for demonstrating such a high level of right wing drivel and stupidity," said the unsigned letter provided to The Bee by the Yes on 75 campaign. Patty Armanini, an elementary schoolteacher in the Marin County community of Ross Valley, said she felt intimidated when she opted out of her union a few years ago and a representative of the labor organization confronted her in her classroom after school. "She kind of cornered me," Armanini, whose name was provided to The Bee by the Yes on 75 campaign, said of the union rep. "I felt cornered. I felt kind of scolded, like I was a naughty little kid. It was very uncomfortable."<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_704437.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/columns/article_704437.php</a> >>Union thuggery and intimidation in California may have reached an all-time high. California's most politically powerful union bosses recently have boldly jacked up the mandatory union dues of California's public employees by tens of millions of dollars. Union officials have earmarked the money - and are spending it hand over fist - to defeat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Nov. 8 ballot propositions, which Big Labor fervently opposes. Rank-and-file teachers, professors and other public employees were not consulted, and they certainly were not allowed an opportunity to object to, and prevent, this extraordinary expenditure of their money for partisan politics. As word leaked out of the unions' plans, the National Right to Work Foundation was flooded with calls and e-mails from educators who wanted to fight back. They object to the forced extraction of dues for this electioneering activity - and they asked for help. The actions of these union officials fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the foundation agreed to provide free legal assistance - just as it has in the more than 250 foundation legal-aid cases currently under way across America, each involving some form of compulsory unionism abuse. In Sacramento last month, the teachers and professors - joined by State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Simi Valley – announced a First Amendment federal class-action lawsuit challenging the levies against more than 350,000 teachers and professors statewide. More than 100 screaming union militants filed out of union offices and encircled the news conference to drown out and intimidate the classroom teachers who were speaking to the media. No one could hear over the deafening and maniac chants, and the union bosses' thuggish tactic backfired in the press. Nothing could have demonstrated more clearly the intimidation that teachers face every day when they try to stand up to the union.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Very interesting article in which an US District Court found a union guilty of intimidation of 2 members that refused to fund political activites.... <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/foundation-action/novdec00.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nrtw.org/foundation -action/novdec00.pdf</a> Looks like the Union is once again LYING, just like they did about the Yes on 75 mailer and the union bug.....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/112799923561533.html" target="_blank">http://www.vvdailypress.com/20 05/112799923561533.html</a> >>"Union officials seem to think rank-and-file educators are there to serve as the union's ATM machine to finance its political agenda," Stefan Gleason, vice president of the foundation said. Some teachers throughout San Bernardino County have said they were never informed their dues would be increased while others say they knew but have no real choice for fear of being blacklisted. "I didn't know my union raised my dues to fight Schwarzenegger until I read it in your paper. I'm outraged and exhausted over my union's tactics. It's embarrassing having to be affiliated with the union," said one Adelanto School District teacher of more than 10 years. She spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of union retaliation. "There is a climate of fear and intimidation. If they knew I spoke out then my name would be blacklisted ... I have no doubt." She said she will not ask that her special $60 increase be refunded. But like the teachers who filed the lawsuit, she objects to paying for union political activities she doesn't agree with. "The real price I would have to pay would be far worse than the $60 I will lose," she said. "It's a shame my money is being taken for that because I really don't have a problem with the propositions he's (Schwarz-enegger) proposing."<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Schwarzenegger and company are the true liars. Prop 75 is not about "paycheck protection." It makes it easier to ELIMINATE the paychecks of public employees altogether...leaving nothing to "protect."
Originally Posted By cmpaley A very good point was made here: <a href="http://www.betterca.com/real_motivations_behind_prop_75#comment-291" target="_blank">http://www.betterca.com/real_m otivations_behind_prop_75#comment-291</a> >>You don't seem to understand the point of the union's political activities. It is not to represent the views of their members as a whole. It is to support the issues and candidates who would make the best decisions when it comes to your work and work life. Thus, you often see the police officers union supporting much more liberal candidates than their officers individually might, because the more liberal candidates are more apt to raise pay and not cut benifits.<< That says it much better than I ever could...and that's what the extremist right cannot tolerate.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^ So when union political money was spent on Prop. 66, to help change the law in regards to Three Strikes, it was for the police officers benefit that more felons could return to the streets??? Why, would it give them job security???
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.caforpaycheckprotection.com/news.room/?categoryID=3&articleID=17" target="_blank">http://www.caforpaycheckprotec tion.com/news.room/?categoryID=3&articleID=17</a> >>I’m a teacher in West Sacramento where I have been teaching for 1 year. Before I began teaching I learned that a large portion of my union dues would be spent on political purposes, funding political campaigns that I may not agree with. When I began teaching, I was told that union membership was mandatory and was given the paperwork to allow the district to automatically deduct my union dues from my paycheck (about $900 a year). I was aware through personal conversations that I had the option to opt-out and be an agency fee payer (receiving a rebate of about $280), but that this would mean I would not be allowed to be a real member of the local union. I would still have to pay for everything other than political campaigning but would lose out on union membership, liability insurance, and all other benefits except for collective bargaining. I am convinced that it is wrong for unions to force their members to pay for political campaigns or withhold membership from them. I also believe the unions should be required to notify their members that they have the legal right to opt-out of paying for political campaigning. A number of teachers with whom I work disagree with the politics of the NEA, but pay for these political campaigns either because they don't know they have an option not to or because they are fearful of losing out on the benefits of union membership. That is why I’m supporting the Paycheck Protection initiative. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley DB, post 225 contains the only valid question in that your side has brought up in this entire thread. As to your posts of alleged "union members" who write letters, no one mentions the key...GETTING INVOLVED. That's the best way to make sure that your interests as a public employee are represented (and that's what the unions do...ensure that the interests of public employees are represented).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/abox/article_727119.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/abox/article_727119.php</a> >>Currently, if an employee objects to the union's left-wing agenda, he or she must opt out - a difficult and intimidating process for quitting the union. Even after opting out, the former union member must still pay most dues. Prop. 75 would do a simple thing: force unions to ask for the money, not just take it. It's a matter of fairness. And a matter of survival for the state's taxpayers. Since 2000, the unfunded liability of the state pension system has increased 1,600 percent, Wilson explained, as the unions have used their forcibly taken dues to intimidate politicians into supporting unsustainable pension spikes. "Their one principle is the growth of government," Wilson said. "If government grows, guess what? The membership of the union grows and so does the power of the union bosses." Wilson said that Prop. 75 is "a gift that will keep on giving to those who don't wish to sit by and watch the march to socialism." Amen. Vote YES on Prop. 75. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting article dealing with the power unions have in Sacramento... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/23/MNGAQFCQIU1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/23/MNGAQFCQIU1.DTL</a> (Selected paragraphs only) >>Labor lobbyists bully lawmakers. And unions representing narrow interests can derail legislation that has nearly universal support. Labor does have an impressive track record in the Capitol, and some of the victories come with a direct cost to taxpayers. Public employee unions got a major boost in 1999, when pensions were enriched for most state workers. The increase at the state level led to richer pensions for many local government workers, too, and the state's public pension system estimated the increase will add $3.2 billion to pension costs over a 10-year period. A 2001 contract for California's 30,000 prison guards gave generous raises and will add $1.6 billion to the state budget by 2007, according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst. This year, unions representing relatively small groups of workers stopped legislation many other interest groups supported. Concerns voiced by the electrical workers union regarding wages derailed Schwarzenegger's proposal to increase the use of solar power in the state, an issue that is overwhelmingly favored in public opinion polls and that had bipartisan support in the state Senate before dying in the Assembly. Richman complains that a measure he carried that would have allowed hospitals and doctor's offices to quickly sign up uninsured children for state-run health insurance using the Internet was opposed by a union representing many county workers because it might have reduced the need for employees. The union contends it was worried about the privacy rights of the uninsured. And a union representing 13,000 publicly employed engineers managed to stall an effort backed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to build a new carpool lane on Interstate 405 by contracting out the engineering and construction work. Villaraigosa wanted to outsource the work to speed up the project in order to capture federal money available for the expansion of one of the most congested freeways in the United States. The union, Professional Engineers in California Government, has fought for years to prevent contracting out for engineering work on highway projects. It is a big spender on political campaigns, and it has almost always won its battles. "It's a very good example of one interest group that has far too much power on one subject," said Richard Katz, a former Democratic assemblyman who is now on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board in Los Angeles, and who worked on the 405 legislation. That is labor's true clout -- power over specific issues that directly affect their members. In a dramatic speech on the Senate floor last month, Speier, who is running for lieutenant governor next year, revealed that one of her staffers had been threatened by a labor lobbyist pushing for health care legislation. The lobbyist told the staffer that the Service Employees International Union would "take her (Speier) out" in next year's election if she didn't vote for the bill. The union later apologized. And when Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, was quoted earlier this year saying the Legislature should look at revising Proposition 98, which sets the school-funding formula, the state teacher's association blanketed his district with mailers suggesting he was anti-education. Perata, a former high school teacher, wasn't proposing specific legislation or suggesting less money for schools. But the union felt it had to send a message, said Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association. "What we are saying is we think he should have talked to us first (about changing education funding)," Kerr said. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Read in context, the entire article makes the point that the Chamber of Commerce (anti-worker/pro-business) got pretty much everything they wanted this year (the only thing they didn't get was a veto on the banning of junk faxes). In fact, it makes the point that unions, in general, have the exact same amount of clout as the anti-worker/pro-business Chamber of Commerce.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Post 228 purports nothing new, is a repeat of all the other posts of the poster. The post also uses statistics to prove nothing while attempting to prove a lie.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3106" target="_blank">http://www.americanchronicle.c om/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3106</a> (Selected Paragraphs only, but you should go read the entire article.) >>Why this union steward voted for Proposition 75 I voted for Proposition 75 when I mailed in my absentee ballot a few days ago. A few months before that I voted for a special union dues assessment for political action money targeted to remove the Arnold Schwarzenegger from office in 2006. When Proposition 75 passes I will sign the approval that allows CCPOA to continue using my dues for politics. That is what the initiative is all about --- free choice. Public employees who support union political activities will continue to do so after Prop 75 passes by saying so in writing. It's really that simple. Its really that fair. The unions don't see it that way and have spent well over thirty million so far to fight the ballot proposition. The reason for this is simple: the bosses know most of the rank-and-file don't agree with them about paying for political activity. Many of us don't want our dues money spent on the far left causes and blame-America-first politicians the unions favor. Even more public employees don't give a damn about politics either way and will never take the affirmative action Propostion 75 will require before the unions can use their money to play politics. The bosses know this and understand their status as Big Blue fat cats and political influence will disappear when the initiative passes. Even the normally pro-union editorial boards at the LA Times and Fresno Bee support Proposition 75 ... Its the American Way.<<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The reason for this is simple: the bosses know most of the rank-and-file don't agree with them about paying for political activity. Many of us don't want our dues money spent on the far left causes and blame-America-first politicians the unions favor.>> Union bosses suck. It gives me great pleasure to see them spending everything they have just to lose. Nice job Arnold.
Originally Posted By cmpaley There are no such thing as union bosses. The term is an invention of the extremist, anti-worker right wing. The leaders of various unions are elected by the membership and are responsible to the membership for their actions through the ballot box. I wish the right-wing apologists would simply stop LYING.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<There are no such thing as union bosses. The term is an invention of the extremist, anti-worker right wing.>> What?? Someone in the union is the leader who has a lot ot lose when # 75 passes. I would call them the bosses, but if you would like to use a different word that's fine.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><<There are no such thing as union bosses. The term is an invention of the extremist, anti-worker right wing.>> What?? Someone in the union is the leader who has a lot ot lose when # 75 passes. I would call them the bosses, but if you would like to use a different word that's fine.<< Let me ask you a question, Beau...and let's see if you can answer it without resorting to your typical sloganeering. A union exists to represent the interests of their membership in terms of employment. For public employees, that inherently includes the political sphere as the people with whom the union must deal are elected through the political process. Does it make sense to you for the union to try to make its life easier by supporting persons or cause that support public employees and the services they provide? That's generally what unions do. Republicans are generally against public employees and believe that the services they provide should be eliminated, so why would a public employee union give anything but opposition to a Republican?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=17499" target="_blank">http://www.chronwatch.com/cont ent/contentDisplay.asp?aid=17499</a> >>We all know the story of the rise of unionism in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Our country was being run by robber barons, the capitalist exploiters, who would abuse children for profit, and allow people to die in substandard working conditions while they sat in the lap of luxury. Unions rode in on their white horse, forced industry to reform, saved lives, protected paychecks, and, in general, restored harmony in a world dislocated by the industrial revolution. Unions fought the evil employers, pushed for labor reforms, minimum wages, safe workplaces, and, through their tireless effort, made sure that people received a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work in a safe work environment. Government employees were hired to enforce these rules, and, faced with the prospect of jail time, the evil capitalist reluctantly acceded to the government control. At least that is how it is taught in the government schools, which are run by the government employee unions. Even assuming that life was as bad as the unions say it was in the private sector before forced unionism, why did we ever have government employee unions? Was it because the government was an evil employer, putting people to work in an unsafe work environment for unfair wages, or, was it just a way for union bosses to extract money from unwilling employees in order for those bosses to corrupt the political system? Were those Democrats, who claimed to be for the working man when they formed the government employee unions, so evil as employers that a union was necessary to protect the government worker from their power, or was it just that the Democrats wanted to form the union so they could have a steady supply of campaign cash in order to maintain their control over the levers of government power? I think most people would agree that something is seriously wrong with our current government employee unions here in California. In the Gray Davis years, they overreached, grabbing for exorbitant wage increases and excessive pension benefits, using their forced union dues to give millions of dollars to Gray Davis and the Legislative Democrats, in order to force the state, school districts, cities, and local governments of all types to unionize and pay their unionized employees wages beyond what the taxpayers could afford. In 1998, the California government pension system, CalPERS, was $60 billion over funded. By 2003, the Democrats had increased government pensions so much that taxpayers had to borrow $2.5 billion a year to keep the pension system solvent. During that same time, those unions contributed over $30 million to those Democrat politicians. Forced union dues (contributed to willing left wing legislators) bankrupted the state in two budget cycles, taking it from a $12 billion surplus to a $28 billion deficit. The number of state employees, paying these forced union dues, increased 47,000 in these two years. The government employee unions have corrupted the whole system. Now they are spending the money they forcibly extract from their members to trash the Governor, spending almost $100 million of the money they steal from these government employees. But why do they exist? Is a government job so unsafe, so underpaid, that only a union can protect the government employee, or is the system a sophisticated extortion scheme designed to keep left wing politicians in power in Sacramento? This much we know, government employees make about 25 percent more than their private sector counterparts, and get benefits that are without equal in the private sector. They have ideal working conditions, and legally protected job security. They don’t need a union to protect them from an unscrupulous employer. So, why do these unions really exist? I don’t know, maybe you can tell me.<<
