Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Even assuming that life was as bad as the unions say it was<< Now that's REALLY stretching and twisting. Good grief, before long we'll be hearing how good people had it back then. How soon we forget.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Good grief, in the past year I've learned that Sen. Joe McCarthy was a good guy and that unions were never any good. Such a reeducation you can get in world events here. LOL!
Originally Posted By cmpaley Here's what I don't get. The rabid-right wingers who are supporting the "Public Employees Should Shut Up Initiative" are trying to convice you and me that most public employees are just as rabidly right wing as they are and don't want their dues to be used to campaign for people and issues that benefit them at work. As though public employees are saying to one another, "gee, although I'm barely making ends meet, I love the idea of a cut in pay, increasing health insurance premiums and no retirement." It's ridiculous, I know, but that's what the rabid right wing supporters of Prop 75 want you to think is going on.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/10/25/opinion/commentary/102405190600.txt" target="_blank">http://www.nctimes.com/article s/2005/10/25/opinion/commentary/102405190600.txt</a> >>The California Teacher's Association is easily Sacramento's most powerful interest group. Its power has grown exponentially since the 1975 enactment of the Rodda Act, which required school districts to engage in collective bargaining with teacher unions. Over time, public schools became closed shops where union membership was a required condition of employment for teachers. Today, the CTA has more than 335,000 dues-paying members, and annually collects more than $100 million from teachers' paychecks. Effectively, the union has gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. As a result, money that should be spent on kids and classrooms is instead being spent on salaries and pensions. VUSD went from being a real-estate agent's selling point ("Ahh, Vista schools!") to a target of federal sanctions because of its underperforming schools. When school district trustees are accountable only to the unions that elected them, who looks out for the public, or for the kids? Earlier this year, the state CTA flexed its muscles and spent millions on television commercials telling voters that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had cut education spending. In fact, the opposite was true; the governor's budget actually raised education spending by $3 billion. Nevertheless, the CTA was able to take the governor's public support from a sky-high 60 percent of voters down to an approval level in the mid-30s. This was not good news. After all, if the CTA was able to defeat a charismatic, reform-minded governor like Schwarzenegger, there would be no elected official who would dare stand in its way. In fact, court documents recently filed by the CTA suggest that the union may have overplayed its hand. In these papers, the CTA admitted that it has already spent the money that it hopes to raise with a new $60 three-year surcharge it recently added to the dues each union member must pay. In the same court documents, the CTA also said that it was attempting to negotiate an additional $40 million line of credit, on top of $34 million in outstanding loans that the union already had obtained. Of course, should Proposition 75 pass, the CTA may not be able to repay these loans, because teachers will be able to object to the spending of their dues on political purposes. If enough teachers refuse to allow their dues to be used for politics, the CTA's ability to control California's future will be weakened. And school district boards, such as VUSD Board of Trustees, might be once again become accountable to parents and kids, and not merely to the unions that brought about their election.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=17515" target="_blank">http://www.chronwatch.com/cont ent/contentDisplay.asp?aid=17515</a> >>Suppose someone told you that you were obliged to provide financial support for a candidate you opposed. Most sensible people would find this absurd. And indeed it is. Remarkably union members in the United States face an obligatory deduction from their pay stubs so that union leaders can support candidates many of the members might not vote for. As one might expect, union leaders are eagerly raising funds to defeat the initiative. And where does this money come from? Ironically, it means that members will pay more dues so that union leaders can maintain control over them. In ’98, unions outspent their opponents by a 10 to 1 margin. There is little doubt the unions will outspend the opposition again.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley ROFLMAO!!!! Corporations spend 13 dollars to every 1 unions spend in campaign donations in Sacrament...yet unions are more powerful...riiiiiiiiiiight! More right-wing lies.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Suppose someone told you that you were obliged to provide financial support for a candidate you opposed.<< And support someone who wants to eliminate your job, or barring that, cut your pay, eliminate your benefits and make your retirement a dream that will never be realized. That's the lie the rabid right-wing is trying to foist upon us in Prop 75: "Unions are evil because they donate money to people and causes that ensure that working people have jobs, decent pay, health insurance and a secure retirement but the members don't want those things. They REALLY back people and causes that eliminate their jobs, cut their pay, eliminate their benefits or eliminate their chances for a decent retirement." How absurd is that? >>As one might expect, union leaders are eagerly raising funds to defeat the initiative. And where does this money come from? Ironically, it means that members will pay more dues so that union leaders can maintain control over them. In ’98, unions outspent their opponents by a 10 to 1 margin. There is little doubt the unions will outspend the opposition again.<< Hmmm...more lies wrapped around partial truths. Union members and leaders aren't stupid. Why in the world would a union back a candidate who hates the concept of public service, the rights of working people, a secure retirement, etc.? The real reason behind Prop 75 is to eliminate that funding by unions to persons and cause that the rabid right-wing and their corporate special interest buddies oppose. When will Schwarzenegger and his friends stop lying to the people of California?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer What is the current spending on this special election and the 4 major "Join Arnold" propositions? The Unions have spent somewhere between $80 million, to over $100 million depending on the source... The Governor's campaign (which includes business interests, but also has personal and other sources) is around $40 million.... Looks like the unions have more clout to me.....
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>What is the current spending on this special election and the 4 major "Join Arnold" propositions? The Unions have spent somewhere between $80 million, to over $100 million depending on the source... The Governor's campaign (which includes business interests, but also has personal and other sources) is around $40 million.... Looks like the unions have more clout to me.....<< This election cycle isn't a good indicator of how things work in a normal cycle. This election is a special interest attack on working people in the public sector, so, of course, their unions are going to pull out al the stops to fight back and defend their members. Look at the bigger picture. Corporate special interests FAR outspend labor outside of this cycle. For example, very few labor backed bills passed the legislature and got signed by the Governor all but one item opposed by the Chamber of Commerce was defeated (the one item that got through was a ban on junk faxes...an rather innocuous item, to say the least). That alone shows the lie behind the right-wing idea that unions have "too much power" while corporate special interests have little power.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Can you show me a source to the point regarding that Corporations spend 13 times as much as union do in Sacramento....
Originally Posted By cmpaley Actually, according to this, in 2004, corporate special interests outspent unions 24 to 1 <a href="http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0511/prop75.html" target="_blank">http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0 511/prop75.html</a> >> It is difficult to tally the total spent by California unions on politics. The Institute on Money in State Politics, a Montana-based nonprofit group, found that California public sector unions spent $6.7 million last year on candidates, but the amount spent on ballot measures was not tracked. The institute's records show that donations from unions, public and private, amounted to 5.7 percent of the money received by candidates last year, less than half the combined giving by business interests. Finance, insurance, real estate, construction, agriculture and general business interests made up 13.7 percent of candidate contributions. Opponents of Proposition 75 cite figures from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org) that show that large corporations outspend unions by 24 to 1.<< <SNIP FOR HONESTY> >>Corporate interests contribute substantially more to political campaigns than unions do. Past estimates have ranged from 4:1 to 11:1. According to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, business outspent organized labor by as much as 24 to 1 in the 2004 presidential election.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Gee, this brings up some very interesting points, first off, it is hard to track union spending, as they do it in different ways, for example, all those millions spent early this year basically slamming the Governor. That is not political spending, but advocacy spending. Also, is money spent on Union Lobbysts political spending? I would say that it all is general political spending, but since the money is shifted to so many different location, even the "experts" can't figure it out. But the The Institute on Money in State Politics basically shows 2 to 1 in the general business interests (which includes Corporations, but also money from other sources). ALL the other numbers do NOT relate to Sacramento, but just general nationwide spending. So, the following statement is a lie... >>Corporations spend 13 dollars to every 1 unions spend in campaign donations in Sacramento<< Union Spending is hard to track, but what was clearly labled political spending was about half what Corporations did in Sacramento, and that in regards to candidates, are minor sources, as the candidates got about 80% of their funding from other souces, such as individuals....
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That is not political spending, but advocacy spending.<< But Darkbeer, in fairness, the corporate money machine never stops when it comes to "advocacy". cmpaley didn't lie, in fact, he answered your challenge and exceeded the 13 to 1 statement. If you think it's tough to follow the unions' money, try and sort out all the cash from corporate interests. Lotsa luck.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>cmpaley didn't lie, in fact, he answered your challenge and exceeded the 13 to 1 statement. If you think it's tough to follow the unions' money, try and sort out all the cash from corporate interests. Lotsa luck.<< NO, he showed spending in the Presidental Election by unions nationwide versus Corporate Spending nationwide.. He clearly stated SACRAMENTO, a state that has very strong Union ties compared to other states. The one set of clear numbers related to California spending was just 2 to 1. Show me something that says that Just in California, the split between union spending and Corporate spending, right now, the only one I seen is the 2 to 1.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Answer me this, DB. If unions are so powerful, why couldn't they move any major legislation through the legislature? If business is so weak and at the mercy of the all-powerful union juggernaut, why did they get everything they wanted except the signing of a very minor law banning junk faxes?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Lets go back... Post# 242 >>The California Teacher's Association is easily Sacramento's most powerful interest group. Its power has grown exponentially since the 1975 enactment of the Rodda Act, which required school districts to engage in collective bargaining with teacher unions. Over time, public schools became closed shops where union membership was a required condition of employment for teachers. Today, the CTA has more than 335,000 dues-paying members, and annually collects more than $100 million from teachers' paychecks. Effectively, the union has gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. As a result, money that should be spent on kids and classrooms is instead being spent on salaries and pensions. VUSD went from being a real-estate agent's selling point ("Ahh, Vista schools!") to a target of federal sanctions because of its underperforming schools. When school district trustees are accountable only to the unions that elected them, who looks out for the public, or for the kids?<< Post 243 talks about how the Unions outspent the opposition 10 to 1 in 1998. Post #237 >>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.<< Anyways, enough cut and paste, one main reason why the unions did get much thru this last year was the fact they were laying low on purpose, to save their funds to spend on the special election... The Unions actually pulled a lot of the bills they were in favor of.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Why would anyone trust anything written by rabid right-wing assemblyman Ray Haynes? The man is a liar who makes assertions without proof: >>This much we know, government employees make about 25 percent more than their private sector counterparts, << This is a LIE. He cannot prove it, but he uses the right-wing's favorite tool...repetition of a lie until it becomes accepted in the public zeitgeist. Reposting the assertions of liars proves nothing. I wish that Schwarzenegger's supporters would simply be honest for once.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I am looking for the specific stat, but here is an eye opener... <a href="http://www.publicpurpose.com/ge-2001.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publicpurpose.com/g e-2001.htm</a> In 2001, a Federal Government employee made 76.5% more than a private employee, on average...
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a better report, talking about California, dated March 2005.... <a href="http://www.caltax.org/research/plan.htm" target="_blank">http://www.caltax.org/research /plan.htm</a> >>Various recent compensation comparisons reveal that public employees are better compensated than their private sector counterparts. For example, a study by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics found that wages of many state and local government workers in the Sacramento area are as much as 20 percent higher than for the same jobs in private industry. The survey showed that government jobs paid more than those in the business sector in 62 of 66 comparisons. Findings from the American Legislative Exchange Council paint a similar picture. In a 1992 study, ALEC determined that public employees were better compensated than their private sector counterparts by 23.8 percent, a figure that grows to 32.3 percent if fringe benefits are included in the comparisons.<< Check out the chart in part 4 of the above link... So we have two different surveys, one from the US Department of Labor that looked into Pay only, and then the American Legislative Exchange Council that shows pay only at almost 25%, and with fringe benefits, 32.3%... It is clear that Ray Haynes can back up his statement, and is NOT lying. Could you please cut the BS rhetoric, calling everything "rabid right wing", and a lie, when they are NOT!!!!
Originally Posted By cmpaley The Wendel Cox comparison is not useful because it only compares "average" workers, not similar workers doing similar jobs in similar geographical locations. As to CalTax.org, a brief perusal of their site yield interesting information about their pro-corporate, anti-working person, right-wing biases. Putting that aside, comparing like work seems to be a good methodology in showing a wage disparity...and it works...until you consider the baseline being used. It is not a fair or reasonable comparison as it to use wages from low cost area, Sacramento, as a baseline for comparing private sector vs. state employee wages statewide. Geographical disparities in wages aren't taken into account. With rare exceptions, a state employee working in any said classification in Sacramento makes the exact same wage as a state employee in Los Angeles of the same classification but their private sector counterpart has a disparity, so that a worker in Sacramento will be making less than a similar worker in Los Angeles or San Francisco. The methodology used in this "study" is inherently dishonest and maintains my assertion that Ray Haynes a liar.
