Originally Posted By cmpaley Actually, DB, I do have to give you credit for one thing. You are finally admitting that this is about greatly reducing the voice of working people via their unions in Sacramento. You probably won't admit that the "choice" angle is an inherently dishonest and partisan attempt to defund non-Republicans through a deceptive initiative, but at least you're admitting part of the truth. That's progress, I suppose.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Press Release... Cash-Strapped CTA Union Rejects $250,000 Offer to Pay Costs of Notifying All Members of Basic Rights CTA union brass insist that rank-and-file union members remain in the dark about their limited rights to reclaim compulsory union dues FOR RELEASE: October 25, 2005 Sacramento, California (October 25, 2005) - The cash-strapped California Teacher Association (CTA) union will not accept an offer by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to pay for a $250,000 statewide mailing to all of the union’s members informing them of their constitutional right to cut off the use of their forced union dues to influence the upcoming November special election. CTA union chief Barbara Kerr did not accept the offer made in an open letter by a group of teacher union members and nonmembers, sent last Thursday and published in Sunday’s Sacramento Bee. In their letter, the teachers demanded that union officials notify all CTA members of how they can refrain from paying for the union hierarchy’s $60 million political campaign by resigning their formal union membership and objecting. In response to a class action lawsuit filed by teachers with free legal help from Foundation attorneys, CTA officials were forced to send a notice on October 15 to nonmembers informing teachers that they have a right to stop and immediately reclaim the $60 per teacher dues increase earmarked for political electioneering. Nonmembers, including teachers who resign their membership and object, can also reclaim an additional $300 per year that the CTA and its affiliates routinely spend on non-bargaining activities. The open letter, signed by over two dozen California teachers, asked union officials to cooperate in informing union members of their same limited rights to cut off the use of their forced dues for politics. The proposed mailing would have been processed by a third party mail shop. It required the cooperation of CTA officials who possess the only mailing list of union members. “Obviously, the union brass intend to keep rank-and-file teachers in the dark about their most basic rights,†said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of National Right to Work Foundation. “Teachers are to serve as blank checks to finance CTA officials’ radical political agenda.†In court proceedings, CTA controller Carlos Moreno filed a sworn declaration disclosing that CTA officials had already spent all $60 million in anticipated revenues from the three-year compulsory dues increase and that union officials were in negotiations for an additional $40 million credit line. If the union is unable to obtain the additional credit, Moreno stated that a $20 million loan could be recalled and services cut back. “We recognize that many teachers will not want to subject themselves to your discriminatory policies of denying nonmembers the right to vote on union contracts, as well as access to liability insurance. However, our member colleagues should at least be allowed to make this choice,†the teachers wrote in their letter to Kerr. Ultimately, the U.S. District court may order the union to notify, at its own expense, union members of their due-process rights. A copy of the open letter can be viewed at www.nrtw.org/california/kerrltr.pdf. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in close to 300 cases nationwide.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/11398875p-12144771c.html" target="_blank">http://www.modbee.com/opinion/ community/story/11398875p-12144771c.html</a> >>I have been a union member for 15 years and can tie much of my pay and benefits to strength at the bargaining table. For much of those 15 years, I served as a shop steward, assisting my co-workers in dealings with our employer when necessary. I don't remember a time when my politics matched those of the Service Employees International Union, the organization to which I belong. I also can't remember a time when my dollars weren't wasted by the SEIU to further its political agenda. Over the years, the SEIU has supported many initiatives and candidates I haven't, and did so with my dues. I work in a closed shop. That means I don't have a job without at least paying for collective bargaining and representation. I could withhold a small portion of my dues to keep it out of the political arena, but not without losing my voice in internal union issues and elections. Employees who feel the need to organize usually do it to have a collective voice when negotiating with management, not for political power. I don't need my union to tell me how to vote and I usually don't agree with its recommendations. I certainly don't agree with paying for the materials, effort and contributions that go to the politicians. I'm not alone in my dissent. Many of my peers are fed up with paying for political agendas that conflict with their personal beliefs. The SEIU represents labor in the public as well as the private sector and has managed to alienate members of both factions with its heavy-handed politics. And the SEIU isn't the only union to distance its members with politics. Teachers unions, firefighters unions and even the all-powerful prison guards have members at odds with their political points of view. Proposition 75 gives public employees an active voice in the process. By forcing unions to ask public employees for permission to use their money in political activism, Proposition 75 forces unions to listen to their members' concerns. The unions are crying foul — the SEIU is one of the loudest — because they feel the initiative will gut funding for political pet projects. If the unions are so afraid members will deny the blank checks they have grown so used to, maybe it's time to rethink union politics. Unions should work for their members by negotiating with employers and promoting a positive public image. Schmoozing with elected officials may get a foot in the door for wages, benefits and working conditions. The problem is that those same officials affect other parts of our lives — all of our lives, including public employees' — in ways that have no bearing on collective bargaining. When I pay someone to do a job for me, I expect them to perform as I ask, not to tell me to shut up and write the check. The only problem with Proposition 75 is that it doesn't go far enough. I wish it would make unions accountable to private sector employees as well.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaa! Finally news from an unbiased source! Darkbeer, I gotta say, with every post you make me more and more convinced that I ought to reconsider voting in favor of Prop 75.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is the open letter that is talked about in post# 260 <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/california/kerrltr.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nrtw.org/california /kerrltr.pdf</a> And here is a related Press Release.... Teachers Secure $250,000 in Funding for Statewide Mailing and Demand that CTA Union Notify Members of Rights Lawsuit has forced CTA union officials to observe nonmembers’ rights, but union refuses to give same notice to members of how to reclaim forced dues spent for electioneering FOR RELEASE: October 20, 2005 Sacramento, California (October 20, 2005) – In an open letter to California Teacher Association (CTA) union chief Barbara Kerr, a group of teachers today demanded that union officials notify all CTA members how they can refrain from paying for its $60 million political campaign. The teachers have lined up $250,000 in funding from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable legal-aid organization, to pay for a mailing to 335,000 CTA union members, if union officials cooperate. In response to teachers’ statewide class action lawsuit, CTA officials sent a notice on October 15 to nonmembers informing teachers that they have a right to stop and immediately reclaim the $60 per teacher dues increase earmarked for union political electioneering. However, the union has flatly refused to inform union members of the same limited rights, and it takes the position that members are not entitled to such information. “Since when do members of an organization have even fewer rights than nonmembers? Do you believe union members are not deserving of basic disclosure of their union’s activities or their legal rights? Do you consider teachers to be open checkbooks to stuff your political coffers? Union members’ voices have been silenced, and their rights have been ignored,†the teachers wrote. Carlos Moreno, the CTA union’s accountant, recently filed a sworn declaration in the class-action lawsuit stating that union officials have already spent all revenues anticipated from the three-year compulsory dues increase. He further said that CTA officials are currently negotiating with a bank for an additional $40 million credit line. “We expect that in light of the CTA union’s extraordinary spending spree, you will cry poverty (despite the additional $40 million you are currently borrowing) to avoid your legal and moral responsibility. That’s why the Foundation, at our request, has offered to pay for the proposed mailing’s entire cost, estimated at $250,000,†the teachers explained. Like the notice sent to nonmembers in response to the lawsuit, the mailing to members would disclose that the entire $60 annual dues increase is being spent for politics. It would also alert teachers to their constitutional right to resign from union membership and to object and reclaim all dues spent for political and other non-bargaining activities. “We recognize that many teachers will not want to subject themselves to your discriminatory policies of denying nonmembers the right to vote on union contracts, as well as access to liability insurance. However, our member colleagues should at least be allowed to make this choice,†the teachers wrote. “Ultimately, the court may order you to observe members’ due process rights. However, with the election less than three weeks away, time is of the essence...Will you cooperate?†the teachers asked. A complete copy of the teachers’ open letter – which asks for a response by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 25 – can be viewed at www.nrtw.org/california. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in close to 300 cases nationwide.
Originally Posted By cmpaley What unbiased source, 2oony? I see nothing but op-ed pieces as far as the eye can see and they all have the same lying talking points. They don't point out the fact that members can vote for leaders who they believe will represent their interests best, they can get involved if they disagree with what's happening and that members have the right to opt out of having their dues used for partisan political purposes (the only requirement should be that unions have to notify members annually of that right--this goes beyond that).
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What unbiased source, 2oony? I see nothing but op-ed pieces<< That's what I meant. The spin is making me a bit queasy.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Fresno Bee says YES on 75... <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/11354138p-12100707c.html" target="_blank">http://www.fresnobee.com/opini on/story/11354138p-12100707c.html</a> >>Proposition 75 would make a change in the way members of California's public employee unions decide whether to help pay for political efforts that their unions undertake. This is one of the most controversial measures on the Nov. 8 ballot, but it would make a rather simple adjustment to ensure fairness to all public employee union members, no matter their political philosophy. Voters should look beyond the misleading political advertising about Proposition 75 and focus on exactly what the measure would require. If it passes, public employee unions would have to get permission in writing before any portion of dues could be spent for political purposes. We urge voters to support Proposition 75. Federal law now allows union members to decline to allow a portion of the dues they pay to be used for political purposes, such as supporting candidates or ballot initiatives. In most cases, the members must take an affirmative step to block the use of their dues for political purposes, a procedure called "opting out." Under Proposition 75, that process would be turned around. Public union members would have to "opt in" to have a portion of their dues used for political causes. Simply put, the burden of seeking permission would be shifted from the members to the unions themselves. Records of the member's choice would have to be kept and recorded with a state agency. We believe the system proposed in Proposition 75 would be much fairer to public union members who want the bargaining ability of a union, but may not believe in the political candidates or causes that union leaders back with their dues. Californians should vote "yes" on Proposition 75. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer San Bernardino County Sun says YES on 75 <a href="http://www.sbsun.com/opinions/ci_3136351" target="_blank">http://www.sbsun.com/opinions/ ci_3136351</a> >>For example, the California Teachers Association this year imposed, without a membership vote, an additional $60 political fee on its 335,000 members to fund opposition to the governor's ballot measures, including Proposition 75. Cutting the unions' campaign funds, presumably, Proposition 75 would reduce their undue influence over state legislation. After all, every public employee's salary is paid by taxpayers. Having a portion of that taxpayer money automatically put toward influencing legislators, who are supposed to represent all the voters, is not favorable to taxpayers and voters the public at large. Vote yes on Proposition 75. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley And still...more misrepresentation of the truth by the right-wing media.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The Fresno Bee and the LA Times are far from the "right-wing" media.....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's look at some of the editorials from the newspaper own editorial boards that say YES on 75... Fresno Bee Yes on Prop. 75: Give public employee union members a clear choice on dues. 10/15/2005 “We believe the system proposed in Proposition 75 would be much fairer to public union members who want the bargaining ability of a union, but may not believe in the political candidates or causes that union leaders back with their dues. â€Californians should vote "yes" on Proposition 75.†Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Prop. 75 helps public workers, general public 10/21/2005 “Under Proposition 75, each public-employee union member would have to opt in each year by signing a consent form to route part of his or her dues into the union's political spending. That offers the member a real choice compared to the current system. Those who support the kind of political causes and candidates their unions give money to can easily take part, while those who do not can abstain without giving up valuable union benefits. . . every public employee's salary is paid by taxpayers. Having a portion of that taxpayer money automatically put toward influencing legislators, who are supposed to represent all the voters, is not favorable to taxpayers and voters – the public at large. “Vote yes on Proposition 75 on Nov. 8.†Long Beach Press Telegram The Nov. 8 propositions: Our preferences on eight ballot initiatives, five of which seem worthy 10/26/2005 "Proposition 75: Government employee union leaders argue that this measure would make it hard to give financial support to causes their members believe in, and anyway their members already can opt out of using dues for this purpose. Baloney. The unions either make life miserable for opt-outs or deprive them of a say in union negotiations that affect them, or both." LA Times Their Views, their dues 10/16/2005 “If this notion sounds almost quaint, it is, because it has become so divorced from reality. At many levels of government, public employee unions, aided by their political war chests, have gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. When public employee unions wield the type of influence they now do in California, too much governing becomes an exercise in self-dealing. “To take one example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has acknowledged it will take a "holy jihad" to assume control of the local school district because teachers unions are so powerful in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Although the mayor opposes Proposition 75, his statement illustrates the need for it. . . For now, Proposition 75 constitutes an important step in the right direction.†Merced Sun Star Our View: Prop. 75 makes sense for workers 10/20/2005 “Public employee unions are among the biggest players in our political system. They throw their considerable weight around by donating millions of dollars to campaigns that support their narrow causes. “Those millions come from union dues collected (or should we say conscripted?) from their members. Unfortunately, union members who don't necessarily agree with their union's political views don't have much of a voice in how their dues money is spent by the almighty union bosses. “Proposition 75, one of the most controversial propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot, seeks to change this by forcing the unions to first ask their members for permission before spending their cash on candidates and political causes. It deserves a "yes" vote.†Modesto Bee Yes on 75: Initiative ensures fairness to all union members despite politics 10/21/2005 “Proposition 75 is one of the most controversial measures on the Nov.8 ballot, but it isn't complicated. It would make a rather simple adjustment to ensure fairness to all public employee union members, no matter their political philosophy. Voters should look beyond the advertising and focus on exactly what the measure would require. . . We support Proposition 75 because it would be much fairer to public union members who want the bargaining ability of a union, but who not believe in the political candidates or causes that union leaders back with their dues. North County Times Vote 'yes' on Prop. 75 10/13/2005 By voting "yes" on Proposition 75, California voters have a chance to accomplish two worthy goals at once. If approved, the so-called "paycheck protection" measure would not only provide a necessary check on the unbridled power of public employee unions that dominate Sacramento, Prop. 75 would also be a substantial victory for free speech. Orange County Register A ‘sinful and tyrannical’ practice 10/12/2005 The public-employee union leaders, who have raised tens of millions of dollars through dues increases to fight Prop. 75, are doing everything they can to distort the simple words of the ballot summary. They portray it as an attempt by big corporations to dilute the voice of labor unions and as an attack on public schools. It’s nothing of the sort. Prop. 75 is amazingly simple. Right now unions can take money from members and use it, not only for organizing and collective bargaining, but to support political causes favored by the union leaders. These causes often are far removed from the views of the rank and file. Prop. 75 says that union leaders must ask permission first before taking money and spending it that way Redding Record Searchlight Prop. 75 would help rebalance political scales 10/18/2005 “Unhobbled by political tact, we can mention that the public employee unions are one of the biggest gorillas in the political jungle of Sacramento, and that the unions' clout in the Capitol means their wishes are all too frequently favored over the best interests of the taxpayers. The point of Proposition 75 is to fix the balance.†San Bernadino County Sun Proposition 75: Union dues bill offers a choice 10/24/2005 “Employees should have a legitimate say on where their money goes. “Proposition 75 would change the way public-employee unions collect political-spending money from their members. It's a positive change for union members and for the public at large.†San Diego Union Tribune Yes on Prop. 75; Time to end bullying of workers -- and state 10/19/2005 “This schism is reflected in state polls showing that half of union members are ready to vote for Proposition 75. No wonder the union bosses are terrified of what will happen to their political funds if 75 is enacted. They already know much of their rank and file rejects their agenda. “Which brings us to the big-picture reason for backing Proposition 75: to prevent more of this agenda from becoming official policy, to California's detriment. Consider what the unions have used their recent sway over Sacramento to achieve: hiking public employees' pay and pensions; protecting all public employees' jobs, from the school aides who swell payrolls but don't teach to incorrigibly violent prison guards; obstructing charter schools; blocking school outsourcing that would yield more classroom funding; killing a landmark solar-power initiative because it didn't include a payoff for building-trade unions; pressuring the California Public Employees' Retirement System to use its $190 billion investment kitty to bully private companies to make concessions to their unions. The list could go on and on.†Santa Barbara News Press Our Opinion: Vote yes on Proposition 75 10/17/05 "Vote yes on Proposition 75 to support good government and the rights of individual workers." Santa Cruz Sentinel As We See It: Support protection of paychecks 10/6/2005 “Perhaps more than any other reform measure touted by Schwarzenegger, 75, if passed, would probably lead to the most momentous changes in the way California does its public business. “Why? Because public-employee unions have a power and influence unrivaled in the state because of the monetary contributions they make.†Woodland Daily Democrat Give union members more say in their dues “We favor the measure because even though most unions do allow their members to opt out of having their dues used for political purposes, the method by which people can opt out is different and confusing and, frankly, favors the unions not their workers. . . Union workers should be deciding how their money is spent, not union leadership.â€
Originally Posted By cmpaley You're proving my point. The print media in California is definitely trending hard-right.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Most newspaper editorial boards are facing problems with their own union employees, and the boards are the ones who write or approve the editorials.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I see Union members are about as peaceful as a bunch of crazed Muslims in Iran. Union activists caught on film attacking woman: Public employee union activists showed the utter hypocrisy of their campaign against the special election initiatives on Thursday at a rally in LA’s Pershing Square. While $115 million has been spent by public employee unions to oppose the reform initiatives and promote a message that the voices of their members will be silenced if Prop 75 passes, an angry mob of dues paying union members showed what little respect they have for free speech by physically attacking a woman who spoke out in support of the governor’s reform initiatives. “A single Schwarzenegger supporter struggles to hold her ground in a rally against the governor’s special election initiatives. Opponents tried to hit her with their signs and some blocked news cameras as she argued her point. The crowd turns quickly, grabbing her signs and tearing them up. Even a woman wearing an orange security vest rips up the “Vote Yes†signs.†(CBS 2 News, October 28, 2005)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is the link to the video of the above story... <a href="http://cbs2.com/video/?id=9118" target="_blank">http://cbs2.com/video/?id=9118</a>@kcbs.dayport.com&cid=71 Amazing, the unions can go around and drown out Schwarzenegger events, but get upset when someone wants to do it against them...
Originally Posted By cmpaley I'll be the first to say that when I saw it, it was a very bad move on the part of those people. On the other hand, you don't see union members going into the middle of pro-Schwarzenegger rallies, even the staged ones, and making a ruckus. They usually stay on their side of the street and shout to the other side. And, of course, let's not forget the violence that Schwarzenegger's Corporate Agenda does to working families.
