Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The easy answer is to default a "yes" if the form isn't returned in a certain amount of time.<< But that wouldn't fit the true goal of this proposition: to silence public employee organizations. Just LOOK at who is supporting this initiative and you'll see that it is definitly NOT the friend of working people, public OR private.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I think I'm beginning to understand. This is about which side gets to take advantage of those members who, for whatever reason, usually do not participate.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I think I'm beginning to understand. This is about which side gets to take advantage of those members who, for whatever reason, usually do not participate.<< One would think that if one were a cynic.
Originally Posted By friendofdd CMP, you probably know by now that I do not make cynical posts. I am not a cynic. I also am neutral about unions. If you will reread the arguments made for both sides, with an open mind, you will see that it is easy to arrive at this opinion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I still don't see what's wrong with the proposition. Yes, they will have to confirm that an employee wishes to contribute EVERY YEAR. Good. Makes them work harder to explain to the rank and file exactly why they should support various campaigns, and why they need their dollars. If so many public employees are disgusted with Schwartzenegger, which I totally believe they are, it should be a slam dunk to get support from union membership. On other issues, the union will have to work harder to sell the reasons why something should be supported or not. I have no problem with that.
Originally Posted By cmpaley 2oony, while I understand your position and can understand and agree that unions should work harder to represent their membership, let's not deceive ourselves over what this is really about. This is not about "paycheck protection," it is about silencing people who corporate special interests consider a threat, namely, public employees. If the REAL intent was to ensure that union members don't contribute to politics they don't agree with, then the unions should be required to send out their political program on at least an annual basis with an OPT-OUT form that the member could send back if they wish to OPT-OUT of the political program and have their dues only used for representational purposes, i.e., collective bargaining and member representation. That would be TRUE paycheck protection. But the truth is, it's not about that at all. It's about getting public employees and their organizations completely out of the picture with no recourse. The corporate special interests who are putting this together are counting on the general complacency of the American people when it comes to political matters. People only get active when there is a direct threat to them and their way of life. This means that most people won't send back their forms every year because, like most Americans, they are more interested and concerned with going to work, doing their jobs and living their lives, not watching every little thing that goes on in Sacramento and Washington. That's why there are organizations like unions. To represent the interests of working people before their employers and in the political sphere. Oh, and for those who say that unions only contribute to one party...that's not always true. CCPOA (California Correctional Peace Officer's Association) contributed greatly to Pete Wilson's reelection campaign and got FAT contracts out of it. Generally speaking, though, when it comes to rhetoric and, in most cases, actual action, Republicans do everything possible to support corporate special interests, usually at the expese of working class people.
Originally Posted By Deogges Mom <<Public employees' ONLY voice is their unions. No one is required to join; in fact, it's illegal to require membership in any employee organization.>> I also am a public employee. I work for Orange County and our MOU states the following: <<Each employee in the Representation Unit hired by the County on or after January 11, 2002, shall, as a condition of continued employment, become a member of OCEA, or pay to OCEA a service fee in an amount not to exceed periodic dues of OCEA for the term of this Memorandum of Understanding.>> <<Because it imposes requirement that are ridiculous. It requires that the union, every year, mail a form out to each member and that the member fill out and mail back the form...every year.>> Why is it ridiculous to require a union member to designate every year that it's ok to use their money for political campaigns/ads/activities? Is it any less ridiculous that the unions can spend millions on political campaigns/ads/activities without their members written permission? I personally, do not want my money go to support causes that I do not support. I am a member of OCEA (Orange County Employee's Association). I want my dues to go to representing me and the rest of county employees in negotiations and getting the best possible contracts for us. Unfortunately, I feel OCEA screwed the employees they represent when they negotiated our last contract. Yes, we got a better retirement benefit, but the cost is coming out of the employee's pockets (my take home pay decreased by almost $60 when it went into effect). We have not had a cost of living raise since 2003, if we're lucky we'll get one in July 2006. Shouldn't my dues have been spent fighting for cost of living raises and better retirement benefits, not fighting political battles. Now, I need to go relax in the jacuzzi and then spend time in the mellow room.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><<Public employees' ONLY voice is their unions. No one is required to join; in fact, it's illegal to require membership in any employee organization.>> I also am a public employee. I work for Orange County and our MOU states the following: <<Each employee in the Representation Unit hired by the County on or after January 11, 2002, shall, as a condition of continued employment, become a member of OCEA, or pay to OCEA a service fee in an amount not to exceed periodic dues of OCEA for the term of this Memorandum of Understanding.>><< Note that is says "shall...become a member OR pay...a service fee." You don't have to become a member, but I do believe that if you want a voice in how your representative does its job, you should join so you can vote and run for various offices within the organization. >>Why is it ridiculous to require a union member to designate every year that it's ok to use their money for political campaigns/ads/activities? Is it any less ridiculous that the unions can spend millions on political campaigns/ads/activities without their members written permission?<< If the corporate special interests that are behind this initiative were HONEST about their intent, then we could argue it honestly. They're not being honest. They want to get public employees and their unions out of the picture of California politics permanently. >>I personally, do not want my money go to support causes that I do not support.<< And what I have said would do that. The union should have to send a copy of its political program for the year and give you the option of sending back something that says, "I do not wish to contribute to the Union's political program this year." Very simple. That's NOT what this is about. >> I am a member of OCEA (Orange County Employee's Association). I want my dues to go to representing me and the rest of county employees in negotiations and getting the best possible contracts for us. Unfortunately, I feel OCEA screwed the employees they represent when they negotiated our last contract. Yes, we got a better retirement benefit, but the cost is coming out of the employee's pockets (my take home pay decreased by almost $60 when it went into effect). We have not had a cost of living raise since 2003, if we're lucky we'll get one in July 2006. Shouldn't my dues have been spent fighting for cost of living raises and better retirement benefits, not fighting political battles.<< If this proposition passes, you can expect things to get a LOT worse, believe me. If the corporate special interests get what they are after, your union would LOSE its right to collective bargaining and your wage and benefit package would be subject to the whim of whoever's in power at the moment. Certainly not the best way to get the best and brightest into public service. Let's not kid ourselves, this is an all out attack on all public service of all types in California. It has the pretty name of "paycheck protection," but it has the ugly effect of removing all recourse of public employees in California to fighting for their rights in the political arena.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>has the ugly effect of removing all recourse of public employees in California to fighting for their rights in the political arena<< Again, I just don't see how. No matter how I look at this thing, I see that union members can put their money in if the cause makes a lot of sense. What's wrong with the union members having more control over the union reps?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The corporate special interests who are putting this together are counting on the general complacency of the American people when it comes to political matters. People only get active when there is a direct threat to them and their way of life. This means that most people won't send back their forms every year because, like most Americans, they are more interested and concerned with going to work, doing their jobs and living their lives, not watching every little thing that goes on in Sacramento and Washington.<< I understand that. But that sort of complacency is death to democracy. People need to wake up and pay attention, not have a union or someone else do it for them.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>has the ugly effect of removing all recourse of public employees in California to fighting for their rights in the political arena<< Again, I just don't see how.<< Because people are complacent. Without a real threat hanging over their head, people aren't apt to do much. >>No matter how I look at this thing, I see that union members can put their money in if the cause makes a lot of sense. What's wrong with the union members having more control over the union reps?<< They do have control over the union leadership. There are elections held every year or two. The truth is, however, that it's not the membership that wants this initiative to pass (except for a small minority that can opt out if they want to), it's corporate special interests who don't like the fact that working people actually have a voice in their government (GOD FORBID!). The truth of the matter is, this initiative is SOLELY and completely about shutting public employees out of the political process by silencing the organizations that represent them. To see this, take an objective look at exactly who it is that is putting this initiative out there. It is corporate special interest who have contributed millions to Schwarzenegger and who stand to make BANK if there were less public employees making sure that they're not dumping toxic waste into the air and water, making sure that they're paying their employees on time and making sure that their employees aren't working in deathtraps. Once again, if the intent was TRULY to "protect paychecks" of public employees, the initiative would require that the unions send out the political program to each member and allow them to opt-out if they don't want to contribute to that political program. I wonder why no one has responded to this...I think that it's because there is no real interest in "paycheck protection," but instead a desire to shut public employees up so corporate special interests will be the only voices that get the ear of politicians.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>People need to wake up and pay attention, not have a union or someone else do it for them.<< So many ways this is based on faulty notions. People form coalitions in order to do certain things for them. Corporate special interest groups are the most powerful groups in the country because they realize that one business can't make much of a difference but you get a lot of businesses together in a coalition, you can put a lot of money into the hands of politicians and get nice favors out of him (which the restauranteurs recently did with Schwarzenegger and got a veto out of it -- pay for play anyone? Why is no one questioning THAT?). Public employees are doing the EXACT SAME THING. Why is it a problem when working people band together and create a voice for themselves but it's no problem whatsoever when corporate special interests do the same thing? In fact, I'd say that the corporate special interests are doing more in terms of working against the best interests of the common working person than any public employee union ever dreamed of (or would!).
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So many ways this is based on faulty notions. People form coalitions in order to do certain things for them.<< Right. You pay union dues to fight for better pay, benefits, job conditions. What union member wouldn't pony up for that? And if there are union members that are that tuned out, then the union had better get going making it's case anyway. >>The truth of the matter is, this initiative is SOLELY and completely about shutting public employees out of the political process by silencing the organizations that represent them.<< Okay, but in fairness, if that many union members are so complacent and unwilling to do much, then the union isn't doing a good job of waking them up. If the issues are as important as all that, shame on people for getting complacent.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>So many ways this is based on faulty notions. People form coalitions in order to do certain things for them.<< Right. You pay union dues to fight for better pay, benefits, job conditions. What union member wouldn't pony up for that? And if there are union members that are that tuned out, then the union had better get going making it's case anyway.<< Unlike private sector unions which only deal with the company on a labor-management basis only, public employee unions deal with government agencies that are operated by political machinery. That means that part of the public employee union's program must, by definition, be political in nature. The problem is that the real special interests, corporations, don't like to compete in the political sphere. They believe that they should be the only voice (read money) in that arena, so they put this initiative together. >>Okay, but in fairness, if that many nion members are so complacent and unwilling to do much, then the union isn't doing a good job of waking them up. If the issues are as important as all that, shame on people for getting complacent.<< Oh, come on. You know, as well as I, that most people are content to let most things happen around them and go along for the ride. Is that a good thing? No, of course not. But in all fairness, as you say, why should public employees be the ONLY exception to that? This is NOT about fairness. In fact, it's specifically about UNfairness. Oh, and why doesn't anyone respond to the fact that no one is forced to pay for political campaigns they don't believe in if they don't want to? Do YOU think public employees should just sit down, shut up and take whatever the governor wants to ram down their throats?
Originally Posted By belle42 Hell, we've had to do that already (see also: education budget cuts). I thought Arnold was going to be different, but he's just another politician doing whatever he wants and not caring how he hurts the rest of us!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I understand that. But that sort of complacency is death to democracy. People need to wake up and pay attention, not have a union or someone else do it for them.< This is the best point in this whole kind of hard to follow thread. I deal with labor relations on a daily basis so yes I am familiar with unions and their operations. Why would people want to be sheep and do whatever they are told-- all that has helped lead to is the large dropoff in union membership -- People need to think for themselves-- and if they have to fill out a piece of paper for direction once a year -- is that too much to ask ? Are they incapable of doing this ? I sure hope not and don;t think so. Every year I have to re up my United Way contribution -- I get a reminder and I get the chance to back out if I saw a reason or increase my donation - etc.--- not really a tough exercise. So maybe I am missing something here, but I would think most people would not want to turn over complete power to any one group --( and you can't pick and choose topics you do and don;t from a laundry list because you wwill never get agreement across the ranks -- and who decides which is which ?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16676" target="_blank">http://www.chronwatch.com/cont ent/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16676</a> >>I've been getting calls about the various ballot propositions for the Special Election. Here's how I see them: Proposition 73: Parental Notification for Abortion. If parental consent is required for a child to use a tanning booth or get her ears pierced, shouldn’t parents at least be notified if she’s getting an abortion? YES. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, this should be the all-time no-brainer. Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure. Do parents have a right to expect a higher level of competence before a teacher is granted life-time tenure? YES. This modest measure simply increases the teacher probation period from two years to five years. Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Dues. Should public employees decide for themselves which candidates they will support with their own money? YES. This measure requires that before a public employee union can take money from that employee for political donations, it has to get the employee’s permission. Proposition 76: State Spending. Should government live within its means? YES. This measure restores the authority that the governor of California had between 1939 and 1983 to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaces revenue without having to return to the legislature. Proposition 77: Re-districting. Should voters choose their representatives in legislative districts that are drawn without regard to partisan advantage? YES. The most obvious conflict of interest in government is when politicians choose which voters will get to vote for them by drawing their own legislative district lines. This measure puts a stop to it. Propositions 78 and 79: Prescription drug discounts. Do you want the same people who run the DMV to run your pharmacy? NO. These are rival measures, one supported by drug companies and the other by liberal activists – both of which purport to lower drug prices. What they really do is assure that one group of patients gets to pay higher prices to provide subsidized prices for others. There’s no such thing as a free Levitra. Proposition 80. Electricity Regulation. Do you want the same people who run the DMV to run your electricity company? NO. This measure locks in monopoly control of your electricity by the bureaucratized utilities and forbids you from ever being able to shop around for the lowest-priced electricity available. << <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-campaign11sep11" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/po litics/la-me-campaign11sep11</a>,1,6869975.story?coll=la-headlines-politics >>Schwarzenegger has not endorsed or opposed Proposition 75. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.canyon-news.com/artman/publish/article_3495.php" target="_blank">http://www.canyon-news.com/art man/publish/article_3495.php</a> >>One statement included in the Ballot Measure Summary Information reads, “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.†The latest Fields Poll reported that 55 percent of all likely voters are in favor of the measure, compared to 32 percent against it.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me-legis9sep09" target="_blank">http://ktla.trb.com/news/local /la-me-legis9sep09</a>,0,3244511.story?coll=ktla-news-1 >>At one point, Speier announced that she was voting against seemingly modest healthcare-related legislation pushed by fellow Democrats because she had been "threatened" by a representative of the measure's chief sponsor, the Service Employees International Union. With 600,000 members in California, SEIU is the state's largest union. It's also one of the most aggressive backers of pro-labor candidates and routinely is among the biggest spenders on behalf of Democratic candidates and causes. "Regardless of who it is, the question is, 'Do we allow this kind of thuggery?' " Speier said, adding that in her 17 years in the Legislature, she had never been so directly threatened. The measure, AB 761, would require that hospitals consider increasing the number of technicians, therapists and other employees who are not nurses or physicians. Hospitals opposed it, fearing it would lead to increased costs. The service employees union, which represents many hospital workers, pushed for it. Speier, a candidate for lieutenant governor, said in an interview that a union representative warned one of her legislative aides in a phone call that if the lawmaker failed to vote for the bill, the union would "take me down" by working to elect Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, one of her opponents in next year's Democratic primary. " 'This is a threat,' " Speier quoted the man, without identifying him by name. Speier said she had no intention of changing her vote to support the measure. To switch, she said, would be tantamount to "taking a bribe.<<
