Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17655" target="_blank">http://www.heartland.org/Artic le.cfm?artId=17655</a> >>Obtaining Consent for Contributions The Public Employees' Right to Approve Use of Union Dues for Political Campaign Purposes Act--also known as Paycheck Protection, or Prop. 75--would prohibit labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions without annual written consent from employees. It also would require unions to retain copies of the forms and keep detailed records of funds received and political expenditures made. After a similar paycheck protection law took effect in Washington in 1994, the number of school employees giving voluntarily to the Washington Education Association's political action committee plummeted from 49,000 to 11,000. Prop. 75 supporters--including the sponsor, the National Tax Limitation Committee--say it will give public employees the freedom to choose whether their union dues are spent on politics. The June Field poll found 57 percent of likely voters were inclined to vote yes on paycheck protection, while 34 percent of likely voters were inclined to vote no.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/08/17/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_636953.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/ 2005/08/17/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_636953.php</a> >>No politicking without permission Prop. 75 protects more than my paycheck; it protects my free speech Allan Mansoor Orange County Deputy Sheriff and Mayor of Costa Mesa When our founding fathers established this country, they did so with the intent of having a representative form of government, one that gave us a choice in who represented us. When we declared our independence from England, it was because we wanted the freedom of religious choice. To assure that the people could keep their elected representatives accountable, the founders knew that the people had to stay active in the decision-making process so they would have some type of recourse, should those in a decision-making capacity go astray. Today, many of us who are members of public employee unions have to a large extent lost our voice in the political process, as our union leaders use members' dues to further political causes that go against the will of some individual union members. Now, however, there is a historic opportunity at the state level to rein in this unaccountable political spending by public employee unions. This opportunity is in the form of Proposition 75, otherwise known as the Paycheck Protection initiative. As an Orange County deputy sheriff, I am a member of our public employee union, so I am not against unions. What I am in support of is individual members having a choice in where their money goes when it comes to political purposes. Currently, union dues are deducted from our paychecks and used for political purposes through political action committees with very little accountability. No permission is needed from public employee union members to use their dues in support of certain politicians or political causes. Regardless of your political views, permission should be obtained before spending funds on political causes that you may not want to support. As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Prop. 75 would make it a requirement that union leaders seek permission each year from individual members before spending their dues on political activities. 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. What Paycheck Protection does is put the burden on the public employee unions to get the employee's permission prior to spending it on political causes. Public employee union leaders generally support candidates and initiatives in order to gain higher pay and benefits. Nobody is against good pay and benefits, but the problem is that in too many cases, union leaders support politicians and initiatives that end up raising taxes, which tends to make the pay raises they helped negotiate null and void. This is why we need balance and accountability in how dues are spent on political purposes. The only way to get that accountability is for union leaders to be required to ask for members' consent before spending their hard earned money. Even voters who are not union members need to support Paycheck Protection to rein in these unaccountable practices. In the same way that our founding fathers wanted "no taxation without representation," I suggest that now we need "no PAC spending without first asking." Even little children are taught to ask before taking. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050817-115602-6177r.htm" target="_blank">http://washingtontimes.com/nat ional/20050817-115602-6177r.htm</a> >> Many teachers are backing the initiatives. "Tenure is an embarrassment," said Lawrence Sand, an eighth-grade history teacher and National Education Association (NEA) member in Los Angeles. "In reality, a 23-year-old who has been teaching in California for two years and gets tenure has just received a lifetime position. Is there any other type of employee on this planet who has such a deal?" Mr. Sand said the paycheck-protection initiative is aimed at "defanging" liberal Democrats, whose political activities and union contributions are opposed by about two-thirds of NEA members nationwide. "Where paycheck protection has been voted in, the union's coffers have taken a serious hit," he said. "Although the NEA's rank and file is very mixed politically, their political spending tilts left about 90 degrees. This must come to an end." <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Darkbeer, your posts actually do bring out the truth about what this is truly about. Look at the tilt of the articles. All far right leaning...all supporters of Schwarzenegger...all anti-worker in one form or another. Oh, yeah, you have the Republican union members who don't want their money going to Democrats (probably because of issues not related to the reasons the union gives money to one candidate over another), but the fact is, THIS LAW IS NOT ABOUT PAYCHECK PROTECTION. It is about shutting public employees OUT of the process completely and utterly and forever. If this was REALLY about paycheck protection, the process would be completely different and would specifically say that people can OPT OUT. This isn't about people who "dont' want their dues going to this or that," it's about non-members getting their hands into the business of unions and telling them how to run things and telling them to bend over, shut up and take whatever corporate special interests want to shove up the collective behinds of all Californians.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>My union just increased our dues by 50 percent for political activity. I had no choice.<< This is a lie because he goes right on to say: >>There is a current procedure for opting out - withholding dues that are slated for political purposes.<< Whoops, this is something you anti-union folks will skip right over. Read that sentence over and over and over to get it through your skulls. >>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.<< And this IS something that should not be allowed and SHOULD be looked into if it is true (I have little doubt that it is). But, you Right Wingers need to stop with the bald-faced lies. You are LIARS. L-I-A-R-S. This is not about protecting people from having a couple dollars of their weekly or monthly dues going to politics they don't agree with. It's sipmly a LIE to say that it is. Look at who put this proposition up. Corporations who stand to become completely dominant without any opposing voice when it comes to bribes, I mean contributions. Corporations who want to get contracts with State and Local Government to do work that public employees currently do with little to no accountability so they can provide lower quality services at more cost to the public.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer cmpaley, you are a nice guy, and I am glad to know you... But STOP with the name calling, I am surprised it is coming from you!
Originally Posted By cmpaley I have to call this one as I see it, Darkbeer. It is a bald-face LIE to say that this initiative is about "paycheck protection." It isn't, no matter how many right-wing op-ed pieces you post. If the REAL intent were "paycheck protection," then the law wouldn't be written the way it is. It's designed specifically to use the common complacency of most Americans to not take any real action on an issue until it's too late (and don't deny it, be honest and you'll see that it's true...the fact that hardly anyone has money saved up is a testament to this). People aren't going to send a form back unless they feel that they are threatened. I could change it to prevaricators if lie is too harsh, if you like, though.
Originally Posted By Deogges Mom <<If the REAL intent were "paycheck protection," then the law wouldn't be written the way it is. It's designed specifically to use the common complacency of most Americans to not take any real action on an issue until it's too late (and don't deny it, be honest and you'll see that it's true...the fact that hardly anyone has money saved up is a testament to this). People aren't going to send a form back unless they feel that they are threatened.>> Aren't the Unions trying to do the same thing? If Prop 75 doesn't pass, won't the complacency of workers insure that they continue to use members' dues to support political causes that some members don't support. Aren't the Unions counting on the fact that their members won't check on whether or not they opted-out when they joined the Union? If members didn't opt-out when they joined the Union, do they even have the chance to opt-out later, when they see what the union is using their money to push?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Aren't the Unions trying to do the same thing? If Prop 75 doesn't pass, won't the complacency of workers insure that they continue to use members' dues to support political causes that some members don't support. Aren't the Unions counting on the fact that their members won't check on whether or not they opted-out when they joined the Union? If members didn't opt-out when they joined the Union, do they even have the chance to opt-out later, when they see what the union is using their money to push?<< Not if what I propose is implemented. I am of the opinion that there SHOULD be some a requirement that the union inform the membership of their political program and allow the member to opt out. This can be done on a yearly or even semi-annual basis.
Originally Posted By jimminy44 First of all, I'm glad to find a topic that hasn't been closed by the moderators. I just have a few thoughts on this topic and they are mostly gut-level and instinctual. A union is, by its very nature, an organization that exists to "represent" its members. There are all kinds of organizations and groups who are organized to "represent" their members politically. Their members are given the choice to join that group and when they choose to join they are saying that they agree(maybe not on every issue) mostly with that group's concern or concerns. Why should a union be treated differently than other groups that join together to lobby for whatever cause they want to promote? Does it matter that the reason that the unions have joined together is to promote the continued betterment of their members' wages or working conditions? Can't we all think of other examples in the corporate world in which they promote policies that are beneficial to the taking of profits(i.e. the increase or betterment of corporate wages)? I am a union member that almost NEVER votes for the candidates that they encourage me to vote for. I do that because I vote for other reasons that are more important to the big picture. But I know that the unions feel that voting a certain way is better for their constituency and I respect that. Do we shut down a certain class of group that lobbies for representation of its members? Based on what criteria? Size? Representation of a group that is labor-based? What about corporate-based groups? I think this proposition, by singling out a certain group seeking representation, is wrong and would set dangerous precedent. The saying, "No taxation without representation" comes to mind. I pay income taxes on my wages. Why can't I seek representation? What about corporations that pay hardly any or no taxes at all? Why not deny or limit their ability to be represented based on their level of taxation?
Originally Posted By jimminy44 Let's put a spin on the taxation/representation thing and get a proposition together that limits the amount corporate campaign donors can give for political campaigns based on the amount of real taxes that they paid in the previous year.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Interesting idea, j44, but when we try to reform campaign financing we have to do it using the rascals who need/want the money for their campaigns. We always seem to lose in that circumstance.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I have a great idea: I propose a measure that would automatically deduct $1 from everyone's paycheck each week and contributes it to a "relect the governor" fund. This deduction would continue unless the employee files a form explicitly requesting the deduction to stop. I'm certain that cmpaley would be 100% behind this, because, after all, you have the opportunity to opt out of it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Actually, the best solution is to eliminate all money from campaigns and go to 100% public financing of elections. That way, corporate hacks like Schwarzenegger can't complain about union campaign donations.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>Actually, the best solution is to eliminate all money from campaigns and go to 100% public financing of elections. That way, corporate hacks like Schwarzenegger can't complain about union campaign donations.<< Until that happens, Prop 75 will have to be a start. But even with tax-supported campaigns, who would decide who qualifies?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Until that happens, Prop 75 will have to be a start.<< Um...no. It's not a start of anything except for the selling of California to the highest corporate bidder. Prop 75's ONLY reason for existing is to get public employees completely and utterly out of the picture politically. >>But even with tax-supported campaigns, who would decide who qualifies?<< How do we decide whose name appears on the ballot?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>What about corporations that pay hardly any or no taxes at all? Why not deny or limit their ability to be represented based on their level of taxation?<< Considering it was corporate special interests who put 75 on the ballot, I think it says a LOT about the true intent of the initiative.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/112678949925941.html" target="_blank">http://www.vvdailypress.com/20 05/112678949925941.html</a> >>It's called the paycheck protection measure, and its bottom line is that unions must get approval from the folks they represent before spending money on politics. Recently, the Service Employees International Union, which represents 85,000 state employees, increased its dues by 25 percent — which amounts to approximately $100 per member. Reason for the dues increase? According to SEIU officials, the funds from this "emergency temporary assessment" will be used specifically in the political arenas of California. The union's members, we're told, were not asked for their opinions about the dues increase, and were not given a vote. Union leaders passed the increase on a show of hands, which means the membership can't call any individual leader to account. That's typical. Prop 75, of course, would restore freedom of choice to SEIU's members — and to every other California union's members. It would also restore First Amendment — freedom of choice — rights to those members. We wish we could, come November 10, see the exact number of union members who voted in support of Prop 75. We'd bet the percentage in favor will be in the 75 percent range. Union or non-union member, it's a treasured right of all of us to decide which politicians, or political parties, we'll support — with dollars, or with votes. The unions think that's a terrible way to do business. Or, to put it another way, they wonder why the rank and file should have any say in politics. Naturally, the SEIU expects to spend the dollars from its latest confiscation of union member earnings on opposing Prop 75. We're confident that the proposition will pass, and remove the influence SEIU has been abusing for years in support of its political agenda.<<
