Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/paper679/news/2005/09/20/Opinions/Californians.Likely.To.Pass.Prop.75-990529.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.dailytrojan.com/med ia/paper679/news/2005/09/20/Opinions/Californians.Likely.To.Pass.Prop.75-990529.shtml</a> >>Some of the funding collected goes to increasing membership and running a bureaucratic organization and a significant portion goes toward political purposes. Since union membership in government careers is essentially mandatory, the collection of union dues from each member for political contributions is not the most democratic notion. Policeman, firefighters and teachers who disagree with their union's political actions are forced to contribute money to Democratic and "progressive" candidates via union dues. Proposition 75 requires government unions to obtain written consent from its members before donating money to union-backed causes so that representative democracy is exactly that when it comes to political contributions. The reason that advertisements will not change public opinion is the fact that many union members agree with this proposition regardless of their political persuasion. The simple fact that union members would prefer to keep more of their own money overrides the less tangible issue of state politics. I would inquire as to how allowing someone to make an individual choice about the money they earn is contrary to the interest of workers. Forced communal efforts have a scary history.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.organizenotpolitics.org/understanding.the.issue" target="_blank">http://www.organizenotpolitics .org/understanding.the.issue</a> >>Currently, union leaders — a small handful of people — make unilateral decisions to use public employee union dues to fund political campaigns without their employees consent. The employees have no choice — the money is automatically deducted from their paychecks. Everyone appreciates the hard work of our firefighters, police, teachers and other public employees. They provide a vital service for the people of California and they do their jobs well. That's why it is only fair that public employee union members give their permission before their hard earned dollars are taken for political purposes that they may not agree with. Polls show rank-and-file union members support Paycheck Protection and often disagree with their union leaders' political agenda. For instance: Recent news articles report union executives are promoting a measure that would raise property taxes. One leading California newspaper columnist reports that the union backed measure, "would obliterate Proposition 13 property-tax protections." According to exit polling, nearly half of union voters voted "yes" on the recall and 56% voted for a Republican candidate. By contrast, not one dollar of public employee union campaign contributions was spent in support of recalling Gray Davis or on behalf of Republican candidates. (Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, October 2003) <<
Originally Posted By RC Collins So far, I have yet to see compelling reasons to vote "NO." "Unions will be less powerful." is not a reason. The unions will only be less powerful in candidate politics IF the union members themselves want it that way. Proposition 75 would ensure that public employees will be informed of their rights in regards to spending their dues money on political candidates. The way it is now, a union member first has to find out that there are even options. THEN, they have to contact their union and submit the proper requests. THEN, they have to wait while their money is used like an interest-free loan before it is finally refunded to them. PLUS, the are no longer members or full members of the union, even though they still pay a majority of their dues... they don't get to vote on union leadership or contracts. The time has come for Prop 75. The millions of dollars being spent by the unions FIGHTING Prop 75 that are raised from members who SUPPORT Prop 75 are proof enough. RC Collins
Originally Posted By cmpaley If Proposition 75 were truly about what its supporters say, then it would require unions to communicate, on a regular basis, their political program and allow the member to op-out of their dues being used for that political program without any loss of rights or privileges in the union. But that's not what it's truly, honestly and sincerely about. It's about completely eliminating all influence of public employees in state government. They know that most people won't send back a card out of apathy or laziness (to be completely honest), not because they are opposed to the union's political program, per se.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They know that most people won't send back a card out of apathy or laziness (to be completely honest), not because they are opposed to the union's political program, per se.<< But Chris, if they are lazy or apathetic or shortsighted, I can't feel bad about that. If this effort takes advantage of that apathy or laziness, and I don't disagree with you that that's a key part of the strategy here, then isn't it up to the unions to do what it takes to wake their members out of their slumber? You stay up to date and informed with current events and how it can affect state workers. Why shouldn't other state workers step up and do the same? But even though I recognize that this measure has a semi-hidden agenda, I can't argue against the idea that union members ought to be able to opt out of any and all political spending they disagree with.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But even though I recognize that this measure has a semi-hidden agenda, I can't argue against the idea that union members ought to be able to opt out of any and all political spending they disagree with.<< Ah...and that's the thing. This isn't about opting out. If it were, then I'd support it. It's not. It's about completely eliminating public employees from the picture politically. It also sets up a double standard. Business has unlimited voice and working people have...none. Hmmm...could it be that this was the goal?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Business has unlimited voice and working people have...none.<< None, only if they opt out (intentionally or passively) or if the union doesn't make its case to the workers.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>None, only if they opt out (intentionally or passively) or if the union doesn't make its case to the workers.<< No, that's NOT what is happening in Prop 75. People have to opt-IN, not opt-out.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer It doesn't eliminate the Public employees from anything... They can decide to Opt-in and give the money to the union. They can pick and choose their causes/politicians and send money directly to those causes they agree with. (I think this is the most likely situation) Or they can be apolitical, and just keep all the money that used to go to the union for political purposes. If a certain issue causes problems for the union members, why wouldn't the individual members contribute to help protect their union. The point being, they can make their own decision, and look at each issue individually, and decide when and where their money goes(and it is the employees money, not the union).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0928/p03s01-uspo.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/ 0928/p03s01-uspo.html</a> >>The measure, backed by a coalition of business groups and antitax advocates aligned with conservatives, seeks to redress what supporters say is a key imbalance: More than 90 percent of union spending in the state has gone to Democratic candidates despite the fact that 40 percent of union households vote Republican. Because the stakes are so high, out-of-state Republican and Democratic organizations, as well as national unions, are pumping millions of dollars into California coffers to either knock down or promote the initiative. Almost $40 million will be spent by those opposed to the measure, compared with $10 million for those in favor, experts predict.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Two interesting paragraphs from today's Sacramento Bee (www.sacbee.com, registration required): >>But even if the measure is approved, unions would have nearly unfettered ability to collect and spend members' dues for issue advocacy - a catch-all category in state law that can include voter "education" or television ads attacking a politician over a particular issue not related to an election. Both sides in the pitched battle over the initiative acknowledge the loophole will keep unions' voice audible even if voters approve the measure.<< >>Similar efforts in other states have succeeded either in the legislature or at the ballot box, but have had little effect in curbing union spending.<< So this suggests little to no effect on unions, while out-of-state unions are pouring money into the fight against this measure. Wierd.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Um...I'm curious. I'm against taxpayer funded abortions. I'm against the death penalty. I'm against the war in Iraq. Can I opt-out of having my tax money go to that?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No, but you have the right to vote for whomever you feel shares your disapproval of those things and would act in your interest once elected.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>No, but you have the right to vote for whomever you feel shares your disapproval of those things and would act in your interest once elected.<< And all union members have that same right within their union. See the double standard?
Originally Posted By cmpaley Okay... Government: Elected by people Compulsory Taxation Leaders can use money for things not everyone agrees with No one can opt out AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! Unions: Leadership elected by members Compulsory Dues Leaders can use money for things not everyone agrees with Members CAN opt out from having their dues used for things they don't agree with BUT THAT'S TOTALLY EVIL. And there's no double standard. Gotcha.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's an apples and oranges comparison, Chris. A union represents a select group of people in a particular line of work, not "everyone." A union's focus should be on what's best both for the workers balanced with the longterm health of the company/state they work for (otherwise, no jobs). And no one said anything, at all, about evil. People have to "opt in" by voting, or they can write a check to a politician or cause they support. Union members can do the exact same thing. Are you worried that fellow union members are so lazy and apathetic not to get involved in what's best for their own well being that this measure troubles you? Or do you lack confidence in the union itself to wake up the membership and make their case to the workers?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>It's an apples and oranges comparison, Chris. A union represents a select group of people in a particular line of work, not "everyone." A union's focus should be on what's best both for the workers balanced with the longterm health of the company/state they work for (otherwise, no jobs). << It's apples and oranges only in your mind. Everyone who works for an employer in the lines of work that are unionize is represented, member or not. When the employer is a public employer, part of that must logically include the political sphere. There are two ways that unions represent the interests of the membership as a whole: 1. through collective bargaining in good faith and 2. through political advocacy. The reason this proposition is on the ballot is because the Republicans can't stand the fact that more money goes to the Democrats than to them. But let's back up and look at something...when is the last time ANY Republican has proposed something that directly protects the rights and interests of working people? In fact, Republicans have been on the forefront of REMOVING rights FROM working people (for example, Bush's elimination of overtime regulations, Schwarzenegger's attempted elimination of rights to a meal break). Why would an organization dedicated to advocating for the interests of working people give money to their sworn enemies? Never mind that corporate special interests, on a whole outspend unions by a huge margin (I've read 11:1). Republicans can't STAND that there is any opposition voice anywhere in this country and this is one more way to eliminate that voice. It's wrong and it's dishonest. Now looking at the advocacy public employee unions engage in. Again, of COURSE, more money goes to Democratic candidates than Republican ones...I wonder why? Could it be that Republicans are always trying to eliminate most public service jobs by contracting public service work out (usually to their corporate contributors)? Could it be that Republicans are always trying to eliminate all of the rights that public employees have fought for over the years (such as the right to collective bargaining)? Could it be that Republicans are always trying to eliminate benefits that public employees have and cut their pay? Hmmm...I wonder why it would be that public employee unions don't give money to Republican candidates. Perhaps if the Republicans understood that there ARE things that public employees do that actually benefit the State as a whole and started treating the employees as humans and not slaves, they'd get some more of *that.* Indstead, they cynically talk about "paycheck protection" while trying to eliminate public employment period.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The reason this proposition is on the ballot is because the Republicans can't stand the fact that more money goes to the Democrats than to them.<< I don't disagree with you on that point. But again I ask (you didn't answer it the first time): Are you worried that fellow union members are so lazy and apathetic not to get involved in what's best for their own well being that this measure troubles you? Or do you lack confidence in the union itself to wake up the membership and make their case to the workers? >>Hmmm...I wonder why it would be that public employee unions don't give money to Republican candidates.<< And nothing in this proposition would force them to. It just forces them to wake up and actively engage in the process of handing ovber their money to the union for political purposes. Obviously, the Republican sponsors of this bill must feel that: 1. Enough union members are lazy and apathetic to the point of not acting in their own best interests, or that the unions are not capable of rousing the membership to get that money back. 2. That there might be some members of the union willing to donate those dollars in question to the Republican side of the fence given the opportunity to make that choice.
