Originally Posted By cmpaley >>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?<< Not necessarily. >>Or do you lack confidence in the union itself to wake up the membership and make their case to the workers?<< Again, not necessarily. Even with an enemy like Schwarzenegger hovering over our heads like the Sword of Damacles, many State employees are still apathetic...they probably will be on their way out the door after Schwarzenegger cuts out most State jobs. It's not a union thing, it's an apathy thing. What I don't like is the lies and disingenousness of the people who are pushing this proposal. They call it "paycheck protection," but it's more like paycheck destruction. Again, if the TRUE intent were to "protect" people's dues being used to things they don't agree with, then wouldn't it stand to reason that they should be able to opt-out without losing any of the rights and privileges of membership? The thing is, it doesn't do that. It's specifically designed to wipe out union contributions to Democrats so the Republicans can come in with their corporate special interest funded campaigns and take complete control over the life of California and the rest of the country. Just look at who is contributing to support this. I see billionaires, millionaires, corporate special interests and VERY FEW, if any, working people. An interesting quote I found that is so true today, yet it was written in 1931, not by a leftist, but by a person who would, today, be considered a very conservative man: "...those at the helm of the State...were showing little favor to workers' associations...nay, rather they openely opposed them, and while going out of their way to recognize similar organizations of other classes and show favor to them, they were with criminal injustice denying the natural right to form associations to those who needed it most to defend themselves from ill treatment at the hands of the powerful." The document is Quadragesimo Anno written by Pope Pius XI. Written in 1931, but it describes today's Republican Party to perfection!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Schwarzenegger hovering over our heads like the Sword of Damacles<< Wouldn't that be the sword of Crom?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What I don't like is the lies and disingenousness of the people who are pushing this proposal.<< I get that, and I understand the point. I don't like when various measures are named false things like "The Clean Drinking Water Act" and when you read the proposal, it actually contains a hidden agenda. I think these propositions should be given a number only, because the names of them are almost always marketing spin.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Yet, you are going to reward the liars by voting yes on their proposal? What kind of sense does that make?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I believe that union workers won't be so lazy and apathetic as to not opt in if the union can make its case. But I haven't made up my mind on this yet. That's why I'm discussing it.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>>>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?<< You're saying that unions should have the right to levy income taxes on people? As for the motivations of the backers...it doesn't really matter. The text of the proposition does. Motivation does not matter in cases like this. "Hey that surgeon is being careful on your surgery only because he doesn't want to get sued!" Who cares?!? Sure, it would be nice if he really cared about me, but as long as what he does is good, I don't care WHY he does it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>You're saying that unions should have the right to levy income taxes on people?<< No. Unions collect dues that are used by officials of the union that are elected by the membership...just like the way government works...except...members can OPT-OUT under current law if they oppose political use of their dues. Oh, I don't know about other public unions, but our dues our withheld from our paychecks. It's easier on everyone that way.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I'm surprised no one has commented on this timely quote: "...those at the helm of the State...were showing little favor to workers' associations...nay, rather they openely opposed them, and while going out of their way to recognize similar organizations of other classes and show favor to them, they were with criminal injustice denying the natural right to form associations to those who needed it most to defend themselves from ill treatment at the hands of the powerful." Let's modernize it: "...those at the helm of the State, such as Schwarzenegger and Bush...were showing little favor to workers' associations...nay, rather they openely opposed them, and while going out of their way to recognize similar organizations of other classes, such as corporate special interests like oil companies and business associations, and show favor to them, by eliminating laws that protect workers and giving massive amounts of public money to these corporate special interests, they were with criminal injustice denying the natural right to form associations to those who needed it most to defend themselves from ill treatment at the hands of the powerful by making it harder and harder for those associations subject to stricter and stricter rules to silence them." Hmmmm....yeah. It fits. And it's certainly what Proposition 75 is all about.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13636270p-14478771c.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/ politics/story/13636270p-14478771c.html</a> >>Public employee labor unions say Proposition 75 would "cripple employees' ability to fight on a level playing field," by restricting the use of members' dues for political purposes. 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. "Anybody who competes in the political arena is always adapting to the way the game is played," said Republican political consultant Ray McNally, whose clients include the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association. "If the rules change, people adapt. At the end of the day, this will probably have zero impact - if it passes." The restrictions, however, would apply only to members' dues diverted to political committees, according to the initiative. Unions could continue to use money from employees who refused to sign the consent form to advocate on issues before the Legislature or the governor. The mobilization to which the "No on 75" ad refers, in fact, did not show up as an expense of the California Teachers Association's political committee. It was part of the $8.2 million listed on its lobbying reports through June 30 as "other payments to influence legislative or administrative action." The money went to a television and radio attack that asked the governor to "stop balancing the budget on the backs of our children." The January ad campaign was the opening volley leading to Schwarzenegger's steep slide in public opinion polls. According to state law and interpretations by the Fair Political Practices Commission, those "other payments to influence" can be spent on virtually anything tied to an issue before the Legislature or an administrative action, as long as it's not specifically advocating a particular result at an election. Moreover, most of the money spent under the "other payments to influence" category does not have to be itemized on disclosure forms, unlike political campaign accounts, for which every dollar spent must be accounted. Lew Uhler, the longtime conservative activist who wrote Proposition 75, said the measure was intentionally drafted to exclude issue advocacy. "In terms of advocacy, we've never taken the position that they can't advocate on issues of importance," Uhler said. "(Restricting) lobbying would have been overreaching."<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-money30sep30" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo cal/la-me-money30sep30</a>,0,4408164.story?coll=la-home-local >>In most years, Schwarzenegger's fundraising would be eye-popping. Collecting money at a clip of more than $3 million a month, the governor has amassed $28 million to promote the four initiatives that embody his proposed changes to state government, and raised $2 million for his 2006 reelection bid. But the combined $30 million places him a distant third in fundraising, behind his main rival, public employee unions. Public school teachers' main union and other government workers have raised $70 million to fight three of the governor's measures, including one, Proposition 75, that could restrict their ability to raise campaign money.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Well, darn, now you rabid right wingers will have to vote NO, it doesn't go FAR ENOUGH. We have to get the right to line up them damn gub'mit workers and shoot them all! ;-)
Originally Posted By monorailblue Anyone who has ever dealt with the government on any level knows intuitively that we are in no danger of losing the blessed 'public employee'. I was a public employee myself for the past year and I venture to suggest that there are fewer groups of people in this country with a more hardened sense of 'entitlement' than public 'servants'. If Disneyland were run like the DMV, it would have shut down decades ago.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Oh, puh-lease! There are many cases where we'd LOVE to help a person who needs it but our hands are tied because of the laws that regulate what we do. I don't know how many people who call me about this or that who I can't help because the law doesn't protect them. Sense of entitlement my behind!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I noticed the last time I went to my local DMV that the employees were very pleasant and helpful and seemed to definitely hustle to move the line along. That was a very different experience than several years ago, when it seemed everyone working there couldn't care less about how long people waited, and no effort was made to be the least bit pleasant or friendly. Chris (or any other state emplyee that wants to chime in), I know you're not in DMV, but in your experience are state employees encouraged or trained to be "customer friendly" and such? Is there an effort on the part of management to foster a culture like that? Like I said, i noticed a distinct difference last time, and was just wondering if that is the result of a customer service campaign internally or throughout the state?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I noticed the last time I went to my local DMV that the employees were very pleasant and helpful and seemed to definitely hustle to move the line along. That was a very different experience than several years ago, when it seemed everyone working there couldn't care less about how long people waited, and no effort was made to be the least bit pleasant or friendly.<< Actually, this is the one and only thing that I would say that Schwarzenegger actually did right. He saw that DMV was severely understaffed and had a morale problem (due to the understaffing problem). He actually unfroze hiring and there were new employees were hired which resulted in improved morale. You'd be surprised how things improve when you and your job are taken seriously. Also, in my experience, how you approach a person who will provide you a service also has a great deal to do with how well they will provide that service. If you act like a demanding jerk, you're going to get the bare minimum necessary to get you out of the way. On the other hand, if you are pleasant and patient and talk to the person as...well, a person, they will move heaven an earth to get you what you need, sometimes MORE than you came in for. It's not always true, but I've found that it's generally true.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Chris (or any other state emplyee that wants to chime in), I know you're not in DMV, but in your experience are state employees encouraged or trained to be "customer friendly" and such? Is there an effort on the part of management to foster a culture like that?" You bet there is. The Child Support Services Department, where I work, is a state funded but county managed agency. We all used to be District Attorneys, but were spun off by legislative directive in July of 2001 into our own unit, away from the D.A. Ever since then, it has been continually stressed to every employee that we are no longer in the prosecution business, but rather customer service oriented. Not sure how that always equates given what we do, but that's the direction.
Originally Posted By Deogges Mom I work for California Children Services. Like CSS, we are a state funded, county run program. We are a program that treats children with certain physical limitations and chronic health conditions or diseases. CCS can authorize and pay for specific medical services and equipment provided by CCS-approved specialists. In the last few years, our office has been providing "Family Centered Care," meaning we no longer focus just on the child that we are providing services for, but on the family and the difference our program makes in the family. Many of the conditions that we treat and pay for can bankrupt a family very quickly, even with health insurance. Also, since our program actually provides physical and occupational therapy, we can help children to obtain their optimal functioning level. We recently had moms of some of the children that we treat come in and talk with the staff. Three of the moms had a child that receive therapy services from CCS, the fourth mom has a son who is hearing impaired and CCS has provided hearing aids and paid for a Ear, Nose and Throat specialist for most of his life. Listening to those four women made me realize that the decisions I make on a daily basis affects not just the child, but the family. I would love to help every child who medically qualifies for CCS, but unfortunately laws and regulations sometimes ties our hands.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3081454" target="_blank">http://www.thereporter.com/let ters/ci_3081454</a> >>It is really quite simple. Proposition 75 merely requires unions to ask for permission before they can deduct money from workers' paychecks for political purposes. What could be simpler and more democratic? It doesn't outlaw any political activity and doesn't restrict in any way how unions can spend their money. It simply makes them ask for permission. That's it. It is one of the foundations of a democratic society that working men and women should have the right to decide how their money is spent. Being forced to pay hard-earned money to support politicians you oppose is an idea that doesn't belong in America. As it currently stands, that is exactly what happens in California public employee unions. Proposition 75 fixes that. Public employee unions, of course, are spending millions of their members' money to defeat Proposition 75 and deny their own members a choice in how their money is spent. Maybe they fear that someone actually will object to how their money is spent, which would mean a loss of power for unions and the politicians they support. If it is true as the union leaders insist that their members all march in lockstep, Proposition 75 will have no effect. This issue is about freedom and choice. Californians shouldn't find themselves on the wrong side of either. <<
