Vote Yes on Proposition 75
Summary by the Attorney General:Prohibits using public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees' prior consent. Excludes contributions benefitting charities or employees. Requires unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to Fair Political Practices Commission.
I endorse a "YES" vote on Proposition 75.
Fundamental fairness in an organization does not exist if its members have no say in how the organization is run, especially in matters of the purse.
Unions, especially public employee unions, extract millions of dollars from their working class members and spend much of it on political campaigns the members may not even agree with.
We've already seen how, at least in the case of the teachers' union, unbridled political spending can put a union in serious financial trouble, or possibly, bankruptcy. At least under 75 the members would have further control over those type of issues.
This simple proposition makes the unions accountable to their members. If there is good cause for the union to follow a particular course, it need only make a rational appeal to its members, and should the membership agree, the funding will follow. If not, the members' wishes are honored.
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 10/19/2005 12:29:00 AM
29 Comments:
For sake of the argument, I'll posit that as a dead mayor what you know about unions is solely based on campaign donations. I'll present information and you decide if it affects your opinion.
Prop. 75 will not "give" union members any rights they don't already have. Union members have the right to quit and not pay any dues at all; where it is determined that the cost of negotiating wages, conditions and benefits by the union should be born by all effected employees, then employees must pay "fees" at a significantly reduced rate which may NOT be used for poitical purposes. In addition, in almost all cases, employees who wish to remain members of the union (and enjoy all the benefits of membership) may opt to not pay that portion of the total dues which is used for political purposes by the union to further it's members interests.
IN case that is not enough for you, union members have another way to determine if dues money should go for political purposes; they can attend meetings, raise issues and vote! If they do not like the political leanings or policies of the current Business Manager they can throw him out and elect somebody else. I don't see the employees of big companies who donate politically having that kind of swing on issues that affect them at work.
Finally, here's the math equation that is really behind Arnie & friends' big putsch on 75. Most gov't employees have dues deducted from their checks and sent to the union. All the employees who really care have signed opt out forms to get their political portions removed or returned to them. When the unions have to chase after members to "Opt In" for political purposes, a significant number of members will forget, get lazy, or just decide to spend it for a couple six-packs instead.
That's it. $X - $Y = $? That's what the Chamber of Commerce, Arnie's gang of CEOs and the Republican party want to do with the taxpayer's money spent on this initiative in the "special" election.
Good thing you're dead, Mayor Sam; otherwise this would be costing you some bucks. And as I recall, you really hated spending any money other than the public's money.
"A couple of six packs"? That's a lame ass argument. It's about as lame as Local 99 calling a Pacheco supporter to oppose this proposition while on the same call calling to push for Huizar. Or better yet, having the unions fund Sue Burnside's field operation while walking with Huizar literature. The irony here is that Pacheco is against Prop. 75, he has always supported unions and their causes - being from a labor household - yet in this day and age of Tony the Liar dominated unions - the unions have never supported him. This is the reason to support this measure. Too much money controlled by the dimwitted few with the high priced consultants. Where would Parke be without union money?
"...get lazy, or just decide to spend it for a couple six-packs instead..."
WHAT A BLATANT STEREOTYPE! I AM A UNION MEMBER AND HAD NOT DECIDED YET HOW TO VOTE. YOU SWINGED MY VOTE TO "NO" BY READING YOUR POST. IT REMINDED ME OF HOW RIDICULOUS THE UNION IS AND CORRUPT, INVESTING IN BANKRUPT IDEAS AND INVESTMENTS. GIVING MONEY TO CORRUPT POLITICIANS! BY THE WAY, I DON'T DRINK BEER, BUT I MIGHT JUST START AND VOMIT FROM THE STUPID POST YOU MADE ANON 1:16
CORRECTION TO POST:6:51
I WAS SO ANGRY I PUT "NO" ON THE POST INSTEAD OF "YES." OK I AM PROBABLY DRUNK AS THE RACIST STEREOPTYPE OF ANON 1:16 MADE IT OUT TO BE. I HAVE BEEN WORKING 12 HOURS TONIGHT AND READING YOUR SHIT AND POSTING. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? I WORK HARD AND I DON'T WANT UNIONS PUTTING HARD EARNED MONEY TO SISSY POLITICIANS THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH. LEAVE OUR MONEY ALONE!
"...get lazy, or just decide to spend it for a couple six-packs instead..."
WHAT A BLATANT STEREOTYPE! I AM A UNION MEMBER AND HAD NOT DECIDED YET HOW TO VOTE. YOU SWINGED MY VOTE TO "YES, YES, YES!" BY READING YOUR POST. IT REMINDED ME OF HOW RIDICULOUS THE UNION IS AND CORRUPT, INVESTING IN BANKRUPT IDEAS AND INVESTMENTS. GIVING MONEY TO CORRUPT POLITICIANS! BY THE WAY, I DON'T DRINK BEER, BUT I MIGHT JUST START AND VOMIT FROM THE STUPID POST YOU MADE ANON 1:16
1:16
Yeah, instead of buying those couple of six packs, let's collectively put our money into the purchase of another custom ordered car for Parke Skelton. Hey, it's a union built car!
As a union member (IATSE) I am certainly in favor of having control over how my union chooses to spend MY dues. However, until such time corporations are forced to get prior consent from their stockholders before they can spend their investor's money on political causes, I will be voting "no" on prop 75.
So you're saying until one group gets the same right you're being offered, you'll decline being treated fairly?
8:16 You make no sense! You prefer to get screwed in the meantime. What a way of thinking. For some reason, I feel you are baiting with that coment. You must be parke pissed off at the union money car a previous poster posted.
8:16
Here's the difference between union members and corporate stockholdders. Owners of stock can withdraw there investment any time - even at a gain, and invest in any other corporation that meets their political wishes. Can a union member quit his or her job and go work for a union that supports their candidate? NO.
If anything, this measure brings out the truly undemocratic practices of unions - the most anti-democratic organizations out there. Does anybody remember SEIU Local 399 and the janitors who tried to take over this local. The janitors won and SEIU didn't allow those pesky Latinos running themselves so they put in their hand picked Mexican YES man, Miguel Garcia - all the way from San Jose - some justice for janitors. Like most union locals looking to govern themselves, the national union steps in and places a TRUSTEE. That's how Miguel Contreras got to L.A..
The only reason the unions are opposed to 75 is that they know it now means they will have to work to gain their member's support. They know that in reality, their members do not support them and will not go out of their way for them unless the union makes a very good case.
Do not be fooled Tofu Girl, if the unions really wanted freedom of choice for their members they would not be afraid of Prop 75. They are afraid of it because they know it means the end of the gravy train. No more free cars. No more free dinners with pols. It means they will have to really work and be accountable. Then, the members will side with them. You say that the members can have their rights now - but its too much work for the members.
Put the work on the union, their job is to serve the members, not the other way around.
Big business and republicans want Prop 75, not unions or their members. They're trying to muddy the waters by suggesting there is a spit within the union over how funds can be spent.
It's the same strategy that bible-thumpin' conservatives are using to attack evolution by introducing "intelligent design" as a competing scientific alternative.
Tofu girl,
You sound so naive. Have you ever worked for a union. Yes, I believe in the power of organized labor and in a workers right to organize. There is no other such power available to the common man. But it is a power and thus subject to abuse. If not for the unions, do you think the average voter would care about Antonio - if they holding union power did not earn it. They were not line workers. More likely than not, they were failed lawyers who fell BACK into labor unions - Maria Elena Duraza, Antonio Villaraigos and Gil Cedillo. And they have abused this power to promote their almighty "progressive agenda" with Skelton as their guru.
Union leadership doesn't give a rat's ass about the rank and file. Do you know that union janitors are making as much today as thier union brothers made in 1979!
Open your eyes. Being liberal does not mean supporting abuse.
Once and for all, can you PLEASE get your criticisms straight regarding Labor Unions?
You argue that Unions are too powerful and push their own agenda (wages, benefits, etc) through political pressure generated with membership dues at the expense of the general public. Example - The recent criticisms of LADWP workers getting wage increases.
Then you argue that Unions don't care about their members and sacrifice members' best interests and don't benefit the rank and file, and thus members deserve to opt out of using dues for political purposes. Example - see above - 1:03.
So what is it? You can't have it both ways.
Tofu Girl
If the union members are happy, then they will vote to give the union their money, you won't have to force it out of them. But taking it from them by force is not right.
Some union members don't fight to keep their money because the system is too hard. Make it easy for the members and hard for the organizers. That's the way the union can serve their members.
Otherwise, they're a bunch of hacks who don't even know what the rank and file does.
You've got to be kidding me. It has been a long time since I've seen a more transparent attempt by corporations and the rich to tell workers to shut up.
Arnold is tired of Nurses, Firefighters and Teachers criticizing his policies, so now he is trying to shut them up. We shouldn't let him.
Check out:
http://www.millionairesforprop75.com/
Do you think these millionaires and big corporations are spending so much to push Prop 75 because they are concerned about "paycheck protection." Give me a break.
Vote No on Prop 75 if you want working families to continue to have a voice against Arnold and his big business buddies.
It costs around $250,000 to de-certify a union in a workplace of about 500 people. That's because the Internationals would pump in seriouis money to keep their hands on this teet. Do you think the average union member out there unhappy with thier labor representation can afford $250K to "argue thier point."?
The "real" role of unions.
Perhaps this "progressive" comment i am about to post is too much for the anti-civil rights crowd, but i'll post it anyway.
In the 60's it was with the help of union money that forged the civil rights movemment forward. AFSCME and ACORN (acorn technically not a union) used their membership dues to fight for the end of racial discrimination. Unions used their membership dues to oppose George Wallace and his race baiting policies. Guess what happened? Many union members with racist tendancies opted out of their unions in protest, that was the minority but their right nonetheless.
During the 70's and the energy crisis it was with union political money that was used to propel energy conservation candidates into the national scene. Even with Ford as President this policy was pushed well into the Carter administration.
In the 80's it was with union money that Headstart and Medi-Cal expansion occurred. With union money keeping a strong lock on the House of Reps Democrats who were elected with union money were able to "Actually" help young kids and families with educational services and healthcare for babies.
In the 90's the right-wing arm of the republican party placed several "paycheck protection" initiatives around the country, they passed in places like Utah. The right-wing capitol.
In 1998 California defeated the paycheck protection initiative then, so Mayor Sam which is it?
Are we against the civil rights movement, energy conservation and healthcare for little babies?
Or do we just think that this initiative is a referendum on your local union that pisses you off because they "actually" win more often than they loose.
I have one statement I cannot stop my self from making:
When are we going to propose a similar system for publicly traded corporations, for partnerships, etc.?
When you are a stockholder/shareholder/stakeholder, and your company lobbies to kill political ideas you support - where is the justice in that?
Shareholder's should give permission to the companies they invest in to lobby on their behalf. If unions are required to, then businesses should too.
At least that's how I see it.
Are you suggesting some kind of Proposition for "Dividend Protection," ubrayj02?
But that would affect billion dollar pharmeceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies heavily backing Proposition 78 and opposing 79.
You're simply anti-big business.
5:34 What a bait. My 6th grader could have made up a better one.
Finally I get the honor of disagreeing with our dear Mayor.
Prop 75 is a "feel good" measure. It amounts to a dispute over a checkbox. The idea that a union member has to climb mountains so his or her 1-5 bucks a week doesn't get spent on politics is ludicrous. In many cases it is a simple checkbox, no mountains, no miles of paperwork, just a checkbox. So why the fuss?
To determine if legislation is good or not, one needs only to look at the motivation of those making the proposal.
In this case it is a gamble by the Republicans that people are just too lazy to check an "opt in" checkbox and thereby de-fund the largest thorn in the side of big corporations such as Wal Mart. The irony is that the Wal Marts of the world create the very environment that shows there is still a need for organized labor in this country except Prop 75 targets only public employee unions such as cops and firefighters who are barred from striking by law.
Ask the folks at IBEW if they like their union. While I didn't agree with the contract I blame that on the City Council, Brian D'Arcy represented his member’s well which is what he gets paid to do.
Are unions always right? Of course not and yes there are examples of where they go astray but one can find those types of examples for almost any cause. Unions create the discussion about healthcare, a living wage and a good working environment that simply wouldn't be had if they didn't exist.
I am reminded of Newton’s third law of motion "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction".
In a society where we must get everything at the absolute lowest price regardless of the ultimate cost, unions remind us that the sweatshops that are used in China today, used to be located in the United States, which is why workers organized in the first place.
6:53
Not a bait. Sarcasm. I agree with ubrayj02.
Sounds as if maybe you ARE a sixth grader.
By the way, your sentence should have actually utilized a question mark. (It wasn't a statement).
It's fuc*ing pathetic that you're teaching anything.
5:34 p.m.,
"Anti-big business"?
Even though this post was put up by a leftie to be knocked down, I would respond with: my idea is not "anti-business" it is PRO-SHAREHOLDER.
The state charters all these business entities, and at the risk of ruining the business climate here (like the French do), we ought to fight for shareholder rights. Put the moral questions right at their doorstep. Every year, a corporation, llc, llp, etc. should have to request from its shareholders/partners/etc. written consent that they want a stated amount of their money spent on lobbying efforts in Sacramento/D.C./wherever.
If you are really into making short-term profit, why invest in long-term political strategies? This could use the average day-trader's impulses to squash big corporation's ability to buy our democracy..
As Jim and others eluded to earlier, if the Unions weren't successfull in beating back corporate attempts to subvert the people they wouldn't be under attack from those that aren't members.
If a union member doesn't want to have their dues used for political purposes they can easily opt out now. This is another big corporate America power grab.
Proud member SEIU who DIDN'T ASK FOR ANYONES "HELP"
We're just being taunted with Ubrayj's picture.
He needs his own thread so we can ask him personal questions!
1:59
The little fagala has his own blog.
I say, Go ask those tough hard hitting question!!!
(Laughs)
Meatheads
1:59
The little fagala has his own blog:
http://ubrayj02.blogspot.com/
I say, Go ask those tough hard hitting question!!!
(Laughs)
Meatheads
Can we make corporations do the same? Or should we just sign over our rights and wealth to corporate interests now and save everyone time.
Dave
Anonymous (October 19, 2005 6:45 AM) you are a Dumb ass! Can you read? Look at the reports!
"Or better yet, having the unions fund Sue Burnside's field operation while walking with Huizar literature"
Why would anyone destroy a professional reputations and break the law to make 20,000.00? I know it happens every day to loser like yourself so maybe that is where you got the idea.
You need to get a life and maybe a campaign you can win you LOCA BIOTCH.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home