Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Ready to Rumble? UH - NO! | Main | Get your kicks, on Prop 76 »
October 11, 2005
Next up... Prop 75
The special election is looming in this "year of reform". Here is all of the information you need to make a good decision about 75, and all of the information we need to have a good debate.
This information was compiled from smartvoter.org, as well as related Campaign web sites.
Proposition 75
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.
A YES vote on this measure means:
Public employee unions would be required to get annual, written consent from government employee union members and nonmembers to charge and use any dues or fees for political purposes.
A NO vote on this measure means:
Public employee unions could charge and use dues or fees for political purposes without annual, written consent. Fees from a nonmember of a union could not be spent on political purposes if the nonmember objects.
From the Impartial legislative analyst
Background
Unions for Government Employees. Groups of government employees—like employees in the private sector—can choose to have a union represent them in negotiations with their employers over salaries, benefits, and other conditions of employment. Individual government employees may choose whether or not to join the union that represents their group of employees. A union’s negotiations affect all employees in the group—both members and nonmembers of the union. As a result, members of the group—whether they join a union or not—typically pay a certain level of dues and/or fees to a union for these bargaining and representation services.
Use of Union Dues or Fees for Political Purposes. A union of government employees may engage in other types of activities unrelated to bargaining and representation. For instance, public employee unions may decide to charge additional dues for various political purposes, including supporting and opposing political candidates and issues. Any fees collected from a nonmember of a union cannot be used for these types of political purposes if the nonmember objects. Each year, unions must publicly report what share of their expenditures was for political purposes.
Proposal
This measure amends state statutes to require public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and nonmembers of a union. The measure would also require unions to keep certain records, including copies of any consent forms.
Interesting stuff from "easyvoter"
Official web site in favor of 75
Here is some rhetoric from the "pro" folks (FROM OFFICIAL WEB SITE):
The Paycheck Protection initiative will give public employees the choice of whether they want their union dues spent on political campaigns. It will require public employee unions to receive annual written consent from members before the member's dues may be used for political purposes. This initiative will not prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be voluntary, rather than mandatory.
Further, the initiative requires public employee unions to maintain and submit to the California Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning their political contributions. The initiative does not apply to dues collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance or other purposes directly benefiting the public employees.
Essentially, the Paycheck Protection initiative will strengthen public employee union members' political rights. It will give them the option of choosing whether they want their union dues spent on political candidates and campaigns.
Here is some rhetoric from the anti-75 folks (FROM OFFICIAL WEB SITE):
As with many previous California ballot initiatives, Prop 75 has a hidden agenda. Proposition 75’s real agenda is to cut funding for public schools, cut health care and roll back retirement security.
Proposition 75 was designed and orchestrated by Governor Schwarzenegger’s supporters including right-wing extremists and his corporate campaign contributors who want to cut funding for education, health and safety. They have supported President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, calling that program “immoral” and “unethical.” One even argues that minimum wage laws defy the Bible.
Supporters of Prop. 75 aren’t for workers rights. They’re using that argument as a smokescreen to push their real agenda. They’re against the minimum wage, against strengthening employee health care and against the eight-hour work day. And they support cuts to education, health care and oppose retirement security.
Individual workers won't have more choices under Prop. 75, they will have less privacy as workers who participate in political efforts will have to file a government form every year.
Make no mistake - Prop. 75 is simply the first step in an effort to cut education, health care and retirement security.
Impartial analysis from the League of Women Voters
THE QUESTION
Should public employee unions be required to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member's dues for political activity?
THE SITUATION
Public employee unions collect dues and/or fees from employees in their employee group-both union members and non-members-in order to represent them in negotiations over salaries, benefits, and working conditions. Some of the dues money collected is used to support candidates and issues that union leaders believe will benefit their members.
THE PROPOSAL
Proposition 75 will require public employee unions to get annual written consent from each member in order to use any of that member's dues for political activities. It will also require unions to keep certain records, including copies of signed consent forms and to report member political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
FISCAL EFFECT
State and local governments could incur minor increased costs to implement and enforce the consent requirements of this measure. These could be offset in part by revenues from fines or fees.
SUPPORTERS SAY
It is unfair for unions to use a member's dues money to support political causes with which the member may not agree.
In other states where union members are explicitly given the choice of declining to support their union's political activity, many do so.
This initiative does not prohibit unions from collecting political contributions, but requires that the contributions be voluntary instead of mandatory.
OPPONENTS SAY
Instead of protecting the rights of teachers, nurses, and firefighters, this measure will make it harder to obtain fair wages, fair hours, and health care.
Corporations significantly outspend labor prior to elections. Without political activity by unions, voters would not hear both sides of many issues.
Any requirement that those affected must annually consent to use of their money for political purposes should apply to corporate stockholders as well as to union members.
---end---
Ok - so is that enough info. Enough links here to get educated about this issue? Bring on the discussion about prop 75
Comments
Well let's be clear on one thing, Prop 75 is NOT to protect those members who do not want money going to politics. Those members can already sign a card one time, and for life none of their local or state dues goes towards politics. Prop 75 is aimed at those members who WANT their dues money going for politics. 75 will force members who want money going for politics to fill out a long handwritten form every year. If they wanted to be fair would it not be that you could sign a card one time saying a portion of your dues can go to politics? Corporations are free to spend millions without shareholder consent or any interference from the government. Why should unions be singled out when their members can already opt out? Also I have to say I used to like John McCain until he was with Arnold endorsing Prop 75. A couple years ago he was all over Gray Davis for fundraising and Arnold has doubled what Gray raised. McCain is a hypocrite trying to get Arnolds endorsement in 08, but he lost my vote! Also the big drug companies will spend 100 million on Props 78 and 79, they did not ask shareholders, but I guarantee they will pass that cost to consumers who have no choice but to buy their drugs since Arnold won't let us buy from Cananda.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at October 11, 2005 07:31 PMScott,
I don't know. If the union rank & file; teachers, cops, nurses etc... really believe in the political direction, views and spending of their union leadership, then they will send this prop to the loser bin. In other words, if the members are supportive of their Union's politics, then they will vote against this en masse.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 11, 2005 08:44 PMTim:
I know, which is why monday's LA Times article surprised me. According to the article, some of the internal polling done has pushed the union leaders into action. They don't like the numbers, so they are getting more aggressive on this issue. Expect a larger debate over this issue over the next few weeks. This is one they cannot afford to lose.
Scott
Do you have a link to that article that I can post?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 11, 2005 09:25 PMHere's the title from the monday addition.
Prop. 75 Worries Union Leaders
Many in the rank and file could support the measure, which would limit use of members' dues. Opponents have been slow to rally.
By Michael Finnegan
Times Staff Writer
October 10, 2005
Link is below.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-labor10oct10,1,5015645,print.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
Scott
Prop 75 will lose. My prediction is Yes on 75 46% and No on Prop 75 54%. I think when Arnold came out for 75 he guaranteed it would lose.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at October 12, 2005 01:25 PMSounds pretty close. I thought most people would vote down this special election, but apparently not.
Scott
That is REALLY close. And this early sounds like it could go either way?
Arleigh, in general, why do you think 46% of Californians would vote for this measure, even when the governor's #'s are considerably lower. Sounds to me like the case for reform is being made, regardless of the Governor? Even if it loses, those numbers are startling.
Tim
I just can't believe the numbers would even be that high. The governor has been extremely lethargic on these measures and has a low approval rating. I'd really be surprised if the unions don't win these issues handily.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 12, 2005 02:30 PMI will be voting for Prop 75 (big surprise, right Arleigh?).
Here’s what one state employee says (from the Sacramento Bee, October 11, 2005):
For Kevin Brown, "paycheck protection" this year would have amounted to something on the order of $231.71.
That's how much money was taken from his paycheck, anyway, and spent on political activities by the public employee union that represents him in collective bargaining.
Brown, webmaster for the state Department of Insurance, doesn't officially belong to his union and doesn't particularly care for its politics. But right now, the onus is on Brown, an "agency fee" payer rather than a full-blown member of Service Employees International Union Local 1000, to get his money back.
He has only a limited amount of time to fill out the paperwork, and he has already blown the deadline for his refund. The process, he thinks, is an outrage, and it's the main reason Brown is voting yes on Proposition 75, the union dues measure on the Nov. 8 special election ballot.
"I think they should have to ask me for it," Brown said of SEIU 1000. "They shouldn't just take it out."
Oh, and just to make it interesting, I'll say Prop 75 passes 54% to 46%. Why? Seven out of ten non-union voters will support it. Union voters will approve it, maybe even 60 / 40. But most voters are non-union, so it will split 54 / 46.
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at October 12, 2005 02:40 PMJerre'
I'm still laughing! The non-union guy you quoted is crying because he is too lazy to fill out paperwork to get his refund? Boo Hoo! Is he also too lazy to fill out his taxes every year to get his refund? Are you!? Give me a break. Prop 75 is designed to make upcoming political battles a one sided affair. Arnold wants to bring back his attack on pensions and he needs 75 so the other side cannot fight back. He wants to cut STRS and STRS payments big time! You know anyone Jerre who was thinking they should be receiving STRS since they have been paying into it for years?
From the Daily News...
Public unions become state's new barons
By Jill Stewart, Guest Columnist
If you're following the November special election, you may have noticed that there are three key groups struggling over its outcome. You may not have noticed that there's something deeply wrong with that picture.
One part of the trio is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, channeling the spirit of Hiram Johnson, the reformist governor who freed Sacramento's statehouse from corrupt railroad barons by handing cleanup powers to the voters themselves. Schwarzenegger thinks Sacramento is stinking up the state again, and a lot of us agree.
Another player in the trio is the Democratic power base - legislators who've controlled the California Legislature nearly every year since 1958.
Both of these players were elected by us to make nice and go below the belt and perform all the other dramatics typical of representative government.
It's the third group, which now dominates media coverage as well as this year's fundraising, that doesn't belong at the tippy-top of the debates. The ability of government unions to dominate every major discussion is testimony to the power of their mountains of cold cash.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, members of unions of all types make up only 16.8 percent of California's more than 14 million countable working people. Members of government unions make up an even tinier slice of the 16.8 percent fraction.
Yet government workers, who represent so few of us in California, could spend $100 million or more this year, trying to incinerate Arnold's reforms and possibly blowing all previous spending records in California.
Unions should have their say. But they are using up all available oxygen. In California, nonunion everyday workers make up 83.2 percent of workers. But they don't pay $50 or $100 in monthly dues into a kitty used to spend $100 million on politics.
Voters can only hope that with these 16.8 percenters trying to control the debate, the people elected to represent the broader population will argue vigorously on their behalf.
Which gets us back to Gov. Hiram Johnson. He knew the barons controlled California's politicians, secretly wrote key legislation, and lined their pockets with public money.
Is it so different now?
In the summer of 2002, I looked but could not find any in-depth news stories explaining how demands by public unions were a key factor in huge deficits mounting beneath Gray Davis. Then Davis was re-elected, only to admit a few days later to a deficit of more than $20 billion. Unions had heavily influenced the gross overspending, but few Democratic legislators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
had the nerve to defy them.
Back in January, when Schwarzenegger announced his major reform effort, he sounded like Hiram. But he wasn't prepared to fight the 16.8 percenters. The unions effectively shouted down Schwarzenegger throughout the spring, and the governor badly stumbled in response.
None of the reforms Schwarzenegger now seeks is earth-shattering, although each is sensible.
He seeks tighter tenure rules, so local school districts can fire incompetent teachers now virtually impossible to fire once granted tenure, which happens after just two short years in California, while teachers are still green.
He wants to end politicians' control over "safe seats" that have perverted our elections to the point of irrelevance. Once upon a time, before safe seats, California had pro-business Democrats in the Legislature. Nowadays, unions pour vast funds into primaries to stamp out independent Democrats who don't toe the union line. Safe seats mean safe for union fat cats.
He also wants government unions to get permission from union members before spending their dues on politics they might revile. Last year, the 90,000-member California School Employees Association heavily lobbied the Legislature to preserve a terrible Davis-era law that forces schools to hire union workers for bus driving and other nonclassroom work.
The law siphons $300 million a year from classrooms, according to a coalition of school boards. How many of the 90,000 CSEA workers do not want their dues spent preserving this outrage?
Back in January, Arnold said he sought reform "because we don't want to feed the monster" that public unions have become. To pull it off, he'll need to channel Hiram. And that means somehow reaching the 83.2 percent of Californians who pay dearly for the harmful desires of government unions, yet don't even know it.
Jill Stewart is a print, radio and television commentator on California politics. She can be reached via her Web site, www.jillstewart.net.
I don't see unions as corrupt. They have worked hard to protect the well deserved benefits and job security of hard working people that only make up a portion of the middle class - not the wealthy.
It seems to me that organizations that help entities who are already very wealthy (the true fat cats), such as corporations, are the ones that are corrupt in their minds and intensions.
There is a huge maldistribution of wealth in this country. Seeing the widespread poverty in this country, that hurricane Katrina brought to our attention, made this maldistribution of wealth a very apparent issue. According to 2000 Census data, 14.2 percent of California's population lives below the poverty line. This is approximately 4,700,206 people.
Organizations such as unions, whose intensions keep the working middle class from the brink of poverty, are far from corrupt.
What kind of poverty? The kind of poverty suffered from the lack of health care, from the lack of a pension plan that would sustain individuals in their senior years, and from the lack of job security and becoming unemployed in a time when the economy is at an all time low.
Also, where does the Governor get the hard cold cash for his campaigns? Taxes and Fundraisers. A mountain of money is being spent right now on a special election. Who is donating at these fundraising events? Does a significant part of the 83.2 percent of working Californians fit into the donation figures?
As a taxpayer, could I opt out of any money taken out of my paycheck for political campaigns I don't agree with. No. Do I continue to pay taxes? Yes.
Read an article in the LA Times yesterday that said this measure is popular with a lot public union members and may actually split the unions, which surprised me becuase I felt this special election had no traction with the voters. I think most people don't want this special election and are going to stay home, which will benefit the governor. I am interested to see where this debate goes...
Scott
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 11, 2005 07:30 PM