Anybody have a take on Prop 32. The pros say it will keep Big Money out of California. The Cons(unions included) say the Pros have "carved out" exemptions for themselves.Thanks,sleglas100
Take a look at it's sponsors... It's all about Union busting. very slimy ads to go along with it... We need the checks and balance the Unions offer, Police, Firemen here all over are down on it, locally quite a few No on 32 yard signs... Big money being pumped into the Pro side, corporate money all over the place... NO is the only sensible response... Big Money wants to screw over the little guys even more... Sickening... weco
Take a look at it's sponsors... It's all about Union busting. very slimy ads to go along with it... We need the checks and balance the Unions offer, Police, Firemen here all over are down on it, locally quite a few No on 32 yard signs... Big money being pumped into the Pro side, corporate money all over the place...NO is the only sensible response...Big Money wants to screw over the little guys even more... Sickening... First thought (as a former unionized employee with Boeing in CA) is "since when is a powerful union who can forcibly extract dues from its members in a compulsory fashion considered 'the little guy'?"Second thought is "holy crap how messed up is our system when our only two choices are between 1) the rich d-bags running the largest corporations who have half the ambitious self-serving politicians in their pockets and 2) the rich d-bags running the largest unions who have the other half of the ambitious self-serving politicians in their pockets?"JT
Second thought is "holy crap how messed up is our system when our only two choices are between 1) the rich d-bags running the largest corporations who have half the ambitious self-serving politicians in their pockets and 2) the rich d-bags running the largest unions who have the other half of the ambitious self-serving politicians in their pockets?"Right? I'm still learning about this prop but it doesn't seem to have broad support so far.6
First thought (as a former unionized employee with Boeing in CA) is "since when is a powerful union who can forcibly extract dues from its members in a compulsory fashion considered 'the little guy'?">/i>Your impression that your dues were forcibly extracted is bogus for starters.. You agreed to be a Member, attended the meetings, volunteered to learn the Contract, right? Were a Shop Steward, right? Ran for an elected position, right? Attended Union Board meetings, right? Spoke up within those meetings, voted on Contracts, right? If not you remained uninformed, ignored all of it, but you sure liked the wages, Benefits, Vacation days, right? Blaming the Union for every problem sounds more like a management suit... Being a Member gave you many rights, and every Steward, Executive Board member is duty bound, morally and legally to represent you. If not they re subject to legal actions.. They negotiated on your behalf, then, now, and in their earlier history for better working conditions, fair rules, as well as Benefits, Pensions, all of it... Management on the other hand always will roll right over you if they can... If you never saw that, my condolences, you must have lived in a dream world... NO on 32, they are out to screw EVERY Member, everywhere.. Just for their greed... How moral is that?weco
Being a Member gave you many rights, and every Steward, Executive Board member is duty bound, morally and legally to represent you.Really? Let's just explore that bit of...well, I'll be generous and call it bit of puffery.I 'm a member of the California Teacher's Association (CTA) and I am just flabbergasted that anyone would think I have been represented in any way, shape or form. See, I am a conservative which means I usually vote against the democratic candidate in elections in which I choose to vote. You would think, if indeed my views were represented by CTA, some of my nearly $1,000 of annual dues would find its way into conservative candidate's campaigns. Yet in the past 20 years out of more than $800 million in campaign contributions not a single dime has gone to a republican. Oh sure, bribing candidates isn't CTA's only function, as weco points out they also "negotiated on your behalf, then, now, and in their earlier history for better working conditions, fair rules, as well as Benefits, Pensions, all of it... So let's see how successful CTA has been in negotiating on my behalf; I have not had a raise in six years - nothing, zip, zilch, in fact this year I've taken a pay cut due to 5 furlough days and the school district has threatened to impose another 30 furlough days if Brown's tax increases aren't passed in November. Yeah, that Union represents me: in the past 6 years I've seen $14 billion in cuts to programs that pay my salary, $11 billion in new taxes, my out of pocket health insurance costs have gone from $46 to $398 per month and now they want me to vote in another 3% increase to the sales tax all the while hoping I don't notice my annual dues are set to go up another 8%. My workload has nearly doubled because the district can no longer afford the administrators who used to spend most of their time insuring the school complies with stupid Ed Code rules passed by those same idiot legislators my union bribed to put in office! I see classrooms with 40 students and programs to help struggling students disappear because there is no money. Worst of all, I find myself defending my profession to parents, acquaintances, friends and even family because the education system in this state is one gigantic failure and any attempt to fix it is stopped dead by the union. Yep, that union works for me.Rusty
Big money being pumped into the Pro side, corporate money all over the place...NO is the only sensible response...Big Money wants to screw over the little guys even more... Sickening... Really? According to Ballotpedia http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition...Total campaign cash Invest as of 9/17/2012Support: $8,800,000Opposition: $37,600,000Top 21 donors for:American Future Fund $4,080,000Charles Munger, Jr. $992,204Thomas M. Siebel $500,000William Bloomfield, Jr. $300,000Larry Smith $260,701Jerry Perenchio $250,000Citizen Power Campaign $230,317B. Wayne Hughes $200,000William Oberndorf $150,000Protect Prop 13 (HJTA) $125,000Lincoln Club of Orange County $110,000Robert J. Oster $101,000Frank E. Baxter $100,000Timothy C. Draper $100,000William L. Edwards $100,000Howard F. Ahmanson $50,000Charles B. Johnson $50,000Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. $50,000Nicoletta Holdings Company $50,000Richard J. Riordan $50,000Steven A. Laub $50,000 Top 25 donors against:California Teachers Association $16,452,509SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees $6,788,969California Professional Firefighters $2,601,580AFSCME $1,634,725California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO/Change to Win) $1,372,431Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC $1,276,846California School Employees Association $1,050,000California Faculty Association $1,027,471California/American Federation of Teachers $800,000International Association of Firefighters $500,000Professional Engineers in California Government $500,000Thomas Steyer $500,000California Statewide Law Enforcement Association $426,552California State Pipe Trades Council $250,000Los Angeles Police Protective League's Public Safety First PAC $250,000Peace Officers Research Association $250,000Million More Voters (AFL-CIO) $245,516Northern California District Council of Laborers' Issues $150,000State Building and Construction Trades Council of California $129,718United Transportation Union $105,000San Bernardino County Safety Employees' Benefit Association $100,000John Perez Ballot Measure Committee $100,000United Domestic Workers of America $100,000Union of American Physicians & Dentists $100,000California Association of Psychiatric Technicians $100,000Nothing like being outspent 4 to 1 to show where the big money really is....Rusty
Any Union is only as good as it's Membership, in fact they are the Union.. Unless you are involved, work for the goals, you are shooting yourself in the foot.. Don't like the game, walk away, don't accept all those silly benefits, pensions, decent wages.. As a Conservative, you have too many strikes against you in any group, i bet, unless you were willing to work with, for the Membership, you are just opposing everything they try to do, hardly a healthy situation for either side.. If you don't see the reality of tight City/County/State Budgets, and still have grand expectations of the CTA, you are dreaming, I have no hand in that game, but I can imagine it's a thankless, tough game they are trying to sort out... Myself, I had 45 years of good relations within Unions, the I.A. of M. way back, CWA, for the last 40, active from day one, some great people, families, all over the West, including Hawaii.. One run out to the Marshall Islands in '67 demonstrated what happens as soon as we left the Bargaining unit...Management tried screwing all the guys out of a dozen items, so we had to round up, create our own "union" out there, force them to straighten up.. Won it, many thousands came in from back pay, etc.. And they stopped the gaming because they knew they'd be busted.. As a steward, helping out the guys in all sorts of situations was standard procedure, solve it locally if possible, run it up as needed... I'll post a Thom Hartman link in a sec... Makes a lot of sense... weco
Rusty, What you posted was only part of the picture... Read all the information, this bill is the Republican bill, Union busters all, so it's no wonder that we Democrats have been able to out rally, get a lot more donors than you Republicans here in California! Yes, the ones shown donated a lot, I'm glad to see CTA in that list of opponents! I see a lot of other well run groups opposing this crappy bill... Seeing the list of promoters is a rogues gallery of shortsighted greedy creeps like the rest of the Repugs we see Nationally... Yes, great to see the CTA leads the list, excellent.. My neighbor, fireman, got me interested in this, I'll gladly volunteer, contribute to help beat this down where it belongs, in the trash. weco
Mixed feeelings here.Living in the OC, the county agencies are raping the taxpayers. We're goiing bk trying to pay the packages they negotiated 'in better times.'That they show no willingness to acknowledge and work for a reasonable solution, and continue to spike their pay andretirment packages with overtime leaves a bad taste in my mouth.Then there's the Costa Mesa police strong arming the elected officials....http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/police-119064-home-c...I recognize the need for organized labor to deal collectively with unscrupulous corporations, but somehow some stuff is outawhack.
I recognize the need for organized labor to deal collectively with unscrupulous corporations, but somehow some stuff is outawhack.Agreed, none of it is perfect, in my own group, I kept pushing for more awareness of the technology, how we were using it, and that top leaders should be looking for engaging, using tech to spread the word, stay in touch with the membership, a simple web page turned into a stone wall if I wanted to do it with the National's blessings, so I did my own, externally, but that wasn't the point, they needed to know what the members worked on, understand the issues...There has to be a check and balance, neither side can be let run wild.... One Ive been watching is the prison guards, likely one of the deadliest jobs around. We recently went on a private tour of San Quentin, as my FIL had been a foreman there, was murdered by an inmate 20 years ago.. Those guards are all business, attentive every minute of every day, know the balance of gangs, their job, and dealing with management... But they've also boosted their pay scale way up there, somehow it needs to be moderated, but don't kill the Unions. Imagine a non-union workplace like that, favorites getting the soft jobs, the rest left to deal with the population as best they can... Not a fun place at all... Literal backstabbing at all levels... There are no easy answers, but killing the Unions is not in any of them... weco
Really? Let's just explore that bit of...well, I'll be generous and call it bit of puffery.I'm curious...why do you pay the union dues if you get no benefit from it?6
I'm curious...why do you pay the union dues if you get no benefit from it?Two reasons: First, CTA provides legal representation for members accused of misconduct. In 15 years I've never needed it, but I've been colleagues with one who has. Second, membership gives me the right to go to rep council meetings and tell them what a horrible job they are doing. You should see their minds explode when I suggest CTA should try bribing republicans instead of democrats, that an open borders policy really isn't good for schools, that taking a stand on medical marijuana isn't any of CTA's business.Rusty
Two reasons: First, CTA provides legal representation for members accused of misconduct. In 15 years I've never needed it, but I've been colleagues with one who has. Second, membership gives me the right to go to rep council meetings and tell them what a horrible job they are doing. You should see their minds explode when I suggest CTA should try bribing republicans instead of democrats, that an open borders policy really isn't good for schools, that taking a stand on medical marijuana isn't any of CTA's business.Can't you get some kind of legal insurance somewhere else?Are you just paying $1000/year to bich at people?6
Sofaking6I'd be interested to hear your reasoning when you decide how you will vote on this.
I'd be interested to hear your reasoning when you decide how you will vote on this. At this time it's looking like a No for me. While I do like the idea behind it, I think a Yes on 32 would only serve to create a false sense of having solved a problem and will therefore just perpetuate the issue. I would vote yes for a similar prop if it were more balanced.6
Sorry, guess I let time get away from me.Blaming the Union for every problem sounds more like a management suit... Quite a leap there, from "forcibly extract dues" to "blaming the union for every problem", dontyathink? For the record, I've never held a management position anywhere in my career.Your impression that your dues were forcibly extracted is bogus for starters.. You agreed to be a MemberLet me stop you right there, before you get to all the "You did everything I did when I was your age because your situation is EXACTLY the same as mine and that MUST be the only way to do things, right?" stuff. I'm really not sure we're going to get anywhere with this due to fundamental differences in how we perceive unions (the need for capitalization, for a cosmetic - but somehow telling - example). But it's Friday night and the wife and kids are asleep and I've got a cocktail and popcorn next to me so we'll give it a shot anyway.I "agreed" to be a member because when I had the opportunity to take a certain position (I was already a Boeing employee), that position came with the stipulation that if I wanted to do that job (which was some really cool stuff) I had to be in the union because... well, I was never really told why, just that "that's the way it is" and if I wanted the job sans union I could go pound sand. It was cool stuff and I wanted to do it, so I shrugged and took it.If the choice of "agreeing" to be a member boils down to either:a) have a job and be bound by the union contract, whatever it is and whatever it changes into in the future, orb) quit your jobthen it's really not much of a choice, is it?Allow me to offer a similar "choice", for comparison:a) have a job and submit to your employer withholding the FICA payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, orb) quit your job.The exact same amount of choice is offered there, which is to say - if you want to put a roof over your family's heads - none at all. So yeah, I'd say "forcibly/compulsory" isn't far off.So yes, I suppose I did "agree" to be a member, and so does every other Joe who doesn't quit his union job the moment he disagrees with something the union does "on his behalf". But then, I was fortunate to be one of the lucky few who was in a union that didn't have compulsory dues. Even though I had no choice but to be bound by the union contract (which meant I didn't get the bonus my non-unionized colleagues got, but had the same vacation/holidays/etc. - but I was doing the cool stuff, so I didn't mind too much), I could choose not to pay dues in return for giving up my vote on union matters. So I did. Fortunately I still had the opportunity to vote to decertify the union when it came up. And I did. And it did. So yeah, who's got two thumbs and personal union-busting experience? This guy. Got that bonus the next time it came up and I put it right back into a company stock purchase.But this (and Prop 32) isn't about my personal life story. It's about seeing how lucky I was to not have compulsory dues extracted from my paycheck and wanting to share that freedom with every other Joe who has a job he wants and likes to do but is bound by a union contract. And it's actually even more granular than that. It's not at all about the union being able to extract dues to support the business of the union in its negotiation with the companies that employ its members - that privilege isn't touched at all by Prop 32. Prop 32 only stops any organization that has the power to extract funds through compulsory payroll deduction (that includes unions and companies) from using those extracted funds for political purposes.An aircraft mechanic pays his union dues in good faith (not that he has a choice, if he wants to keep his job) that those funds are going to be put to good use representing him in negotiations with his employer about his compensation, benefits, working conditions, etc. If the union goes out and spends a portion of those funds on swaying public opinion on a proposition about, say, the death penalty, how exactly is that the union representing him to his employer? Doesn't anyone else see the disconnect there? Maybe Joe agrees with the position the union is advocating, but Bob his counterpart on second shift feels the opposite. Joe won't mind the union spending his money on it 'cause maybe he would have spent it that way regardless; but is Bob supposed to just bend over and take it?The worst part about it is the circularity of the whole thing. RustyMath here supports Prop 32 (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth) and would like nothing better than to have those funds that were taken by the CTA and spent on political purposes in his own account to spend on what he thinks is important - could be political contributions but maybe it would be savings for retirement or college, or maybe it would get returned to the consumer economy that so desperately needs it. But here you have the CTA spending $16 million (almost double the entire spend of the other side, all by its lonesome) in an effort to retain the ability to continue taking money from Rusty to spend on whatever political campaigns they want. Here's a thought - let those hard-working guys and gals keep that portion of their hard-earned paychecks that the unions would lump into the bigger bucket called "dues" but spend on political purposes and let them decide which political campaigns to spend it on - if they even decide it's worth spending it on political causes. If the union's preferred cause is just and right, then they should feel confident that their members will join in, won't they? If they're not confident that's the case, why do you think that is?For pete's sake, look at the list of opposing donors! It's all the unions in the state, spending their hard-extracted dues money to make sure they can still extract those dues next year and spend 100% of them on whatever they want! Sure wish I could take money from people to spend on trying to retain the ability to keep taking money from them. Didn't Benjamin Franklin warn us about something like that?JT
Then there's the Costa Mesa police strong arming the elected officials....http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/police-119064-home-c......Good God, that's disgusting.I recognize the need for organized labor to deal collectively with unscrupulous corporations, but somehow some stuff is outawhack. I guess that's where weco and I diverge as well - I can see the need/value/utility of unions back in the day to make sure companies weren't literally working their employees to death, but IMO in the 21st century legislation/regulation has caught up with that need and the need/value/utility that unions served back in the day is unneeded. IMO, of course.JT
the need/value/utility that unions served back in the day is unneeded.Unfortunately, the drive to cut expenses is a powerful stimulus that has only been checked by unions and regulations.That corporations happily offshore manufacturing to places that exploit workers suggests to me that corporate compassion for workers hasn't increased one iota.Even many 'compassionate' companies turn a blind eye to worker abuse, and/or disregard for the environment until they are 'called out' on it. Unfortunately, there is an oversupply of cheap labor on the planet, so worker exploitation is easier than ever... and many workers are simply too happy to have a paycheck to complain about being abused in the belief that it's better to be abused than to starve.
You agreed to a Contract, live up to it. Don't like it, work from within to change, or leave. Pretty basic. There was no anchor tied to your ___...
corporate compassion for workers hasn't increased one iota.Oh I never suggested it has. Only that the brakes on worker exploitation that previously only existed via unionization now exist in legislation/regulation, and that unions aren't needed for that particular purpose anymore (at least here, in CA-US, where we're talking about).JT
You agreed to a Contract, live up to it. Don't like it, work from within to change, or leave. Pretty basic.Um... I did. Did you read the part about taking the job anyway and dealing with the circumstances? "Work ... to change" - did that too, when I voted for decertification and contributed to freeing everyone from being bound by that contract, so we could all form our own contracts with our employer (which is exactly what happens in a normal hiring action between an employer and a worker they want to employ).But anyway, enough about me, what about Prop 32, and making sure that mandatory/compulsory payroll deductions (by unions or corporations) don't end up in political campaigns....JT
The whole point of Prop 32 is Union busting, many of us spent many years working for the right to organize, deal with a wide variety of issues, way beyond your personal problems. We worked to solve issues, gain training, benefits, get members help with medical, dental, family, psych help, pensions, COLAs, all of it.. Then we had the moles that tried to destroy everything we'd worked for.. I'll put you in that category, from what I read, then... Out for only yourself, screw everyone else. Nice... Apparently you took and took, but never contributed anything for the future... The SF Chronicle has it right: "Proposition 32 purports to be an even handed attempt to reduce the influence of special interests in California. It is anything but balanced ... Organized Labor has made the defeat of Prop. 32 its highest priority in California because of what is unquestionably its most consequential element: Prohibition of the use of payroll deductions for political purposes" (Sept 16)NO on 32! YES on 30! NO on 37, 38, 39!
right to organize, deal with a wide variety of issues, way beyond your personal problems. We worked to solve issues, gain training, benefits, get members help with medical, dental, family, psych help, pensions, COLAs, all of it..And nowhere have I or Prop 32 threatened the ability of unions to do exactly that stuff for their members. Take the dues, collectively bargain for better stuff with the company, absolutely, by all means, proceed sir.If you can tell me exactly what contribution/benefit is made to the above list by a union spending its members' money on a political campaign supporting Assembly Bill 5150 changing the state's Basic Speed Law to 54 MPH* then you'll absolutely have my honest attention in listening about those contributions/benefits and the perhaps-inevitable harm that will come to those contributions/benefits should Prop. 32 pass. So far, I haven't heard anything approaching that case being made; just more "if you're not with us you're against us" stuff piled on top of the name-calling.JT*note: the above bill is a fictitious example. I had a more entertaining one in there first about treating hit-and-runs involving dogs differently than those involving cats, but I figured that much levity would have undermined the question.
Are all corporations stopped from using their shareholder monies to fund political actions? You know they aren't in the least, this bill does nothing to contain the sudden corporate "people". Instead it's attempting to squash the unions which really are the people. I've never been a company shill, trying to bust up the membership, you apparently have.. VOTE NO on 32, it's the right thing to do.
Again with the name-calling <eyeroll>. Really?Are all corporations stopped from using their shareholder monies to fund political actions? You know they aren't in the least, this bill does nothing to contain the sudden corporate "people".Never said they were, and Prop 32 doesn't attempt to change any of that at all. Unions can spend their money wherever they want to. Corporations can spend their money wherever they want to. What Prop 32 restricts is *where they can get that money from*. If it passes, neither unions nor companies will be allowed to use compulsory payroll deductions to fund political campaign activities. The only money either one gets to spend on political campaign activities is money not obtained by payroll deduction. You get that, right? I mean, you've read the proposition itself I hope, not just the talking points from The Leadership?Unions and companies would still be able to allow their members/employees to contribute as they choose through voluntary contributions to whatever cause is important at the time. If the UAW wants to support the Basic Speed Law reduction bill, they can ask their members to voluntarily pool their funds so that their voice can be louder together. If a company wants to oppose the same bill, they can ask their employees to voluntarily pool their funds so that their voice can be louder together. The point is that it would be voluntary, not at the barrel of the unemployment line.JT
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |