Prop. 32 Called Misleading

Nothing like the mandatory submission of union dues in order to safeguard the democratic process.

I'm not sure what your point is, italiansurg.

Under federal law you are not required to join a union,
you have the right to object to paying for union activities and/ or get fees reduced for those activities, and the union must provide information for employees to evaluate, file objections, and detail dues and union activities you are to be charged for.

I hate those unions because they direct some of the money to the workers instead of the owners. Cannot have that.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php...)

Proposition 32's biggest donor? The American Future Fund, a conservative "Dark Money" group from *** IOWA *** with anonymous donors and ties to the Koch Brothers:

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/american...

Proposition 32's biggest lie? That it applies to corporations:

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci...

"Here's how the scam works: It does ban corporations as well as unions from using paycheck deductions for political purposes, but corporations don't do that. Their political donations come straight from the treasury or executives. By contrast, paycheck deductions are the primary method California's 2.5 million union members use to fund political spending ..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-b-d...

"The proposition ... exempts such common business structures as LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts. If you're a venture investor, land developer or law firm, Proposition 32 doesn't lay a finger on you."

Lol, what a comment, from "John Adams" no less!!

So you have two businesses in two towns, one with a union and one without. The town with the union has lots of businesses with unions and is relatively socialized. The one without a union exists in a town with a relatively free market where contracts and upheld, people are allowed to assemble and address their company collectively if they wish and private property is respected thus businesses are not allowed to pollute others' land.

The one with the union takes 5% of the profits each year for the organization that runs the union. Unions have costs, afterall. The business in the town without a union has 5% more money each year that they can use to expand their business and provide more goods and services to the community. Other businesses run similar, and so this town has many more goods and services than the other town. Prices are lower and the standard of living is much higher.

The foolish town where unions are not merely a right of people to assemble and address their company collectively, but where they are engrained into the political and social system, well, they are running much less efficienty. Therefore less goods and services are produced. Prices are higher. Standard of living is lower.

That said I think I agree with EastBeach. I'm not a big fan of how unions have become intertwined with government, but I am for political free speech. If the Kochs were libertarian, they would be too. Unfortunately the Kochs are not libertarian, they are corporatists.

Corporations giving to politicians wouldn't be a problem if we elected politicians who obeyed the Constitution. Instead we have a government that is willing to go out and do just about anything, so corporations fund them so the politicians can vote for things that benefit them.

It's too bad there aren't more politicians like Ron Paul.

^^^ That hardly seems like an objective A/B comparison.

Whoa! The public employee unions are out in force against 32... which means I will immediately vote YES on 32 as soon as I can.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/ind...

August 16, 1937,Franklin D. Roosevelt, Letter to:

My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

continued:

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours

George Meany, Labor Leader

On December 4, 1955, literally the eve of the AFL-CIO merger, the New York Times magazine published an article by Meany in which he set forth this view: "It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government." His quote in greater context:

...4) Certain business leaders may consider "big government" or socialism more of an immediate threat to their interests than communism. Are they allowing themselves to be deluded by their own propaganda to the effect that organized labor in this country is in favor of big government or the nationalization of industry?
Nothing could be further from the truth. The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare...

FDR's letter was interesting, but how does it relate to Proposition 32 ???

As to the letter, I'm not an expert on unions, but I've read most public unions' abilities to collectively bargain are limited by state & federal statutes. Those statutes specify what the public unions can and cannot do. As a simple example, in some states, teachers are allowed to strike under certain conditions (e.g. the recent case in Illinois) whereas other states prohibit strikes for any reason.

I suspect there is a balance somewhere between FDR's concern that government services must flow smoothly versus the danger of creating an underclass of employees with no rights to have fair working conditions.

Again, Proposition 32 has nothing to do with strikes and it does not distinguish between private or public sector unions.

Proposition 32 is a dishonest power play masquerading as campaign finance reform (details in my original post).

Wow, I think I changed my mind. I might be voting for this bill afterall.

You are forced as a teacher in CA to join a union. Even if binky is right and you can reduce your dues, money is still fungible and you are still forced to support an organization that might have a different political agenda than you.

There is nothing stopping individuals in these unions from donating to these same political causes and candidates on their own, so I don't see any reason why the unions should be doing so especially when people are forced to join them and many unions are an arm of the government to begin with.

The Supreme Court just ruled on this in June, expanding non-member rights -- using a First Amendment argument -- to opt out of mandatory union dues unless they are fully in the non-member's demonstrable benefit. As Alito said in the opinion:

: : "Because a public-sector union takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, the compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a “significant impingement on First Amendment rights.” Our cases to date have tolerated this “impingement,” and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.

: : "“The primary purpose” of permitting unions to collect fees from nonmembers, we have said, is “to prevent nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s efforts, sharing the employment benefits obtained by the union’s collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred.” "

The final 2 paragraphs of the decision (which I think is too harsh and narrow) sums it up:

: : "Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference. (See, e.g., Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010)). But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights. The First Amendment creates a forum in which all may seek, without hindrance or aid from the State, to move public opinion and achieve their political goals.

: : “First Amendment values [would be] at serious risk if the government [could] compel a particular citizen, or a discrete group of citizens, to pay special subsidies for speech on the side that [the government] favors.” United Foods, 533 U. S., at 411. Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/...

@EastBeach,

Prop 32 - Major Funding

on the Pro - Charles Munger, JR - Munger's son

on the Con - Public Employee Unions (CTA, SEIU)

What FDR said -

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service"

and

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."

What George Meany, AFL-CIO said -

"The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government"

So you have two celebrated LIBERALS who understood the why about Public Employes Unions and their Conflict of Interest serving themselves when their Employer is the "Whole People"

Prop 32 looks to limit the unholy conflict of interest between Politicians and their Special Interest buddies.

Franklin and George were correct. It is the old "Arms Length - Dilemma" that Politicians forget about and have made this mess

@HGMV ... while I understand FDR's specific concern about strikes by public employees, the motivations for Meany's comments seem vague.

When tried to find out more about the quote snippets your provided, I discovered they are replicated verbatim at many conservative blogs. None I've found provide any context or analysis. It's like someone suggesting I buy a certain car, but they won't give me any reasons why.

I think I've found a much clearer, simpler link to reinforce your position. There are many good points raised here:

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/c...

The above suggests the right of public employees to unionize is not a black & white issue as your quotes suggest.

Clearly the states have decided those rights exist within certain limitations (e.g. strikes are prohibited, etc.). This notion is reinforced by the recent overturning of Governor Scott Walker's law restricting public unions in Wisconsin:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000...

As for Prop 32, there are two facts that can't be denied:

1. It is deceptive and an insult to attentive voters.

2. It attempts to further skew power away from unions to corporations.

According to the Center for Investigative Journalism (winner of the du Pont and Polk awards) between 2001 and 2011, Unions spent $284 million on initiatives, campaigns, etc. But corporate interests spent $931 million:

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci...

It's interesting to ponder how many people each of those two sums of money represent.

These two pieces by history professor Joseph A. McCartin @Georgetown University do a much better job of putting FDR's and George Meany's comments into perspective. It's apparent the cut-and-paste bloggers are just putting words into FDR and Meany's mouths:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/...

This is not to say I don't think public unions have made mistakes (e.g. pension spiking, stubborness in the case of the Chicago school strikes). But read this thoughtful piece and see if you don't come away with the big picture that there are many besides the public unions to shoulder blame:

http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?a...

Now let's get back to the untruths behind Proposition 32.