Monday, October 31st 2005
Open Forum: Arnold’s Initiatives
I’m guessing that these four propositions (74-77) aren’t going to generate as much debate here as Prop 73 currently is doing… But these propositions are the reason that we’re having a special election in the first place, so here’s the post where you can say whatever you want about one or all of them.
Quick summaries of each from the IGS:
Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure
Proposition 75: Use of Union Dues for Political Purposes
Proposition 76: The California Live Within Our Means Act
Support the Governator’s Reform Package? Against them all? Some, but not others? Go.
Let me comment on Prop 75. I think it is a necessary initiative which will legitimize union activities and make unions more democratic. It is outrageious that many employment spheres require the worker to be a part of the union and then use their mandatory dues for political causes not necessarily representative of the members opinions. It is just like the situation of ASUC and its stance on prop 54 last year, and 73 this year.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/31/2005 @ 2:47 am
The only one I’m unambiguously against is 75. It’s just a power grab to weaken union influence.
I agree with the general goal of 74, but I’m concerned that it would discourage teaching in underperforming schools, where it’s just not fair to judge teachers (especially in the upper grades) based on student performance.
76 I would support if it were just a revocation of Prop 98. But it ties the hands of the legislator by requiring a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, which doesn’t at all lead to fiscal responsibility. I’m opposed to 98 because it needlessly ties the hands of the legislature. 76 doesn’t improve the situation.
And the Machiavellian side of me wants to vote no on 77, but I have to admit it’s a decent proposition. I’ll be voting yes.
Comment by Donald — 10/31/2005 @ 3:14 am
Prop 75: Why shouldn’t union dues be spent on causes and campaigns that help unions? The rationale given for the proposition is but an inch short of dishonest.
Unions vastly increase an individuals power by concentration of resources from many people for a concrete set of goals and insuring some results, since politicians will want money in the future.
Sure there are people whose opinions are not fully represented by labor candidates, but I don’t see why a labor union must also be a culture warrior. If you are pro-life, for example, than you still benefit. Many abortions happen because the family simply cannot afford to have a baby and raise it to adulthood. You might be against abortion, and because the union fought for you, there will be no need to have one.
Comment by HB — 10/31/2005 @ 1:38 pm
Yuriy Pasko is exactly right. Prop 75 is a no-brainer. If workers in a closed-shop are essentially forced to join a union that will ostensibly represent them, why should their mandatory dues be used in ways contrary to their interests (as they, the members, perceive their own interests)?
HB: You wrote, “Unions vastly increase an individuals power by concentration of resources from many people for a concrete set of goals and insuring some results, since politicians will want money in the future.”
Unions aren’t political parties. They shouldn’t fund politicians on behalf of their members. They should stick to negotiating with their members’ employers. The failure to define exactly what is the role of a union is part of the problem here. Also, I fail to understand the connection between unions giving their members’ dues to pro-choice politicians on one hand and unions fighting to represent their pro-life members on the other.
Comment by kipper — 11/1/2005 @ 1:41 am
Union members are already able to request that their dues not fund political causes. Prop 75 just adds a layer of complication to the unions, making their overhead costs higher as they will have to seek explicit approval every year.
Unions are already much weaker in this country than they are in any other industrial power (with the exception of Japan perhaps, but Japan also has an informal understanding that employees will have job security). To suggest that what happens in Sacramento is somehow not relevant to representing the union members is just wrong. This is not a proposition about choice (union members already have it). This is a proposition solely designed to weaken unions’ already dilluted influence.
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 8:40 am
Union members can request a great many things. The Unions simply ignore them and continue to use their dues for political causes nonetheless.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 11/1/2005 @ 11:15 am
Uh, no. That’s illegal my friend. If you have evidence of such activity, by all means, file a lawsuit.
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 11:18 am
If it is illegal, no one bothers to enforce it.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 11/1/2005 @ 11:22 am
Donald, under Prop 75, union members are also able to request that their dues fund political causes. It just puts the initiative on the fundraisers’ side, which actually makes a great deal more sense. Imagine if everyone in the country donated to the Republican Party by default, unless specified otherwise. And when you tried to argue, the folks in charge just said “Hey, you still have the right to not fund them, you just want to add a layer of complication.”
Comment by Beetle — 11/1/2005 @ 1:25 pm
Michael: it is enforced.
Beetle: Which is actually one option in public financing, for example. Or in creating an opt-out (rather than opt-in) system for organ donation or voter registration. Or in an automatic $1 fee for funding elder care in [fill in the blank] licensing. There are any number of situations in which opt-out systems make as much or more sense.
In the case of the union dues, it is the union’s job to maximize the gains of its members (and labor more broadly). The political component is an obvious extension of that. And it isn’t even a one-time request. Prop 75 requires the unions to seek permission every year, a clear attempt to add an extra layer of cost that could go to actually fighting for the union members.
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 2:24 pm
If teh Unions really wanted to get the most from a political party they should donate their money to Pat Buchanan. He’s the only candidate who’s hard caore anti Globalization, for securing the borders to protect American jobs and anti-isolationist. Instead they give their money to Democrats who implemented NAFTA.
Comment by DTI — 11/1/2005 @ 2:57 pm
Donald, what would opting out of voter registration even mean? “It’s not enough that I won’t vote, I don’t even want to be eligible to vote!” We don’t have such a system here, we don’t have public financing, and, at least in California, organ donation is opt-in.
In a more general sense, when you want something from someone, you usually ask first, instead of just taking and then saying “whoa, sorry, my bad” if the person you’re taking from raises a fuss.
Comment by Beetle — 11/1/2005 @ 3:39 pm
Beetle: You gave a hypothetical situation that was supposed to somehow discredit the concept of opt-out. I was just trying to make clear that there are plenty of situations where a logical system could be implemented for opt-out.
DTI: Union donations, nationwide at least, don’t universally go to Democrats. From my home state, Arlen Spector for example received the endorsement (and fiscal support) of Pennsylvania’s largest union.
“Instead they give their money to Democrats who implemented NAFTA.”
And as I’m sure you realize, you are misrepresenting the NAFTA vote.
In the Senate, 27 Democrats voted for NAFTA while 28 voted against it. Meanwhile, 34 Republicans voted for NAFTA while 10 voted against it. It was a much more contentious issue in the Democratic party than in the Republican.
And for what its worth, both Boxer and Feinstein voted No.
So, try again?
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 6:20 pm
Donald, you gave a hypothetical situation that was supposed to somehow give credit to the concept of an opt-out. Yes, I know it’s done, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. In this country, at least, we don’t generally consider “‘give control of property away’ the default position unless otherwise stated.” We expect justification, and “I don’t wanna do the paperwork” doesn’t generally cut it.
Comment by Beetle — 11/1/2005 @ 6:32 pm
Funny, any union I’ve ever encountered (and those I know of from friends and family) always take dues for political purposes regardless of the expressed wishes of its members. I’ve also seen several news articles over the years, which show that unions continue to ignore court rulings, that should force them to be unable to give contributions to causes against the objections of the individual union members.
The union leaders aren’t fighting the proposition tooth and nail to keep their paperwork from increasing. They are fighting it because it would reduce their power, and diminish the campaign contributions going to the Democrats and left-wing causes.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 11/2/2005 @ 11:45 am
Funny, if that were the case, your anecdotal friends and family could file a lawsuit and win.
Comment by Donald — 11/2/2005 @ 12:42 pm