Comments on: Open Forum: Arnold’s Initiatives

By: Donald

Donald — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:42:50 +0000

Funny, if that were the case, your anecdotal friends and family could file a lawsuit and win.

By: Michael C. Mikulis

Michael C. Mikulis — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:45:13 +0000

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.

By: Beetle

Beetle — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:32:50 +0000

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.

By: Donald

Donald — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:20:07 +0000

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?

By: Beetle

Beetle — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:39:42 +0000

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.

By: DTI

DTI — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:57:19 +0000

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.

By: Donald

Donald — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:24:04 +0000

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.