california prop discussion

[tsai3904]

Here's the text of Prop 32:

http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief...-the-text.html

[Feeding the Abscess]

Here's the text of Prop 32:

http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief...-the-text.html

Thanks, I'll read it when I get back from the gym later tonight

[KerriAnn]

Meh. I think I'm still voting no on 32. It only targets unions, and I don't think passing this prop is going to help anything in the long term. In fact, I bet they are waiting to set up a team of bureaucrats for the investigations of these matters right now. We don't need more legislation of this kind. Unions will find loopholes. I can just see it now, my husband coming home with a letter from Hoffa saying that they should sign contracts allowing the union members to use their dues for politics or else they will all lose their jobs. And most of the union members will do it.

[tsai3904]

Meh. I think I'm still voting no on 32. It only targets unions, and I don't think passing this prop is going to help anything in the long term.

It will only affect unions because only unions are taking money out of their members paycheck and using it for political purposes.

This will affect them significantly because it will force them to actually go out and fundraise just like every other organization.

You can see how much they're worried by comparing the top 10 contributions for and against.

[Smart3]

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: YES
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: YES
Prop 40: YES

[KerriAnn]

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: YES
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: YES
Prop 40: YES

that's a lot of yeses... care to expand?

[Smart3]

that's a lot of yeses... care to expand?

Sure

Prop 32 = fights unions
Prop 33 = insurance based on previous coverage
Prop 34 = ends the death penalty
Prop 36 = saves a ton of money, and people don't get locked up for life because of drugs
Prop 37 = the "no" side is sponsored by Monsanto
Prop 39 = ends tax loopholes, $1billion/year+
Prop 40 = redistricting, saves $1million

[tsai3904]

Here's RLC of CA's voter guide for the props:
http://www.rlcsb.org/wp-content/uplo...ember-2012.pdf

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: NO
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: NO

[tsai3904]

California teachers' union donations surpass $20 million to fight Prop. 32

http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_wo...t-prop-32.html

This is the crux of Prop 32:

Both could still donate unlimited sums to independent expenditure campaigns, which are considered a constitutionally-protected form of free speech. But unions wouldn't have as much money to spend, since in California they raise their funds almost exclusively through payroll-deducted member dues. Corporations get their money from individual donations and their company treasuries.

If unions still want to spend money on political activities, they can but they have to raise the money from voluntary individuals instead of through automatic payroll deductions where the individual has no choice.

This is what Kerry Bentivolio, running for Congress in Michigan and a Ron Paul Republican, said yesterday in an online interview:

Q: As a former Fowlerville H.S. PUBLIC school teacher (and I assume a member of the MEA)... do you support Democracy in the workplace? collective bargaining? Proposal 2?

A: Well it's not "democracy in the workplace" to force every public schoolteacher to pays dues to a union. In fact, if workers had the option to refrain from paying dues, the effect would be to democratize unions and make them accountable to the workers as much as possible. "Collective bargaining" does not empower workers, it is a deprivation of their right to participate as individuals in a union or not to. Everyone should be permitted to join a union... or not.

Q: Its NOT mandatory to join a Union... you are incorrect! AND also... DID you ACCEPT the PUBLIC School salary that was collectively bargained for??? Or did you opt out and hire in as a non union employee...and negotiate your OWN salary???

A: Yes it is mandatory. Even if you exercise Beck rights, much of the money unions spend on "non-political" activity which is often indirectly spent on politics. Plus you become a political target. It's almost impossible not to pay dues to a union when the entire workforce is union.

If it was the case that union membership was optional, unions would not oppose Right to Work laws, since they wouldn't change anything.

[sailingaway]

Here's the Green Party in favor of Prop 36, they make sense, although I still have to read the proposition itself. This would keep the third simple possession from triggering the lack of sentencing discretion, for example: http://www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions/36

[Smart3]

Here's RLC of CA's voter guide for the props:
http://www.rlcsb.org/wp-content/uplo...ember-2012.pdf

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: NO
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: NO

I agree with that, and I realize why they picked those. However, I'm voting yes on 37 and 39. 37 because the NO side is funded by Monsanto, and 39 because $1 billion + per year is a great way to pay down the debt. It's not an increase, just closing a loophole.

[sailingaway]

I'm voting yes on 37 as well. When they don't have an FDA and Ag dept led by Monsanto legal eagles, I'll be less demanding of labeling, but the platform is too warped here, imho. Free market consumer protections aren't allowed to function.

I still have to read through all of them in detail, but I will before I mail my ballot.

[sailingaway]

California teachers' union donations surpass $20 million to fight Prop. 32

http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_wo...t-prop-32.html

This is the crux of Prop 32:



If unions still want to spend money on political activities, they can but they have to raise the money from voluntary individuals instead of through automatic payroll deductions where the individual has no choice.

This is what Kerry Bentivolio, running for Congress in Michigan and a Ron Paul Republican, said yesterday in an online interview:

But is the withdrawal agaisnt their wishes? Automatic withdrawal is just a budgeting tool for the individual if it is voluntary.

I have to really get into the weeds on 32. I'll read the actual text.

[tsai3904]

But is the withdrawal agaisnt their wishes? Automatic withdrawal is just a budgeting tool for the individual if it is voluntary.

I have to really get into the weeds on 32. I'll read the actual text.

As far as I know, it is against their wishes. I believe there are many government jobs where you are forced to join a union, which means you are forced to pay union dues. It is not voluntary.

Here's the text:
http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief...-the-text.html

Here's the relevant part of the text:

85151.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee's wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.

(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee's written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.

[sailingaway]

As far as I know, it is against their wishes. I believe there are many government jobs where you are forced to join a union, which means you are forced to pay union dues. It is not voluntary.

Here's the text:
http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief...-the-text.html

Here's the relevant part of the text:

I'm afraid unions will just get that part of it not out of checks. If it had focused on the 'voluntary' and not on the mechanism of check deductions, it would be better written. What if people WANT it deducted from their checks? It looks like the consent wouldn't allow that. But at least they can donate if they want to. I'll read it. I DON'T think people should be forced to donate. I don't think they should be forced to be in unions, either.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Vote YES on Prop 32

[tsai3904]

I'm afraid unions will just get that part of it not out of checks. If it had focused on the 'voluntary' and not on the mechanism of check deductions, it would be better written. What if people WANT it deducted from their checks? It looks like the consent wouldn't allow that. But at least they can donate if they want to. I'll read it. I DON'T think people should be forced to donate. I don't think they should be forced to be in unions, either.

It focuses on the mechanism of payroll deductions because that's how unions collect their dues, through automatic payroll deductions.

Here's a good article on Prop 32 and the effect similar legislation has had in other states:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top...contributions/

[sailingaway]

It focuses on the mechanism of payroll deductions because that's how unions collect their dues, through automatic payroll deductions.

Here's a good article on Prop 32 and the effect similar legislation has had in other states:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top...contributions/

I understand, I just wish they had made it involuntary deductions. For many workers that is just the best way of paying. That is my stumbling block. That unions can in themselves be forced in CA is what I focus on when I lean towards voting for it.

[tsai3904]

I understand, I just wish they had made it involuntary deductions. For many workers that is just the best way of paying. That is my stumbling block. That unions can in themselves be forced in CA is what I focus on when I lean towards voting for it.

It wouldn't prevent members from using automatic payroll deductions to pay their union dues. Payroll deductions will still be in place for people to pay their dues.

It would prevent any money the unions collect from payroll deductions to be used for political purposes. If unions want money to be used for political purposes, they have to raise the money from voluntary individuals. If someone wants to do automatic deduction, they can set it up through their banks or credit cards, just like the rest of us. I would bet big money on less than 1% of the non union population having money automatically taken out of their paychecks and sent to political committees or candidates. We set up recurring payments on our credit cards, PayPal, or our bank.

[sailingaway]

It wouldn't prevent members from using automatic payroll deductions to pay their union dues. Payroll deductions will still be in place for people to pay their dues.

It would prevent any money the unions collect from payroll deductions to be used for political purposes. If unions want money to be used for political purposes, they have to raise the money from voluntary individuals. If someone wants to do automatic deduction, they can set it up through their banks or credit cards, just like the rest of us. I would bet big money on less than 1% of the non union population having money automatically taken out of their paychecks and sent to political committees or candidates. We set up recurring payments on our credit cards, PayPal, or our bank.

My point is what if they WANT to donate to the political fund with payroll deductions because otherwise it is hard for them to save it?

I honestly don't think most of them are just dying to do that, but I do know a lot of people prefer payroll deductions because that way they aren't tempted to spend it on something else. I just wish they had written it as the consent permitting deductions too.

[tsai3904]

My point is what if they WANT to donate to the political fund with payroll deductions because otherwise it is hard for them to save it?

I understand and Prop 32 would prevent a union member from using the payroll deduction to contribute to their union's "political fund" even if that's their choice. It could have been written better but to me, it's still an important prop to pass. If someone is forced to join a union just because they got a government job, the least they should be able to do is have the right to choose not to pay for the union's political activities.

[Travlyr]

Wanted to post a thread to hopefully start some conversation about the props on the ballot for november. I haven't had a lot of time to research what's going to be on the ballot yet, but i have looked at two so far:

Prop 32, which I plan on voting no, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tiative_(2012)

Like I said, I haven't looked into much of it yet, but it seems like another state statute that has exemptions for large corporations to give them an advantage over other smaller corporations.


Prop 34, which I think I will vote yes...

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tiative_(2012)

I'm all for repealing the death penalty!


Here's a link to the rest of California's ballot measures coming up in November:

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/inde...t_propositions

Comments?

Direct Democracy is the worst form of government. This thread is a perfect example of its failure. People in this thread are highly informed and thoughtfully discussing the issue. Their vote on the issue counts exactly the same as everyone else who does not think about it at all and votes which ever way the TV or radio tells them. Best TV ad wins.

[UpperDecker]

Ugh, anybody live in Santa Clara County? It is so hard to convince people that raising the minimum wage to $10 here is a horrid idea.

[KerriAnn]

Direct Democracy is the worst form of government. This thread is a perfect example of its failure. People in this thread are highly informed and thoughtfully discussing the issue. Their vote on the issue counts exactly the same as everyone else who does not think about it at all and votes which ever way the TV or radio tells them. Best TV ad wins.

isn't it? I spend so much time carefully weighing out my vote only to have it undone by someone who puts all of two seconds thought into it. Its depressing.

[KerriAnn]

Ugh, anybody live in Santa Clara County? It is so hard to convince people that raising the minimum wage to $10 here is a horrid idea.

Wow. I live in Alameda county, I hadn't heard they were proposing raising the minimum wage there. Have you any idea of whether or not the measure will pass?

[UpperDecker]

Wow. I live in Alameda county, I hadn't heard they were proposing raising the minimum wage there. Have you any idea of whether or not the measure will pass?

I haven't heard anything, but you know how the majority of people don't understand the true effect of this. Most just see this as rainbows and butterflies, just giving people more and that is it. Sadly, I have heard more in favor so far, but I am trying.

[UpperDecker]

Oops, just re-read it and it is for San Jose, not the county. But I live in San Jose, so it still effects me :/

[KerriAnn]

I wonder how that will affect us here. I live about 20 minutes north of you... its such hard work trying to convince people how these things affect us all. Yup, rainbows and butterflies. Lol

[GunnyFreedom]

Wanted to post a thread to hopefully start some conversation about the props on the ballot for november. I haven't had a lot of time to research what's going to be on the ballot yet, but i have looked at two so far:

Prop 32, which I plan on voting no, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_"Paycheck_Protectio n"_Initiative_(2012)

Like I said, I haven't looked into much of it yet, but it seems like another state statute that has exemptions for large corporations to give them an advantage over other smaller corporations.

The second of these three provisions actually looks like a good idea. "Pay to Play" is a cancer on state governments everywhere, but would be more effective if it also banned corporate contributors and executive officers of said contractors from future contracts during the term for wich contributions were made, which this measure does not appear to do. 50% pro 50% against

The first is a bad idea and an encroachment on free speech association and aggregated political activism. 0% pro 100% against

The third is meh. Private entities should be allowed to establish whatever paycheck arrangements may be agreed between employer and employee. There is a valid point to this idea for people receiving government checks, because of a strong conflict of interest, such as teachers unions shaming teachers into automatic deductions only to use that money for political activism to demand more money in the budget appropriations. I would oppose the 'corporations and unions' bit but support the 'government employees' bit. 33% pro 66% against.

At best 28% pro 72% against.

Prop 34, which I think I will vote yes...

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tiative_(2012)

I'm all for repealing the death penalty!


Here's a link to the rest of California's ballot measures coming up in November:

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/inde...t_propositions

Comments?

Not much to add on this one except a question - can California afford the additional $100 Million appropriation to police agencies? I tend to be suspicious of any bill that makes appropriations without specifying how that will be financed.

[GunnyFreedom]

Prop 32 is simple. It prevents unions and corporations from automatically deducting union dues from members' paychecks.

I don't know of any corporations that do this so this is really just targeted at unions.

If you don't believe public sector unions should automatically deduct union dues from their members, vote yes on Prop 32.

This doesn't ban unions or corporations from getting involved in politics. This bans AUTOMATIC payroll deductions. If people want to voluntarily give to their unions, they still can.

This seems like a no brainer to me to vote yes on Prop 32.

Here are the top 10 contributions to No on 32:

CA Teachers Assn	$16,452,509
SEIU	$6,788,969
CA Prof Firefighters	$2,601,580
AFSCME	$1,634,725
CA Labor Federation	$1,372,431
Peace Officers Assn	$1,276,846
CA School Employees Assn	$1,050,000
CA Faculty Assn	$1,027,471
CA Federal of Teachers	$800,000
Intl Assn of Firefighters	$500,000

It looks like you eliminate 90% or better of that by sticking the prohibition to government employee payrolls only, where such legislation would actually be appropriate. And such automatic deductions are usually voluntary "dues checkoff" funds.