It should be clear from reading my stuff that I am generally supportive of unions. Our system of government is designed to allow for – even encourage – the collision of interests as a way of restraining the power of any single interest, and until unions came along, the interests of workers were generally undefended.
But all interests – even admirable ones – can over-reach.
In the case of government, one of the problems is that the employees are also constituents. That is to say that they also help select those who – in turn – make the decisions that govern the work conditions, pay and benefits which those constituents receive. That kind of back-scratching happens at all levels; the California Citizens Compensation Commission sets the salaries for legislators, and includes members who do business with the state.
That problem is amplified in this era of ‘electoral politics for hire.’
The reality is that a moderate-sized constituency with significant money can easily dominate state politics in the same ways that the old business interests did back in the Union Pacific days. And that is, exactly, what is going on today in California.
Increasingly, our penal policies are being set by the prison guards’ union; our educational policies by the teachers’ union; state compensation is wildly out of whack as state employees, who enjoy job security and benefits packages well above those in the private sector now appear to outearn them as well.
Currently a California Highway Patrol officer will earn 90% of their final salary (which may include significant overtime, which is often allocated to those about to retire) in retirement as early as 50.
Add this budget overhang to work rules which make it more difficult to flexibly manage state employees, and suddenly the ability of state government to effectively deliver the services we pay taxes to get is pretty seriously challenged.
I think that the simple fact that the teacher’s union alone has budgeted over $50 million into opposing this measure…which gives you an idea of the magnitude of cash they have available for political spending.
It’s too much cash, the effects are visible and pernicious, and it’s time that the balance of power in state government was tipped away from state employees.
For those reasons, I’m voting for Proposition 75, and encourage you to as well.
Proposition 75
Full text of the proposition “Prop 75”:http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text75.pdf
bq. “A YES vote on this measure means:”
bq. “Public employee unions would be required to get annual, written consent from government employee union members and *nonmembers* to charge and use any dues or fees for political purposes.”
bq. “A NO vote on this measure means:”
bq. “Public employee unions could charge and use dues or fees for political purposes without annual, written consent. Fees from a *nonmember* of a union could not be spent on political purposes if the nonmember objects.”
bq. _”85990. (a) No public employee labor organization may use or obtain any portion of dues, agency shop fees, or any other fees paid by members of the labor organization, or individuals who are not members, through payroll deductions or directly, for disbursement to a committee as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 82013, except upon the written consent of the member or individual who is not a member received within the previous 12 months on a form described by subdivision (c) signed by the member or nonmember and an officer of the union.”_
Emphasis mine.
Now I’m really confused AL help me out on this one. How is a nonmember of a union charged dues or fees by said union? Seems to me you have a much larger issue here at hand. One saving grace for nonmembers even though a *yes* vote requires permission. A *no* vote (with permission or not) states the nonmember dues / fees can not be used for political purposes period.
I’m confused by how you have so much desire to be so wrong about these propositions.
In a union shop, nonunion members have to pay some form of dues.
A.L.
A.L.
So in other words non union members must pay the union for the right to work?
Yes, if the collective bargaining agreement specifies such, every one employed where that agreement is in force must pay _something_. Even some part of what *nonmembers* must pay might be used for political or other purposes.
I just prefer ‘opt in’ to ‘opt out’; if it should actually be true that failure to ‘opt in’ puts public employee unions at a disadvantage vs employers or ‘business’, then we should expect a large number of union members to recognize this and ‘opt in’.
I’m voting yes on 75.
I’m voting yes on 75. A.L. has it absolutely right. For the sake of the citizens, the state, and believe-it-or-not the Democratic party, this situation has to change. And it’s just plain wrong that someone should have to ransom their right to work by forced to contributions to political causes they may abhor.
Public employees in Calif have had the right to “opt out” since the mid-1990’s as a result of a Fed Supreme Court Decision. In my office nearly everyone opted out. (Statewide the figure was 25%) You are making a big issue over nothing. If your sponsors had any guts, they would have sponsored a straight “right to work” law. Preserve the paychecks of ALL EMPLOYEES–not just public employees. Preserve ALL of the dollars–not just those used for political purposes. I finally retired from State service in 2000. At that point the state’s own wage surveys shows we were an average of 10% to 20% behind the rivate sector–some groups up to 50%. This results in high turnover and higher expenses in recruitment and training. The less union influence the better. A simple “right to work” law for everyone in Calif is the answer and would have my enthusiastic support. Guess it was too simple–but try it next time. It might just work.