Prop 75 - wtf?

[Cas]

Am I missing something here? Is it a bad thing to have a voice in how you're money is spent?
Is it right the union bosses can spend the money how "they" want to when it comes to political campaigns without getting the member's permission?
I don't get it?

[Havasu Hangin']

So everytime a business contributes, all the employees should also have a say so, right?
People join a union, and elect the management as their "voice". Whether it's political spending, or collective bargaining, the management is designated as their elected voice.
Arnold is pushing his personal agenda, which I guess now includes trying to quiet those who oppose his rediculous agendas.

[Ultrafied]

Why is "Arnold pushing his personal agenda". Do you think he hates police, nurses, teachers and fireman?
Maybe he has a business reason ... i.e. budget, deficit, balance .... yet every time he tries to cut anything to do with groups or make how they are paid more in line with private enterprise (i.e. pay for performance, not pay scale), the unions pay for the advertising saying how terrible Arnold is to try and take money from them .... BS ... special interest group in public employee uniforms.
Do you really believe it is for the betterment of California .... or to keep what the unions have .... if the members want it, Prop 75 won't stop it ...

[Havasu Hangin']

Why is "Arnold pushing his personal agenda". Do you think he hates police, nurses, teachers and fireman?
Maybe he has a business reason ... i.e. budget, deficit, balance .... yet every time he tries to cut anything to do with groups or make how they are paid more in line with private enterprise (i.e. pay for performance, not pay scale), the unions pay for the advertising saying how terrible Arnold is to try and take money from them .... BS ... special interest group in public employee uniforms.
Do you really believe it is for the betterment of California .... or to keep what the unions have .... if the members want it, Prop 75 won't stop it ...
OK...Here's what you may (or may not) know.
Yes, Arnold's agenda includes saving money. One of the things he looked at was to stop paying higher teacher's salaries based on tenure. That is great in theory.
However, my wife is a teacher. And many times she has been given kids to teach that do not speak English. These kids' parents usually do not show up for conferences, and the ones that do, readily admit they have no intention of speaking English at home, or helping their kids with homework they do not understand.
As you can guess, their test scores are some of the worst in the state. If my wife were being paid based on performance today, she would make less money because she is getting handed these kids.
Arnold is not an idiot. Although it is the right thing to do, he will not mandate kids comprehend (and speak) English in schools, because it is political suicide.
Now what is the union's position? Of course, they are doing what they are paid to do- protect the teachers. How do they do that? By spending money on anyone other than Arnold.
Arnold now wants to limit the union's political spending power because they are not on his side? Give me a break...it's all about Arnold's personal agenda to get re-elected...not because it's the right thing.

[Mohave Vice]

[QUOTE=Havasu Hangin']OK...Here's what you may (or may not) know.
Yes, Arnold's agenda includes saving money. One of the things he looked at was to stop paying higher teacher's salaries based on tenure. That is great in theory.
However, my wife is a teacher. And many times she has been given kids to teach that do not speak English. These kids' parents usually do not show up for conferences, and the ones that do, readily admit they have no intention of speaking English at home, or helping their kids with homework they do not understand.
CONGRATS to your wife!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ultrafied]

So if the pay by performance were to go through, your wife could not look for a better department or district for advancement and benefits just like we would have to in the private sector?
If not, then I'm sorry, but that is your family's decision. In my opinion, it is too liberal of a demand. Keep it all fair in a unfair world.
We put our children in private school because of the inability to produce quality curriculum in public schools. Our choice, our money.

[Oldsquirt]

Is it right the union bosses can spend the money how "they" want to when it comes to political campaigns without getting the member's permission?
I don't get it?
Any union member who does not want to contribute to its political funding can opt out of paying that portion of the monthly dues that goes to political funding.
A better question would be, why should ALL the voters of this state be allowed to determine how a union member's dues can be spent? Shouldn't that decision be left strictly to those in the unions?
This proposition is about taking political power away from the unions, who are about the only political force out there standing up to support ALL the workers in this state.

[phebus]

Any union member who does not want to contribute to its political funding can opt out of paying that portion of the monthly dues that goes to political funding.
A better question would be, why should ALL the voters of this state be allowed to determine how a union member's dues can be spent? Shouldn't that decision be left strictly to those in the unions?
This proposition is about taking political power away from the unions, who are about the only political force out there standing up to support ALl the workers in this state.
I stay away from all politics on this site, but this post was right on. Bravo.

[Havasu Hangin']

So if the pay by performance were to go through, your wife could not look for a better department or district for advancement and benefits just like we would have to in the private sector?
If not, then I'm sorry, but that is your family's decision. In my opinion, it is too liberal of a demand. Keep it all fair in a unfair world.
We put our children in private school because of the inability to produce quality curriculum in public schools. Our choice, our money.
If the pay-for performance were to go through, then my wife would just go get another job outside teaching. I'm sure others would, too.
If you were given a goal, and your company were to hinder you from reaching that goal, you would do the same thing.
I think the consensous is that the good teachers (that have masters and marketable skills outside of teaching) will move on, and slugs will be left. It's already happening to some degree, because of the amount of education needed to be a public teacher, and the salary paid once to get there.
Also, it is a myth that private schools are much better at educating our children. My wife taught in private schools for a few years, and the majority of the focus was on making sure the parents thought they were getting a value for their money (nice appearance, happy children, etc.), but little focus was put on the state standards for education. Because they were private, the kids didn't need to meet criteria to move on, and every child moved on, if you know what I mean.
Many private schools don't require their teachers to have a credential (let alone a masters), either. My wife taught private school without her credential, or the continuing education the state requires to maintain a credential.
Of course, there are exceptions.
Liberal of a demand? I'm not sure what you mean by that. To have the schools either:
1. Teach in English
2. Invest in ESL teaching for all the curriculum (English as a second language)
It all comes down to money. Will Arnold commit political suicide for #1, or spend the money needed for #2? His history says no. Either way, he is trying to sell you on "cost-saving", when in reality, we need to invest in our youth.
Many districts are broke (or going broke) because the state does not pay. My wife's district is owed $11MM for Pete Wilsons 20-1 program that the state is behind in payment.
In case you don't know what that is, it pays the districts more for keeping certain elementary classrooms at 20 kids (or below). Many districts are doing away with it, as funding from the state is threatening to be pulled. So that means our kids will be in much larger classrooms.
This state is going in the wrong direction on education, and Arnold is the leader. Are we gonna invest in our youth (and those who teach them), or is everyone going to home-school their kids because of Arnold?
Back to the union question. Why isn't Arnold requiring the same from businesses who invest in political contributions? Because it doesn't fit his personal agenda.
It's sad that people trust him because he was a movie star- that is a sad statement on society.

[MagicMtnDan]

You union guys crack me up. Unions do so little good for so few people. They're dinosaurs and should be extinct.
Unions want to keep their pensions, the ones that will bankrupt the state because the state can't afford it.
I like it when you say Arnold has a personal agenda. It simply shows your ignorance. Sure he wants to be re-elected - why not?! He feels like he's doing the right thing and he's the ONLY chance this state has to turn the corner to financical stability.
Be careful what you wish for. This state has been run into financical ruin by many liberals who have control of the state's spending. If Arnold doesn't get a chance to manage the state for the next four years you're gonna be whining again about the next governor no matter who it is.
Get ready to leave the state if Arnold isn't re-elected. Maybe you union lovers can join the unions in Arizona and Nevada?

[Havasu Hangin']

You union guys crack me up. Unions do so little good for so few people. They're dinosaurs and should be extinct.
Unions want to keep their pensions, the ones that will bankrupt the state because the state can't afford it.
I like it when you say Arnold has a personal agenda. It simply shows your ignorance. Sure he wants to be re-elected - why not?! He feels like he's doing the right thing and he's the ONLY chance this state has to turn the corner to financical stability.
Be careful what you wish for. This state has been run into financical ruin by many liberals who have control of the state's spending. If Arnold doesn't get a chance to manage the state for the next four years you're gonna be whining again about the next governor no matter who it is.
Get ready to leave the state if Arnold isn't re-elected. Maybe you union lovers can join the unions in Arizona and Nevada?
I'm not pro-union...I'm pro-education.
I'm not a liberal- I voted for Arnold. I thought that there was no way he could screw things up more than Davis- I was wrong.
You guys that think that Arnold is saving California are really showing your ignorance. I guess you must have really liked him in "kindergarden Cop" movie, or something.

[Hal]

If 75 passes, the only differance will be that the union members will have the option to sign up to contribute a portion of thier dues to the union political agenda instead of having to fill out paper work to opt out. Thats not taking any power from the union.

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

When I was a member of UFCW, we had to choose if we were willing to have our dues go towards political contibutions or not. I chose not. The unions only did that because a law had been passed. From what I understand, this law would require the unions to ask every year. If that is the case, I am really indifferent. I don't understand the need, nor do I understand the reason.
HH, is your wife going to be at OP6? I ask because I am student teaching right now; I'd love to meet her.

[little rowe boat]

If 75 passes, the only differance will be that the union members will have the option to sign up to contribute a portion of thier dues to the union political agenda instead of having to fill out paper work to opt out. Thats not taking any power from the union.
It's taking them out of the june elections, so Arnold can push his agenda unopposed.

[OGShocker]

So everytime a business contributes, all the employees should also have a say so, right?
People join a union, and elect the management as their "voice". Whether it's political spending, or collective bargaining, the management is designated as their elected voice.
Arnold is pushing his personal agenda, which I guess now includes trying to quiet those who oppose his rediculous agendas.
Shouldn't you (as a mod) be compelled to move this to the PR section? :hammer2:

[djunkie]

You union guys crack me up. Unions do so little good for so few people. They're dinosaurs and should be extinct.
Unions want to keep their pensions, the ones that will bankrupt the state because the state can't afford it.
Thats funny. So what your saying is that the state is gonna pay me my pension? Hell in our contract with our employer I'm pretty sure that THE EMPLOYER pays out the pension. Plus if it wasn't for my union I wouldn't even have a pension, decent 401k, benefits, or even a decent salary. But all of us union guys are just out to screw everyone right? LOL!!!!!!!!

[Jeanyus]

Any union member who does not want to contribute to its political funding can opt out of paying that portion of the monthly dues that goes to political funding.
A better question would be, why should ALL the voters of this state be allowed to determine how a union member's dues can be spent? Shouldn't that decision be left strictly to those in the unions?
This proposition is about taking political power away from the unions, who are about the only political force out there standing up to support ALL the workers in this state.
As a self employed, non union worker, how is the state standing up to support me? That check I get to write to the state on April 15th feels like the opposite of support.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Thats funny. So what your saying is that the state is gonna pay me my pension? Hell in our contract with our employer I'm pretty sure that THE EMPLOYER pays out the pension. Plus if it wasn't for my union I wouldn't even have a pension, decent 401k, benefits, or even a decent salary. But all of us union guys are just out to screw everyone right? LOL!!!!!!!!
There was a time when the unions had a valid purpose djunkie ..... and did good things. Got things we take for granted today such as overtime pay, paid holidays, sick leave, pensions, etc. That time is over d.
I'm in a union, the IAMAW. The only thing the IAMAW does these days sucessfully is to keep employed a whole pile of slacks and hacks who ought to be fired for laziness and incompetence. They politically support the people who want to run this country into the ground, tax me into the poorhouse, make me pay for all the non-hacker's to have everything I have worked for. I've only been in a union job for 10 years. I KNOW you have seen the folks who think their JOB is not an opportunity but a RIGHT (I do so hope you are not one of those). I still know and understand "right to work" (right to fire non-performers). I work to do my best to get my job done. I still understand that to continue to get a paycheck, my employer MUST CONTINUE TO STAY IN BUSINESS, AND TURN A PROFFIT.
If ya want to know what unions are great for, go talk to a Pan American Airlines employee ........... make that an EX-Employee. The union pushed the airline into bankruptcy and disolvency. Who is paying THOSE pensions???? I'll guarantee NOT the IAMAW (not the govt either, they evaporated).
The sole reason I am in the union is to have the right to express my opinion of a contract by voting, and (by that token) the right to bich about it if I get one driven down my throat that I do not like. (non-union, non-voter, shut the he!! up).

[djunkie]

There was a time when the unions had a valid purpose djunkie ..... and did good things. Got things we take for granted today such as overtime pay, paid holidays, sick leave, pensions, etc. That time is over d.
I'm in a union, the IAMAW. The only thing the IAMAW does these days sucessfully is to keep employed a whole pile of slacks and hacks who ought to be fired for laziness and incompetence. They politically support the people who want to run this country into the ground, tax me into the poorhouse, make me pay for all the non-hacker's to have everything I have worked for. I've only been in a union job for 10 years. I KNOW you have seen the folks who think their JOB is not an opportunity but a RIGHT (I do so hope you are not one of those). I still know and understand "right to work" (right to fire non-performers). I work to do my best to get my job done. I still understand that to continue to get a paycheck, my employer MUST CONTINUE TO STAY IN BUSINESS, AND TURN A PROFFIT.
If ya want to know what unions are great for, go talk to a Pan American Airlines employee ........... make that an EX-Employee. The union pushed the airline into bankruptcy and disolvency. Who is paying THOSE pensions???? I'll guarantee NOT the IAMAW (not the govt either, they evaporated).
The sole reason I am in the union is to have the right to express my opinion of a contract by voting, and (by that token) the right to bich about it if I get one driven down my throat that I do not like. (non-union, non-voter, shut the he!! up).
I think the misconception that everyone gets is that all unions are the same. I don't feel this way. Yes there are a lot of things that I feel my union is wrong about but there are also things that I believe are right. My union is very big and probably one of the most powerful unions in this state/country. We fight for many things but safety on the job is our number one priority. We do have many bad seeds that I work with. If it was up to me they would all be gone. But The majority are good, hard working people who want to make a decent salary and have some benefits and retirement. The funny thing is everytime we are under contract negotiations the companies always offer us more money. Hell in our last contract we didn't even ask for it but it was there way to try and take jobs for us. I just don'ts see how we as a union are costing the state anything as posted above in another post.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

A "private" labor union is not likely costing the state anything (except where union employees are state employees), BUT, the unions in dispute most are those of public (state) employees, Teachers, cops, firemen, county workers, etc.
Ok, you are 60 yrs old, you retire. You, after working 40+ years ought to have most of your major bills paid for (mortgage mostly, auto's under controll, etc). Do you think it is right for a retiree to get 140% of their salary AFTER THEY RETIRE??? (there are some getting that "perk")
Nowhere have I seen a pension that pays a retiree more than they made, except a few places. The military only pays 50% after 20 yrs, 75% after 30 years, 75% maximum. My empoyer pays $45/month per year of service. That's $1600 a month after 30 years, 8.40+/hr against 4 40-hr weeks. I currently make 22.11/hr grossing $3537/mo. $1800/mo - 11.25/hr after 40 years (assuming current contract language never changes (which it does)).
Those type of insane state pensions are bankrupting hte state. Who fought for it? Who defends them? Who will tell you someone is "trying to take $$$ away from you" to reduce such a thing?? The same unions who CLAIM to be looking out for your best interests. Isn't it in your best interest to recieve SOMETHING of a pension as opposed to an entire NOTHING due to the pensioning company/agency being broke and unable to pay at all?

[little rowe boat]

A "private" labor union is not likely costing the state anything (except where union employees are state employees), BUT, the unions in dispute most are those of public (state) employees, Teachers, cops, firemen, county workers, etc.
Ok, you are 60 yrs old, you retire. You, after working 40+ years ought to have most of your major bills paid for (mortgage mostly, auto's under controll, etc). Do you think it is right for a retiree to get 140% of their salary AFTER THEY RETIRE??? (there are some getting that "perk")
Nowhere have I seen a pension that pays a retiree more than they made, except a few places. The military only pays 50% after 20 yrs, 75% after 30 years, 75% maximum. My empoyer pays $45/month per year of service. That's $1600 a month after 30 years, 8.40+/hr against 4 40-hr weeks. I currently make 22.11/hr grossing $3537/mo. $1800/mo - 11.25/hr after 40 years (assuming current contract language never changes (which it does)).
Those type of insane state pensions are bankrupting hte state. Who fought for it? Who defends them? Who will tell you someone is "trying to take $$$ away from you" to reduce such a thing?? The same unions who CLAIM to be looking out for your best interests. Isn't it in your best interest to recieve SOMETHING of a pension as opposed to an entire NOTHING due to the pensioning company/agency being broke and unable to pay at all?
140% give me a freaking break,you are so bass akward you need to pull head out of your butt.
As a firefighter IF I can put in all my years,which is a BIG IF,I will get 90% of my highest paid year. I am hoping that I can put in enough years to get 75% of my highest paid year. Out of that 75%, I will still have to pay my own medical ins. for my wife and I. Now that 75% will be more like 65 to 67%.Not even half of your inflated BS. numbers.

[djunkie]

A "private" labor union is not likely costing the state anything (except where union employees are state employees), BUT, the unions in dispute most are those of public (state) employees, Teachers, cops, firemen, county workers, etc.
Ok, you are 60 yrs old, you retire. You, after working 40+ years ought to have most of your major bills paid for (mortgage mostly, auto's under controll, etc). Do you think it is right for a retiree to get 140% of their salary AFTER THEY RETIRE??? (there are some getting that "perk")
Nowhere have I seen a pension that pays a retiree more than they made, except a few places. The military only pays 50% after 20 yrs, 75% after 30 years, 75% maximum. My empoyer pays $45/month per year of service. That's $1600 a month after 30 years, 8.40+/hr against 4 40-hr weeks. I currently make 22.11/hr grossing $3537/mo. $1800/mo - 11.25/hr after 40 years (assuming current contract language never changes (which it does)).
Those type of insane state pensions are bankrupting hte state. Who fought for it? Who defends them? Who will tell you someone is "trying to take $$$ away from you" to reduce such a thing?? The same unions who CLAIM to be looking out for your best interests. Isn't it in your best interest to recieve SOMETHING of a pension as opposed to an entire NOTHING due to the pensioning company/agency being broke and unable to pay at all?
I had to do some research on this prop 75 deal and found out that it doesn't affect my work, but only gov. employees basically. So I think I'll keep my comments to myself since it doesn't affect me.
And I sure would like to know who get 140% of their salary as a pension?

[Jeanyus]

I had to do some research on this prop 75 deal and found out that it doesn't affect my work, but only gov. employees basically. So I think I'll keep my comments to myself since it doesn't affect me.
And I sure would like to know who get 140% of their salary as a pension?
About 4 years ago, California taxpayers were paying approxamately 250 million in pensions to retired teachers, today that number is in excess of 2 billion, and estimates are it will exceed 3 billion.
I'm all for a law that takes political power away from a workers union. Workers unions pressure politicians to pass legislation that benifits the unions, legislation that benifits unions, is almost always at the expense of the voter/taxpayer.
The Ca teachers union has already spent $64 million to defeat this measure. If the teachers really cared about education,shouden't they have put the $64 million towards educating kids. Or are they worried that Arnold is going to put the brakes on, the gravey train.
I was in the carpenters union, somehow I got the feeling that the union was looking out for the union. IMO unions are a form of socialism, they remove competition, and the lazy worker gets the same reward as the prosperous worker.

[Seadog]

The fact is that business and govenment had found it too easy in the past to give in to the unions clout. Now there is a chance that this is going to be the downfall of industry in this country. The Dephi situation and labor/benefits costs ar threatening to bring down GM. They have gone from the top of the fortune 500, to somewhere around 150. The same is happening with Ford. DC is in trouble both here and in Germany. This is not to say that there aren't some dunderhead decisions made by their leadership.
The problem is that many jobs are paying wages that do not make common sense. California is going to become a waste land if the current situation continues. A lot of the manufacturing jobs are leaving from my reports. Service jobs and government employees cannot continue to support the system. Some extreme estimates are that GM and Ford are doomed to disappear. The same with the state of California. The state cannot afford paying out for the illegal immigration problem. It is destroying the medical care in Southen CA, and overloading the schools. Probably Mexico will pick iup the state up for the back taxes.
As for the schools, which would be better for the children? Allowing everyone to be in class, or allowing only those students who are there to learn? Give the communities the authority and incentive to force parents to be parents. Make drug testing mandatory for all students. Strike one, the parent is notified. Strike two, counselling, paid for by the parent. Strike three, the parent loses custody and pays for rehab clinic. Same way with grades and behavior.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Arnold now wants to limit the union's political spending power because they are not on his side? Give me a break...it's all about Arnold's personal agenda to get re-elected...not because it's the right thing.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the proposition isn't limiting spending or the voice of the unions. The proposition clearly states that the unions would just need to have the approval of the members to spend dues collected on political campaigns. Nowhere in the proposition say that unions will no longer be allowed to contribute to political causes.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Any union member who does not want to contribute to its political funding can opt out of paying that portion of the monthly dues that goes to political funding.
A better question would be, why should ALL the voters of this state be allowed to determine how a union member's dues can be spent? Shouldn't that decision be left strictly to those in the unions?
This proposition is about taking political power away from the unions, who are about the only political force out there standing up to support ALL the workers in this state.
While I agree with part of your statement, it really should only be up to union members to decide this, I don't agree with the rest of your pro-union rehtoric.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

While a labor union gives a lot of good lip-service to "supporting the working man" (before political correctness. "man" in most uses was considered gender neutral as I use it here), the reality is the only thing they stand up to do is maintain their well-paid position of being well-paid, by "the little man".
"Damn the employer, full steam ahead! Ahead to ...... to ..... ummmm...... to heck with the employer, full steam ahead to sticking it to the employer, even if it eventually closes the employer and costs people jobs!"

[Havasu Hangin']

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the proposition isn't limiting spending or the voice of the unions. The proposition clearly states that the unions would just need to have the approval of the members to spend dues collected on political campaigns. Nowhere in the proposition say that unions will no longer be allowed to contribute to political causes.
Maybe I didn't word it correctly, but that's what I meant.
When Arnold started targeting teachers as a way to save money for the state, the union did it's job and protected it's members (through spending).
Maybe Arnold thinks that alot of teachers liked him in "Kindergarden Cop", so they will not support their union's position? Gimme a break.
Once again, a union represents it's members- that's it's political power. I don't hear him targeting trade organizations that do the same thing for businesses? Maybe because he has taken alot of money from these lobbyists?
Give me a break.

[riverfamily]

Alright nobody is going to change their mind in here but one thing is driving me crazy! Every time you union guys say "its a union matter only union people should vote on it." Then why do union people ( or anybody else for that matter ) have a right to vote on raising taxes on the top 1% earners???? Are any of you guys even close to it ??
Im not in the top 1% but I have family and friends that are, and I hope to be in the future.(thats called the private sector where those who take risks and strive to be the best of the best get rewarded) so if your not in my current tax bracket either, why do you have a vote that affects it?? Also if you dont own property why do you have a vote that can increase my property taxes for another "BOND" I could go on and on but why, your still going to spew the union line on this and Im still going to vote YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS because I want to believe there is a future in this state for my children.

[little rowe boat]

Alright nobody is going to change their mind in here but one thing is driving me crazy! Every time you union guys say "its a union matter only union people should vote on it." Then why do union people ( or anybody else for that matter ) have a right to vote on raising taxes on the top 1% earners???? Are any of you guys even close to it ??
Im not in the top 1% but I have family and friends that are, and I hope to be in the future.(thats called the private sector where those who take risks and strive to be the best of the best get rewarded) so if your not in my current tax bracket either, why do you have a vote that affects it?? Also if you dont own property why do you have a vote that can increase my property taxes for another "BOND" I could go on and on but why, your still going to spew the union line on this and Im still going to vote YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS because I want to believe there is a future in this state for my children.
Spoken like a true elitist.
There is a future as long as they are in the top 1% of earners. I pay taxes and property taxes and last I checked the middle class collectively out paid the top 1% of earners in this state. Which has absolutely nothing to do with my union.
SO VOTE NO ON 75.

[riverfamily]

Oh an elitist well thats better than a socialist! yes the middle class does pay more dollars (because there are more of them) not because their % is higher. And another thing taxes do have to do with all state unions since that is where they get the MONEY for pay and benifits including the ones 20 years from now that my children will be on the hook to pay for.

[little rowe boat]

Oh an elitist well thats better than a socialist! yes the middle class does pay more dollars (because there are more of them) not because their % is higher. And another thing taxes do have to do with all state unions since that is where they get the MONEY for pay and benifits including the ones 20 years from now that my children will be on the hook to pay for.
Taxes pay for the roads,police,fire protection and yes teachers. If you do not feel the need for any of these services,move to Iraq. I hear the tax rate is lower and those essential services are not that great. Remember even union memebers pay taxes,not just the elite 1%.

[little rowe boat]

Oh and yes there are more middle class, thats the main reason most tax laws are aimed at the middle class not the top elite 1%.
If it wasn't for the middle class this would be another 3rd world country,with the top 1% elite living like kings and everyone else living below the poverty level.

[riverfamily]

your missing the point I used the 1% as an example (also the property tax part) as to why we all are getting to vote on this. Yes taxes pay many needed and required services that I do not want to give up (Ive been to a true third world country and no downtown LA and TJ do not count) but you also need to have controled cost or eventually you will tax everybody including the people getting paid by the taxes to death.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Once again, a union represents it's members- that's it's political power. I don't hear him targeting trade organizations that do the same thing for businesses? Maybe because he has taken alot of money from these lobbyists?
Give me a break.
Maybe it's because the state is NOT PAYING the members of the trade organizations. The thing everyone is complaining about (and the people complaining) are state employees being affected (and they are unionized). Businesses pay taxes and pay fees to use services, but provide no real drag on the state coffers. State employees are an EXPENSE, direct on the state, unlike water or sewer service to Builder's Square which are paid for by the business. Retirement funds, pensions, etc of businesses are of no concern to the state (except as a future tax income) but high state employee pensions are a price on the state budget. Some of them are excessive from examples I have seen.

[little rowe boat]

your missing the point I used the 1% as an example (also the property tax part) as to why we all are getting to vote on this. Yes taxes pay many needed and required services that I do not want to give up (Ive been to a true third world country and no downtown LA and TJ do not count) but you also need to have controled cost or eventually you will tax everybody including the people getting paid by the taxes to death.
No I am not missing the point. You feel that taking away a certain groups right to voice their opposition to a politicians hidden agenda is the way to control those taxes. If the governor gets his way and prop 75 passes then the Cops,firefighters,nurses and teachers will not have the ability to voice our opposition to many things the governor wants to change. Like staffing levels for firefighters, nurses taking care of their patients and number of cops on the streets. It's not just about the retirement system and the governor wanting to get his hands on my retirement money that I have been paying into for 17 yrs. He should not be able to rob a retirement system,he is not the king of calif.,he is an elected official that see's himself as a king.

[Jeanyus]

No I am not missing the point. You feel that taking away a certain groups right to voice their opposition to a politicians hidden agenda is the way to control those taxes. If the governor gets his way and prop 75 passes then the Cops,firefighters,nurses and teachers will not have the ability to voice our opposition to many things the governor wants to change. Like staffing levels for firefighters, nurses taking care of their patients and number of cops on the streets. It's not just about the retirement system and the governor wanting to get his hands on my retirement money that I have been paying into for 17 yrs. He should not be able to rob a retirement system,he is not the king of calif.,he is an elected official that see's himself as a king.
Did your right to vote get taken away. Voteing is how I voice my opinion. I don't have a powerful union to influence politicians. Union workers have thier vote, plus the power of the union, thus taking away the power of my vote.

[Havasu Hangin']

Maybe it's because the state is NOT PAYING the members of the trade organizations..
And the teacher's pay union dues out of their salary, which is paid by the district...not the state of California.
Wake up, people.

[little rowe boat]

Did your right to vote get taken away. Voteing is how I voice my opinion. I don't have a powerful union to influence politicians. Union workers have thier vote, plus the power of the union, thus taking away the power of my vote.
So the large corporations,which influence politicians and pay for their campaigns and get special promises for large donations should not be regulated. But because I am a civil servant and belong to a union which voices our opinion politically through the money we put in willingly and can opt out of at anytime if we don't agree with our unions position should be regulated. Prop 75 hits the unions but not the large corporations which outspends the unions 40 to 1 politically. I just want to keep the playing field level.

[H2OT TIMES]

My empoyer pays $45/month per year of service. That's $1600 a month after 30 years,
Yo, Smokin. Uh 30 x $45 = $1350

[Jeanyus]

So the large corporations,which influence politicians and pay for their campaigns and get special promises for large donations should not be regulated. But because I am a civil servant and belong to a union which voices our opinion politically through the money we put in willingly and can opt out of at anytime if we don't agree with our unions position should be regulated. Prop 75 hits the unions but not the large corporations which outspends the unions 40 to 1 politically. I just want to keep the playing field level.
Its callad capitalism. Where do you think the tax dollars come from that pay your salery. The bottom line is, the the non-state employee, taxpayer, will approve prop 75.

[little rowe boat]

Its callad capitalism. Where do you think the tax dollars come from that pay your salery. The bottom line is, the the non-state employee, taxpayer, will approve prop 75.
Then all hail to king Arnold.
NO ON 75.

[Jeanyus]

That would be Governor Arnold (he was elected).
Yes on Proposition 73,74,75,76,77,78
No on Proposition 79,80
Taxpayers taking back the state of California.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

No I am not missing the point. You feel that taking away a certain groups right to voice their opposition to a politicians hidden agenda is the way to control those taxes.
Said this before, but please explain to me where in the proposition it says that unions will no longer be able to voice their opposition, or support, of political causes?
I removed the pro and con arguements purposely.
From the California Legislative Analyst:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT
REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 75
PROPOSITION
Offi cial Title and Summary
18 Title and Summary
Prepared by the Attorney General
• Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for
political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on
a specifi ed written form.
• Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care
insurance, or other purposes directly benefi tting the public employee.
• Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political
Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political
contributions.
• These records are not subject to public disclosure.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local
Government Fiscal Impact:
• Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by
revenues from fi nes and/or fees.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions.
Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute. 75 PROPOSITION
For text of Proposition 75 see page 59. Analysis 19
Background
Unions for Government Employees. Groups
of government employees—like employees
in the private sector—can choose to have a
union represent them in negotiations with
their employers over salaries, benefi ts, and
other conditions of employment. Individual
government employees may choose whether or
not to join the union that represents their group
of employees. A union’s negotiations affect all
employees in the group—both members and
nonmembers of the union. As a result, members
of the group—whether they join a union or
not—typically pay a certain level of dues
and/or fees to a union for these bargaining
and representation services.
Use of Union Dues or Fees for Political
Purposes. A union of government employees
may engage in other types of activities unrelated
to bargaining and representation. For instance,
public employee unions may decide to charge
additional dues for various political purposes,
including supporting and opposing political
candidates and issues. Any fees collected from
a nonmember of a union cannot be used
for these types of political purposes if the
nonmember objects. Each year, unions must
publicly report what share of their expenditures
was for political purposes.
Proposal
This measure amends state statutes to require
public employee unions to get annual, written
consent from a government employee in order
to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees
for political purposes. This requirement would
apply to both members and nonmembers of a
union. The measure would also require unions
to keep certain records, including copies of any
consent forms.
Fiscal Effects
The state and local governments could
experience some increased costs to implement
and enforce the consent requirements of the
measure. The amount of these costs is probably
minor. Some of these costs could be partially
offset by increased fi nes for not complying with
the measure’s provisions and/or fees charged
by government agencies to cover the costs of
processing payroll deductions for union dues
and fees.
SECTION 1. Title.
This measure shall be known as “The Public Employees’ Right to
Approve Use of Union Dues for Political Campaign Purposes Act.”
SEC. 2. Findings and Declarations.
The People of the State of California fi nd and declare as follows:
(a) Public employees are generally required to join a labor
organization or pay fees to the labor organization in lieu of
membership.
(b) Public employee labor organizations operate through dues
or fees deducted from their members’ salaries which are paid from
public funds.
(c) Routinely these dues or fees are used in part to support the
political objectives of the labor leaders in support of state and local
legislative candidates and ballot measures. Public employees often
fi nd their dues or fees used to support political candidates or ballot
measures with which they do not agree.
(d) It is fundamentally unfair to force public employees to give
money to political activities or candidates they do not support.
(e) Because public money is involved, the public has a right
to ensure that public employees have a right to approve the use of
their dues or fees to support the political objectives of their labor
organization.
(f) To ensure that public employees have a say whether their dues or
fees may be used for political campaign purposes, it is fair and just to
require that their consent be obtained in advance.
SEC. 3. Purpose and Intent.
In enacting this measure, it is the intent of the people of the State
of California to guarantee the right of public employees to have a
say whether their dues and fees may be used for political campaign
purposes.
SEC. 4. Chapter 5.9 (commencing with Section 85990) is added to
Title 9 of the Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 5.9.
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 defi ned 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 offi cer of
the union.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any dues or fees collected
from members of the labor organization, or individuals who are not
members, for the benefi t of charitable organizations organized under
Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code, or for health care
insurance, or similar purposes intended to directly benefi t the specifi c
member of the labor organization or individual who is not a member.
(c) The authorization referred to in subdivision (a) shall be made
on the following form, the sole purpose of which is the documentation
of such authorization. The form’s title shall read, in at least 24-point
bold type, “Consent for Political Use of Dues/ Fees or Request to Make
Political Contributions” and shall state, in at least 14-point bold type,
the following specifi c text.
Signing this form authorizes your union to use the amount of
$ .00 from each of your dues or agency shop fee payments
during the next 12 months as a political contribution or
expenditure.” ( )
Signing this form requests your union to make a deduction of
$ .00 from each of your dues or agency shop fee payments
during the next 12 months as a political contribution to the
(name of the committee). ( )
Check applicable box.
(Name of Employee) (Union Offi cer)
(Name of Union) (Date)
(Date) (Signature)
(Signature)
(d) Any public employee labor organization that uses any portion
of dues, agency shop fees, or other fees to make contributions or
expenditures under subdivision (a) shall maintain records that
include a copy of each authorization obtained under subdivision (c),
the amounts and dates funds were actually withheld, the amounts
and dates funds were transferred to a committee, and the committee
to which the funds were transferred. Records maintained under this
subdivision shall not include the employee’s home address or
telephone number.
(e) Copies of all records maintained under subdivision (d) shall
be sent to the commission on request but shall not be subject to the
California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section
6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(f) Individuals who do not authorize contributions or expenditures
under subdivision (a) may not have their dues, agency shop fees, or
other fees raised in lieu of the contribution or expenditure.
(g) If the dues, agency shop fees, or other fees referred to in
subdivisions (a) and (d) include an amount for a contribution or
expenditure, the dues, agency shop fees, or other fees shall be reduced
by that amount for any individual who does not sign an authorization
as described under subdivision (a).
(h) The requirements of this section may not be waived by the
member or individual and waiver of these requirements may not be
made a condition of employment or continued employment.
(i) For the purposes of this section, “agency shop” has the
same meaning as defi ned in subdivision (a) of Section 3502.5 of the
Government Code on April 1, 1997.
(j) For the purposes of this section, “public employee labor
organization” means a labor organization organized for the purpose
set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 12926 of the Government Code
on April 1, 1997.
SEC. 5. This measure shall be liberally construed to accomplish
its purposes.
SEC. 6. In the event that this measure and another measure or
measures relating to the consent of public employees to the use of their
payroll deductions or dues being used for political contributions or
expenditures without their consent shall appear on the same statewide
election ballot, the provisions of the other measures shall be deemed
to be in confl ict with this measure. In the event that this measure shall
receive a greater number of affi rmative votes, the provisions of this
measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other
measures shall be null and void.
SEC. 7. If any provision of this measure, or part thereof, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions
shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to
this end the provisions are severable.
SEC. 8. If this measure is approved by the voters, but is
superseded by another measure on the same ballot receiving a higher
number of votes and deemed in confl ict with this measure, and the
confl icting measure is subsequently held invalid, it is the intent of the
voters that this measure become effective.
SEC. 9. This measure may be amended to further its purposes by
a bill passed by a two-thirds vote of the membership of both houses of
the Legislature and signed by the Governor, provided that at least
14 days prior to passage in each house, copies of the bill in fi nal form
shall be made available by the clerk of each house to the public and the
news media.
So, again, I ask, where does it say in the proposition that government unions will be prevented from ever speaking out for or against political causes? Oh yeah, that's right, it doesn't say that.

[1stepcloser]

And the teacher's pay union dues out of their salary, which is paid by the district...not the state of California.
Where do the Districts get the money from?

[little rowe boat]

Said this before, but please explain to me where in the proposition it says that unions will no longer be able to voice their opposition, or support, of political causes?
I removed the pro and con arguements purposely.
From the California Legislative Analyst:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT
REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 75
PROPOSITION
Offi cial Title and Summary
18 Title and Summary
Prepared by the Attorney General
• Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for
political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on
a specifi ed written form.
• Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care
insurance, or other purposes directly benefi tting the public employee.
• Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political
Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political
contributions.
• These records are not subject to public disclosure.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local
Government Fiscal Impact:
• Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by
revenues from fi nes and/or fees.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions.
Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute. 75 PROPOSITION
For text of Proposition 75 see page 59. Analysis 19
Background
Unions for Government Employees. Groups
of government employees—like employees
in the private sector—can choose to have a
union represent them in negotiations with
their employers over salaries, benefi ts, and
other conditions of employment. Individual
government employees may choose whether or
not to join the union that represents their group
of employees. A union’s negotiations affect all
employees in the group—both members and
nonmembers of the union. As a result, members
of the group—whether they join a union or
not—typically pay a certain level of dues
and/or fees to a union for these bargaining
and representation services.
Use of Union Dues or Fees for Political
Purposes. A union of government employees
may engage in other types of activities unrelated
to bargaining and representation. For instance,
public employee unions may decide to charge
additional dues for various political purposes,
including supporting and opposing political
candidates and issues. Any fees collected from
a nonmember of a union cannot be used
for these types of political purposes if the
nonmember objects. Each year, unions must
publicly report what share of their expenditures
was for political purposes.
Proposal
This measure amends state statutes to require
public employee unions to get annual, written
consent from a government employee in order
to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees
for political purposes. This requirement would
apply to both members and nonmembers of a
union. The measure would also require unions
to keep certain records, including copies of any
consent forms.
Fiscal Effects
The state and local governments could
experience some increased costs to implement
and enforce the consent requirements of the
measure. The amount of these costs is probably
minor. Some of these costs could be partially
offset by increased fi nes for not complying with
the measure’s provisions and/or fees charged
by government agencies to cover the costs of
processing payroll deductions for union dues
and fees.
SECTION 1. Title.
This measure shall be known as “The Public Employees’ Right to
Approve Use of Union Dues for Political Campaign Purposes Act.”
SEC. 2. Findings and Declarations.
The People of the State of California fi nd and declare as follows:
(a) Public employees are generally required to join a labor
organization or pay fees to the labor organization in lieu of
membership.
(b) Public employee labor organizations operate through dues
or fees deducted from their members’ salaries which are paid from
public funds.
(c) Routinely these dues or fees are used in part to support the
political objectives of the labor leaders in support of state and local
legislative candidates and ballot measures. Public employees often
fi nd their dues or fees used to support political candidates or ballot
measures with which they do not agree.
(d) It is fundamentally unfair to force public employees to give
money to political activities or candidates they do not support.
(e) Because public money is involved, the public has a right
to ensure that public employees have a right to approve the use of
their dues or fees to support the political objectives of their labor
organization.
(f) To ensure that public employees have a say whether their dues or
fees may be used for political campaign purposes, it is fair and just to
require that their consent be obtained in advance.
SEC. 3. Purpose and Intent.
In enacting this measure, it is the intent of the people of the State
of California to guarantee the right of public employees to have a
say whether their dues and fees may be used for political campaign
purposes.
SEC. 4. Chapter 5.9 (commencing with Section 85990) is added to
Title 9 of the Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 5.9.
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 defi ned 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 offi cer of
the union.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any dues or fees collected
from members of the labor organization, or individuals who are not
members, for the benefi t of charitable organizations organized under
Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code, or for health care
insurance, or similar purposes intended to directly benefi t the specifi c
member of the labor organization or individual who is not a member.
(c) The authorization referred to in subdivision (a) shall be made
on the following form, the sole purpose of which is the documentation
of such authorization. The form’s title shall read, in at least 24-point
bold type, “Consent for Political Use of Dues/ Fees or Request to Make
Political Contributions” and shall state, in at least 14-point bold type,
the following specifi c text.
Signing this form authorizes your union to use the amount of
$ .00 from each of your dues or agency shop fee payments
during the next 12 months as a political contribution or
expenditure.” ( )
Signing this form requests your union to make a deduction of
$ .00 from each of your dues or agency shop fee payments
during the next 12 months as a political contribution to the
(name of the committee). ( )
Check applicable box.
(Name of Employee) (Union Offi cer)
(Name of Union) (Date)
(Date) (Signature)
(Signature)
(d) Any public employee labor organization that uses any portion
of dues, agency shop fees, or other fees to make contributions or
expenditures under subdivision (a) shall maintain records that
include a copy of each authorization obtained under subdivision (c),
the amounts and dates funds were actually withheld, the amounts
and dates funds were transferred to a committee, and the committee
to which the funds were transferred. Records maintained under this
subdivision shall not include the employee’s home address or
telephone number.
(e) Copies of all records maintained under subdivision (d) shall
be sent to the commission on request but shall not be subject to the
California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section
6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(f) Individuals who do not authorize contributions or expenditures
under subdivision (a) may not have their dues, agency shop fees, or
other fees raised in lieu of the contribution or expenditure.
(g) If the dues, agency shop fees, or other fees referred to in
subdivisions (a) and (d) include an amount for a contribution or
expenditure, the dues, agency shop fees, or other fees shall be reduced
by that amount for any individual who does not sign an authorization
as described under subdivision (a).
(h) The requirements of this section may not be waived by the
member or individual and waiver of these requirements may not be
made a condition of employment or continued employment.
(i) For the purposes of this section, “agency shop” has the
same meaning as defi ned in subdivision (a) of Section 3502.5 of the
Government Code on April 1, 1997.
(j) For the purposes of this section, “public employee labor
organization” means a labor organization organized for the purpose
set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 12926 of the Government Code
on April 1, 1997.
SEC. 5. This measure shall be liberally construed to accomplish
its purposes.
SEC. 6. In the event that this measure and another measure or
measures relating to the consent of public employees to the use of their
payroll deductions or dues being used for political contributions or
expenditures without their consent shall appear on the same statewide
election ballot, the provisions of the other measures shall be deemed
to be in confl ict with this measure. In the event that this measure shall
receive a greater number of affi rmative votes, the provisions of this
measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other
measures shall be null and void.
SEC. 7. If any provision of this measure, or part thereof, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions
shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to
this end the provisions are severable.
SEC. 8. If this measure is approved by the voters, but is
superseded by another measure on the same ballot receiving a higher
number of votes and deemed in confl ict with this measure, and the
confl icting measure is subsequently held invalid, it is the intent of the
voters that this measure become effective.
SEC. 9. This measure may be amended to further its purposes by
a bill passed by a two-thirds vote of the membership of both houses of
the Legislature and signed by the Governor, provided that at least
14 days prior to passage in each house, copies of the bill in fi nal form
shall be made available by the clerk of each house to the public and the
news media.
So, again, I ask, where does it say in the proposition that government unions will be prevented from ever speaking out for or against political causes? Oh yeah, that's right, it doesn't say that.
It does not say that the unions can,t it makes it almost impossible for the unions to raise the money needed to fight the june special elections the Governor is planning on. It ties us up in paper work. We already have the option to opt out,so why do we need to opt in?

[little rowe boat]

That would be Governor Arnold (he was elected).
Yes on Proposition 73,74,75,76,77,78
No on Proposition 79,80
Taxpayers taking back the state of California.
Remember we are taxpayers also.If Arnold gets his way the Governorship will be a Monarchy an Autocratic position,not a democratically elected position.
NO ON 74,75,76 AND 77.
YES ON 79 AND 80.

[Havasu Hangin']

Where do the Districts get the money from?
You buying candybars...Mr. smartass. :notam:

[Kilrtoy]

If 75 passes, the only differance will be that the union members will have the option to sign up to contribute a portion of thier dues to the union political agenda instead of having to fill out paper work to opt out. Thats not taking any power from the union.
ALL OF you people who support this arnold guy amaze me...
This is a two fold election... he wins this it, Unions will be required to fill out forms, for or against spending....your dues and what they are spent on... But since all union members want political spending, you ask what is the problem...
The problem is this....
But in the mean time he will hold another special election In march and crush all of the unions, because they will have no money to fight him.
WHY you ask, because it is all tied up in legal BULLSHIT from this election and he ARNOLD will be able to spend a TON OF MONEY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS UNOPPOSED and will now move his personal agenda....
by the time the unions will have all the STATE required paperwork in place to get the required yes or no vote , it will be too late as the 2006 election will have already occurred.
THat is the problem....
as for teachers HH summoned it up....
as for public sector unions,
THEY ARE NOT THE UNIONS GLORIFIED IN HOFFA and all the BS you hear about.
Public employees union bosses are on the job making the same salary as the worker bees with the same benifits and retirement plans...
They make no overtime and spend long countless hours UNPAID working protecting ME
This BULLSHIT of 125 140 150 % retirement is that BULLSHIT.

[little rowe boat]

ALL OF you people who support this arnold guy amaze me...
This is a two fold election... he wins this it, Unions will be required to fill out forms, for or against spending....your dues and what they are spent on... But since all union members want political spending, you ask what is the problem...
The problem is this....
But in the mean time he will hold another special election In march and crush all of the unions, because they will have no money to fight him.
WHY you ask, because it is all tied up in legal BULLSHIT from this election and he ARNOLD will be able to spend a TON OF MONEY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS UNOPPOSED and will now move his personal agenda....
by the time the unions will have all the STATE required paperwork in place to get the required yes or no vote , it will be too late as the 2006 election will have already occurred.
THat is the problem....
as for teachers HH summoned it up....
as for public sector unions,
THEY ARE NOT THE UNIONS GLORIFIED IN HOFFA and all the BS you hear about.
Public employees union bosses are on the job making the same salary as the worker bees with the same benifits and retirement plans...
They make no overtime and spend long countless hours UNPAID working protecting ME
This BULLSHIT of 125 140 150 % retirement is that BULLSHIT.
I could not have said it better.
I never realized how many people don't like us public employees.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

It does not say that the unions can,t it makes it almost impossible for the unions to raise the money needed to fight the june special elections the Governor is planning on. It ties us up in paper work. We already have the option to opt out,so why do we need to opt in?
How does it make it impossible?
All this proposition is saying is saying that each government union member must give his or her approval to spend part of their dues on political causes on a yearly basis. How does that make it almost impossible to raise funds?
In fact, it does nothing with respect to actually raising the funds. The funds can easily be raised via the dues collected. That will continue. The ONLY change is that all government unions would need a signature from members to approve utilizing those funds for political purposes.
I'm not saying it's wright or it's wrong as I don't belong to a union and never would if it could be avoided, but the arguements being presented by the government unions hold no water with respect to what they claim and what the proposition will actually do.

[little rowe boat]

How does it make it impossible?
All this proposition is saying is saying that each government union member must give his or her approval to spend part of their dues on political causes on a yearly basis. How does that make it almost impossible to raise funds?
In fact, it does nothing with respect to actually raising the funds. The funds can easily be raised via the dues collected. That will continue. The ONLY change is that all government unions would need a signature from members to approve utilizing those funds for political purposes.
I'm not saying it's wright or it's wrong as I don't belong to a union and never would if it could be avoided, but the arguements being presented by the government unions hold no water with respect to what they claim and what the proposition will actually do.
The Protection to each union member is already in place.
Read Kilr's post.If his post doesn't shed some light from our side then nothing will.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

ALL OF you people who support this arnold guy amaze me...
This is a two fold election... he wins this it, Unions will be required to fill out forms, for or against spending....your dues and what they are spent on... But since all union members want political spending, you ask what is the problem...
If that is true, that all union members want their dues spent on politcal causes, why are there government union members speaking out in favor of this proposition?
But in the mean time he will hold another special election In march and crush all of the unions, because they will have no money to fight him.
WHY you ask, because it is all tied up in legal BULLSHIT from this election and he ARNOLD will be able to spend a TON OF MONEY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS UNOPPOSED and will now move his personal agenda....
by the time the unions will have all the STATE required paperwork in place to get the required yes or no vote , it will be too late as the 2006 election will have already occurred.[/QUOTE]
So, basically, the unions collect thieer dues and spend all of it on political causes then? That's certainly what is implied by the statement that there will be no money left to oppose that which they do not agree with. Perhaps the unions are just a little afraid that mroe of their members may opt out to support political causes than they think. I don't know.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

The Protection to each union member is already in place.
Read Kilr's post.If his post doesn't shed some light from our side then nothing will.
Fortunately for me, I don't use what I read on here about political stuff to make up my own mind. Nor do I listen to the BS spewed by both sides. I figure it out for myself and make then make an informed decision, not something I read on some boating message board or saw on some TV ad.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

I could not have said it better.
I never realized how many people don't like us public employees.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not John Q Public likes or dislikes public employees. While I think everyone can readily agree that some public employees are at least loathed, the DMV comes to mind, this proposition does not mean squat in terms of the respect, admiration or, thankfullness that ordinary citizens have or don't have for public employees.

[little rowe boat]

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not John Q Public likes or dislikes public employees. While I think everyone can readily agree that some public employees are at least loathed, the DMV comes to mind, this proposition does not mean squat in terms of the respect, admiration or, thankfullness that ordinary citizens have or don't have for public employees.
Oh gee thanks for the respect and the knife in the back.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Oh gee thanks for the respect and the knife in the back.
Kinda harsh don't you think? Point out to me one post in this thread where I said I suppoort this proposition? There is a difference between support and debating the issues at hand. All I did was provide rebuttals to the aruements that were made by others to provide isnight into what the proposition really says. I did not give my opinion on the matter. But, no sweat off my back.

[little rowe boat]

Kinda harsh don't you think? Point out to me one post in this thread where I said I suppoort this? There is a difference between support and debating the issues at hand.
I meant it in terms of John Q public.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

I meant it in terms of John Q public.
Fair enough. I thought it was directed at me. No harm, no foul. Or is that no blood no foul? :D

[Jeanyus]

Don't get me wrong, If you punched a timeclock for the State of California, for 20 years, I think you deserve a pension, and medical benifits.
Explain this to me, over the past ten years, total funding for K-12 education has grown 88.4 percent from $32.058 billion in 1995-96 to $60.401 billion as proposed next year. Meanwhile, per pupil funding has grown 59.2 percent from $5,972 in 1995-96 to $9,508. In the same period, the federal CPI has grown 24 percent and the state CPI has grown 25 percent.
An alarming percentage of high school graduates cannot read, they can't do simple arithmatic. They don't know anything about history or geography. Parents are putting on fund raisers, to keep library's open, parents have to pay for bussing, and field trips. We have a 1 to 1 ratio, teacher to adminitrator. Classes are being taught in foriegn launguages, they hoisted the mexican flag at 1 school, and suspended 1 student for not standing, while the mexican anthem was played, at the school.
CHP officers already have the most generous pension in the state. After 30 years on the job, a CHP officer can retire at age 50 with 90 percent of his highest salary - for life.
But that's just the beginning. By claiming "cumulative stress" they can also get a cash pay-off, free lifetime medical care AND a state disability pension that's half tax-free. Many of these "disabled" officers then obtain other employment, sometimes in other police departments.
It's called "Chief's Disease." They write: "Of 65 high-ranking CHP officers who have retired since 2000, 55 pursued workers' compensation settlements within two years of retiring." Overall, 70 percent of CHP retirees claim disability retirements.
I paid $450.00 to register my truck this year, my brother in law in Texas pays $25.00 to register the same truck.
Payouts to retired public employees has risen 1,600 percent in 5 years.
Californians currently pay the 4th highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country. And yet we recently ranked at the very bottom of a nationwide survey of both highway conditions and per capita spending for highways.
Total state general fund supported debt has grown 54 percent in just 14 months – from $33 billion owed on May 1, 2004 to $50.75 billion projected by June 30, 2005.
I'm a contractor and I build spec homes. Before I get a building permit for a 2,000 square foot house, I have to write a check to the school district for $12,000.00 and another check to the fire dept. for $4,000.00 I pass these costs on to the home buyer.
Since 2000 I have paid $48,000 to the schools, $16,000 to the fire dept, about $2,500 to the DMV, and $10,000 in state income tax.
I am just 1 small contractor thats builds 1 house per year, I have worked for contractors that build 20 houses per year. And we have huge developers that build 100's of houses per year.
Yet the state agencies claim they are broke, where does all the money go?
I smell something fishy.
So tell me again how you are amazed that John Q public supports Arnold. I'm all ears.
I got most of these stats from Senator Mc Clintock's website. http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/news.asp

[rivercrazy]

Absentee ballots are awesome. I already voted!

[Havasu Hangin']

Explain this to me, over the past ten years, total funding for K-12 education has grown 88.4 percent from $32.058 billion in 1995-96 to $60.401 billion as proposed next year. Meanwhile, per pupil funding has grown 59.2 percent from $5,972 in 1995-96 to $9,508.]
That was Pete Wilson's 20-1 funding for elementary grades. The plan was to roll it out K-3, and progress up to 6th.
Ever try to teach a class of 35 first graders? That is why California incentified schools to keep their classroom size at 20 or below.
If you take out a 3%/year COL adjustment, the per pupil funding has only grown around 18% over the past ten years. I'll bet $1 that the 18% growth can be directly attributed to the 20-1 program.
So will Arnold the Idiot do away with 20-1? That would be unpopular...so why not just find a way to pay the teacher's less (pay for performance)? Give me a break. This is our kid's education you're talking about. Do you really want people teaching your kid's who earn less that $30K/year?
BTW...private schools do not necessarily pay more, or hold teacher's to standardized education requirements.
I'm a contractor and I build spec homes. Before I get a building permit for a 2,000 square foot house, I have to write a check to the school district for $12,000.00 and another check to the fire dept. for $4,000.00 I pass these costs on to the home buyer.
Since 2000 I have paid $48,000 to the schools, $16,000 to the fire dept, about $2,500 to the DMV, and $10,000 in state income tax.
I am just 1 small contractor thats builds 1 house per year, I have worked for contractors that build 20 houses per year. And we have huge developers that build 100's of houses per year.
Yet the state agencies claim they are broke, where does all the money go?
I smell something fishy.
So tell me again how you are amazed that John Q public supports Arnold. I'm all ears.
I'm gonna take a shot here.
The state is paying to educate illegal aliens' children...but has no income coming in from their parents.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

How about someone explain to the hick in the midwest here why all that money doesn't translate into more students knowing more?
Money spent goes up, looks like student learning goes DOWN. Untill THAT is fixed, something is wrong. Throw more money at it, how is that going to fix anything?
With all the pi$$ing and moaning over "My (insert relationship here) deserves more pay, and more bennefits, and it's not their fault the kiddies don't know squat when they have a diploma", where is the aknowledgement that there is A PROBLEM WITH THE SYSTEM, and likely, WITH SOME OF THE TEACHERS?
Why each teacher needs their own personal administrator (1:1 ratio), looks to me like ADMIN INCOMPETENCE, that needs fixed. School systems having to hold double classes just to teach the SAME CURRICULIM in TWO LANGUAGES, freaking stupid. English, ya wanna live here, learn it. I'm OK with remedial ENGLISH classes for foreigners, so they can attend the other classes in english.
But no, it's just "Don't let Arnie hold my (insert relationship here) responsible for their performance", even though the other public employees would be held to account too, thus weeding out the non-hackers.
How about a better idea than Arnolds to fix the same problem(s)? To continue to try something over and over, yet expect a different result is one definition of stupidity. No change will continue to be a problem for the state, and the problem will only get worse.

[Havasu Hangin']

How about someone explain to the hick in the midwest here why all that money doesn't translate into more students knowing more?
The extra money has been spent on keeping class size down in elementary schools. I believe those test scores are up...but they don't seem to be focusing on that.

[Jeanyus]

The extra money has been spent on keeping class size down in elementary schools. I believe those test scores are up...but they don't seem to be focusing on that.
Can you explain the math to me.
Here is how I see what you are saying. If we reduce the size of classes in the elementery schools by 33 1/3 %, then we would have to increase the budget, for the entire school system, by 100 %.
The test scores are up, but are still below what the were 15 years ago when class sizes were 30 + students, and (adjusted for inflation) we were spending 2/3 rds less per student.
P.S. I'm listening to both sides of the story before I vote. I'm not just posting to make state workers angry.

[Havasu Hangin']

The test scores are up, but are still below what the were 15 years ago when class sizes were 30 + students, and (adjusted for inflation) we were spending 2/3 rds less per student.
Because the test scores quoted above were for graduating high school pupils.
Those first kids involved in Pete Wilson's 20-1 program should only be in 7th grade (or so- depending on when the district implemented it) by now.
Once again, I believe test scores in the smaller classrooms are up.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Just so ya know, we are having the same arguments over education budget, school failings, student non-education, test scores, school funding, teacher pay, merit pay, did I mention SCHOOL FUNDING? :220v:
Also, when we were kids, just how many times a year did you have to take home a FUND RAISER of expensive crap to sell for the school???
How many times do your kids do it NOW??
And how much more is being spent each year than the last???