Arkley Shuns Times- Standard
No surprise there, I guess, as Rob Arkley started the Eureka Reporter over some beef he had with the Times- Standard some time ago. But it still doesn't look good when he can't be reached for comment on a story the T/S wrote on him being the major donor to the Prop 75 campaign (that's the one that requires unions to get permission from members before spending their money for political purposes, which I support). It's not so much he couldn't be reached that doesn't look good, as such things happen, but having an aide supposedly tell the T/S "not to call again...". He could have used that opportunity to give his case for supporting Prop 75 but chose silence instead. Now that's winning hearts and minds isn't it?
I'm sure Arkley feels the T/S has it in for him, althought I don't know exactly why. It could be the same old thing that those on the Left and Right feel when someone writes news other than the way the they want it written. They feel that particular writer or paper is against them. It could also be that Arkley knows he's not exactly, shall we say eloquent, when it comes to speaking on political matters. He seems to have a pretty blind allegience to the Right as well as a rabid hatred of the Left and I've never heard anything but generalities as to why. I'm sure some of his feelings are justified but I still think it's best to be able to at least talk to the other side rather than ignore them all together. Then again, I'm not Rob Arkley and he can afford to do whatever he wants.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:44 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Why speak with someone who will intentionally distort what you say because of an agenda. No telling if Arkley was even there when the T/S called. I say, if the T/S continues to write biased articles, then why talk to them at all.
No no no Fred, please don't do it. Don't vote Yes on 75. It is such an obvious attempt by the company bosses to divide the workers. Why do you want to support targeting unions, but leaving corporations free to spend megadollars influencing elections? Why should unions have to get permission, but not corporations? If I drive a car, I'm legally required to purchase car insurance, and yet I have no say whatsover over how they spend my money lobbying. The CEO doesn't even need to ask the stockholders, the supposed owners of the company, for permission to spend lobby dollars. Unions, like all human institutions, have problems. But the problems of having unions are far better than the problems of no unions.
Keep in mind, this prop deals with public employee unions, not all unions. Interesting article on the issue in today's San Jose Mercury News at
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/12821483.htm
I shouldn't say I'm in full support of the prop, but somewhat ambivalent. All this says is that the Public Employee Unions need to get permission from members to use their money for certain political purposes. Since the unions are saying that this prop will stifle their voice, they're also suggesting that most of their members wouldn't support them spending that money if they had any say in it. Aren't they?
If the membership agrees with the purpose they shouldn't have a problem signing their name agreeing to let it be used.
No way of telling how many members will or won't agree to allow their money to be used for political purposes. I would think revenues won't change all that much. I think peer pressure alone would cause many members to go ahead and agree to let the union use their money as the union sees fit.
That one article quotes someone saying that corporate contributions to campaigns outspend unions by 20 to 1. Hard to believe, but if they are outspent that much it seems it wouldn't make much difference if the unions lost a little money. And just like up here with the recall election and Wal Mart, the corporations lost, despite their financial advantage. The unions obviously have won, for the most part statewide, too, evidence of that being the stranglehold the public employee unions have on this state.
No, our complaint (I'm a member of a public employee union) is that it increases our costs, time, and beaurocratic overhead, and does so unfairly since nobody else, particularly the business that support squashing all unions, whether public or private employees, do not have the same requirement. The heads of corporations would gladly return us to working conditions at the turn of the century: no overtime, no sick leave, 60 hour work week, this list goes on. If prop 75 passes, guys like Arkley will use their money and their newspapers and tv stations to badmouth unions, dividing them further, whittling away at the political influence of unions. The things unions fight for benefit the working class, the millions of sheep. The Arkely's of the world, the wolves, why they want to convince the sheep that they too are wolves, and invite them for dinner. Which side are you on?
How dare you, Jeff? You're supposed to agree with all my hard hitting commentary!
The difference between shareholders and union members is that minority shareholders can sell their stock. Can a union member quit paying dues if they do not agree with where their funds are going?
Keep in mind Prop 75 deals only with Public ,aka Government, Employee Unions. I'm not real up to speed on the situation but I don't believe government workers are required to join the union although they can take a certain amount of money from an employees' paycheck since they supposedly bargain on that persons behalf. I don't believe that's considered the same as dues, though.
Depending on the situation, certain other non- government jobs may require an employee to join a union as a condition of employment.
When I worked as a security guard at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant years ago, joining the guard union was a condition of employment. When I worked for the County years ago I joined AFSCME but only grudgingly. The shop steward was a fox and I couldn't say no to her and face further browbeating from that little hottie.
As far as the shareholder vs. union analogy: Sure, a shareholder could sell their shares if they were unhappy with political contributions a company made but that, by itself,would likely have little effect on the company. Only if a large percentage of the shareholders sold stock- enough to cause a drop in the price of the stock- would the company even notice it. It would make more sense to just not buy that company's products, and many political organizations do organize such boycotts.
Post a Comment
<< Home