Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Prop 32 Opponents Argue Yes on 32?

Sounds like it to me. Just about every argument I've read opposing Prop 32 (prohibits payroll deduction of union dues for political purposes) says the same thing as this gal's letter to the Times- Standard: If this passes, the only political voices you'll hear are those of big business. It will silence the unions.

She's essentially saying that union coffers will be decimated if they can't take dues directly from member's paychecks. In other words, if members had a real choice, they likely wouldn't pay dues. That's the unions saying it, not just me.

I was thinking of not voting either way on Prop 32 as there did seem to be some inequity to it. Now I think I'll vote on behalf of member choice and vote Yes.


At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

whew, that snowy plover issue seems an easier debate than anything unionized.

Ok, here is the thoughts that conflict after reading the letter:

1) If you work as a living ...... (hmmmm, she means if you work as a union employee for a living)

2) Payroll deductions? (That implies all employee deductions as opposed to ONLY deductions for political purposes)

3) Prop 32 would silence workers (Hmmm, do the workers already agree to have their paychecks deducted for political reasons? Further, many pissed-off union employees would not stay quiet during campaign season if they have less say later; it seems more protests and civil vigilantisms would occur)

4) If prop 32 passes regarding ads...(Hmmm, many pissed-off union members would vote/consume opposite of what the ads attempted to persuade)

5)Unions working hard for benfits (Ya, it is true from years ago to help build more justice for the abused laborer.....not today though with OSHA and other work related safety boards and agencies that actually fine businesses/red tag 'em/ shut 'em down AND FOR BIG MONEY for those violations while the victim laborer has many attorneys and the judicial system to retire upon if wanting too)

6) Prop 32 does nothing one way or the other to reduce worker safety rights, worker opportunity rights, injury claims, unfair decisions against any employee that needs appealing, etc... (not buying the union-based arguments)

7) Unions don't allow individualisms either, only collectivisms! (workers should be allowed to work whatever hours they want. If they want 4 12 hour days, fine. If they want 5 ten hour days, fine. Accordingly, the business should not be hampered for overtime or other work related violations based on excessive daily shifts, etc... as negotiated freely by any individual employee - unions don't allow individual negotiations)

8) Union Workers rights really have no less restrictions than non-union members rights (using old age arguments to skew mindsets in today's economic reality that worker rights would be diminshed is absurd conjecture manifested through fear based tactics in order to protect the guise of unions with regard to high societal costs, market share business profitizations and government tax collection schemes based on these three very measurable units of economic productivity)

9) That last sentence is a flip-flop, double reversal, mental mind trick, written just like politicians do to skew mindsets that pit people against people.

Finally, vote NO on all propositions ---> all they are IS ---> MISDIRECTIONS TO RUSE MORE GUISES upon the non-unionized citizens of the state! - HOJ

At 2:42 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Jeff asks, the workers already agree to have their paychecks deducted for political reasons?.

I'm not completely sure, but I believe they usually agree to it when they join the union. There's supposed to be a way to opt out but few members seem to take advantage of that option.

There's been a few union members in comments to Sacramento Bee stories that said the opt out requests are often ignored. I'm sure there's also members who don't opt out because of either ignorance or peer pressure.

I've read that when Scott Walker's reforms were put into place in Wisconsin, public employee union membership (or was it just dues revenue?) tanked. I suspect that's what opponents are afraid of. In that case it sounds like the reforms allowed at least some union members to do what they always wanted to do: quit.

At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Hey Fred. As far as "opt out" requests, it seems that with or without the prop one way or the other, the rule or option to "opt out" doesn't appear to change in the least bit. What does appear as "the change" is a blanketed and uniform, 100% no dues to be used (which goes against the justifications for "opt-outs" prior agreed to).

It seems to be another ploy like CDF to Cal-Fire, newer patches and decals and tax budgeted line items at the state level to be able to "get out from under historic socio-political responsibilities" by claiming political extinction in favor of a "new big bang theory political structurisms".....ala county supes trying to fire somebody, and have a hard time doing it, so they'll just shut down the department or its substructure, reorganize like a "Bain Capital" to then create a new department or substructure to create new rules to cover-over the mess made with the former rules; AND, nothing is really accomplished for the taxpayers except more revenue shortfalls turned into a state comptrolled deficit, and then debt issues.

NO on ALL PROPS until state financial solvency is resolved, unless of course the prop fires state employees and reduces the spending limits, :-)! This #32 won't change anything, but redirect it shall. - HOJ

At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

outbgv yrxjj

At 8:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Hey Fred,

unrelated but related, weird huh? Anyhow, give it a read and a thought.


Do the Rich Have a Moral Obligation to Pay Higher Taxes?
Daily Ticker; Do the wealthiest Americans have a "moral" obligation to pay higher taxes? California Governor Jerry Brown thinks so."

Response: (concerning CAL-Fire formerly CDF)Governor Brown also believes that the poor who struggle to keep owning their home should pay more per value than the wealthier home owners pay for "Wildland Preventions" associated with Agenda 21 and "rural de-population".

Ya see, it is easier to de-populate any area or region when applying the standards (rules that would cause any area or region to be de-populated) so that poorer people bear the burdens worse and lose their property and lifestyle to enslavement policies, taxation schemes and police state authority.

In a nutshell, Moonshiner Brown plays from both politically positioned sides of fraudulant leadership as if England backing both sides of the "Revolutionary War" different than any of these props, excutive orders, etc... that are only used to deceive the voters BECAUSE it is only voters whom vote; AND, since ALL AMERICANS DON'T VOTE, well, that is the opportunity to be treacherous, treasonsistic, deceitful, etcetera times infinity..... is it becoming more of a socio-pathological postal discharge moment in California yet?


At 8:44 PM, Anonymous Power of 1 said...

Any curtailing of mob labor force actions is a good one.


Post a Comment

<< Home