In a message dated 10/11/2005 5:58:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fschmidt@... writes:
The issue of proposition 75 is about political funding, and this area,
workers are not forced to pay. They are forced to support the union
if they want a job at a union shop. If they don't want to support
unions, they shouldn't work at a unionized company.
sorry my friend schmidt, you are entirely mistaken in this.
prop 75 is very much abt workers being forced to pay, thru union dues and
imposts, for political campaigns with which they may not agree.
friend fschmidt -- i am not sure if you actually want to engage in
meaningful dialogue and research, or just looking to stir up a fuss.
Sarosh D. Kumana
_www.sfrent.net_ (http://www.sfrent.net/)
Tel: 415-861-4554
Fax: 415-864-0730
Cell: 415-425-5184
sorry my friend schmidt, you are entirely mistaken in this.
prop 75 is very much abt workers being forced to pay, thru union
dues and
imposts, for political campaigns with which they may not agree.
What about this:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/against75.pdf
"No public employee in California can be forced to become a member of
a union. Non-members pay fees to the union for collective bargaining
services, but the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
unions cannot use these fees for political purposes. The union must
send financial statements to the worker to ensure that no unauthorized
fees are used for politics. Today, 25% of state employees contribute
no money to their union's political activities."
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Franklin Schmidt"
<fschmidt@g...> wrote:
"No public employee in California can be forced to become a member of
a union. Non-members pay fees to the union for collective bargaining
services, but the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
unions cannot use these fees for political purposes. The union must
send financial statements to the worker to ensure that no unauthorized
fees are used for politics. Today, 25% of state employees contribute
no money to their union's political activities."
Franklin, thanks for raising this important point. I won't assume that
the opposition failure to refute these statements means they are true.
I'll see if I can find out for sure. If they are true, I'll have to
hold my nose and vote no.
My gut reaction is that the 25% figure is probably the entire
non-union workforce. The supreme court reference sounds loaded, but
then they claim to be proving compliance through receipts. It's not
easy to decipher.
As a young laborer/driver, I remember being on the outside looking in
at the highly overpaid union guys. Seeing their intimidation tactics
later on only reaffirmed my resentment. I could go on quite the
tangent, but I'll spare you my vitriol.
-Morey