Betsy's Page

Friday, October 14, 2005

Here's another article looking at Schwarzenegger's propositions and their chances of successes. Cross your fingers, these measures are so common sense that they seem headed for success despite the millions that their opponents have spent to defeat them. For example,
* Proposition 74 requires five years of satisfactory service -- instead of two - before a teacher can earn lifetime tenure in the state school system, which embarrassingly ranks among the lowest in the nation. The teachers unions are up in arms over this measure and, according to the governor and his supporters, are approaching bankruptcy after spending tens of millions of dollars on their ad campaign. The California Teachers Association has even reportedly had to raise member dues by $60 per year to cover its political costs.

Californians appear to appreciate the delicious irony involved in the union's argument, on one hand, that the state spends far too little on schools (read: administrators' and teachers' salaries) and its expenditure, on the other, of more than $50 million of its administrators' and teachers' union dues, money that could better be spent improving the quality of education. By an 11-point margin, according to Survey USA, Golden Staters are siding with Arnold and against the unions.

* Proposition 75 has organized labor even more terrified. This initiative would prohibit public employee unions from spending union dues for political purposes without the written consent of its members. The measure has the potential of fundamentally shifting the balance of power in Sacramento away from the unions and the Democratic legislators they heavily influence. It is also premised on common sense: why shouldn't individual workers be able to control whether their hard-earned salaries fund political causes they oppose?

Foes of Prop 75 argue that the unions shouldn't have to disarm unilaterally when corporations enjoy unfettered use of shareholder profits for political advocacy. The difference, of course, is that shareholders can easily and quickly sell the stock of any company whose political contributions they abhor; they can also swiftly replace the sold shares with those of any other company.

By contrast, union members -- especially in closed-shop industries -- cannot simply renounce their union memberships, unless they're also willing to quit their jobs. As one San Diego AFL-CIO member wryly observed, "the only institution I know of where you have mandatory political dues is the Communist Party." This predicament is especially treacherous in the public sector where unionization is most widespread.

All told, according to recent polling, Californians favor the measure by a whopping 60%-37% as Republicans have successfully (and perhaps surprisingly) depicted themselves as the party of workers' rights.
I love the idea of the unions having to get permission to spend members' money on political advocacy. For many years, I had to join the NC affiliateof the national teachers union because teachers need teachers' insurance coverage. (Did you know that a teacher could be held liable if a student threw a pencil at another student and that student were injured? Hence the need for some sort of teacher insurance.) I used to be very irritated when the union would send me their endorsements for politicians and never once did they endorse a Republican. They'd use dues to advertise and campaign for politicians I didn't support. Finally, a new union, PENC, opened up in North Carolina with dues that were about a third of the cost of the other union, the professional support and insurance I wanted, but none of the political strings attached.

I bet that, if unions have to get members' permission for political activities, that they'll experience about the same result that the IRS has observed with the check-off box for money to cover political campaigns. If people have a choice, they won't want money spent for politics that they have no control over. Perhaps then the unions might get back to their original purpose instead of the political purposes they've come to focus on so heavily.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:58 PM 0 comments

Comments:

Here's another article looking at Schwarzenegger's propositions and their chances of successes. Cross your fingers, these measures are so common sense that they seem headed for success despite the millions that their opponents have spent to defeat them. For example,

* Proposition 74 requires five years of satisfactory service -- instead of two - before a teacher can earn lifetime tenure in the state school system, which embarrassingly ranks among the lowest in the nation. The teachers unions are up in arms over this measure and, according to the governor and his supporters, are approaching bankruptcy after spending tens of millions of dollars on their ad campaign. The California Teachers Association has even reportedly had to raise member dues by $60 per year to cover its political costs.

Californians appear to appreciate the delicious irony involved in the union's argument, on one hand, that the state spends far too little on schools (read: administrators' and teachers' salaries) and its expenditure, on the other, of more than $50 million of its administrators' and teachers' union dues, money that could better be spent improving the quality of education. By an 11-point margin, according to Survey USA, Golden Staters are siding with Arnold and against the unions.

* Proposition 75 has organized labor even more terrified. This initiative would prohibit public employee unions from spending union dues for political purposes without the written consent of its members. The measure has the potential of fundamentally shifting the balance of power in Sacramento away from the unions and the Democratic legislators they heavily influence. It is also premised on common sense: why shouldn't individual workers be able to control whether their hard-earned salaries fund political causes they oppose?

Foes of Prop 75 argue that the unions shouldn't have to disarm unilaterally when corporations enjoy unfettered use of shareholder profits for political advocacy. The difference, of course, is that shareholders can easily and quickly sell the stock of any company whose political contributions they abhor; they can also swiftly replace the sold shares with those of any other company.

By contrast, union members -- especially in closed-shop industries -- cannot simply renounce their union memberships, unless they're also willing to quit their jobs. As one San Diego AFL-CIO member wryly observed, "the only institution I know of where you have mandatory political dues is the Communist Party." This predicament is especially treacherous in the public sector where unionization is most widespread.

All told, according to recent polling, Californians favor the measure by a whopping 60%-37% as Republicans have successfully (and perhaps surprisingly) depicted themselves as the party of workers' rights.

I love the idea of the unions having to get permission to spend members' money on political advocacy. For many years, I had to join the NC affiliateof the national teachers union because teachers need teachers' insurance coverage. (Did you know that a teacher could be held liable if a student threw a pencil at another student and that student were injured? Hence the need for some sort of teacher insurance.) I used to be very irritated when the union would send me their endorsements for politicians and never once did they endorse a Republican. They'd use dues to advertise and campaign for politicians I didn't support. Finally, a new union, PENC, opened up in North Carolina with dues that were about a third of the cost of the other union, the professional support and insurance I wanted, but none of the political strings attached.

I bet that, if unions have to get members' permission for political activities, that they'll experience about the same result that the IRS has observed with the check-off box for money to cover political campaigns. If people have a choice, they won't want money spent for politics that they have no control over. Perhaps then the unions might get back to their original purpose instead of the political purposes they've come to focus on so heavily.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:58 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, October 14, 2005

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, October 14, 2005 Here's another article looking at Schwarzenegger's propositions and their chances of successes. Cross your fingers, these measures are so common sense that they seem headed for success despite the millions that their opponents have spent to defeat them. For example, * Proposition 74 requires five years of satisfactory service -- instead of two - before a teacher can earn lifetime tenure in the state school system, which embarrassingly ranks among the lowest in the nation. The teachers unions are up in arms over this measure and, according to the governor and his supporters, are approaching bankruptcy after spending tens of millions of dollars on their ad campaign. The California Teachers Association has even reportedly had to raise member dues by $60 per year to cover its political costs. Californians appear to appreciate the delicious irony involved in the union's argument, on one hand, that the state spends far too little on schools (read: administrators' and teachers' salaries) and its expenditure, on the other, of more than $50 million of its administrators' and teachers' union dues, money that could better be spent improving the quality of education. By an 11-point margin, according to Survey USA, Golden Staters are siding with Arnold and against the unions. * Proposition 75 has organized labor even more terrified. This initiative would prohibit public employee unions from spending union dues for political purposes without the written consent of its members. The measure has the potential of fundamentally shifting the balance of power in Sacramento away from the unions and the Democratic legislators they heavily influence. It is also premised on common sense: why shouldn't individual workers be able to control whether their hard-earned salaries fund political causes they oppose? Foes of Prop 75 argue that the unions shouldn't have to disarm unilaterally when corporations enjoy unfettered use of shareholder profits for political advocacy. The difference, of course, is that shareholders can easily and quickly sell the stock of any company whose political contributions they abhor; they can also swiftly replace the sold shares with those of any other company. By contrast, union members -- especially in closed-shop industries -- cannot simply renounce their union memberships, unless they're also willing to quit their jobs. As one San Diego AFL-CIO member wryly observed, "the only institution I know of where you have mandatory political dues is the Communist Party." This predicament is especially treacherous in the public sector where unionization is most widespread. All told, according to recent polling, Californians favor the measure by a whopping 60%-37% as Republicans have successfully (and perhaps surprisingly) depicted themselves as the party of workers' rights. I love the idea of the unions having to get permission to spend members' money on political advocacy. For many years, I had to join the NC affiliateof the national teachers union because teachers need teachers' insurance coverage. (Did you know that a teacher could be held liable if a student threw a pencil at another student and that student were injured? Hence the need for some sort of teacher insurance.) I used to be very irritated when the union would send me their endorsements for politicians and never once did they endorse a Republican. They'd use dues to advertise and campaign for politicians I didn't support. Finally, a new union, PENC, opened up in North Carolina with dues that were about a third of the cost of the other union, the professional support and insurance I wanted, but none of the political strings attached. I bet that, if unions have to get members' permission for political activities, that they'll experience about the same result that the IRS has observed with the check-off box for money to cover political campaigns. If people have a choice, they won't want money spent for politics that they have no control over. Perhaps then the unions might get back to their original purpose instead of the political purposes they've come to focus on so heavily. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:58 PM 0 comments Comments: Here's another article looking at Schwarzenegger's propositions and their chances of successes. Cross your fingers, these measures are so common sense that they seem headed for success despite the millions that their opponents have spent to defeat them. For example, * Proposition 74 requires five years of satisfactory service -- instead of two - before a teacher can earn lifetime tenure in the state school system, which embarrassingly ranks among the lowest in the nation. The teachers unions are up in arms over this measure and, according to the governor and his supporters, are approaching bankruptcy after spending tens of millions of dollars on their ad campaign. The California Teachers Association has even reportedly had to raise member dues by $60 per year to cover its political costs. Californians appear to appreciate the delicious irony involved in the union's argument, on one hand, that the state spends far too little on schools (read: administrators' and teachers' salaries) and its expenditure, on the other, of more than $50 million of its administrators' and teachers' union dues, money that could better be spent improving the quality of education. By an 11-point margin, according to Survey USA, Golden Staters are siding with Arnold and against the unions. * Proposition 75 has organized labor even more terrified. This initiative would prohibit public employee unions from spending union dues for political purposes without the written consent of its members. The measure has the potential of fundamentally shifting the balance of power in Sacramento away from the unions and the Democratic legislators they heavily influence. It is also premised on common sense: why shouldn't individual workers be able to control whether their hard-earned salaries fund political causes they oppose? Foes of Prop 75 argue that the unions shouldn't have to disarm unilaterally when corporations enjoy unfettered use of shareholder profits for political advocacy. The difference, of course, is that shareholders can easily and quickly sell the stock of any company whose political contributions they abhor; they can also swiftly replace the sold shares with those of any other company. By contrast, union members -- especially in closed-shop industries -- cannot simply renounce their union memberships, unless they're also willing to quit their jobs. As one San Diego AFL-CIO member wryly observed, "the only institution I know of where you have mandatory political dues is the Communist Party." This predicament is especially treacherous in the public sector where unionization is most widespread. All told, according to recent polling, Californians favor the measure by a whopping 60%-37% as Republicans have successfully (and perhaps surprisingly) depicted themselves as the party of workers' rights. I love the idea of the unions having to get permission to spend members' money on political advocacy. For many years, I had to join the NC affiliateof the national teachers union because teachers need teachers' insurance coverage. (Did you know that a teacher could be held liable if a student threw a pencil at another student and that student were injured? Hence the need for some sort of teacher insurance.) I used to be very irritated when the union would send me their endorsements for politicians and never once did they endorse a Republican. They'd use dues to advertise and campaign for politicians I didn't support. Finally, a new union, PENC, opened up in North Carolina with dues that were about a third of the cost of the other union, the professional support and insurance I wanted, but none of the political strings attached. I bet that, if unions have to get members' permission for political activities, that they'll experience about the same result that the IRS has observed with the check-off box for money to cover political campaigns. If people have a choice, they won't want money spent for politics that they have no control over. Perhaps then the unions might get back to their original purpose instead of the political purposes they've come to focus on so heavily. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:58 PM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment