Yes on 32

Yes on 32

Yes on 32

Unions in California are making a concerted effort to push a “No on 32” vote. They say that this proposition will weaken unions, take away the worker’s voice, and put us at the mercy of for-profit corporations. Unfortunately most of that is obfuscation. I wrote a post on this a few weeks ago. Prop 32 makes it so unions have to get permission from each union member before they can take dues for political uses from their paycheck. This provision actually gives the worker more power.

Currently there are a large number of “union” employees who do not agree with the political agenda of the union. For instance, in 2008 the CTA donated over $1 million to try to defeat Prop 8, our traditional marriage amendment. I give over $1000 in dues to the union every year, but I support traditional marriage. I was not sent a questionnaire asking about my stance on traditional marriage. But my money was used against me in that political battle. That is just one example of the Union taking a stance in opposition to my values.

If union organizations have to ask their members if it is okay to deduct the portion of the dues for political purposes from their paycheck this provides a fairly big incentive to those union organizations to listen and pay more attention to what the rank-and-file union member wants. Essentially we are simply making unions less compulsory, more voluntary. Yes on 32 will help to ensure that unions are representing exactly those workers who wish to be represented by that union.
Advertisements

Wisconsin Residents say YES to Scott Walker

Wisconsin Welcome Sign

Wisconsin Welcome Sign (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am excited about the outcome of the recall election in Wisconsin. I assume that many of you watched in disgust as the liberal state senators tried to stop the state senate from moving toward right to work policies and away from entrenched unionism. Tonight’s win for Walker shows that Wisconsin voters have firmly said that they are happy with these reforms and the changes they are bringing in their lives.

In my other posts on the negative aspects of compulsory unionism (see below) I talked about how voluntary associations will produce better results for workers. It seems as though voters in Wisconsin want government to curtail the power of the compulsory unions. These unions who are basically not accountable to anyone.

My Earlier Posts:  Power Grab     Voluntary Association    Collective Bargaining Needs Balance

I recommend that California voters consider voting yes on the Stop Special Interest Money Now bill (which unions are calling the Corporate Power Grab Initiative). Maybe we can move the ball toward a higher degree of freedom for individual workers in California. Lower costs and less of liberal union meddling in our state politics sounds refreshing. Please consider the numbers on the political contribution watchdog site that I linked to in this post. Again, I would like to open some discussion about the pros and cons about this bill as I invited in my earlier post. What evidence is there that supports the CTA’s assertions about the bill? Does the bill cover the necessary bases and not just create more trouble?

Power Grab or Stop Special Interest Money?

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs the ...

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs the act on July 5, 1935. Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (right) looks on. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last year Mark Mix gave a talk at the Pro Family Legislators conference on compulsory unionism which I have found very informative. I’ve blogged about it before.

In 1935 the Wagner Act forced all workers in America to be in unions whether they liked it or not. Mr. Mix talked about Samuel Gompers who was an early union organizer who advocated for volunteerism as opposed to compulsory union membership. “No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which united, is invincible.” His reasoning was that unions would be more cohesive and stronger if they were voluntary groups. Unfortunately, Other union leaders did not agree. In 1935, at any rate, the Wagner Act made compulsory unionism the law of the land. This was and is in opposition to our 1st amendment freedom of association. In other words, if we have the freedom to choose with whom we will associate, don’t we have the converse right to choose with whom we will not associate?

Unions quickly gained an enormous amount of power. For instance, the Mineworkers Union basically shut down the war effort soon after by refusing to mine coal until their demands were met. Congress amended the Wagner Act with the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Among other things the act made it so states could enact ‘right to work’ laws. Since that time 22 states have opted for ‘right to work’ legislation. ‘Right to Work’ basically means no one can be compelled to join a union nor be compelled not to join a union. In other words, the only unions in ‘right to work’ states would be voluntary unions. Just like Gompers ennvisioned. Today our most prosperous states are those right to work states. The industries in heavily unionized states have crumbled or are crumbling under the overburden of union demands.

I for one am in favor of voluntary unionism. I am a member of a voluntary teacher association. I am also a member of the compulsory teachers union CTA.

There is legislation afoot that would allow teachers the choice of whether they want their union dues to be automatically deducted from their check as they are currently. I think this legislation has merit. Unions are calling it “The Corporate Power Grab Initiative“. The other side is calling it the “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act“. They have very different stories to tell about what the act does and does not do. One point of disagreement is on who gives more to politicians. CTA claims that corporations out give unions 15 to 1. But I was recently told by a CTA officer that CTA is the most powerful voice in Sacramento… Here is a site that tracks giving to politicians.

The Stop Special Interest Money Now Act may be the right act for giving freedom back to workers in California and eliminating the overbearing liberal voice of union officials in our state legislature. I invite you to read the text of the act for yourself and enter the discussion by making a comment here. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of this proposed law.

Origins of this Blog

I have several reasons for starting this blog. The main purpose is to encourage conservative educators to use our voices. We can influence our schools to become places where children are raised up with good morals and manners once again. We have been silent followers for too long, meekly going along with what has become the immoral liberal agenda of teachers unions. I have put together my resources page to help teachers who want to get started.

One motivating event happened as a result of a recent local union election. At a rep council meeting I had learned that candidates were not supposed to use district communication systems for campaigning. I myself was not a candidate, but I had strong opinions about which candidate I would like to see elected. I decided to email and speak to some of my colleagues encouraging them to vote the same way I would be voting.

As the election progressed and the votes were counted, I was very excited when the candidates I was supporting won by a three to one margin. Unfortunately the losing side decided to dispute the results. We had one rep council meeting where the election was upheld locally. This was followed by a CTA ruling that the election was to be upheld.

When my efforts to communicate my opinions were called into question, I decided that maybe I had better use a more public, transparent method of communicating my views. I had already been thinking of blogging about conservative issues. The election experience crystalized that thought. I have a feeling there might be a number of other committed teachers who are feeling marginalized by the liberal agenda of the bulk of CTA’s leadership. You’re not the only one! There are lots of us. We can push back.

I had some uncertainty about starting a blog. I don’t have a lot of experience blogging, a wonderful 21st-century innovation that allows the common person to have a voice that can potentially be heard across the community, the country, the world. You will notice as I post entries on this blog that I approach the conservative point of view from a Christian perspective. In my deliberations this perspective gives the best explanation for understanding and living in this world we live in. I do recognize that others have reached a conservative point of view from other perspectives. I welcome allies from various backgrounds, and respectful, civil discourse from any side. For my part, I will be attempting to examine issues from a Christian perspective.