Prager Failed to Obtain Clarity on Prop 75
National radio show host Dennis Prager interviewed California Director of Finance Tom Campbell on Friday relative to the four California Propositions introduced by Governor Schwarzenegger: 74; 75; 76; & 77. Mr. Campbell has taken a leave of absence from his state finance job to campaign in support of the four propositions.
Mr. Campbell is undoubtedly convinced that the four proposed propositions will help the state financial picture. But, at whose cost and to whose advantage?
Proposition 75 is titled “Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute. The California Republican Party’s “Ballot Proposition Voter Guide” calls this initiative “Paycheck Protection.” Go here for my previous blog on the subject.
Mr. Prager concurred with Mr. Campbell’s assessment of the worthiness of the proposition.
Mr. Campbell asserted that the rationale for the proposition being placed on the ballot was to bring fairness to government union members because unions are using member’s monies for political purposes without obtaining the permission of each individual member. For the unions to do so is already not permitted and any union member may elect to not have his money used for political purposes.
The key issue of Prop 75 is that the new law shifts the responsibility from the union member telling the union of his desire to not use his monies for political purposes to requiring the union to get a written affirmative consent from the union member every year. The risk for the unions is a tremendous increase in overhead costs and a real potential that the unions will lose political money because more members may refuse to participate or will not get around to sending in the consent form. The downside for the unions is a loss of monies for political use, which will hamper advertising and lobbying efforts. Since the labor unions’ natural business antagonists are not restricted in gathering monies for political purposes, there will be a net loss for the unions in terms of political clout. Less political clout for the unions will ultimately result in decreased wages and benefits for the union members. That’s less compensation for the union members who donated to the political funds and those who did not as well.
The Republican Party has nicknamed Prop. 75 the “Paycheck Protection” proposition. As enumerated above, it is clear that Prop. 75 is not intended to protect the paycheck of the union member. Therefore, whose paycheck is to be protected? Clearly it is that of businessmen and the legislators.
How is it you ask that business will gain from the decrease in union political power? It is quite simple and ingenious. When the unions lose power, the union members will lose wages and benefits leaving more state revenues to be allocated by the legislature in the form of contracts to businesses. The Governor and the Republican Party are literally asking the public to step on the backs of public employees and authorize a law which will ultimately allow business profits to soar to higher levels. That puts more money in the pockets of the captains of business, who are already paid obscene amounts of money. And, those captains then generously fill the campaign coffers of the legislators.
Mr. Campbell made one more passing comment as to the worthiness of the proposition when he stated that it was government money that was being used for political purposes. No, it is not government money. It ceases to be government money when the government pays the employee his wages, and it is none of the government’s, nor the public’s, business how the employee spends his money. Mr. Prager did not comment on Mr. Campbell’s assertion, and I’m not sure that Mr. Prager heard or understood what Mr. Campbell said. So, Mr. Prager gets a pass on this one.
A caller to the show identified herself as a member of a teacher’s union. The caller complained that her union assessed her $50 to be used to fight the Governor’s propositions. Did the caller not know that she could have opted out of an assessment for political purposes? If so, and if this situation is a consistent and general problem, the answer is legislation that would require the union to advise it’s members periodically of the member’s right to opt out of the assessment.
Do you conclude, as I do, that the Republican Party’s nickname “Paycheck Protection” is dishonest? It is clear to me that the real agenda of the Governor and the Republican Party is to decrease the wages and benefits of public employees. As a class, public employees are not over compensated for their services when compared to comparable positions in the private world.
It is very simple to determine why Prop. 75 is on the ballot. Follow the money. Figure out who the money is going to be taken away from and to whom it is going to be given. If Democrats take it away from the union members, it will be spent on social programs. If Republicans take it away from the union members it, will be spent on business contracts. Since the money will be in the State’s General Fund, the Democrats and Republicans will fight over it and spend it all. The only argument that can be made for reducing government employee wages and benefits is a demonstration that public employees are grossly over-compensated in comparison to their counterparts in the private world. Fat chance you can accomplish that feat.
I am disappointed that Mr. Prager did not obtain a state of clarity on Prop. 75.
Mr. Campbell is undoubtedly convinced that the four proposed propositions will help the state financial picture. But, at whose cost and to whose advantage?
Proposition 75 is titled “Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute. The California Republican Party’s “Ballot Proposition Voter Guide” calls this initiative “Paycheck Protection.” Go here for my previous blog on the subject.
Mr. Prager concurred with Mr. Campbell’s assessment of the worthiness of the proposition.
Mr. Campbell asserted that the rationale for the proposition being placed on the ballot was to bring fairness to government union members because unions are using member’s monies for political purposes without obtaining the permission of each individual member. For the unions to do so is already not permitted and any union member may elect to not have his money used for political purposes.
The key issue of Prop 75 is that the new law shifts the responsibility from the union member telling the union of his desire to not use his monies for political purposes to requiring the union to get a written affirmative consent from the union member every year. The risk for the unions is a tremendous increase in overhead costs and a real potential that the unions will lose political money because more members may refuse to participate or will not get around to sending in the consent form. The downside for the unions is a loss of monies for political use, which will hamper advertising and lobbying efforts. Since the labor unions’ natural business antagonists are not restricted in gathering monies for political purposes, there will be a net loss for the unions in terms of political clout. Less political clout for the unions will ultimately result in decreased wages and benefits for the union members. That’s less compensation for the union members who donated to the political funds and those who did not as well.
The Republican Party has nicknamed Prop. 75 the “Paycheck Protection” proposition. As enumerated above, it is clear that Prop. 75 is not intended to protect the paycheck of the union member. Therefore, whose paycheck is to be protected? Clearly it is that of businessmen and the legislators.
How is it you ask that business will gain from the decrease in union political power? It is quite simple and ingenious. When the unions lose power, the union members will lose wages and benefits leaving more state revenues to be allocated by the legislature in the form of contracts to businesses. The Governor and the Republican Party are literally asking the public to step on the backs of public employees and authorize a law which will ultimately allow business profits to soar to higher levels. That puts more money in the pockets of the captains of business, who are already paid obscene amounts of money. And, those captains then generously fill the campaign coffers of the legislators.
Mr. Campbell made one more passing comment as to the worthiness of the proposition when he stated that it was government money that was being used for political purposes. No, it is not government money. It ceases to be government money when the government pays the employee his wages, and it is none of the government’s, nor the public’s, business how the employee spends his money. Mr. Prager did not comment on Mr. Campbell’s assertion, and I’m not sure that Mr. Prager heard or understood what Mr. Campbell said. So, Mr. Prager gets a pass on this one.
A caller to the show identified herself as a member of a teacher’s union. The caller complained that her union assessed her $50 to be used to fight the Governor’s propositions. Did the caller not know that she could have opted out of an assessment for political purposes? If so, and if this situation is a consistent and general problem, the answer is legislation that would require the union to advise it’s members periodically of the member’s right to opt out of the assessment.
Do you conclude, as I do, that the Republican Party’s nickname “Paycheck Protection” is dishonest? It is clear to me that the real agenda of the Governor and the Republican Party is to decrease the wages and benefits of public employees. As a class, public employees are not over compensated for their services when compared to comparable positions in the private world.
It is very simple to determine why Prop. 75 is on the ballot. Follow the money. Figure out who the money is going to be taken away from and to whom it is going to be given. If Democrats take it away from the union members, it will be spent on social programs. If Republicans take it away from the union members it, will be spent on business contracts. Since the money will be in the State’s General Fund, the Democrats and Republicans will fight over it and spend it all. The only argument that can be made for reducing government employee wages and benefits is a demonstration that public employees are grossly over-compensated in comparison to their counterparts in the private world. Fat chance you can accomplish that feat.
I am disappointed that Mr. Prager did not obtain a state of clarity on Prop. 75.
posted by Paul Coambs | 1:01 AM
<< Home