As a public school teacher, I resented that the United Teachers of Los Angeles took a portion of my paycheck every month, even though I had not even joined the union, then spend the money on candidates and cause which I did not support. This disturbing trend, both for unions and corporations, deprives the individual of his vote and his money. "Conservative Teachers for America", among other organizations, are rising up to counter the power of public sector unions over pupils, instructors, and their paychecks.
Union cronyism is intolerable. I see no value or interest in permitting an
organization which assumes to represent anyone then deciding to take a portion of that person’s pay. One counterargument suggests that since the union negotiates on behalf all teachers, whether they join or not, they are entitled to a portion of the paycheck in dues. This is a specious argument, at best, as most teachers can attest. The teachers unions do next to nothing for the first and second year staff members, who can be summarily terminated for the most arbitrary and obscure reasons. Not only do the unions do very little for new teachers, in many cases they achieve very little for the tenured faculty who have job protection, since they can be disciplined, demoted, or demeaned with little help from their collective bargaining unit.
Of course, I also recall numerous stories of counselors and even experienced, tenured staff complaining about their adverse treatment at the hand of administration and parents, yet the union leadership did next to nothing to help them. Union leadership, by and large, is about union leadership, not about the members who are supposed to benefit from their representation, and I share this not just from experience, but also based on analysis.
To this day, this scandal is perpetuated to this day in public sector unions across the state. Still, detractors are fanning the flames by arguing that labor unions will be disproportionately affected by this initiative. The problem, then, is not with the law, but with the "Fourth Branch of Government" in Sacramento, which are the powerful labor unions. The current breakdown on the power of corporate and labor interests influencing California politics indicates that labor unions have disproportionate power. In the top five donors, the California Teachers Associations, California State Council of Service Employees, the California Federation of Labor all figure prominently.
Public sector union influence is corrupting our government, even pressuring Southland Assemblymen to abstain from voting on legislation that would expedite the remove of predatory and abusive teachers from the classroom. The subtle betrayal of the safety of our children, along with the fiscal solvency of our state and our schools, is at stake, yet the public sector union lobby arrests reform time and again.
On the October 7, 2012 edition of NBC 4's "News Conference" with Conan Nolan, Gloria Romero, a former Democratic California State Senator and advocate for school reform, strongly advocated for Prop 32 -- and she is a card-carrying union
member. In her interview-debate, she rose up to stand up for our schools and
our state, outlining the simple yet compelling argument which should quicken every voter, union or otherwise, to vote "Yes!" on Prop 32: the right of the individual worker. Her opponent, Kathay Fang of Common Cause, debated the “demerits” of the law with empty distortions from the "No on 32!" campaign, claiming that certain corporations will be exempt from the ban on taking and spending employee donations.
Ms. Fang, like the proliferation of scattered negative ads, alleges that Prop 32 is
primarily a tool by the rich corporations to exempt themselves while enacting
legislation that will effectively defund public sector unions from financing candidates and causes near and dear to their interests.
However, the language in the Proposition could not be clearer, refuting these empty charges. Here are samples from the text of the proposed law, starting with the purpose of the initiative:
1. Ban both corporate and labor union contributions to candidates;
2. Prohibit government contractors from contributing money to
government officials who award them contracts;
3. Prohibit corporations and labor unions from collecting
political funds from employees and union members using the inherently coercive means of payroll deduction; and
4. Make all employee political contributions by any other means strictly voluntary.
Further into the proposed legislation, the law explicates the bans on corporate
donations. The law provides the following definition of "corporation":
"Corporation" means every corporation organized under the laws of this state, any other state of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States.
The proposed statute reads“Any corporation” – no exceptions. These excerpts
are from the proposed law, not just the summary provided for undecided voters in the Official Voter Information Guide. In no way are "certain corporations" exempt
from the ban on contributions paid in by the stockholders or corporate employees.
Do not buy into the lies, do not accept the hype. Prop 32 will protect your paycheck and your vote!
On Nov. 6, Vote "Yes!" on Prop 32!