small_state_seal
VIG_home_link _spacer sec_state_link elections_link pol_reform_link audio_cassette_link vig_feedback
_propositions  
Arguments and Rebuttals
prop73_link
prop74_link
prop75_link
prop76_link
prop77_link
prop78_link
prop79_link
prop80_link
ballot_measure_summary_link
voter_billrights_link
pdf_download_link
  ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS
_spacer

Proposition 75

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Argument in Favor of Proposition 75

PROPOSITION 75 PROTECTS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAKEN AND USED WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.

There’s a FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN CALIFORNIA:

  • Hundreds of thousands of public employee union
    members are
    forced to contribute their hard earned money to political candidates or issues they may oppose.
  • Powerful and politically connected union leaders—a small handful of people—can make unilateral decisions with these “forced contributions” to fund political campaigns without their members’ consent. The workers have no choice—money is automatically deducted from their dues.

Firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public
employees work hard for the people of California and we owe them a huge debt for the work they do on our behalf.
That’s why it’s only fair that public employees give their permission before their hard earned dollars are taken and given to politicians and political campaigns.

Many public employee union members don’t support the political agenda of the union bosses and it’s not right that they are forced to contribute to political candidates and campaigns they oppose:

  • Campaign finance records document that several public employee unions have spent more than $2 million to qualify a ballot measure that would raise property taxes by billions of dollars—rolling back Proposition 13 protections.
  • Many members of these unions may oppose this, but the union leaders just take the money and spend it even though individual union members may disagree.

That’s not right and it’s not fair.

HERE’S WHAT ACTUAL UNION MEMBERS SAY:

“I’ve been a public school teacher for 20 years. I joined the union when I started teaching because of the benefits it provided and I’ve always been a proud member. However, despite the many good things the union does, it . . . contribute[s] a portion of my dues to political . . . campaigns I often disagree with. That’s simply unfair. I want to be a member of the teachers union, but I don’t want to be forced to contribute my money to the union leaders’ political agenda.”

Diane Lenning, Huntington Beach

“I’m a member of the largest state employee union. I believe in the union and what it does. It supports me in many ways, but I don’t need it spending a portion of my dues for political purposes. If I want to make a political contribution to a candidate it should be voluntary, not mandatory.”

Jim Prunty, Glendora

PROPOSITION 75—IT’S COMMON SENSE.

Here’s what it’ll do:

  • Give public employees the same choices we all have.
  • Require public employee unions to obtain annual written consent from members before their dues are taken for political purposes.
  • Allow government employees to decide when, how, and if their hard earned wages are spent to support political candidates or campaigns.

Proposition 75 will NOT prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be CLEARLY VOLUNTARY.

Vote YES on Proposition 75.

Give California workers the freedom and choice we all
deserve and help restore union members’ political rights.

Learn more, visit www.caforpaycheckprotection.com.

MILTON FRIEDMAN, Nobel Prize Winner

LEWIS UHLER, President
National Taxpayer Limitation Committee

ALLAN MANSOOR, Member of Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 75

PROPONENTS ARE ONLY PRETENDING TO PROTECT WORKERS.

Prop. 75’s sponsor, Lewis Uhler, told the San Francisco
Chronicle
on June 8th that he designed 75 to target public employees because of their “greed” and “arrogance.” Uhler and the big corporations funding 75 aren’t trying to protect workers—they’re trying to silence them.

WORKERS ALREADY ARE PROTECTED

The U.S. Supreme Court says no public employee can be forced to join a union and contribute dues to politics. Union members already elect their own leaders and participate in internal decisions. Of course, not every member agrees with every decision of the group. That’s democracy.

PROP. 75 IS NOT ABOUT FAIRNESS

“This year, our kids’ schools have been under attack by initiatives paid for by big corporations. Some would permanently cut annual school funding by $4 billion.

“Prop. 75 would limit teachers’ ability to fight such harmful proposals in future elections through our unions, but does nothing to limit the big developers and banks behind this attempt to cut school funding.

“Prop. 75 is designed to make us spend time and money on a government-imposed bureaucratic process instead of fighting for our schools and our kids.”

Heidi Chipman, Teacher, Kraemer Middle School

Others will lose. Nurses fighting for hospital staffing protection . . . Police and Firefighters fighting against elimination of survivor benefits for those who die in the line of duty. Their labor unions are restricted under Prop. 75, but their opponents are not.

Please stop this unfair attack on teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. Vote NO on Prop. 75.

Visit www.prop75NO.com.

LIEUTENANT RON COTTINGHAM, President
Peace Officer’s Research Association of California

MARY BERGAN, President
California Federation of Teachers

DEBORAH BURGER, President
California Nurses Association

Argument Against Proposition 75

Prop. 75 is unnecessary and unfair. Its hidden agenda is to weaken public employees and strengthen the political influence of big corporations.

Prop. 75 does not protect the rights of teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. Instead it’s designed to reduce their ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care, and public safety.

In 1998, voters rejected a similar proposition and union members voted NO overwhelmingly.

TARGETS TEACHERS, NURSES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND POLICE

Why does 75 target people who take care of all of us?

Recently, teachers fought to restore funding the state borrowed from our public schools, but never repaid. Nurses battled against reductions in hospital staffing to protect patients. Police and firefighters fought against elimination of survivor’s benefits for families of those who die in the line of duty.

Prop. 75 is an unfair attempt to diminish the voice of teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police at a time when we need to hear them most.

Prop. 75 only restricts public employees. It does not
restrict corporations—even though corporations spend shareholders’ money on politics. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics says corporations already outspend unions in politics nationally by 24 to 1. Prop. 75 will make this imbalance even worse.

CURRENT LAW ALREADY PROTECTS WORKERS

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.

Union members already have the right to democratically vote their leaders into and out of office and to establish their own internal rules concerning political contributions. Prop. 75 takes away union members’ right to make their own decisions and substitutes a government-imposed bureaucratic process.

VIOLATES EMPLOYEES’ PRIVACY

Prop. 75 requires members who want to participate
to sign a government-imposed personal disclosure form that could be circulated in the workplace. This form, with information about individual employees and their political contributions, could be accessed by a state agency—an invasion of individual privacy which could raise the possibility of intimidation and retaliation against employees on the job.

WHO’S BEHIND PROP. 75?

Its lead sponsor is Lewis Uhler, a former John Birch Society activist, who campaigned for Bush’s Social Security privatization plan.

It’s funded by the deceptively named Small Business
Action Committee, which is financed by large corporations.

Backers of 75 say they want to protect workers’ rights, but that’s not true. They’re against the minimum wage, against protecting employee health care, against the 8-hour day. Backers of 75 aren’t for working people, they want to silence working people who stand against them.

VOTE NO ON 75

Please help stop this unfair attempt to apply restrictions to unions of public employees, such as teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and sheriffs that would apply to no one else.

LOU PAULSON, President
California Professional Firefighters

BARBARA KERR, President
California Teachers Association

SANDRA MARQUES, RN, Local President,
United Nurses Associations of California

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 75

Despite what union leaders would like you to believe, public opinion surveys show that nearly 60% of union households SUPPORT PROPOSITION 75.

Proposition 75 is NOT about the political influence of unions or corporations—it’s simply about INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

A nonpartisan employee rights group measured the results of a Paycheck Protection measure in Washington State. Its findings showed that 85% of teachers chose NOT to participate in their union’s political activities.

Consider the recent actions by the prison guard union
and teacher union—is this fair?

Despite opposition from more than 4,000 prison guards, their union increased dues by $18 million over two years to pay for political campaigns and to give to politicians.

WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP, the teachers union recently increased dues by $50 million over three years in order to fund political campaigns.

This is NOT a fair choice—it’s not what our teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees deserve.

YES ON 75 will simply ask public employee union
members for their approval before automatically using dues for political purposes.

Proposition 75 will NOT prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be CLEARLY VOLUNTARY. It will hold public employee union leaders more ACCOUNTABLE to their membership.

There are no hidden agendas. No power grabs. Just protecting workers’ rights. Read the official Title and Summary for yourself—it’s really that simple.

VOTE YES ON 75—let individuals, not union leaders, decide whether their dues should be spent on politics.

JAMES GALLEY, Past Vice President
AFSCME/AFL-CIO, Local 127

ARCHIE CAUGHELL, Member
Service Employees International Union

PAMELA SMITH, Member
California Teachers Association

 

Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

 

Back to the Top