T1B

Variable wrote:

ChargerMike wrote: Havn't seen that as far as I know? I have seen teacher's firemen, and postal workers in Arnolds ad's rebutting the union ad's.

Word. Heard on the radio the other day (so it must be true) that one reason the union is shitting it's pants so badly on 75 is that they did an internal poll of CA gov't employees and roughly 60% said they were voting "Yes" on 75.

Variable wrote:

ChargerMike wrote: Havn't seen that as far as I know? I have seen teacher's firemen, and postal workers in Arnolds ad's rebutting the union ad's.

Word. Heard on the radio the other day (so it must be true) that one reason the union is shitting it's pants so badly on 75 is that they did an internal poll of CA gov't employees and roughly 60% said they were voting "Yes" on 75.

Unions face tough fight on Prop. 75

By Laura Kurtzman

Mercury News Sacramento Bureau


SACRAMENTO - As they mobilize to defeat a ballot measure that could sharply limit their political activities, unions are finding one of their toughest jobs is persuading their own members to oppose it.

Proposition 75 on the Nov. 8 special-election ballot would prohibit public-employee unions from using dues for political purposes without written consent from members.

And just like the last time this issue was put to a popular vote, many union members support the measure on its face, seeing it as an issue of basic fairness.

``I think it's an excellent idea,'' said David Bennett, a 39-year-old carpenter from Gilroy, who said he doesn't pay attention to the information his union sends him. ``You should know where your money is going.''

A poll commissioned by the unions in mid-August, before they began their television ad campaign against the measure, found their members were evenly split over Proposition 75.

Union officials say these numbers will change as they get their message out, but they acknowledge having to work hard: sending organizers to job sites, calling members at home and sending them e-mail, printed mail and DVDs.

``There's a natural reaction -- `sounds logical' -- until you dig down a little deeper,'' said Neil Struthers, CEO of the Building Trades Council of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties.

Linking governor to measure

Union leaders, who consider the proposal an attack on all organized labor, are trying to sway members against the ballot measure by saying it will empower Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed Proposition 75, to cut union benefits. The governor's campaign says that is untrue.

Union campaign workers say linking the governor to the ballot measure is one of the best ways to undermine it.

``My co-workers may not know the exact specifics of 75,'' said Erik Larsen, a neighborhood organizer with the city of San Jose who has been volunteering with the union effort against the measure. ``But Schwarzenegger's got a bad rap.''

Unions say 75 will weaken them while leaving corporations free to spend on political campaigns. They cite numbers from the 2004 federal election showing business interests outspent unions 24 to 1. But in this election, it is the unions that are out-raising Schwarzenegger and his business contributors 2 to 1. Large corporations have publicly shied away from financial backing for the measure, but the state Republican Party has contributed, as has a coalition of wealthy businessmen and anti-tax advocates.

Close race

The union survey by San Francisco pollster David Binder sampled 777 AFL-CIO-affiliated union members. Initially, they split 47 percent in favor of the measure to 46 percent against.

After being told that unions were losing power to corporations and that Proposition 75 was part of the governor's ``attack on union benefits,'' 34 percent favored the measure, while 52 percent opposed it.

Union strategists say Binder's poll does not reflect the views of public-employee unions that are not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, such as the California Teachers Association, which has been fighting the governor over education spending all year.

In a CTA survey of its members from early September, 32 percent supported Proposition 75 and 62 percent opposed it, according to Diane Feldman, a CTA pollster. After giving arguments for and against the measure, she said, support dropped to 18 percent, while opposition rose to 74 percent.

However, with 2 million members statewide, the AFL-CIO dwarfs the CTA, which has 335,000 members. About one in five California voter households has at least one union member.

Privately, union organizers say lack of enthusiasm for the special election, combined with fatigue among union and Democratic volunteers, who have faced an election every year since 2002, is making their job harder.

Majority support

No public polls have come out since the unions began their television ad campaign against Proposition 75 early last month. Those done earlier show that Proposition 75 is the only measure to enjoy majority support in an election that voters are viewing with weary skepticism.

Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, said that six years ago, unions defeated a similar measure, Proposition 226, despite even stronger initial support from its members and from the public at large.

He said the measure ultimately became so controversial that it drove union members to the polls.

``In Proposition 226, we had what we think is the highest percentage-wise turnout in any election,'' he said.

But changing people's minds is time consuming, union organizers say, and they face more voter apathy this year than they did in 1998, when Proposition 226 was part of a regularly scheduled election that featured a contested Democratic primary for governor.

``You really have to engage in conversation with people,'' said Larsen, the city of San Jose worker. ``It's work, I'll tell you that.''

Variable wrote:If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

``I think it's an excellent idea,'' said David Bennett, a 39-year-old carpenter from Gilroy, who said he doesn't pay attention to the information his union sends him. ``You should know where your money is going.''

Variable wrote:Like there's such a thing in a union.

Y2K wrote:

``I think it's an excellent idea,'' said David Bennett, a 39-year-old carpenter from Gilroy, who said he doesn't pay attention to the information his union sends him. ``You should know where your money is going.''

Can you imagine the gall of this guy? I mean if the Unions put those mega millions towards his benefit plans and not to some ad agency, TV or radio station, mass mailer and the USPS ect. he's thinking he might actually get something quite substantial in return for his Union Dues.

What an idiot.

Variable wrote:If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

BSmack wrote:

Variable wrote:

ChargerMike wrote: Havn't seen that as far as I know? I have seen teacher's firemen, and postal workers in Arnolds ad's rebutting the union ad's.

Word. Heard on the radio the other day (so it must be true) that one reason the union is shitting it's pants so badly on 75 is that they did an internal poll of CA gov't employees and roughly 60% said they were voting "Yes" on 75.

Oh yea! Well I heard that Prop 75 has the Dems so worried that Barbara Boxer has dispensed with her human form and taken her true form as the Antichrist.

Mikey wrote:

Variable wrote:If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

ChargerMike wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Variable wrote:If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

Then you should well know they are NOT attack ad's...just honest statements from teachers, firemen, and whatever speaking their opinion. Those ad's say not one word demeaning the other side...

Mikey wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:

Mikey wrote: And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

Then you should well know they are NOT attack ad's...just honest statements from teachers, firemen, and whatever speaking their opinion. Those ad's say not one word demeaning the other side...

Ahhhh....

Now there's the key words. You believe that. I don't.
If you'd take a few minutes to see who's actually behind these initiatives you'd realize that it's bullshit.

If you'd take a few minutes to see who's actually behind these initiatives you'd realize that it's bullshit.

Major donors backing the measure

Robin P. Arkley II, owner of a real estate and loan company in Eureka; California Republican Party; investment banker Frank Baxter, who helped found a conservative political action committee; A. Jerrold Perenchio; homebuilder William Lyon; Small Business Political Action Committee (contributors include mortgage company Ameriquest Capital, late Wal-Mart heir John Walton, California Business Properties Assn.)

Y2K wrote:So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as Ameriquest, John Walton and numerous other out of state Big Business or other Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is rolling down a different track now and it's about damn time.

Y2K wrote:So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as a Union Boss or Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is derailing and it's about damn time.

Mikey wrote:CM, the Governator is the main backer and impetus behind these bills, and he's pushing them as part of his "reform" agenda. I think that, since he is so out front on each of them and attached his name and political clout so closely to them, it's perfectly legitimate for the opponents to question his motives and sincerity.

Variable wrote:Gilroy is in the sticks and the entire city smells like garlic. It ain't exactly Beverly Hills North.

ChargerMike wrote:^^^^^^

Gilroy CALIFORNIA??

It's the freekin Garlic capitol of the world....A bunch of farms and and not much else. South of San Jose and Silicon Valley. I just went through there last week and didn't see anything but roadside shacks where they sell everything from garlic shakes to garlic toothpaste.

If there were any 3-5 hundred thousand dollar houses there they must come with huge acerage. Garlic and illegals...err pickers..that's all I sawr.

Y2K wrote:No 3 to 5 hundy is about right. It only shows how desperate the Bay Area peeps are to keep their commute to 1 to 2 hours for the 30 miles into San Jose so they can make all that "big money." A POS dwelling in San Jose is 4 to 5 hundred grand so living in Gilroy or Hollister with all the illegals and reeking of garlic 24/7 will cost ya a solid $2000 a month for a nicely painted shack with indoor plumbing. :P

Mikey wrote:

Y2K wrote:So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as Ameriquest, John Walton and numerous other out of state Big Business or other Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is rolling down a different track now and it's about damn time.

FTFY and no, that's not what I'm saying.

And I'm not saying that I'm satisfied with the status quo, either. But a lot of these so-called "reforms" are nothing but attempts by big money special interests, under the guise of "reform", to further enrich themselves. If you can't see that then you're as blind as the rest of them.

Variable wrote:I don't think that 75 is the complete answer. I think there should be another proposition that states that corporations cannot use company money for campaign causes without first getting the assent of the shareholders. Not only will it create a level playing field in American politics, but it will rein in even more special interest spending.

BSmack wrote:

Variable wrote:I don't think that 75 is the complete answer. I think there should be another proposition that states that corporations cannot use company money for campaign causes without first getting the assent of the shareholders. Not only will it create a level playing field in American politics, but it will rein in even more special interest spending.

You're a funny guy. You think if you vote for Prop 75 that sometime down the line, once the unions have been busted, that Arnie will propse a bill limiting corporate power?

Do I have to tell you about the tooth fairy too?

Variable wrote:Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

BSmack wrote:

Variable wrote:Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

Have you already forgotten your 2001 electric bills?

Enjoy the 2005 World Series at Enron Field.

History will repeat itself.

Variable wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Variable wrote:Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

Have you already forgotten your 2001 electric bills?

Enjoy the 2005 World Series at Enron Field.

History will repeat itself.

Ah, the time-tested BSmack tactic of pointing out one instance in time and pretending that that's the rule. :roll: Nice try, Slappy. Then again, maybe you were trying to point out how easily our Democrats can be bought off by special interests. If so, well done!

CA is a union-run red state. Your inability to see or admit the obvious doesn't change reality.

I'll give the Mikes a clue, he ain't no union carpenter.

Y2K wrote:

I'll give the Mikes a clue, he ain't no union carpenter.

Journeyman Union Carpenters in Northern California start at $32.00 an hour and make upwards to 40 on state and Federal Projects. Now what's that about a clue?

Diogenes wrote:Of course the Electrical problems were caused by the Democratic Legislature preventing the building of power plants for 20+ years in a energy importing state.

Said Dems being kept in power by the Unions.