Comments on: California’s Prop 75

By: muckdog

muckdog — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 06:56:20 +0000

Do you know what the process is for opting out of political fees? I think it’s a mystery to most union members; they didn’t know that they could opt out, and now that they do, they don’t know how to do it. With Prop 75 failing, I think a lot of folks would be interested in more information. I’m not a member, and a quick google search hasn’t led me to any “how to” sites…

By: R.P. McCosker

R.P. McCosker — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:28:56 +0000

I live in California (and’ve already voted for 75 by absentee) and, though I haven’t followed the campaign closely, find the ads against 75 in the electronic media both frequent and substantively ridiculous.

The basic slogan, as best as I remember it, is along the lines that 75 would “take away the voice” of public (that means government, boys and girls) employees, “while not doing anything about” corporations’ spending. Huh?

First, it doesn’t take away anybody’s *real* voice. The employees who’d opt out of political dues don’t want the union bosses speaking for them, so their voices are being taking away at all. (Indeed, it restores to them the power to not be spoken for against their will, which is the flipside of free speech.)

Second, the matter of corporate donations is a non sequitur. Protecting workers from this extortion has nothing to do with how corporations spend their money. It’s about as loopy as saying I can steal your car since Penguin Books reprints Jane Austen novels with paying royalties to her present-day heirs. So what, and what’s that got to do with anything?

I suppose the idea is that since corporations can give, unions ought to be able to do so too. But 75 doesn’t prevent the latter, it just doesn’t allow it to be extorted from individual members against their wills. And two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say.

So should corporations be restricted in political gift-giving? Obviously freedom demands that simple companies be allowed to do so. But aren’t corporations special legal entities protected by the government from normal liabilities? This’d certainly be a fruitful topic for discussion on the Mises Economics Blog.

BTW, my wife is a “public” schoolteacher, and getting back her union political fees is no mean feat. She has to call up the union each year, is treated hostilely over the phone as she makes an appointment, and then has to drive all the way over to the union headquarters — a place she absolutely never has occasion to go to otherwise — to be again rudely treated as she fills out the “necessary” paperwork.

By: Don Lloyd

Don Lloyd — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:21:14 +0000

Mark,

“union members already have a constitutional right to opt out of having their dues spent for political purposes and can get that enforced under union rules.”

For an individual union member, the financial return on investment for trying to assert that right is likely to be large and negative, even if you ignore the slashed tires in the parking lot.

Regards, Don

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:09:15 +0000

William Gould, a Stanford law professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board says “union members already have a constitutional right to opt out of having their dues spent for political purposes and can get that enforced under union rules.”

If that’s the case, why is this initiative necessary? Current law puts the burden on union members to “opt out” of political contributions, while this initiative would make it “opt in.” Is this a clear libertarian issue?

By: Sentient

Sentient — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 07:12:48 +0000

http://sentientexemployees.blogspot.com/ See Biggest Exploit and Hot fight between Employer and employees.

By: averros

averros — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:54:34 +0000

Considering that trade unions are simply organizations using the money collected from their members to aid and organize massive invasion of other people property rights, it is quite proper to take any measures to curb their ability to do so.

I voted for prop. 75.

And, yes, it would be a good idea to curb the ability of corporations to make political contributions. In fact, it would be a good idea to curb *all* political contributions whatsoever.

Anything that cuts the revenue streams of politicans is good. Because they *are* criminals, no matter what colors they running under.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:38:14 +0000

An ethical question
As a libertarian voter living in California and a non-union member working in the private sector, is it ethical for me to vote on this issue?
If I vote yes, on the grounds that union activism in the public sector leads to higher taxes on the private sector, is this an act of aggression? In other words, should the vote be restricted to union members only? (The secret ballot would seem to overcome the complaint that individual members feel intimidated by the union).
What about corporate political contributions?
If we apply the same logic as Prop 75 to corporations, it would require that corporations collect political contributions from individual shareholders, rather than just spending corporate revenue.
Gray Davis Campaign
In the previous election for Governor of California, Gray Davis spent a huge amount of money in the Republican primary running negative ads against Reardon. His strategy was to get Simon nominated as the Republican candidate because he was much more confident running against Simon than against Reardon. Was this ethical?