California's Special Election: Arnold's Folly

Next Tuesday, the State of California will spend another $50 million on a special election that could have waited until April, or even November, 2006. Our governator, however, would have none of it, primarily because there might be some legal caps on the money he is raising and spending in favor of passing his agenda by circumventing the state legislature.

In any event, a state political action committee (Powerpac) sent me an email on one of the propositions that so neatly laid out the facts that I've decided to quote it in full.

--------------------------------------------------------

BETWEEN THE LINES
Why we must support labor and defeat Prop 75

Weekends. Paid vacation. Sick leave. The 8-hour workday. Overtime.

These are workplace benefits that have become a given in our society - rightfully expected and demanded by people in every job, from retail clerks to hospital nurses. Yet these basic protections and benefits were not bestowed on working people by corporate America, or even the government. They were hard-fought and won throughout history by employee labor unions.(1)

Now, in California and across the nation, labor unions are under attack. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is backing Proposition 75, funded largely by wealthy corporations and executives(2), which would severely restrict the ability of public employee unions, among the loudest champions for the public interest and progressive causes, to support political initiatives and candidates.

Prop 75 would require public employee unions to get written permission on a specific form from each of their members prior to spending any portion of dues money on political campaigns, and then send these records to the state. The initiative, as written,(3) is flawed in three main ways:

Employees can already opt out. Public employee unions by law currently enable anyone to decline that the dues or fees they pay to the union go toward political campaigns.(4)

Logistical nightmare. The California Teachers Association, for example, has 335,000 members spread across the state(5). Tracking down these teachers and getting each and everyone to fill out a form each year will drain away staff time and resources that could be spent negotiating contracts, lobbying on important education issues and providing professional development and training for teachers.

Disregards the democratic nature of unions. Union leaders are elected by rank and file members to make decisions about the organization's legislative and political goals. Unions have many
procedures for removing leadership that is not representative of the majority, and for protesting specific actions(6). As in any democracy, there will always be some disagreement and dissent.
Prop 75 would undermine the authority already granted to the union leadership through their own democratic process by bringing in an outside third party, the state.

Why is limiting labor's contribution in California politics so dangerous to those who care about social justice?

Not only do labor unions fight for protections and benefits for the workers they represent, they have been on the forefront of larger movements for social change throughout history, from ending child labor to bringing basic human rights to farm workers.

Unions have helped to reduce wage inequality in the workplace because they raise wages for low- and middle-wage workers, blue-collar workers and for workers who do not have a college degree.(7) Over time, unions have fought for wages that are now on average about 20% higher than their non-union counterparts.(8) Unionized workers are also up to 28% more likely to have health care provided by their employers, and up to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

In the California political arena, unions have supported issues and candidates that further a broad agenda including health care, education, civil rights, economic justice and environmental
protection.

Last year, the California Labor Federation led the fight for Proposition 72, which would have required large corporations to provide health insurance to workers and their families by
2006.(9) The measure lost narrowly, garnering 49.1% of the vote, and the sizable opposition was funded by corporate interests including the California Restaurant Association, Wal-Mart
and Target(10) - some of the same interests funding this year's special election.(11)

In 2002, the California Teachers Association raised nearly half of the funding for Proposition 47, which voters passed by 59.1%. Prop 47 authorized $13 billion in state bonds to build and renovate California schools, colleges and universities - a measure that was desperately needed to relieve overcrowding and repair crumbling facilities.(12)

In 2003 and 2004, locals of the Service Employee Union International - which as an organization strongly supports increases to the federal and state minimum wage(13) - contributed to several candidates for state assembly, including Karen Bass, Alberto Torrico, Ira Ruskin and Noreen Evans. All of these candidates were elected in 2004, and this year voted in favor of AB 48,(14) which would have provided a $1 increase and cost-of-living adjustments to the California minimum wage.

Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed this bill, which could have given a 15% pay raise for people working full time and making just $14,000 a year, in a California economy where it now takes more than
$60,000 for two working parents to make basic ends meet for their family.(15)

The reality is that corporate interests are backing Prop 75 because employee unions, representing millions of workers across the country, are their primary adversaries on the current political playing field. That means for the public, unions provide a critical counter-balance to corporate America's influence in politics.

Even before Prop 75, labor is outspent by big businesses in California more than 4-1, according to data from the Montana-based Institute on Money in State Politics.(16) Donations from employee unions in California made up 5.7% of the money given to candidates in 2004, compared with 26% from business interests.

What is the corporate agenda that, without a counter-force, will become even more strengthened in California? One of the leading pro-business lobbying groups, the National Federation of Independent Business, has a published a list of what they consider to be their "victories" in California. It includes things such as three years of defeating increases to the minimum wage, slashing family leave benefits and blocking efforts to expand health care coverage.(17)

This is what's at stake in this election, and these issues will continue to define the battle next year to determine the leadership of California for the rest of the decade.

----

(1) http://www.afscme.org/whatsnew/t10list.htm
(2) http://www.millionairesforprop75.com/
(3) http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf
(4) http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htUnionDues.html
(5) http://www.cta.org/CaliforniaEducator/v9i3/Action_1.htm
(6) http://www.uaw.org/lmrda.cfm
(7) http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp143
(8) http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030623ar01p1.htm
(9) http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHealthCare.html
(10) http://www.calaborfed.org/issues_politics/healthcare/SB2_Main.html
(11) http://www.powerpac.org/BetweenTheLines.asp
(12) http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2002nov/id/prop47.html
(13) http://www.seiu.org/action_center/issues_and_action/economic_security/minimum_wage.cfm
(14) http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
(15) http://www.cbp.org/2005/0509_mem.pdf
(16) http://www.followthemoney.org
(17) http://www.nfib.com/object/victoriesCA.html