Extensively modified since and will continue to update!
| Prop # | SF Chronicle | LA Times | Sacramento Bee | This blog |
| 73 | NO | NO | NO | YES |
| 74 | YES | YES | NO | YES |
| 75 | NO | YES | NO | YES |
| 76 | NO | NO | NO | YES |
| 77 | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 78 | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 79 | YES | NO | NO | NO |
| 80 | NO | NO | NO | NO |
UPDATE: Its been nice to see the site visitation at this blog jump up a bit because of people googling and yahooing for information about the propositions.
Occasionally, people do leave comments (THANK YOU!! It is always good to hear from readers!) and in most cases, it has been a good conversation. I'll leave comments up whether they agree with me or not. I'll only take down comments that are spam ads, contain egregiously offensive material or completely off topic. I've left the comment up at No on Prop 80 even though this person obviously disagreed with me and thinks I'm completely wrong about everything. My approach is if its clean and on topic, it stays. As Dennis Prager often says: I prefer clarity to agreement.
4 comments:
As a member of two unions, AFTRA and SAG, and I am a loooooong time member of AFTRA, I think it is very important that we vote 75 DOWN. Unions need to be able to speak with a unified voice.
What good is a union if it cannot speak for the main interests of its members? Corporations don't ask stockholders what they think when they send lobbyists out to speak for relaxation of environmental regulations and against the minumum wage and against national single-payer health care.
Unions are for all of the above, and rightly so. Corporations will go for profits over people every time. Prop 75 needs to be defeated.
Thanks for dropping by!
I think the issue on Prop 75 is whether the default should be to opt in or opt out in terms of transfering money to the unions from the paychecks to do political advocacy.
Prop 75 makes opt out the default position.
However, union members who support the positions advocated by their unions can freely opt in so their voice is protected.
The problem is that shift in responsibility...and the cost inherent in it. Personal responsibility says that if you don't support your union's position - you can either leave the union or choose to opt out. Why should we shift away from personal responsibility?
As a contentious share holder, I have to go out and select investments whose corporate policies I agree with - those companies in which I invest don't have to ask my permission. Why should the union be different?
Remember, not only can union members already opt out - employees don't even have to join the union (and they still get the benefit of collective bargaining even if they don't)
When it comes down to 78 vs. 79, I support 78. I think there are people out there who aren't getting drug coverage and need it now. 78 might not be perfect, but it will give low income families some relief until we can find a program that everyone agrees to. Just my 2 cents :)
As for some of the other props, I'm torn right now...still debating.
Post a Comment