HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 27, 2008, 07:47 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
Discussion
Stupid Ammendments

I don't understand these ammendments from Colorado this year. It just doesn't make sense what I'm hearing...

We have this "Ammendment 49" which would make it illegal for public employers (city, state, etc) from taking money from workers paychecks for any purpose other than legal and tax obligations. I suspect this would eliminate some voluntary and perhaps even some involuntary "contributions" that employees are currently making. The voter blue book that I have says that employees would still be allowed to contribute to whoever they want regardless of who they work for, so it doesn't step on anyone's right to support their favorite organisations...

So why this kind of statement about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NO on 49
AMENDMENT 49 will weaken the voice of small, local businesses and limit the way firefighters, nurses, teachers and police officers can choose to spend their hard-earned paychecks
How does prohibiting paycheck deduction silence anyone? I suspect it may make it harder for certain organizations to gather funds, since people will actually have to want to support them, and I also think those previous recipients are the ones who are against this. Am I on the right track or what? I'm not sure what to think about these amendments sometimes when the spin is so confusing.

What I think goes on here is
1. <cop/firefighter/teacher> as a condition of employment, has automatic paycheck deductions which to organizations of a political nature.
2. Some <cops/teachers/firemen> don't support said organizations but are forced to pay them anyway, so they create a new law to stop it
3. Organizations fight back with an argument based on the assumption that they are the only political voice for these public employees... but they are just afraid of being cut off.

Do I have this right? People can still support the organizations if they want to - but they aren't forced to... how can putting a stop to this possibly be a bad thing?
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 07:50 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
And just be clear... I reaallly don't understand this....

Quote:
limit the way firefighters, nurses, teachers and police officers can choose to spend their hard-earned paychecks
Doesn't it actually GIVE them choices they don't have now??!!
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 07:56 PM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
Reads like a sneaky amendment the unions have placed on the ballot to gain more power in Colorado. Worded to fool the people that just vote 'NO'.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new.../18/yes-on-49/
"As you may have guessed, we support Amendment 49 - just as we previously supported various versions of this policy at the local level. It would block state and local government agencies from deducting dues or fees from employee paychecks for unions or other membership groups.

Amendment 49 would restore an executive order Gov. Bill Owens issued in 2001 affecting unionized state workers and extend it to local governments. Gov. Bill Ritter repealed the executive order soon after taking office.

Deductions required by law (income tax withholding, for example), court orders (child support, garnishments) and company policy (medical premiums, retirement contributions) would still be allowed. So would contributions to the United Way and other charitable groups as part of employer-sponsored fundraising."
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:01 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
Donating to political causes is considered free speech. Donating to a union via payroll deduction is free speech. By preventing such deductions, the amendment seeks to effectively limit free speech. If you believe in free speech, vote no. If you think employers should be able to limit this type of speech, vote yes.

At his page find and read the Bell's ballot guide for more. http://www.thebell.org/

BTW I am a member of the ACLU, and prefer speech be as free as possible.

Whatever you decide, good for you to take the time to be informed.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:02 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
So the commercial with the bank teller dividing up the firefighter's paycheck is complete horse pucky.... I love this time of year

I say if the Colorado Professional Firefighters want their money they should have to raise it like everyone else. Am I correct in assuming that they currently get a lot of their funding from involuntary paycheck deductions?
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:06 PM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
Miami Lakes, Florida, USA
Joined Mar 2003
8,481 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4rs
Reads like a sneaky amendment the unions have placed on the ballot...
If nothing else, at least you showed everyone how confusing the issue is.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...itiative_(2008)

Quote:
Opposition

Public employee unions see this as the independence Institute's latest effort to undermine public-employee unions. The institute is also working on a ballot issue that would prohibit unions from making contributions to political candidates.
Without putting too much effort into sorting out an amendment that doesn't concern me, I'd say that it doesn't sound like something that belongs in a state's constitution. Leave it to your state's congress and don't saddle them with a restrictive amendment that most Colorado voters probably don't understand.
Miami Mike is offline Find More Posts by Miami Mike
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:08 PM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
If you believe in free speech, vote no. If you think employers should be able to limit this type of speech, vote yes.

At his page find and read the Bell's ballot guide for more. http://www.thebell.org/

BTW I am a member of the ACLU, and prefer speech be as free as possible.

Whatever you decide, good for you to take the time to be informed.

What a load of !
How does this limit free speech?
Here's a direct link from Gregs post.
http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/BallotGu...dment49web.pdf

Here's what the last bit for mine says.
"The free deduction and collection of dues is a special benefit denied to most other worthy civic organizations.

Should Amendment 49 pass, unions and other organizations benefiting from free collections would simply share the same fundraising challenges that other groups successfully confront all the time. And that would hardly be the end of the world. Banks routinely set up automatic withdrawals so that their customers can pay any number of bills or, say, make retirement contributions. Deducting union dues should be a snap.
"
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:13 PM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
Miami Lakes, Florida, USA
Joined Mar 2003
8,481 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4rs
Should Amendment 49 pass, unions and other organizations benefiting from free collections would simply share the same fundraising challenges that other groups successfully confront all the time.
What happened to "Reads like a sneaky amendment the unions have placed on the ballot"?
Miami Mike is offline Find More Posts by Miami Mike
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:13 PM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
If any thing this gives your the RIGHT to decide how you pay your UNION dues.
You can still have them deducted from your bank account, just means the UNIONS cannot take it directly from your paycheck.
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:16 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine2501
So the commercial with the bank teller dividing up the firefighter's paycheck is complete horse pucky.... I love this time of year ?
Yes. The commerical is a lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine2501
I say if the Colorado Professional Firefighters want their money they should have to raise it like everyone else. Am I correct in assuming that they currently get a lot of their funding from involuntary paycheck deductions?
Not really. It's a bit complex. A majority of CPFF are in a union and pay their dues via paycheck deduction. Just as a majority of Denver police officers are in the police union and pay their union dues via paycheck deduction.

The issue is, right now even those FF and police who are not in the union must pay some dues. The legislative history is long and complex; basically, history has shown that when non-union employees don't have to pay dues ('open shop'), it weakens unions and that fact is often used by empoloyers to weaken or damage the union. The Taft-Hartly Act in 1947 OK'd 'closed shops' (all employees must join the union financially if a majority of employees voted for a union). Taft-Hartley is considered a pro-labor law. Unions feel it levels the playing field vs. the employer. Employers don't like it.

Amend. 49 is designed to weaken unions by permitting open shops. I side with the unions on this issue, as do most pro-labor people, and have voted 'no' on 49. Republicans/conservatives/pro-business people often prefer open shops because it weakens unions and a fairness argument can be made, although IMO it is a poor fairness argument. Repubs/Cons./pro-business tend to vote 'yes' on this amendment. YMMV.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:24 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
I was a member of UFCW for many years, and we did go on strike at one time, which was really hard because I didn't get much money and I had two kids, but I did get some money. Overall I think it helped me and the other workers and I would join that union again if asked... but I think someone should be asked if they want to join it and I don't think joining a union should be a condition of employment, and I don't think there should be any penalty for not joining the union. I can see where this gets complicated though, because even the non-union workers benefit from the union activities.

I did not understand that this 49 thing was about unions. That makes it much more clear.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:25 PM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
The only way this 'weakens' a union is by not letting them take money directly from someones paycheck.
You can still set up a direct payment from your own bank.
Voting NO allows unions to granish someones paycheck.
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:28 PM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami Mike
What happened to "Reads like a sneaky amendment the unions have placed on the ballot"?

Whoosh
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:30 PM
Registered User
Usta Bee's Avatar
Joined Jul 2004
3,771 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4rs
garnishments
$5 a week deducted for parsley.
Usta Bee is online now Find More Posts by Usta Bee
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 08:33 PM
Happy Trees
m4rs's Avatar
Colorady
Joined Mar 2005
1,332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usta Bee
$5 a week deducted for parsley.
I prefer pickles or peppers.
m4rs is offline Find More Posts by m4rs
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools