Thursday, May 21, 1998
MEChA, teachers attack union spending proposition
POLITICS: New bill would require member support of political
contributions
By Christy Lin
Daily Bruin Contributor
Proposition 226 – the initiative that will require the consent
of union members before mandatory fees can be used for political
campaigns – is under fire from the same opponents as Proposition
209.
"We’re adamantly against it," said Andres Martinez, Movimiento
Estudiantil Chicana/o Aztlan (MEChA) community and labor
coordinator.
"What it seeks to do is to silence the working people’s voice by
not allowing unions to directly fund campaigns." Martinez
added.
On June 2, voters will be deciding the fate of the Campaign
Reform Initiative, which requires public and private employers and
labor organizations to obtain permission from employees and members
before withholding pay or using union dues or fees for political
contributions.
A second part of the initiative will prohibit contributions to
state and local candidates from foreign nationals and foreign
corporations.
According to the Senate Office for Research, proponents argue
that union members should be entitled to decide if and how their
money is spent on politics.
Initiative author Mark Bucher was inspired to write Prop. 226 by
teachers he met who were having money taken from their paychecks to
fund school board candidates they did not support.
Proponents say it gives people the choice of whether to fund
their employer’s or union’s political escapades.
"It’s wrong to force union dues for politics or ballot
initiatives that the worker opposes," said Kristy Khachigian, press
secretary for Yes on Prop. 226.
"There’s overwhelming support from union members," she said,
adding that the latest polls show the bill has a 26 point lead in
passing.
The bill’s proponents include Gov. Pete Wilson, the honorary
chair of the campaign.
However, the California Federation of Teachers, as well as
numerous other unions, does not endorse Prop.226.
Opponents argue that this measure has been created by large
corporations to silence the working class and unions.
"It unfairly singles out unions in the political arena and
allows the corporations to stay intact," said Andrea Adleman, a
spokesperson from the No on Prop. 226 campaign.
"If you weaken unions and weaken their voice you hurt a union’s
ability to fight for community activities such as scholarships and
… quality of life issues," she added.
United Farm Workers co-founder Delores Huerta and the
California’s Public Employees Retirement System have both openly
rejected the proposition.
At UCLA, campus groups in the Affirmative Action Coalition have
also taken a stance against Prop. 226.
Labeled as another "Sneaky Wilson Attack," opponents think that
the proposition will make it impossible to fight for increases in
the minimum wage, improvements in schools, Medicare, Social
Security, health and safety regulations, immigrant rights and basic
civil rights.
According to Mike de la Rocha, the USAC general
representative-elect, the student groups supporting affirmative
action will conduct precinct walks and phone banks to educate
people about the proposition and urge them to vote against it.
"They use a lot of confusing terminology and ambiguous terms, so
people aren’t really clear as to what they’re doing," said Samahang
Pilipino Chair Mark Ng.
"If 226 passes, it silences our whole community because of the
fact that they’re not allowed to participate in the political
process, which is something we rely on," Ng explained.
The fight against this initiative will be combined with other
opposition against Prop. 209, the initiative banning affirmative
action, and Prop. 227, the initiative banning bilingual education
programs.