The New York Sun, October 3, 2005, Monday

Copyright 2005 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC
All Rights Reserved
The New York Sun

October 3, 2005 Monday

SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 4

HEADLINE: Calif. Ballot Measure May Sharply Reduce Union Clout

BYLINE: By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO

BODY:
A ballot measure that will go before California voters next month could reshape the state's political landscape by sharply reducing the clout of public-employee unions.
California's labor unions are casting the fight over the so-called paycheck protection referendum as a life-or-death struggle, while those on both sides of the battle predict that the proposition's passage could spawn a series of copycat measures in states across the country.
"This is a national battle for all of us," a top California labor leader, Sal Roselli of the Service Employees International Union, said. The ballot measure, known as Proposition 75, "would have a huge impact on our ability to spend money," he said.
Proponents of the initiative paint it as a simple effort to require that public-employee unions obtain the annual written consent of each member before using his or her dues for political purposes.
"The business of taking money without consent or without choice is downright un-American and, we believe, is the most fundamental violation of First Amendment protections," a leading backer of the measure, Lewis Uhler of the National Tax Limitation Committee, said.
When asked whether Proposition 75 is aimed at weakening the unions, Mr. Uhler's reply was a bit cagey. "This process has, as we can demonstrate it has, tilted the political playing field in California dramatically," he said in an interview. "If one by-product of restoring rights and fairness to our public employees is to tilt that same playing field back, so be it."
A statewide poll taken in late August by the Field Research Corporation found 55% of voters supported the paycheck protection measure and 32% opposed it.
Widespread support for the proposition appears to be riding on the public perception that California unions have a near stranglehold on many politicians in the state. Reports of lucrative contracts that a former Democratic governor, Gray Davis, signed with labor unions after receiving millions in campaign donations help fuel his ouster in a recall campaign in 2003.
Opponents of the proposition charge that it is part of a campaign by Governor Schwarzenegger and his allies to silence unions that have clashed with him repeatedly during his nearly two years in office.
"The governor and his corporate supporters, what they want to do with 75 is stop our voice and stop the voices of our students and ensure that they're the only voices in Sacramento that are heard," a second-grade teacher from Vallejo, Calif., Lynette Henley, told opponents of the initiative during a gathering in San Francisco last week. "We don't want that, and we can't have that."
The campaign against the proposition has amassed more than $22 million, largely from the affected unions. Ads opposing the measure have been on television for weeks. However, those supporting the measure have had trouble financing an equivalent campaign. After Mr. Schwarzenegger formally endorsed the paycheck protection proposition two weeks ago, donations to Mr. Uhler's group have picked up, though they lag far behind that of the opposition.
A good indication of the political stakes involved came last week, when a legislative hearing called to discuss the measure erupted into a shouting match between supporters of the proposition and Democratic lawmakers who oppose it.
The elected officials pressed Mr. Uhler on whether he would support a law requiring that his organization get permission from its members before spending their dues for political purposes.
"The question is not appropriate," Mr. Uhler replied, arguing that people who join his group know what causes it supports.
"We were elected, not you," a state senator, Richard Alarcon, shot back. "And we will decide what's relevant to this committee."
Mr. Uhler eventually conceded that he would not want the requirements of Proposition 75 applied to his group.
The Democratic lawmakers pointed out that state employees already have a right to opt out of union membership and receive a partial refund of dues, including all monies used for political purposes.
"They currently have the right to say no," Mr. Alarcon observed.
Mr. Uhler argued that those who want to leave the union have to comply with "often daunting procedural steps" to get a rebate. When asked to describe the procedure, he said that an employee who wants to get the refund has to send a letter to a specified address each September, preferably by registered mail.
Legislators opposed to the measure said the opt-out process cannot be that burdensome, because 25% of state employees currently elect not to join a union. "I would just submit that sending a letter is not an onerous or difficult procedural requirement," a state assemblyman, David Jones, said.
One unknown in the current debate is what percentage of state employees would choose to contribute to the unions' political funds if the measure passed. "There no doubt will be a reduction. The question is how serious will that impact be," a professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University, Richard Hurd, said. "It's the kind of thing that could have a big impact in terms of political outcomes."
In 1992,voters in the state of Washington passed a similar measure that prohibited the use of dues for political purposes. The state's major teachers' union saw an 80% drop in the number of members donating to its political efforts.
However, the Washington ballot initiative led unions to rearrange their finances, directing more money toward issue advocacy and educational outreach. Investigations and legal challenges followed, along with some tinkering by the state Legislature. Facing litigation, the teachers' union agreed to refund $450,000 in disputed funds.
The California ballot measure may prompt a sense of deja vu from some voters. In 1998, a broader proposition that would have affected how all unions in the state raise political funds was defeated by a 53% to 47% margin.
The initiative to be voted on this year covers only public-employee unions. Proponents of the new measure said they focused on the public sector because that's where tax dollars are at work.
To fund the effort against Proposition 75 and other ballot measures, some California unions have imposed special assessments on members. The California Teachers Association recently boosted dues by $60 a member a year. A federal judge in San Jose is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday on a request by six California teachers for a restraining order blocking the increase.
Under federal law, employees of state and local governments are not guaranteed the right to organize unions. The Cornell professor, Mr. Hurd, said about 20 states do not allow public-employee unions or impose restrictions that render the unions largely ineffectual.