Prop. 226

Tom Condit tomcondit at igc.apc.org
Sun May 24 22:25:45 PDT 1998


From: ia728 at primenet.com (Michael Everett) (by way of Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher at igc.apc.org>) Subject: California Restaurant Association memo on 226; Support Drops

for 226; LA Times Letters on 226

Interested persons can get a letterhead copy of this memo from Judith Barish (415-986-4003) at the state Federation of Labor.

Michael Everett =========================================================

California Restaurant Association Government Affairs, Membership and Chapters Office 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1480 Sacramento, Ca 95814

TO: Members of the Board of Directors FROM: Michael Hawkins, President DATE: May 11, 1998 RE: California Restaurant Association Support for Proposition 226 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- I am writing to advise you that earlier this week, the Executive Committee voted to support Proposition 226, the Campaign Reform Initiative, on the June ballot, and further to contribute $125,000 in support of the campaign. This contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the National Restaurant Association. The decision by the Executive Committee was made in consultation with the Government Affairs Committee.

Proposition 226 would require employee's or union member's permission to withhold wages or union dues for political contributions. It would also prohibit foreign contributions to state and local candidates.

The Association took this action because restaurant owners and operators in California have been under attack for years by labor union officials, most notably when unions sponsored Proposition 210 that added $1.50 to the minimum wage. These hikes have cost restaurants hundreds of millions of dollars since 1996. These union leaders have rejected any accommodation for restaurants and other businesses that must pay additional wages to employees already earning far in excess of the minimum wage. They have maintained this offensive by proposing this year further minimum wage hikes of 75-cents to a dollar. Worst of all, these minimum wage increases have cost jobs in the restaurant industry for the same low-wage workers that labor union leaders claim to protect.

Union officials also are sponsoring numerous other policies that would increase costs for and reduce jobs in restaurants; increased unemployment compensation, increased workers' comp. benefits, mandatory benefits for part-time employees, and imposition of the eight-hour overtime rule, among others.

Our fight is with these labor union officials who call restaurants and other businesses "poverty wage employers," not with elected officials from any party. We are anxious to work with elected officials from both parties who understand and are sensitive to the special impacts that the minimum wage and other regulations place on restaurants and small businesses.

Our involvement in this initiative likely will draw media attention. The magnitude of this issue dictates that CRA has and articulates a clear and consistent position. therefore, please refer all media calls and requests to me. I will act as the spokesperson for the Association.

The Executive Committee believes that support for Proposition 226 by the California Restaurant Association is an appropriate, focused response to these attacks by labor unions and the narrowing options available to our members for improving public policies. If approved by the People, it is our belief that Proposition 226 will make union leadership more responsive to their members, many of whom are sensitive to the concerns of small businesses.

======================================

Support Drops for Calif. Union Plan

Saturday, May 23, 1998; 5:41 a.m. EDT

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Support has plummeted for a statewide initiative that would weaken the political clout of unions, while a measure to end bilingual education retains strong backing, according to a poll published today.

Proposition 226 would require labor unions to get annual permission from a member before using dues for political purposes. It has support from 51 percent of likely voters surveyed, down from 66 percent in April, the Los Angeles Times poll said.

Opponents have spent $15 million on a recent TV advertising campaign.

Proposition 227, which would essentially dismantle bilingual education statewide, is supported by 63 percent of likely voters, the same as in April.

The measure is supported by about two-thirds of both Hispanic and white voters.

Pollsters interviewed 1,097 registered voters from May 16-20, including 506 voters considered likely to cast ballots. The margin of sampling error for registered voters is 3 percentage points; the margin for likely voters is 5 percentage points.

© Copyright 1998 The Associated Press

=======================================

Saturday, May 23, 1998

Effects of Proposition 226

* Your recommendation for a no vote on Proposition 226 is a surprise (editorial, May 17). I would like to believe that The Times is for free speech and the right for people to choose. Obviously not. Your statement that all the members of a union have to do is vote, and that would eliminate the officers in the union that they may disagree with, is naive at best. More than 30% of union members are Republicans. Most unions belong to the AFL-CIO. During the last presidential election, the AFL-CIO gave millions of dollars to defeat Republicans. Why should my union dues go to a political organization that I oppose?

In today's atmosphere, it is impossible for union members to change the bias in their officers. All union political forums favor the Democrats and discriminate against Republicans.

STERLING H. SMILEY

Montrose

* * *

* One genuine concern about Proposition 226 was not covered in your editorial. The California Legislative Counsel, an arm of the California government, issued a statement on May 4 stating that all payroll deductions would be affected, including those for charitable donations. This means that any employer, whether nonprofit or for profit, that makes payroll deductions for its employees--even if the organization is not unionized or involved in politics--will be covered by the initiative's far-reaching and imprecise language. Supporters of the proposition are arguing that nonprofits are not affected, despite the statement from the legislative counsel.

Proposition 226 goes beyond affecting union dues. It could affect all employer-employee deductions.

HENRY R. McCARTY

Palm Desert

* * *

* I can find no justification for the contention in your editorial against Proposition 226 that it would "push" corporations "to seek permission from employee-share- holders before making any political or social donations, a loss to local culture and charities." Proposition 226 applies to deductions from employees' wages and could in no way be interpreted as restricting charitable donations from corporate funds.

JACK CRAWFORD

Ridgecrest

* * *

* I disagree with those who say that William Gould, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, should be chastised for his stand against Proposition 226 (May 7). Gould should be commended for sharing his views with the public on this anti-union, union-busting measure, which will appear on the June 2 ballot. President Clinton has already announced his opposition to Proposition 226.

JACK L. RUGH

San Gabriel

* * *

* So Gov. Pete Wilson supports Proposition 226 because individuals should have the right to free choice with their own money. He wants to prevent unions from spending members' money indiscriminately on causes that workers oppose.

Great! Can we do the same thing with state taxes?

MICHAEL BEATRICE

Venice

Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.

Copyright Los Angeles Times

At 12:44 PM 5/23/1998 -0400, Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote:
>
>Can someone let me know what's going on these days with Prop. 226? Who's
>ahead in the polls? And, is the opposition better organized than it was
>for Prop. 209? I'm under the impression that it's being backed financially
>by non-Californians--how are they presenting themselves?
>
>Thanks,
>Frances Bolton
>still not quite over the shock of being in CA during the Prop. 209
>campaign.
>
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list