Town Square

Post a New Topic

"No on 32" equates to "I Like What Happened to Detroit"

Original post made by Joe, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2012

Vote Yes on 32

For 40 years the autoworkers' unions and politicians kept a lock on the Detroit auto industry...in return for favorable government regulations and concessions, the Unions delivered the vote each and every election. In the meantime, overseas automakers had time to advance their craft and eventually develop a superior product.

Here in 2012, the US auto industry is struggling and a lot of Detroit is literally a ghost town. Whole city blocks have been cleared, cities are in or close to bankruptcy, and there is no significant rebuilding taking place.

The combination of politicians, Unions, and union money built an unsustainable infrastructure that collapsed like the house of cards it was as soon as the economy got tough. The infrastructure never learned how to compete in a global economy because they were never forced to do so.

Stop the cycle where it starts - stop the Union money. At least give the Union members the ability to choose what to do with their hard-earned dollars.

Vote Yes on 32!

Comments (6)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ptown native
a resident of Stoneridge
on Nov 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm

I agree....it's some scary stuff that people
are so unaware of (even recent) history.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Yes 32 , pay protection
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2012 at 9:20 am

Absolutely yes, worker should have control over own paychecks.
Hands off, without worker's permission !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Nov 6, 2012 at 11:55 am

I'm voting "NO" on Prop 32.

I've read the proposition as wel as the pro and con arguments. What convinced me to vote "NO" was a couple of sentences in the State Attorney General's summary in the Voter Information Guide.

While Prop 32 "Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.", it also allows "Other political expenditures [to] remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition."

So what does that mean to me, the voter who likes to know who is funding what politician and/or other campaign? It means that corporations who are not under any payroll restriction can continue to pay for the candidate or proposition of their choice. It means that even more money in our broken political funding system from cororations and individuals will be channelled to PACS/SuperPacs who are under no obligation to disclose donor lists in time for voters to make an informed decision.

Don't believe me? $11 million dollars was just contributed by two Arizona groups to defeat Prop 30 and pass Prop 32. And we, the voters, don't know who the big money contributers are.

Web Link

"An Arizona group can continue to withhold documents related to an $11 million contribution to a California political action committee while it appeals a lower court ruling, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled Friday. The decision makes it increasingly unlikely that voters will know the source of the money before Election Day."

Web Link

I urge a "NO" vote on Prop 32. We need *real* campaign reform, not more rules that allow big money millionairs and corporations to further skew our elections.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tennessee Jed
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Nov 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm

I wouldn't listen to anything Kamala Harris [State Attorney General] had to say or recommend! Sorry you felt her arguments were enough to sway your vote. Perhaps a closer look at her and her record would have made a difference in your vote. BTW, thank you for your considered effort to vote responsibly...Jed


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2012 at 2:44 pm

But Jed, are you saying that what Harris said was factually incorrect? I too voted against prop 32 for the same reasons as "Billie". Facts are facts, regardless of who says them, right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tennessee Jed
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Nov 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm

The "Baker Act" [been around a while], allows anyone in a union to "opt out" of the portion of their dues that go to political causes. My beef is the opt-out requirement. It is a difficult process that needs to be done each year. Unions are usually reticent to make those $ adjustments and/or reimbursement. Additionally, and from my own experience as a long time union member [3 separate unions in my working carrier] I have found this to be the case. Pressure was ALWAYS brought to bare to not submit those forms yearly. A yes on 32 would at least require the opt-in format, which would allow any member to exercise their 1st amendment rights to contribute. I understand the argument of the "Big Corporations" gaining an upper hand. But would you not agree if your cause is just, then the support should follow with "voluntary contributions". Just as with coerced charitable contributions [Years of experience with United Way at the workplace]. Just let everyone make their own decisions for contributions, that is why I voted yes on 32.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 32 comments | 2,208 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 896 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 741 views