Payroll Deception

IT'S BACK!!  The right wing, anti-union corporate greed express train that has been making stops in various states around the nation has once again made its way to California.  The backers of the latest version of "paycheck deception" have qualified an initiative for the November 2012 ballot that could cripple our union.  Similar to Props 226 and 75, this new initiative will significantly limit our ability to raise funds to fight issues affecting our members.  The point is to silence our voice at the political level and ultimately at the worksite.  We need to put every effort toward defeating this terrible idea!

FACT SHEET: 2012 Paycheck Deception Measure   THE FACTS: PAYCHECK DECEPTION and UNIONS This measure goes straight at unions' ability to give their members a voice in politics. It prohibits ANY contributions collected via payroll deduction (ie member dues) to ballot measure committees as well as independent expenditures supporting or opposing state and local candidates and ballot measures. Further, the measure prohibits ANY direct contributions by unions to state and local candidates or the controlled committees of such candidates. Unlike Prop. 75, which targeted public sector unions, this measure would apply to ALL public and private sector unions. Members would be required to provide annual written authorization before unions can accept member funds received through means other than payroll deductions (which are banned outright) to ballot measures and independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates. PAYCHECK DECEPTION and CORPORATIONS While the initiative blocks corporations from using payroll deduction for political spending, corporations generally do not engage in payroll deduction, so the provision would not apply to most businesses. Corporations would still be permitted to make UNLIMITED independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates. The same goes for corporate contributions to ballot measures. Corporations will retain the ability to use corporate profits, rents, investment income, organizational dues from other corporations and any other source of non-employee based revenues to support political spending. Key differences between the 2012 Paycheck Deception measure & previous measures:    Learn more at www.CaliforniaLabor.org

Payroll deduction

One of California's hottest political issues, the automatic deduction of funds from payrolls for union dues, is heading back to the ballot in 2012. Payroll deduction is a do-or-die issue for unions and in the past has galvanized them into action. In 1998, the unions defeated it in a fierce campaign -- then led the charge to elect Gray Davis as governor six months later. In 2005, a similar proposal was rejected by voters.

From the Bee's Torey Van Oot: "A proposed initiative to block unions and corporations from using automatic payroll deductions for political purposes has made the cut to go in front of voters next November, the secretary of state announced today.. The measure, backed by GOP groups, also bans labor unions, corporations and, in some cases, contractors doing business with state government, from making contributions to candidate-controlled committees."

"Proponents of the measure reported spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect more than 900,000 voter signatures in support of the proposal. The office of Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today said that a validity check conducted by county election officials projected that at least 630,000 of those were valid-- well over the 504,760 voter signatures needed to secure a spot on the ballot."

"Supporters say the changes will help curb the influence of special interest money in the political process. Labor unions, which are expected to mount a major and well-funded opposition campaign to the initiative, say it is nothing more than an effort to strip them of their political power."

Federal prosecutors say they need more time to complete their investigation of Kinde Durkee, the Democratic campaign accountant who was arrested three months ago on fraud allegations involving multiple campaigns.

From the LAT's Patrick McGreevy: "A federal judge on Tuesday granted the request of Assistant U.S. Atty.  John K. Vincent to delay a preliminary hearing that had been scheduled for Friday for Durkee, and instead hold it Jan. 26."

"Durkee agreed to the postponement in a court filing in which Vincent wrote "the arrest in this case occurred at a time before the investigation was completed, and ... the case  is complex given the number of clients of Ms. Durkee and bank accounts involved."

"Durkee was in charge of more than 360 bank accounts for almost 100 candidates. They include U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and state Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), both of whom believe they lost campaign funds to Durkee."

California's job market is starting to get better, finally, although there are still-weak pockets, including Sacramento. The Bee's Dale Kasler tells the tale.

"It's not as if an economic boom is coming, but in the latest UCLA Anderson Forecast, to be released today, senior economist Jerry Nickelsburg said the past two months of hiring confirm that the state's job market is on a definite upswing."

"California payrolls have grown by 86,000 in the past three months, driving the unemployment rate to 11.7 percent in October. "Have we turned the corner in the Golden State? Perhaps we have," Nickelsburg wrote."

"But he warned that "a weak national and international outlook does not argue for the return of the recovery to be a robust return."

A just-retired federal judge in Fresno who drew widespread criticism for handling the Westlands Water District as a client shortly after he left the bench, has stepped back from the case. The Contra Costa Times' Mike Taugher has the story.

"In a statement dated Monday but apparently not distributed until Tuesday, the Fresno law firm of Wanger Jones Helsley said, "Recent media comment has raised confusion about the cases upon which former Judge Oliver W. Wanger may work as a private attorney."
 

"The statement added that neither Wanger nor the firm had done any actual legal work for Westlands and that the district is not now a client of Wanger or the firm."

"This decision will avoid misperception and diversion of attention from the merits of the case," the statement concluded. Wanger was in court and unavailable Tuesday afternoon, his assistant said."