Let’s imagine a country, shall we? Let’s pretend this make-believe country operated in a democratic fashion where the citizens not only chose their own leaders, but they directly voted on the most significant actions their country would ever take. You’d probably think that the citizens of this country were well represented in the actions that they take collectively.
But, continuing the illusion, what if the citizens whose minority interests were not always represented decided that they should, therefore, have veto power over their own tax money. After all, the country’s leadership only represents the majority interest of its citizens; so, shouldn’t all citizens have control over how their tax money is spent? Rather than answer that directly, let’s just ask ‘How effective would this country be if all its citizens had a line-item veto over its governmental budget?’
The answer should be obvious. And the purpose of Proposition 75 should also be obvious.
Proposition 75 ostensibly gives public service union members the right to withdraw their union membership dues from political contributions and public relations campaigns. This initiative seeks to do what no governing body in the world would or could abide: giving individual members line-item veto power over the organization's budget.
With Schwarzenegger’s popularity implosion due almost entirely to a well-orchestrated media blitz by these very unions, is it any wonder the Republicans are trying to destroy them? Of course, destroying unions is a Republican reflex thoroughly welded into their core values. And Prop 75 is all about destroying unions.
As the name defines itself, unions exist as a collective power. The only way to neuter a union is to fray its collective nature. Prop 75 is the thread by which Republicans hope to unravel the challenge to their power which unions represent. As very democratic institutions—infinitely more democratic than what we tolerate from our federal government—why can’t this issue be resolved within the union, if in fact it is such a point of internal contention? Why is the non-union general public settling this internal dispute on a ballot initiative? Union members are currently able to choose their leadership and to have direct votes on decisions important enough to supercede the authority of their representatives: we should have such democracy in all our public institutions! These unions are well suited to handle the internal disputes of its membership.
That said, we’re not sure this Proposition will be as effective at destroying the public unions as its proponents wish. Being democratic institutions, the decisions made by its leadership are already broadly accepted by its membership. And if they remain smart, the unions can adjust to whatever shortfalls may ensue from their minority disgruntled membership. Nevertheless, defeating this proposition should be a high priority for all working people.
It’s worth noting that on the official California Voting Guide the first name in support of this amendment is Milton Friedman. His title is simply Nobel Prize Winner. We’re not sure why Friedman would dedicate himself to the inner workings of public unions in California. We suspect that Prop 75 simply fits nicely into this University of Chicago economist’s general predisposition towards union-busting and dictator-fellating—no, he didn’t win the Nobel Prize for peace, just for contributing to the decimation of Latin American economies and democracies.
