Brothers and sisters- WE NEED YOUR HELP

[CALFFBOU]

If you have any relatives that live in California, please remind them to vote "No" on Prop. 75. It is anti-Firefighter.

Thanks, Bou

[pfd4life]

May I ask what is anti-FF in the Prop? Just curious..I would guess it has somthing to do with staffing..

[NonSurfinCaFF]

Technically its anti-union, firefighters are just one of the groups targeted. Prop 75 will restrict the ability of public employee unions to spend money on political issues. It only applies to public employee unions, not private sector unions, not buisnesses, not other special interest groups. I don't know if it was the intent but many are taking it as a shot against public employees, it will effect teachers, law enforcement, city tree trimmers etc in addition to firefighters.

[snowball]

BUMP!!

This is a real serious issue here folks. If it passes here it will be detremental to the public sector personnell in California. The hidden agenda behind this is almost the same as Proposition 226 which appeared on the ballot in March of 98. 226 tried to force ALL unions and associations to gain approval from members to spend money to lobby. Prop 75 focuses on public employees only. If Prop 75 passes you can expect other states to do the same.

From CSFA magazine by Afrack Vargas.
CSFA Legislative advocate.

"What Proposition 75 does is to nearly eliminate our ability to use those funds . It forces a bureaucratic process full of red tape on us so we have to spend an enormous amount of time trying toraise the money to be used fight for our rights. Proposition 75 destroys that level playing field, making it easier for anti-labor folksto come after your pensions, benefits and, ultimately all those rights and protections that labor unions worked so hard to obtain."

"It became known that his proposal would end suvivors' benefits for the widows and orphans of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty."

So please, if you have relatives or friends in California urge them to vote NO!! on Prop 75. Let's stop it here before it gets to you.
Thanks -sno

[FFTide]

Though I do see it's detriment to the fire service I wouldn't mind seeing the 800 pound gorrila known as the New Jersey Education Association take a hit like this (prop. 75). Though 226 sounded like a decent prop. where a unions money at least couldn't be spent without member consent.

[superchef]

I will be voting NO on this one.

[BFDLT32]

What about 74, 76, 77, and 78? I think that these are the one I see on T.V. all lumped into one add. I will pass this on the reletives and friends that live in CA.

[snowball]

What about 74, 76, 77, and 78? I think that these are the one I see on T.V. all lumped into one add. I will pass this on the reletives and friends that live in CA.

Thank you, we're a little nervous about this one.

[NonSurfinCaFF]

BUMP!!

"It became known that his proposal would end suvivors' benefits for the widows and orphans of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty."

You are not the first to mention this, and this part bothers me because I haven't seen anything to back this claim up, I can see why the restrictions on the unions would cause concern, but making claims like this (if false) makes me doubt some of the other statements. I understand you are repeating this not making this claim alone.

Where is this cut in survivors benefits coming from? I work for a federal agency and I don't get state benefits other CA firefighters get, so I am not familiar with all of them. The only LODD surviviors benefits I am aware of come from the Federal government or agency provided life insurance plans, neither of which have anything to do with the state.

Please understand I think this is a bad law but I don't know where this bit about LODD is coming from and it makes me wonder if some of the other issues with the proposition might be exagerated. I'm voting no but I would appreciate some clarification. Thanks

[CALFFBOU]

What about 74, 76, 77, and 78? I think that these are the one I see on T.V. all lumped into one add. I will pass this on the reletives and friends that live in CA.

No on all of those too.

[fireguy919]

No on all of those too.

Has been dispatched to family and friends. Good luck brothers.

[snowball]

You are not the first to mention this, and this part bothers me because I haven't seen anything to back this claim up, I can see why the restrictions on the unions would cause concern, but making claims like this (if false) makes me doubt some of the other statements. I understand you are repeating this not making this claim alone.

Where is this cut in survivors benefits coming from? I work for a federal agency and I don't get state benefits other CA firefighters get, so I am not familiar with all of them. The only LODD surviviors benefits I am aware of come from the Federal government or agency provided life insurance plans, neither of which have anything to do with the state.

Please understand I think this is a bad law but I don't know where this bit about LODD is coming from and it makes me wonder if some of the other issues with the proposition might be exagerated. I'm voting no but I would appreciate some clarification. Thanks

That was part of Prop 226 ( I should have clarified that...sorry) I believe since this is identical except for leaving out the public sector they will be able to decrease those funds.
Prop 75 will make it very difficult and very expensive for unions to fight back against legislators and big buisness. I'll do some more research and see if I can dig up the whole plan. -sno

[FFFRED]

... Though 226 sounded like a decent prop. where a unions money at least couldn't be spent without member consent.

When you elect your e-board they have a mandate and the ability to make some decisions without a floor vote. Otherwise...every single thing would have to get an OK from the membership.

Does your congressman ask you your opinion before he allocates monies to some pork barrel project?

If you want the right to choose how your money is spent every time by vote...change YOUR BY-LAWS. You don't need the government attempting to stifle free-speach to do that.

FTM-PTB

[SON044]

The loss of survivor benefits would be implicit in a change to a 401k style plan. Under PERS currently if you die in the line of duty thena pension is provided to your widow and surviving minor children.

Under a 401k your survivors would recieve your contrubutions and interest. but no continuing income.

[scfire86]

If you have any relatives that live in California, please remind them to vote "No" on Prop. 75. It is anti-Firefighter.

Thanks, Bou

Good call CALFFBOU. I am also voting no on this one. I don't approve of all the political activity of my E-Board, but I do have the ability to 'opt out' if I choose. And I also have the right to make my voice heard if I disapprove. Our political director is kind of wacky, but he does a good job.

[NonSurfinCaFF]

The loss of survivor benefits would be implicit in a change to a 401k style plan. Under PERS currently if you die in the line of duty thena pension is provided to your widow and surviving minor children.

Under a 401k your survivors would recieve your contrubutions and interest. but no continuing income.

Thanks, that makes sense why I coundn't find a California version of the Federal PSOB. It is included as part of your retirement system for those departments under PERS.

I don't like the fact they are singling out a single type of union, but it also bothered me to see the other side throwing out claims that I could not see where it was coming from.

I see way too many issues these days announced with a simple Vote No or Vote Yes and little substance as to why, I don't vote in lock step with any group.

Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself even if it turns out to be related to another proposition.

[snowball]

The loss of survivor benefits would be implicit in a change to a 401k style plan. Under PERS currently if you die in the line of duty thena pension is provided to your widow and surviving minor children.

Under a 401k your survivors would recieve your contrubutions and interest. but no continuing income.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks SONO44!

[Nail200]

Technically its anti-union, firefighters are just one of the groups targeted. Prop 75 will restrict the ability of public employee unions to spend money on political issues. It only applies to public employee unions, not private sector unions, not buisnesses, not other special interest groups. I don't know if it was the intent but many are taking it as a shot against public employees, it will effect teachers, law enforcement, city tree trimmers etc in addition to firefighters.

Absolute BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

An individual should be able to have a say where their dues money goes.

This is especially applicable to associations that are designated as a bargaining entity for the employee.

It is absolutely wrong for an employee that is mandated to be a member of an association in order to participate in voting and bargaining a contract to NOT have control over how their dues are spent on politics.

VOTE YES ON PROP 75
VOTE YES TO POLITICAL FREEDOM

[Nail200]

BUMP!!

This is a real serious issue here folks. If it passes here it will be detremental to the public sector personnell in California. The hidden agenda behind this is almost the same as Proposition 226 which appeared on the ballot in March of 98. 226 tried to force ALL unions and associations to gain approval from members to spend money to lobby. Prop 75 focuses on public employees only. If Prop 75 passes you can expect other states to do the same.

From CSFA magazine by Afrack Vargas.
CSFA Legislative advocate.

"What Proposition 75 does is to nearly eliminate our ability to use those funds . It forces a bureaucratic process full of red tape on us so we have to spend an enormous amount of time trying toraise the money to be used fight for our rights. Proposition 75 destroys that level playing field, making it easier for anti-labor folksto come after your pensions, benefits and, ultimately all those rights and protections that labor unions worked so hard to obtain."

"It became known that his proposal would end suvivors' benefits for the widows and orphans of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty."

So please, if you have relatives or friends in California urge them to vote NO!! on Prop 75. Let's stop it here before it gets to you.
Thanks -sno

Why is it such a big deal to you guys to allow a fire fighter a choice in the politics and legislation they want to fund?

Do you think that maybe the membership doesn't feel the same way about politics and legislation as the union leadership?

If the politics and legislation you support are so obviously good for the members why are you upset about giving them a choice?

We should embrace this legislation and support it spreading to all unions in the United States that represent employees as a bargaining entity.

[scfire86]

Why is it such a big deal to you guys to allow a fire fighter a choice in the politics and legislation they want to fund?

Nail. For a couple of reasons. In CA, ALL union members have the ability to 'opt out' of the PAC if they desire. Several in our dept. have done so already. Secondly, this only applies to public employee unions. It doesn't apply to any other type of PAC. Lastly, it puts an onerous requirement of getting face to face written permission EVERY YEAR!!! No emails, no faxes, no snail mail as an option.

And you should read up on the people sponsoring this issue. They are hardly the friends of public employees. And some despise all members of public safety as being overpaid and underworked.

Does that help?