+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    Permanently Removed
    CALFFBOU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    6,520

    Default Brothers and sisters- WE NEED YOUR HELP

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

    Thanks, Bou

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    956

    Default

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

    FTM-PTB!!

    Brass does not equal brains.

    Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the ability to control it.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    584

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    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
    IAFF

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    FFTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    278

    Default

    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.
    Piscataway Fire Dist #2
    Possumtown V.F.C.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,983

    Default

    I will be voting NO on this one.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    587

    Default

    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.
    K-9 hunt, the ultimate challange.
    EVERYONE GOES HOME
    IACOJ

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Thank you, we're a little nervous about this one.
    IAFF

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowball
    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
    Last edited by NonSurfinCaFF; 10-27-2005 at 11:51 PM.

  10. #10
    Permanently Removed
    CALFFBOU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    6,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    No on all of those too.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    fireguy919's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    eastern Ohio
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CALFFBOU
    No on all of those too.
    Has been dispatched to family and friends. Good luck brothers.
    Training does not make perfect. Training makes permanent!

    IACOJ probie

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NonSurfinCaFF
    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
    IAFF

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFTide
    ... 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

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    104

    Default

    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.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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

    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    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.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    That's what I was looking for. Thanks SONO44!
    IAFF

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nail200
    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?
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-30-2005 at 11:06 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Nail
    this is the first step in assaulting our pension plan. The governor has already announced that next year is the pension battle. First he wants to shut us up.

    I know you support wage and benfit functions in unions generally and your local in particular. We have had that conversation in another thread. If 75 passes we are one step closer to closing our pension. If it happens here you can bet it will be coming your way.

    This is a case where we stand or fall together. IF lack of support translates into the inability to represent we are truly up the creek without a paddle. Take notice of the fact that the CSFA which is not affiliated with the IAFF and includes volunteers in its membership has withdrawn it's endorsement of the governor. This organization comes closer to what you seem to advocate www.csfa.net.

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nail200
    VOTE YES ON PROP 75
    VOTE YES TO POLITICAL FREEDOM
    Hey Nail. This is the mindset of those you embrace have towards public safety personnel. Your freedom is none of their concern. He told one of our union guys there should be no public employee that should be allowed the ability to participate in the political process. He won't say it in so many words. But he believes it isn't public service. It is public servitude.



    Sunday, October 16, 2005

    D is for Deception
    Measure D on the ballot would give a county firefighter's group a share of sales-tax money it doesn't deserve or need
    By STEVEN GREENHUT

    Some political battles remind me of the bloody fight between Stalin's communist forces and Hitler's Nazi forces. For whom do you root? You root for a very long war.

    At first glance, taxpayers might be justified in taking a similar view with regard to Measure D, the countywide ballot initiative Nov. 8 that pits some of the most aggressive and self-interested government unions against each other.

    The Orange County Professional Firefighters Association is duking it out with the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and other law enforcement unions over sales-tax dollars now earmarked for the deputy sheriffs and the district attorney. Measure D would take a portion of those dollars and give it to the firefighters.

    If the unions spend their dues pounding each other, one might reason, perhaps they will have less money to spend on the liberal causes they typically endorse.

    Despite such well-warranted cynicism, on closer examination it is imperative that taxpayers defeat Measure D, which represents a new low in money grabbing by an already well-funded special interest.

    Some history. In 1993, California taxpayers, in their weakness, decided to tax themselves an extra half-cent to pay for public safety services by voting in favor of the statewide initiative, Proposition 172.

    This was in response to the storied revenue shift in which the Legislature took money from counties and cities to pay for what's called the state Education Revenue Augmentation Fund. After Prop. 13's passage in 1978, the state shifted property-tax funds to localities to make up for Prop. 13 revenue losses. In the 1990s it did the reverse, taking money from the localities to plug a hole in Prop. 98-mandated school funding. After the revenue shift, legislators convinced the public to pay higher taxes to backfill law-enforcement budgets.

    After Prop. 172 passed, the Board of Supervisors voted to split the new tax money between the Sheriff's Department and the District Attorney's Office. The county later created the fire authority, which is a special district exempt from the education revenue shift. The trade-off: The fire authority gets a healthy chunk of property taxes for funding, while law enforcement gets Prop. 172 sales taxes.

    The fire authority has done exceedingly well under this arrangement, as property values have soared. The fire authority budget gained $52 million more than it would have without the school-funding shift and Prop. 172, according to county budget figures. The county budget received $68 million less under that situation.

    The fire authority - which serves the 43 percent of the county not served by city fire departments - has a multimillion- dollar reserve, built a $50 million administrative building that even the firefighters union leader terms a "Taj Mahal," and oversees employees with some of the best pay and pension benefits in the country.

    Firefighters in Orange County earn median salaries and benefits of $175,181 a year. They retire with 100 percent of their base pay, after 33-1/3 years of work. A firefighter representative corrects me when I say that they are paid forsleeping on duty. Actually, he says, they are paid whilesleeping. However you parse it, this is a pretty good deal.

    This is when Greenhut's Rule of Government kicks in: "No matter how much money you give an agency or union, it is not enough." One reader illustrates this point with a joke: A public agency is negotiating with a union, and the agency agrees: Union members will get full pay for no work and only have to come in and pick up their paychecks every Wednesday. Shoots back an outraged union rep: EveryWednesday!?

    Now the firefighters want a share of the Prop. 172 sales-tax money. Union chief Joe Kerr cries poormouth, complaining about ancient fire engines, decrepit helicopters, inadequate equipment and understaffedfire stations.

    The union - in response to the goals set by the national union - wants to put a fourth person on every firetruck, even though about 90 percent of calls are for paramedic services. There are very few fires in Orange County because of strict building standards and insurance requirements.

    When a firetruck arrives at a fire, firefighters cannot fight the flames until a second truck arrives because of federal rules that require the same number of firefighters outside the building as inside. This is how government operates: Create burdensome rules, then complain that there isn't enough manpower because of those rules.

    Last week, the Register reported on the 24 firefighters who took seven minutes to put out a fire. As one blog entry noted, Measure D would require 31 firefighters to do the same job. Can you say, "union featherbedding"?

    In the private sector, when resources are tight, companies make sure they get the same job done without sacrificing quality, or they lose customers. In the public sector, the agencies spend excessively on things that benefit themselves - i.e., 100 percent pensions, six-figure salaries even though there are thousands of applicants for every firefighter job opening, lavish headquarter buildings - and to hell with the public.

    If the fire authority got control of its salaries and benefits and other spending, it could easily hire more employees or buy new trucks. It will never do that. This is why firefighting and paramedic services should be private efforts, not public bureaucracies, but that's a column for another day.

    County Treasurer John Moorlach offers the most realistic explanation for this attempted money grab. "They just need to find a funding source" for their underfunded pension plans. Granted, the law enforcement officials receive a similar level of benefits (and high, although not nearly as high, salaries), but it is the firefighters who are the aggressors here.

    If the firefighters succeed, then cop and DA positions might need to be cut or more tax dollars found. Local-government expert Steven Frates says, "Measure D would be a gross and inefficient misallocation of public funds."

    Politically, the firefighters say they deserve the money because they helped the campaign for Prop. 172, which featured pictures of heroic firefighters and carried the implicit promise that fire agencies would get some money. That is one of the funniest arguments I've heard in years. Somehow, the promises of deceptive TV ads are now sacred! Apparently, campaign ads must trump the verbiage of the law itself, says former state Sen. John Lewis, who is a consultant on the anti-D campaign.

    The entire county board and most everyone not connected to the fire authority or the fire union are opposed to Measure D. The supervisors have proposed Measures B, C and E as alternative choices for the distribution of 172 funds.

    Don't get confused by all the choices. Just vote "no" on all of them. While you're at it, vote "yes" on statewide Proposition 75, which would make it harder for all public-sector unions to take money from members to wage these selfish, anti-taxpayer political campaigns.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Copyright 2005 The Orange County Register
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-30-2005 at 02:02 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    You are right SC. Nail dosent even support the union that represents the firefighters in his own department. Good luck Californians.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    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?
    Is this specifically designate PAC funds being the funds at issue or are we also talking about dues money?

    Please name the individuals you don't approve of that are sponsering this bill and what makes them anti friendly?

    Thanks

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    You are right SC. Nail dosent even support the union that represents the firefighters in his own department. Good luck Californians.
    I have always supported my local union. They choose to fund left wing political organizations with dues money and I have chosen to opt out of membership specifically for that reason.

    They have been offered my money for local dues and will not accept it.

    You know very little about my relationship with the members of my local. They understand my stance and we enjoy a very good working relationship.
    Myself and other non union members just recently supported the local in their effort to assist with the Katrina disaster.

    Extorting money from the members for outside political organizations as a condition for accessing local bargaining and contract voting is reason enough for many of us to opt out of membership.

    Political freedom is very important to us. Union leaders like yourself are what are creating the divide among us, not people like me.

    You have proved yourself a socialist who doesn't seem to be educated enough to know it. You have no problem pushing your agenda against the will of your conservative members.
    Last edited by Nail200; 11-03-2005 at 07:14 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. California Wildfires..Please Watch Over our Brothers and Sisters
    By captstanm1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-31-2003, 10:07 AM
  2. Brothers and Sisters Helping Brothers and Sisters
    By ChiefOne2004 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2002, 09:41 AM
  3. Grief among our brothers and sisters
    By captstanm1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2001, 07:48 AM
  4. My Brothers and Sisters!
    By JD in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2001, 07:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register