Prop. 75 Could Weaken Clout of Unions

California’s public employee unions, which have formed the core resistance to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s agenda this year, could lose much of their political potency through a measure on the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

Proposition 75, backed by a coalition of business groups and anti-tax advocates aligned with the Republican Party, would require unions to obtain written permission from members each year before directing money from their dues into political campaigns.

Similar measures in other states have led to dramatic decreases in political contributions. Some union members are glad to save a portion of their dues, and others object to their union’s Democratic leanings.

Though the initiative is not part of Schwarzenegger’s “year of reform” effort to upend Sacramento’s traditional powers, it is widely viewed as the measure that could have the greatest repercussions in the Capitol should it pass.

Unions representing teachers, prison guards and local and state workers are among Sacramento’s most influential political players. They have up to now been able to direct large sums into political campaigns, thereby propelling sympathetic legislators into office, influencing ballot fights and winning substantial raises and pension increases.

Democrats, who control the Legislature and hold most statewide offices, have been the beneficiaries of union support much more often than Republicans.

Lessening the political clout of California’s public employee unions -- among the most powerful in the nation -- would represent a substantial symbolic victory for conservative activists across the nation.

Advocates for Proposition 75 contend that union leaders have used member money to promote tax measures and liberal issues that many conservative union members do not support and that are peripheral to the goals of collective bargaining.

“This is a silly, stupid and wholly un-American approach, and that is to require people to fork over money without their consent, to be used to advocate candidates and propositions with which the member may disagree,” said Lewis K. Uhler, an anti-tax advocate from Roseville, near Sacramento, who submitted the initiative. “That’s what we’re trying to prevent.”

But unions and their allies describe the initiative as a power grab launched by conservatives who believe union workers receive too much in pay and benefits.

Calling the proponents’ rhetoric about protecting workers “hypocritical,” the unions note that members who object to labor’s political activities can drop out, though they still would have to pay a portion of their dues to cover collective bargaining efforts on their behalf.

“What they’re counting on is that folks will try to save the extra buck regardless of their political views and that we’ll have less and we will be less able to respond to what’s become a pretty concerted right-wing attack,” said Mary Bergan, president of the California Federation of Teachers.

In states where similar measures have passed, unions have seen their political war chests diminish substantially.

After such a law was enacted in Utah in 2001, only 6.8% of members of the teachers union agreed to allow their dues to be spent on politics.

The year after a union-dues measure took effect in Washington state, the teachers union there saw a similarly steep drop in what it could spend on politics. Only 6.1% of Washington Education Assn. members signed onto political giving last year. Idaho, Michigan and Wyoming also have restrictions on union dues.

But the restrictions have not automatically translated into diminished union power. Unions have adapted, by raising their dues and using more of their money for issue advocacy and get-out-the-vote drives, which are still allowed in some states, rather than giving directly to candidates.

Debra Carnes, a spokeswoman for the Washington Education Assn., said that even with restrictions on dues, her union won six of the seven legislative races it took stands on last year and helped elect the state’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire. The union also defeated a referendum establishing charter schools, she said.

Mike Reitz, who handles labor issues at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia, Wash.-based group that helped write Washington’s union dues measure as well as the one on the ballot in California, agreed that the effect on union influence has been limited.

“In terms of what unions are spending on politics, there hasn’t been a huge impact,” he said.

But the union dues measure pending in California could have a broader effect than Washington’s, which limits union contributions to individual candidates but not to ballot initiatives. The California measure would also apply to ballot fights, where unions and other groups can now give unlimited amounts.

It is difficult to tally the total spent by California unions on politics. The Institute on Money in State Politics, a Montana-based nonprofit group, found that California public sector unions spent $6.7 million last year on candidates, but the amount spent on ballot measures was not tracked.

The institute’s records show that donations from unions, public and private, amounted to 5.7% of the money received by candidates last year, less than half the combined giving by business interests. Finance, insurance, real estate, construction, agriculture and general business interests made up 13.7% of candidate contributions.

“Labor money tends to be dwarfed by the aggregate money by business interests,” said Edwin Bender, the institute’s executive director.

Unions in California are far stronger than those in the country as a whole, according to a report by the Institute of Investor Relations at UCLA. In 2002, 2.6 million workers -- including 54% of all public employees -- belonged to collective bargaining units. The report found that overall, union representation in the state’s workforce has increased faster than in any other state, except Alaska.

A substantial number of government workers already object to unions.

A third of the 87,348 workers represented by the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees have opted out of the union, according to June records at the state controller’s office. Even some who remain in the unions have qualms.

“As a union member I do believe in union activities, protecting the members wages, working conditions,” said James Galley, a San Diego city water plant operator. “But the problem is: When you walk into a union hall as a Republican, you’re almost spurned as a member.”

Galley, who ran unsuccessfully last year as a Republican for the state Assembly, estimated that as much as half of his AFL-CIO local is independent or Republican but that the leadership focuses union donations on Democratic clubs and candidates.

“They’ve contributed to organizations that endorse gay, lesbian and pro-choice measures,” said Galley, who added that such practices conflict with his Roman Catholic beliefs.

Other unions, including the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., report few dissenters. And none of the 7,144 members of the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen have opted out.

The fight over Proposition 75 is shaping up to be one of the most intense on the ballot. A Field Poll in June found that 57% of likely voters supported the initiative, while 34% opposed it and 9% were unsure.

But both sides are mindful that in 1998 California’s electorate rejected by 53% to 47% a similar initiative that would have applied to all unions -- not just to those representing public employees -- after an intense campaign in which the unions spent nearly four times more than the initiative’s supporters did.

So far this year, proponents for Proposition 75 have raised close to $1 million. That includes $200,000 from the California Republican Party and $555,000 from the Small Business Action Committee, a Schwarzenegger-aligned group that is funded primarily by large corporations and wealthy businessmen. The committee’s director, Joel Fox, was a Schwarzenegger advisor during his 2003 campaign, but the governor has not taken a position on the initiative.

The Alliance for Better California, a union coalition formed to fight the special election, has already spent $10 million this year on fighting this and six of the seven other ballot measures. Large donations have come from the California Teachers Assn., the state chapters of the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union.

In retaliation against Proposition 75, labor unions have begun collecting signatures for an initiative that would require corporations to get the approval of shareholders before spending money on political campaigns.

“The unions remember the old adage: They’re coming for you today, they’re coming for us tomorrow,” said Angie Wei, legislative director for the California Labor Federation, the state chapter of the AFL-CIO. “There’s no threat that brings unions together more than the threat of silencing their political voice.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Spending limits

Proposition 75 is aimed at limiting campaign spending by public employee unions. Here’s a look at the 54% of state workers who belong to collective bargaining units and the measure’s major funders:

*

Unions in California

Distribution of international union members in government service, by some job categories, in California in 2001-02:

Teachers and instructional aides: 25.8%

Janitors, nurses, paramedics, clerical workers and non-faculty community college workers: 24.2%

California school employees, secretaries and custodians: 13.4%

University of California system employees, supervisors, foremen, technical workers and social workers: 5.1%

Other: 31.5%

*

Spending on Prop. 75

Although it is unclear how much the opposition has raised and spent, contributions by proponents are listed in state filings:

Total contributions: $928,298

Total expenditures: $1,176,070

*

Supporters of the measure

Small Business Action Committee PAC donors include:

Ameriquest Capital: $250,000

Calif. Business Properties Assn. Issues PAC(1): $200,000

The New Majority PAC(1): $150,000

Robin P. Arkley II: $100,000

John T. Walton: $100,000

(1)Ameriquest-supported groups

*

Sources: Calif. secretary of state; UC Institute for Labor and Employment; Service Employees International Union, Local 790; Times research

Graphics reporting by Cheryl Brownstein-Santiago