Proposition 226 Pro and Con

It’s not fair. Proposition 226 would mean more power to big business and less power to working people.

This initiative would restrict union members but allow big business to spend corporate dollars without limit. Corporations already outspend union members 11 to 1 on political campaigns, so if Prop. 226 passes the playing field would be even more tilted toward big business.

It’s an invasion of privacy. Prop. 226 would force individual workers to report their political activity to their boss.

It silences our voice. Prop. 226 would impose a whole new bureaucracy on unions so they would have to spend more time filling out forms. That would mean less time fighting for the things working people care about: a decent wage, health benefits and retirement and pension benefits. Prop. 226 is not the American way.

ERIC PRITCHETT, Camarillo

*

I have a withdrawal card from a local union and was an active member for more than 30 years. At various times I held the positions of assistant business manager and shop steward.

While I belonged to the union they took out money from my dues to support causes in which I did not believe. A poll showed that union members overwhelmingly supported the three-strikes law, yet union leaders spent union money to oppose this law. What kind of fair representation is this?

Proposition 226 would save about $200 a year for each union member who does not want money taken from his or her paycheck to support either party. But that is not the issue. Even if it were 10 cents, it would be wrong.

Voting against 226 is essentially saying, “I am going to let my union bosses go to the polling booth and mark the ballot for me.” I don’t know about you, but I feel quite capable of marking my own ballot.

Please vote yes on Prop. 226.

RUSS HOPKINS, Simi Valley