Effects of Proposition 226

* Your recommendation for a no vote on Proposition 226 is a surprise (editorial, May 17). I would like to believe that The Times is for free speech and the right for people to choose. Obviously not. Your statement that all the members of a union have to do is vote, and that would eliminate the officers in the union that they may disagree with, is naive at best. More than 30% of union members are Republicans. Most unions belong to the AFL-CIO. During the last presidential election, the AFL-CIO gave millions of dollars to defeat Republicans. Why should my union dues go to a political organization that I oppose?

In today’s atmosphere, it is impossible for union members to change the bias in their officers. All union political forums favor the Democrats and discriminate against Republicans.

STERLING H. SMILEY

Montrose

*

* One genuine concern about Proposition 226 was not covered in your editorial. The California Legislative Counsel, an arm of the California government, issued a statement on May 4 stating that all payroll deductions would be affected, including those for charitable donations. This means that any employer, whether nonprofit or for profit, that makes payroll deductions for its employees--even if the organization is not unionized or involved in politics--will be covered by the initiative’s far-reaching and imprecise language. Supporters of the proposition are arguing that nonprofits are not affected, despite the statement from the legislative counsel.

Proposition 226 goes beyond affecting union dues. It could affect all employer-employee deductions.

HENRY R. McCARTY

Palm Desert

*

* I can find no justification for the contention in your editorial against Proposition 226 that it would “push” corporations “to seek permission from employee-share- holders before making any political or social donations, a loss to local culture and charities.” Proposition 226 applies to deductions from employees’ wages and could in no way be interpreted as restricting charitable donations from corporate funds.

JACK CRAWFORD

Ridgecrest

*

* I disagree with those who say that William Gould, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, should be chastised for his stand against Proposition 226 (May 7). Gould should be commended for sharing his views with the public on this anti-union, union-busting measure, which will appear on the June 2 ballot. President Clinton has already announced his opposition to Proposition 226.

JACK L. RUGH

San Gabriel

*

* So Gov. Pete Wilson supports Proposition 226 because individuals should have the right to free choice with their own money. He wants to prevent unions from spending members’ money indiscriminately on causes that workers oppose.

Great! Can we do the same thing with state taxes?

MICHAEL BEATRICE

Venice