In fact, Proposition 75 does hurt unions

Re “A blow to unions might not hurt,” Current, Oct. 30

What a lopsided analysis of Proposition 75 Sherry Bebitch Jeffe gives us. Having told us that “in 2004, business interests spent almost $47 million on state candidates, while unions spent roughly $13 million,” she proceeds to say nothing more about that disparity, while reassuring us that Proposition 75 might not be as bad for unions as some of us think. Without disputing her optimistic take, it would have been enlightening to have a similar account of the benefits of a commensurate reduction of business expenditures in California politics. Maybe she could report how that wouldn’t be as bad for business interests as they think.

TOM ROBISCHON

Los Angeles

*

While mentioning that Democratic officeholders are the main recipients of public employee union largesse (her word), Jeffe conveniently fails to mention that Republican officeholders are the main recipients of corporate largesse.

If Jeffe thinks a blow to unions might not hurt, she is forgetting that it is the unions that brought employees (union or not) the eight-hour workday, workplace safety, weekends off and retirement benefits. Or in other words: labor laws. Having unions advocate for labor and fairness is what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his corporate allies don’t like, which is why they want Proposition 75 to pass.

PAUL PRUSS

Lake Forest