The union members that voted for this @sshole deserve what they get(if the media reports are true). To hell with 'em, I hope they all lose their jobs.

Wow- blame the victims. Union leaders solidly opposed the recall and Schwarzenneger but in the short campaign period, could not counteract the media-assisted propaganda in support of Schwarzenneger. And the areas where unions mobilized strongest- LA and SF-- a majority rejected the recall.

I'm going by what the media reports said. Ahnie should have gotten zero percent from union members. I'm in a union for crissakes, I don't want to see these people get screwed, but they should have known he'd attack them as one of his first initiatives.

Hey- if the sickel of death could hit only the voters who voted for Arnie, maybe, but the 50% of unionists who voted against the recall sure don't deserve it-- and I've actually heard that "union members" voted more against the recall than "union households." I've been trying to track down the numbers.

I've heard that too, wtf does that mean? As far as I can tell, maybe a wife or husband of a union member voted against their spouse? Sorry, but I still can't muster any sympathy for someone voting against their self interest. Any union member should absolutely have known ahnie would do this.

Look through the exit polls I linked to on the new post-- BTW it does show that only 37% of union members voted for Arnie, not great, but still that leaves 63% off the hook for Arnie's misdeeds.

Don't forget about security. Secureroot.org

Nathan you just bought the labor line hook, line, and sinker. SB 1419 harms teachers and kids in favor of service unions. SB1419 isn't what Nathan is misrepresenting it as. Yes, SB1419 does require that one prove that there are savings, but in order for you outsourcing of service employees to be legal one must jump through a few pro-unions rules first. If you read the text you will find that before one can outsource non-instructional staff they must prove that any savings are not caused by displacement or by lower wages. In other words SB 1419 basically makes it virtually illegal to go with a cheaper private contractor because it is virtually impossible for the school district to save money by outsourcing to cheaper labor. In 2003 School districts hands were tied by SB1419 because they couldn't reduce their non-instructional labor costs because under SB1419 they can't fire their own service employees and replace them with cheaper outside labor. The end result: teachers were fired, sports teams were cut, student programs were cut, and class sizes rose. Service unions won, teachers, parents, taxpayers, and students lost. Next time, actually read SB 1419 and read the opposing viewpoints instead of simply mindlessly buying the union line.

It is little wonder that even the left leaning LA Times has joining the Sacremento Bee and the OC Registrar in calling for the repeal of SB 1419.

I suggest anyone reading to join the following organizations that opposed SB1419 according to the State legislature this costly legislation that harms children and forces taxpayers to pay more for the same work.

Association of California School Administrators
California School Board's Association
Community College League of California
Los Angeles Unified School District
Orinda Union School District
San Francisco Unified School District

These groups aren't a bunch of union busters, but people who saw what the fools in Sacremento did not.

Also read:

http://www.noclassroomcuts.org/

Nathan you just bought the labor line hook, line, and sinker. SB 1419 harms teachers and kids in favor of service unions. SB1419 isn't what Nathan is misrepresenting it as. Yes, SB1419 does require that one prove that there are savings, but in order for you outsourcing of service employees to be legal one must jump through a few pro-unions rules first. If you read the text you will find that before one can outsource non-instructional staff they must prove that any savings are not caused by displacement or by lower wages. In other words SB 1419 basically makes it virtually illegal to go with a cheaper private contractor because it is virtually impossible for the school district to save money by outsourcing to cheaper labor. In 2003 School districts hands were tied by SB1419 because they couldn't reduce their non-instructional labor costs because under SB1419 they can't fire their own service employees and replace them with cheaper outside labor. The end result: teachers were fired, sports teams were cut, student programs were cut, and class sizes rose. Service unions won, teachers, parents, taxpayers, and students lost. Next time, actually read SB 1419 and read the opposing viewpoints instead of simply mindlessly buying the union line.

It is little wonder that even the left leaning LA Times has joining the Sacremento Bee and the OC Registrar in calling for the repeal of SB 1419.

I suggest anyone reading to join the following organizations that opposed SB1419 according to the State legislature this costly legislation that harms children and forces taxpayers to pay more for the same work.

Association of California School Administrators
California School Board's Association
Community College League of California
Los Angeles Unified School District
Orinda Union School District
San Francisco Unified School District

These groups aren't a bunch of union busters, but people who saw what the fools in Sacremento did not.

Also read:

http://www.noclassroomcuts.org/

Thanks SSA for making clear what "anti-union" means, which is not just being against unionized workplaces but in favor of lower wages regardless of whether there is a union in the workplace. Here's the key sentence SSA says:

"If you read the text you will find that before one can outsource non-instructional staff they must prove that any savings are not caused by displacement or by lower wages. "

Yep.

A company that says they are cheaper, but uses shoddy materials, is not considered as an equal bid. A company promising savings, while using low wage, high-turnover, less skilled labor is not equivalent to other bids that are all equally skilled and high wage.

If a private company can't compete at the same wage as unionized workers, they are not more efficient, they are just more exploitive.