|
|
On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32?
It explicitly states that voluntary deductions are prevented according to the language which has been posted in this very thread and which you yourself have referred to. The court is not going to cite backers or detractors, nor is it going to cite your posts.
|
On November 01 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Requiring permission to take someone's money is anti-libertarian how?
It's a VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION. If you don't agree to having your money used by the organization you VOLUNTARILY JOIN then leave it. The government has NO RIGHT to interfere with a VOLUNTARILY JOINED organization.
|
On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32?
Language trumps intent during interpretation. He actually does have a solid point. It is questionable which result a judge will arrive at.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32?
Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well!
It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day.
Edit: btw after searching around, what the hell? Why is an Arizona-based organization allowed to donate to our state campaigns? gtfo Arizonians.
|
On November 01 2012 05:00 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? It explicitly states that voluntary deductions are prevented according to the language which has been posted in this very thread and which you yourself have referred to. The court is not going to cite backers or detractors, nor is it going to cite your posts.
Except that it doesn't explicitly state that. It all depends on whether you define deductions as covering voluntary and involuntary, or just involuntary. And yes, statements from backers and detractors as to the intent of the proposition would be used in court. I never said anything about a court citing my posts, good job with that one. Was it supposed to be an insult?
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
|
On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day.
Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it?
Language trumps intent during interpretation. He actually does have a solid point. It is questionable which result a judge will arrive at.
Not really. Whatever the judge wants to trump whatever is what trumps during interpretation.
He has no solid point at all. Unless there was a very partisan Republican judge making the ruling. While very partisan Republican judges are not extinct in California, they are not exactly a common or even uncommon sight. And the appeals courts are very heavily tilted towards the left.
|
I make an organization you voluntarily join. This organization is run by a board which is voted on. The board chooses how to spend collections. You voluntarily join this organization for the security it brings, while recognizing that you might not agree with all the decisions the board makes. At any point in time if you disagree with the board enough that you do not value the security the organization brings, you may leave.
WhatHow the fuck does the government sticking its fingers into this help?
Edit ^
Double Edit: Holy shit it's a libertarians wet dream. And yet the so called "libertarians" want the government to fuck with it. I think "libertarians" are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because the majority of these organizations aren't politically aligned with them.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it?
ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:04 Risen wrote:
I make an organization you voluntarily join. This organization is run by a board which is voted on. The board chooses how to spend collections. You voluntarily join this organization for the security it brings, while recognizing that you might not agree with all the decisions the board makes. At any point in time if you disagree with the board enough that you do not value the security the organization brings, you may leave.
WhatHow the fuck does the government sticking its fingers into this help?
Edit ^
I know right. It's dumb. I keep saying, if they really cared about this shit, just make it easier for people to opt out. Ugh. So retarded. Such a waste of time arguing.
|
On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you?
It's pretty obvious you haven't.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't.
I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority.
|
On November 01 2012 04:59 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:48 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.
Let me say that again.
If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.
So this goes back to the original point:
This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform. Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b). So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction. (b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money. eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that. You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you. Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things. But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes. Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words. Which corporations are backing this bill, exactly? Smart. You know that nonprofit organizations are allowed to withhold donor information so I don't know who 'exactly' (aside form Charles Munger) is donating to the cause. Doesn't take a genius to piece it all together though.
It's no mystery. I can tell you.
Donor Amount
Charles Munger, Jr. $35,942,000
Americans for Responsible Leadership $11,000,000
American Future Fund $4,080,000
Jerry Perenchio $1,300,000
William Oberndorf $1,100,000
Margaret Bloomfield $500,000
Thomas M. Siebel $500,000
John Scully $500,000
New Majority California PAC $350,000
William Bloomfield, Jr. $300,000
John Murray Pasquesi $300,000
Here's the list for opposition
California Teachers Association $20,961,399
SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees $13,066,090
California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO/Change to Win) $5,935,374
AFSCME $4,317,329
California Professional Firefighters $2,978,635
Democratic State Central Committee of California $2,689,996
California School Employees Association $1,730,987
California Faculty Association $1,664,238
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $1,525,000
Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC $1,524,846
California/American Federation of Teachers $1,000,500
Charles Munger is an "experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.[1] In 2006, Munger was a member of California's Curriculum Commission, an advisory commission of the California State Board of Education.[1]" He's not some corporate shill, he's a political activist.
I guess you could claim the two non-profits are the evil corporations you are talking about. Even if this is true, even combined they are dwarfed by just the CTA.
So, which list contains more special interests? The answer is obvious, but I'd love to hear you twist reality. 
|
On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? Show nested quote +Language trumps intent during interpretation. He actually does have a solid point. It is questionable which result a judge will arrive at. Not really. Whatever the judge wants to trump whatever is what trumps during interpretation. He has no solid point at all. Unless there was a very partisan Republican judge making the ruling. While very partisan Republican judges are not extinct in California, they are not exactly a common or even uncommon sight. And the appeals courts are very heavily tilted towards the left.
85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
Where is the word "automatic"? Could you please copy and paste it and bold the word "automatic"?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:09 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:59 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:48 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.
Let me say that again.
If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.
So this goes back to the original point:
This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform. Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b). So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction. (b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money. eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that. You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you. Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things. But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes. Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words. Which corporations are backing this bill, exactly? Smart. You know that nonprofit organizations are allowed to withhold donor information so I don't know who 'exactly' (aside form Charles Munger) is donating to the cause. Doesn't take a genius to piece it all together though. It's no mystery. I can tell you. Donor Amount Charles Munger, Jr. $35,942,000 Americans for Responsible Leadership $11,000,000 American Future Fund $4,080,000 Jerry Perenchio $1,300,000 William Oberndorf $1,100,000 Margaret Bloomfield $500,000 Thomas M. Siebel $500,000 John Scully $500,000 New Majority California PAC $350,000 William Bloomfield, Jr. $300,000 John Murray Pasquesi $300,000 Here's the list for opposition California Teachers Association $20,961,399 SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees $13,066,090 California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO/Change to Win) $5,935,374 AFSCME $4,317,329 California Professional Firefighters $2,978,635 Democratic State Central Committee of California $2,689,996 California School Employees Association $1,730,987 California Faculty Association $1,664,238 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $1,525,000 Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC $1,524,846 California/American Federation of Teachers $1,000,500 Charles Munger is "experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.[1]" He's not some corporate shill, he's a political activist. I guess you could claim the two non-profits are the evil corporations you are talking about, but even if this is true, even combined that are dwarfed by only the CTA. So, which list contains more special interests? The answer is obvious, but I'd love to hear you twist reality.
Who the hell cares at what volume the special interests are donating to the cause? We're talking about who is donating to the cause. btw your list of supporters doesn't include the Small Business Action Committee which an Arizona-based group donated $11million to.
Edit: Nevermind yes it does. That's right, these groups are so shady they have to donate first to an Arizona-based group which then donates to the Small Business Action Committee. Cowards, I say.
|
On November 01 2012 05:04 Risen wrote:
I make an organization you voluntarily join. This organization is run by a board which is voted on. The board chooses how to spend collections. You voluntarily join this organization for the security it brings, while recognizing that you might not agree with all the decisions the board makes. At any point in time if you disagree with the board enough that you do not value the security the organization brings, you may leave.
WhatHow the fuck does the government sticking its fingers into this help?
Edit ^
Double Edit: Holy shit it's a libertarians wet dream. And yet the so called "libertarians" want the government to fuck with it. I think "libertarians" are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because the majority of these organizations aren't politically aligned with them.
As much as I hate the idea of dynamic crowd-sourced feedback mechanisms, I would "Like" this post if I could.
|
On November 01 2012 05:08 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't. I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority.
85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.
Yes, I am better at reading than you and HunterX. You both read at a very low and self-serving level.
"OGawd," (b), directly under (a), makes it clear that (a) is talking about involuntary deductions and that (a) cannot prevent voluntary deductions! Yet we still have you parroting talking points that make absolutely no sense when you read Proposition 32 as a single document, not a bunch of chopped-up sections with no apparent relation to each other. (b) has no meaning whatsoever under your interpretation, (a) totally cancels it out, so why would it be there? Obviously because it is a clarification of (a), to the meaning that voluntary deductions cannot be prevented.
Permission is good for a year, so obviously written permission would not be needed every single time money is deducted.
You're so hung up on "deduct" in (a) that you can't or won't understand that it does not mean what you think it means. (b) makes it clear that "deduct" in (a) is meant as involuntary.
|
On November 01 2012 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:
He doesn't have to, because the language doesn't mean what you keep saying it does. You can interpret it the way you want to but that is not what the Prop 32 backers have said. If anyone tried to prevent a voluntary deduction program, the very fact that the language does not specifically prohibit voluntary deductions and the backers have said that it doesn't means that voluntary deductions would be upheld in court. Get your panties untwisted.
It says that it doesn't ban voluntary contributions, except for payroll deductions.
Source - my lawyer
Again this doesn't influence corporations or businesses because they don't have to earmark a certain portion of their members' salaries towards political campaigning. They just spend money and distribute raises/paycuts accordingly. A corporation is not a representative body. They do not need your permission to use your salary to fund whatever the fuck they want. They can fire you, give you a pay cut, or reduce your benefits without giving a specific reason. Based on this, it is baffling to say that this is a good step.
What you're saying:
A. Unions have too much power
B. Union power is based on money
C. Kill Union power
What would make sense
A. Non-entities (corporations, unions) have too much political power
B. This power is based on money
C. Restrict the avenues in which money can influence politics FROM ALL SIDES
D. Kill union power, kill corporate power.
And you can say that this is a great first step to achieving D, but that's hard to understand.
At the moment we have Union VS Corporate on all of these bills. If we eliminate one, the other has free reign. Are either of these groups going to willingly allow a bill to pass which decreases their influence? The current propositions are evidence that they will not.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:08 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't. I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority. Show nested quote +85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. Yes, I am better at reading than you and HunterX. You both read at a very low and self-serving level. "OGawd," section (b), directly under section (a), makes it clear that section (a) is talking about involuntary deductions and that section (a) cannot prevent voluntary deductions! Yet we still have you parroting talking points that make absolutely no sense when you read Proposition 32 as a single document, not a bunch of chopped-up sections with no apparent relation to each other. (b) has no meaning whatsoever under your interpretation, (a) totally cancels it out, so why would it be there? Obviously because it is a clarification of (a), to the meaning that voluntary deductions cannot be prevented.
(a) says they cannot deduct from an employee's wages, earnings, or compensation. (b) says anything that is prohibited by (a) will not be allowed. Section (a) does not make any distinction between voluntary or involuntary, and section (b) says it doesn't matter if it's voluntary because it's prohibited anyway.
So. Simple.
|
On November 01 2012 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:08 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't. I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority. Show nested quote +85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. Yes, I am better at reading than you and HunterX. You both read at a very low and self-serving level. "OGawd," section (b), directly under section (a), makes it clear that section (a) is talking about involuntary deductions and that section (a) cannot prevent voluntary deductions! Yet we still have you parroting talking points that make absolutely no sense when you read Proposition 32 as a single document, not a bunch of chopped-up sections with no apparent relation to each other. (b) has no meaning whatsoever under your interpretation, (a) totally cancels it out, so why would it be there? Obviously because it is a clarification of (a), to the meaning that voluntary deductions cannot be prevented.
All deductions are banned, but it clarifies that this does not limit voluntary contributions.
|
On November 01 2012 05:04 Risen wrote:
I make an organization you voluntarily join. This organization is run by a board which is voted on. The board chooses how to spend collections. You voluntarily join this organization for the security it brings, while recognizing that you might not agree with all the decisions the board makes. At any point in time if you disagree with the board enough that you do not value the security the organization brings, you may leave.
WhatHow the fuck does the government sticking its fingers into this help?
Edit ^
Double Edit: Holy shit it's a libertarians wet dream. And yet the so called "libertarians" want the government to fuck with it. I think "libertarians" are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because the majority of these organizations aren't politically aligned with them.
Except how a government distributes it's paychecks is within the governments realm. It's only a contradiction when the law is extended to non-public employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
