SEIU Caught Using Personnel Information From San Bernardino—Harassing County Employees

The SEIU, illegally, took the private personnel information of San Bernardino County employees—email address, cell phone number, home addresses and more—to contact them, demanding, threatening and harassing the workers to pay THEM extortion if they want to work rather than a rival union.

Why should any free person be forced to pay tribute to a union in order to feed their family? By what right does the SEIU have to steal personnel information? Why hasn’t the San Bernardino District Attorney brought criminals charges against the thieves and those using the stolen information? Why does the County continue to recognize the SEIU—knowing they are law breakers?

“County employees began receiving mailers from SEIU several weeks ago, and more recently, phone calls at home and on their cell phones. Some employees are concerned as they thought the personal information in the County’s payroll and Human Resources system is confidential. They complain of harassment by SEIU representatives at home and on the job.”

SEIUObama

 

Temporary restraining order granted against SEIU

Sharon GilbertInland, Empire News Examiner, 6/12/14

Today San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Thomas Peterson granted a temporary restraining order requested by San Bernardino Public Employees Association (SBPEA) against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SEIU is conducting a decertification campaign against SBPEA to become the collective bargaining representative for more than 11,000 San Bernardino County employees.

County employees began receiving mailers from SEIU several weeks ago, and more recently, phone calls at home and on their cell phones. Some employees are concerned as they thought the personal information in the County’s payroll and Human Resources system is confidential. They complain of harassment by SEIU representatives at home and on the job.

SBPEA requested the restraining order after they determined SEIU obtained a list of county employees with their home phone numbers, home addresses, and emergency contact information. At issue is how SEIU obtained the information.

In his ruling, Judge Peterson wrote, “SEIU . . . [is] restrained and enjoined from using and disclosing to anyone Plaintiff’s members’ confidential personal information (including, but not limited to, home addresses, home and personal phone numbers, and emergency contact information) that was obtained from the County San Bernardino’s employee records whether such information was obtained from the County of San Bernardino from SEIU, obtained from the County of San Bernardino by any of SEIU’s agents or employees, or obtained from the County of San Bernardino by a third party and provided to SEIU.”

SEIU has until June 17, 2014, to file opposition papers to the restraining order. Judge Peterson gave SBPEA until June 19, to respond to the opposition. The matter is set for June 26.

SEIU is conducting an aggressive decertification effort. SEIU members are coming in from around the state to make personal contact with San Bernardino County employees in hopes of convincing them to sign interest cards so that a decertification vote can take place.

San Bernardino County has in place one of the toughest labor relations ordinances in the state. The window of opportunity is only 30 days. It is designed to make decertification almost impossible when dealing with larger bargaining units.

This is the second time in less than a year that SBPEA faces a decertification effort by an outside union. Last August, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) made a similar attempt but they fell short.

Some county employees feel SBPEA is ineffective while others prefer to keep the lower dues and independent union. Facebook pages have sprouted up to defend all sides of the issue. SBPEA Out Now leans towards SEIU while SEIU Sucks exposes “SEIU’s shady tactics.” San Bernardino Employees for Change remains active for those who want to decertify but would prefer to go with IBEW. SBPEA operates its own Facebook page.

The latest uprising is due to the recent contract negotiated by SBPEA. It would require employees to pay the seven percent retirement contribution currently paid by the county and offers no across-the-board raises. Employees rejected it the first time around, and a mediator was brought in to make recommendations. Mediator David Hart, who many consider to be “county friendly” due to his rulings against county employees during civil service hearings, made minor adjustments.

Employees have until June 18 to turn in their ballots for this count. June 19 is the date set for counting the ballots. Any units that ratify the contract cannot join in the decertification effort. The contract specifies that SBPEA is the exclusive bargaining agent for the duration of the three-year contract.

 

$18 Billion in CA Water Bonds—Not a Drop of New Water—Now Sacramento Wants another $11 Billion

Over a six year period the people of California were scared by Sacramento that we were running out of water. Arnold told us the State would become a dust bowl, in 2006, if we did not pass his water bonds. Now we know those bonds were to pay off crony capitalists, special interest, environmentalists and unions—they got the money and the people got the bill. This is one of the reasons California is in a Depression and has a $340 billion debt. If a private company did this, the executives would be in jail. Instead we re-elect those that misled us into passing this massive debt.

“From 2000 to 2006, Californians approved five water bonds totaling $18.7 billion. But that water bond funding mostly went for land acquisitions for wetlands or preserving existing mountain watersheds, landscaping for water retention, eliminating water-consuming invasive plant species, environmental studies, etc.  But not one drop of new system water storage was funded by those bonds.”

budget

 

Water conservation success backfires on policy-makers
By Wayne Lusvardi, Calwatchdog, 6/16/16 

A longstanding truism when it comes to needed goods such as water systems, flood control or catastrophic earthquake insurance is that the public wants them but does not want to pay for them.

This was confirmed anew by a recent USC-L.A. Times poll, which found only 36 percent of those polled were in favor of raising taxes for statewide water system upgrades. A plurality of 46 percent indicated they would be willing to pay more to assure a more stable water supply.  However, 51 percent indicated that taxes should not be used to upgrade water storage and conveyance facilities.

As pollster Drew Lieberman of the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner put it, “Support evaporates entirely when you put a price tag on it.”

The results of this poll may affect the $11.1 billion water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot that may or may not contain funding for any new water storage facilities. This bond will not fund the proposed new $15 billion twin tunnels to convey water under the Delta southward to farms and cities.

The water bond was pulled from the ballot in 2010 and 2012 for fear of voter rejection.

Voters like status quo’s stable cost

But there may be good reason beyond aversion to taxes as to why Californians don’t want to pay for added new taxes to build new water tunnels under the Delta and re-create a new Delta ecosystem for fish.

Consider the selling points for the bond. It would:

–Provide a fix for the Sacramento Delta for fish

–Upgrade flood levees

–Prevent a catastrophic loss of Delta water in an earthquake

–Provide more water storage for droughts

The idea that these projects are urgently needed at a cost of many billions of dollars is tough to sell to the public when they perceive the existing system to be working just fine, and when most urban areas have enough water to weather the drought. Many Californians probably feel they have already done their part — 87 percent of those polled indicated they have cut back their daily water usage. This leads most people to believe that conservation keeps the state water shortage manageable.

Voters favor more conservation

This viewpoint is borne out by the USC poll. All the highly favored policies were conservation-oriented: water recycling (92 percent), urban storm-water capture (91 percent), more underground water storage (83 percent), more personal cutbacks in water usage (81 percent) and desalination plants (75 percent).

Building new dams and reservoirs was only approved by 65 percent of those polled.

Water policy-makers have so successfully sold the public on water conservation that the public apparently does not believe in paying taxes for any new system-wide improvements because conservation is perceived as free.

From 2000 to 2006, Californians approved five water bonds totaling $18.7 billion. But that water bond funding mostly went for land acquisitions for wetlands or preserving existing mountain watersheds, landscaping for water retention, eliminating water-consuming invasive plant species, environmental studies, etc.  But not one drop of new system water storage was funded by those bonds.

Once again, voters will approve waterless water bonds that are conservation-oriented during economic boom times. But when it comes to funding hard water infrastructure projects in an economy still recovering from recession, the public believes that more conservation is the solution.

Those who opposed the proposed Peripheral Canal in 1982 in favor of conservation policies have been so successful that it is now difficult to get the public to favor any taxes for water projects — even in a crisis.

 

 

Commentary: San Fran Heading for Housing Civil War

San Fran, the most expensive town on the mainland of America, loves to brag about the high prices of the housing. The rich really do not care—nor do they ask why the cost is so high. If the rich took an Economics 1 class in a Community College they would understand. San Fran is planning a 70% market rate housing stock with a 30% “affordable” housing. The builders of the “affordable” housing then add on the profit lost on these home to those buying market priced prices—which is why they are so high.

Progressives makes sure as many people as possible as poor—and that the rich are very rich. Sounds like the economic policies of Barack Obama.

“The idea is that if private developers know their projects will be delayed or even halted by the city’s failure to meet the 30% threshold, than city political leaders will make sure it is met. Supervisor Kim argues that it “creates an incentive for developers to work on the same side as community advocates, to make sure affordable housing is built and rent-controlled units aren’t lost.

For the first time, the balance penalizes for-profit developers for the city’s lack of affordable housing creation.”

440px-GoldenGateBridge-001

Commentary: SF Heading for Housing Civil War

By Randy Shaw, Beyond Chron, 6/16/14

There is a quiet war raging in San Francisco’s housing community. It concerns Supervisor Jane Kim’s proposal for ahousing balance, a strategy designed to ensure that market-rate housing does not exceed 70% of the total housing built.

Proponents argue that San Francisco Mayor Lee has regularly talked about how 30% of his planned 30,000 units would be affordable. They say all their measure does is put “teeth” in the mayor’s plan by requiring conditional use approval for market rate projects exceeding the 70% limit.

Opponents see it differently. They say imposing strict limits on market-rate housing does nothing to increase affordable units, and will worsen the city’s housing shortage.

With the housing balance likely headed for November, voters will soon get their chance to weigh in on the issue. Here is what’s at stake.

The “Pro” Argument

Proponents argue that the housing balance is necessary to ensure that Mayor Lee’s goal of building 30% affordable units out of 30,000 is met. While some doubt the mayor’s commitment, Supervisor Kim and others trust the mayor but believe that good intentions are not enough to ensure the goal is achieved.

The idea is that if private developers know their projects will be delayed or even halted by the city’s failure to meet the 30% threshold, than city political leaders will make sure it is met. Supervisor Kim argues that it “creates an incentive for developers to work on the same side as community advocates, to make sure affordable housing is built and rent-controlled units aren’t lost.

For the first time, the balance penalizes for-profit developers for the city’s lack of affordable housing creation.

Supervisor Kim’s original proposal was for District 6 only. This made no sense to me because it would funnel even more affordable units into the district that has the most, while bypassing the Mission, Castro, and North Beach where Ellis Act evictions make adding affordable units a much higher priority. I have since learned that if the housing balance goes to the ballot or is voted on by the Board it will likely be citywide.

The Opposition

Opponents argue that mandating a housing balance penalizes private developers for circumstances beyond their control. The balance does not add to public affordable housing funding, and could actually reduce affordable units via lost inclusionary units in market rate projects that could be blocked by the new conditional use requirement.

The balance also strikes at the heart of the supply and demand argument most powerfully advanced by Gabe Metcalf of SPUR. Metcalf’s October 14, 2013 argument (“The San Francisco Exodus” is that a lack of supply worsens San Francisco’s housing affordability crisis, and that the city must build tens of thousands of new units to increase affordability (Dean Preston responded to Metcalf’s argument in our pages, “Trickle Down Housing Approach is Wrong for San Francisco.”

Proponents of new market rate housing see skyrocketing rents starting in 2010 as a case study for the negative consequences of stopping housing construction.

Good Timing or Bad?

Mayor Lee has shown a remarkable ability to unify long disagreeing factions around housing issues. This led to passage of the Housing Trust Fund in 2012, and to ongoing negotiations in the mayor’s Housing Work Group on increasing affordable units and housing density. The Mayor knows he cannot expect new federal housing dollars, and is considering an affordable housing bond for November 2015.

Such a bond requires a 2/3 vote, and needs all housing groups on board (or at least not in public opposition) to pass. No San Francisco housing bond has passed since 1996 due to this lack of unity.

With a future bond on the horizon and the mayor’s public commitment to increasing inclusionary requirements, housing balance opponents ask why nonprofit advocates are choosing this time to promote their measure. Given prior unity around housing development, they also wonder why nonprofits are acting as if private developers and the mayor have to be put in a straitjacket to do the right thing.

Proponents respond that this has nothing to do with trust, but that in the midst of the current affordability crisis the public needs to see concrete action. If San Francisco makes a strong public statement on a 70-30 market rate/affordability split, they believe it will concerns about future affordability in the city.

To be clear, some supporters of the mandate believe that building market rate housing is the problem. They’ll support anything that moves toward this goal, and the housing balance measure goes further in this direction than any San Francisco law ever has passed.

Little Upside?

In light of the development community’s plan to wage a full scale war against the housing balance, what is the great upside that makes this divisive struggle worth waging?

This is not a fight over rent controls or just cause evictions, when thousands of people are directly impacted by the election outcome. Nor is it the type of anti-development fight waged over 8 Washington or the recent Prop B, both of which had specific, identifiable outcomes.

In contrast, if the balance wins in November, its connection to producing more affordable housing is unclear. And given controversy over what is included in the “count” determining the 70-30% balance, the trigger’s designed to maintain 30% affordability many not be used for some time.

The lack of clear, real life affordable housing benefits from the balance is why the best solution for proponents is avoiding a divisive housing civil war over this issue.

Why alienate housing developer allies over a measure that brings few or no tangible benefits to low-income people when developer support is needed to pass increased inclusionary requirements and for a winning affordable housing bond in 2015?

The “triggers” impacting market rate development when the affordable side goes under 30% would appear to offer room for compromise. And considering the downsides of a divisive ballot fight, I would certainly hope that both sides do their best to avoid this potential housing civil war.

 

Pelosi Warns SF Bishop Not to March for Traditional Marriage

Democrats tell us that religion has no place in the public square, that religious values have no place in discussion of policies. Yet, the San Fran Nan maniacs still claim to believe in the First Amendment which gives us free speech and freedom of religion. The Left thinks IF your policies come from religious origins, you have no right to express them.

“In an astonishing challenge to traditional Catholic doctrine, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nominally Catholic, has taken to telling San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone that he should not attend the National Organization for Marriage’s June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

While Pelosi claims to be a Catholic, she has made it clear she openly opposes Catholics theology and Church leaders that publically speak about those values. Maybe Pelosi should stop promoting anti-freedom legislation, like ObamaCare. Why does the Catholic Church still allow her in the doors?

San Fran Nan appears to be a self-loathing Catholic.

pelosi3

 

Pelosi Warns SF Bishop Not to March for Traditional Marriage

by William Bigelow, Breitbart CA, 6/15/14

In an astonishing challenge to traditional Catholic doctrine, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nominally Catholic, has taken to telling San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone that he should not attend the National Organization for Marriage’s June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

Cordileone is scheduled to be a featured speaker at the event, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which is consistent with his championing of Proposition 8 in 2008. Cordileone helped raise $1.5 million for the initiative, which intended to ban same-sex marriage in the state. He once said, “The ultimate attack of the evil one is the attack on marriage.”

Pelosi, who called the event “venom masquerading as virtue,” wrote to Cordileone, “We share our love of the Catholic faith and our city of San Francisco,” adding that the event would feature some participants displaying “disdain and hate towards LGBT persons,” and asserting, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?”

The March for Marriage, which was initiated last year, features thousands of people standing up for “traditional marriage” walking from the U.S Capitol to the Supreme Court. Among the speakers are Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

Pelosi is not the only Democratic San Francisco politician sending Cordileone a letter decrying his participation in the march. Last week, San Francisco mayor Ed Lee and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome issued a joint letter to the bishop protesting his participation. In the letter, cited by the Chronicle‘s Carla Marinucci, they wrote: “We ask that you will reconsider your participation and join us in seeking to promote reconciliation rather than division and hatred …” They said the march was “organized by some of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBT organizations and leaders.”

The National Organization of Marriage was also targeted by the federal government in the IRS scandal.

An online petition demanding that Cordileone cease and desist in his plans has been signed by roughly 20,000 people.

Cordileone is the head of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage for the U.S. Conference of Bishops. He has already referred to the March as “an important means to promote and defend marriage for the good of our culture, to pray for our federal and state governments, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will,” adding, “This is a critical time for marriage in our country, as marriage amendments are being struck down by federal courts and appeals of these decisions are being made.”

 

Carlsbad $1 billion desalination plant is a “test case”

There is some good news on the water front (unintentional pun). In Carlsbad they are spending one billion dollars to build a desalinization plant to provide 50 million gallons of water a day. So, if we build enough of these we will save Santa Barbara when the Al Gore predicted sea rising, will instead of causing flooding will provide much needed water for families, jobs and farming. This along with recycling of water might make up for the water given to fish.

There is a facility going up in several places on the West Coast—this may be the permanent solution to the government caused problem—but it is expensive. On the other hand, we can build 68, one billion dollar desalinization plants for the cost of the Guv Brown Delta Tunnel boondoggle meant to pay off unions and special interests and creates not a single drop of new water!

Water

Carlsbad $1 billion desalination plant is a “test case”

​Water, water all around and 50 million gallons a day to drink. That will be the case for San Diego County residents when a $1 billion desalination plant in Carlsbad comes online in 2016.

Scott Bridges, LA Business Journal, 6/16/14

Water, water all around and 50 million gallons a day to drink. That will be the case for San Diego County residents when a $1 billion desalination plant in Carlsbad comes online in 2016.

Although the idea of turning ocean water into drinking water has been on the table during the last four and half decades, high costs and environmental issues have kept California from committing to the cause until now. The Carlsbad plant will be the largest ocean water desalinizing plant in the Western Hemisphere.

The Los Angeles Daily News reports that with desalination technology becoming more efficient, 15 projects are currently being proposed along the coast from Los Angeles to San Francisco Bay.

Supporters claim that the technology represents the state’s best defense against future droughts. Critics say the plant is too costly and environmentally unfriendly,

“Everybody is watching Carlsbad to see what’s going to happen,” Peter MacLaggan told the Daily News. MacLaggan is vice president of Poseidon Water, the Boston-based firm building the plant.

“I think it will be a growing trend along the coast,” he said. “The ocean is the one source of water that’s truly drought-proof. And it will always be there.”

On the other hand…

“This is going to be the pig that will try for years to find the right shade of lipstick,” Marco Gonzalez told the newspaper. Gonzalez is an Encinitas attorney who sued on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and other environmental groups to try to kill the project.

“This project will show that the water is just too expensive,” he said.

The typical price tag on desalinated water is about $2,000 an acre foot — essentially the amount of water a family of five uses in a year, and is about twice as expensive as water obtained by building a new reservoir or recycling wastewater, according to a 2013 study from the state Department of Water Resources.

Poseidon’s Carlsbad plant survived more than a dozen lawsuits and appeals by environmental groups before ground was initially broken in December 2012. It also outlasted six years of the permitting process from agencies as diverse a the Carlsbad City Council and the California Coastal Commission.

“They went through seven or eight years of hell to get here,” Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, told the newspaper. “But they stuck it out. They got it done. If it succeeds, it will encourage others to try. And if it fails, it will have a chilling effect.”

Or, put another way:

“It’s a test case.” That’s how Ron Davis, executive director of Cal Desal, an industry advocacy group, framed it.

“We like to tease them: Only the entire future of desal is riding on this project. No pressure.”

 

CA Dept. of Insurance “Suggested” Doctor NOT to Identify Himself as Christian

You do not have to use time travel to find bigots in California. If I want to find a bigot all I have to do is go to the California Department of Insurance. That is where Democrat Dave Jones, the Commissioner, allows his employees to warn doctors not to mention on the Internet they are Christians. Why hasn’t Jones gotten to the bottom of this and fired every bigot he has found?

This is a department that is out of control—but what did you expect when it is a political office. Corruption, bigotry and fraud is expected. Dave Jones has said and done nothing—and might be re-elected in November—with Christians voting for this open bigot! Shame on us for allowing this. Note the mainstream media has said nothing about government bigotry.California_Insurance_Commissioner_Dave_Jones_--_PD-CAGov

State apologizes, drops bizarre investigation of ObamaCare flyer

Brad Dacus, Pacific Justice Institute, 6/16/16
Bakersfield, CA—The California Department of Insurance (CDI) has taken the unusual step of apologizing to a Bakersfield doctor for what his attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute described as an extreme example of bureaucrats run amok.

Dr. Jan Mensink and his staff were visited by CDI investigators on May 7.  The investigation was purportedly sparked by a typo in a flyer distributed by the doctor about patient options under ObamaCare.  Despite the minor error, the investigator demanded information on all of Dr. Mensink’s patients, suggested that Dr. Mensink should not identify himself on the internet as a Christian, and even urged him to suspend all advertising during the investigation.  The lead investigator, from CDI’s Valencia office, left Dr. Mensink and his staff bewildered and provided only a business card as the sole basis for compliance with his demands.

A few days after the initial visit, Pacific Justice Institute began representing Dr. Mensink.  In a phone call to PJI staff attorney Matthew McReynolds on May 15, the lead investigator confirmed that his sweeping demands were based on a typo in a flyer, while claiming that it was “uncooperative with the investigation” to even ask that such demands for documents be communicated in writing.  “It was the single most bizarre conversation I’ve ever had with someone representing the government,” McReynolds noted. “It was like Barney Fife gone bad.”

After PJI sent a follow-up letter on May 19 insisting, at a minimum, that the State identify clear legal authority for its investigation, the CDI went silent until June 11.  In a phone call to McReynolds, a chief investigator in the Valencia office of the CDI apologized for the conduct of its agent, promised an internal investigation, and announced the closure of Dr. Mensink’s case.

PJI president Brad Dacus expressed both jubilation and concern.  “We are elated that the State has abandoned its very misguided and out-of-control investigation of Dr. Mensink,” Dacus noted.  “This incident has raised serious questions about the CDI and its agents who seem to have no concept of legal bounds.  We are calling on state leaders to probe the CDI to find out how something like this could happen, and what else these bureaucrats are doing to harass innocent citizens and waste taxpayer resources.”

PJI believes there may be additional victims and is interested in hearing from anyone whose free speech or religious freedom have also been threatened by the California Department of Insurance.

We are “SEIU Nongermane Objectors”–No Need to Pay Full Dues to a Union

Most people do not know, the unions refuse to tell them, that they do not have to pay for the radical political activities of a union. In San Bernardino the SEIU is using stolen personnel records for the purpose of harassing workers into paying them dues. SEIU spent tens of millions to elect Barack Obama, San Fran Nan, Boxer, Feinstein and the Democrat Sacramento Super Majority. The workers get higher taxes, more unemployment and Third World health care, while their children are held hostage in failed government schools controlled by the unions.

Read this press release and pass it on to your friends—let them know how to save money and

Stop the abuse of workers in this country.

www.SEIUNGO.com is a group of SEIU Members and Non Members whose goal is to educate and raise the awareness of ALL Participants that they are paying unknowingly a ‘voluntary’ contribution to political candidates and initiatives that they may not support. Participants can opt out of having to contribute towards that part of their dues. The Union does NOT want you to know, you CAN OPT OUT. The Union makes no attempt to notify their Members of their rights & options.”

SEIU-California-340x250

We are “SEIU Nongermane Objectors”

Who are we?

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world;

indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

 

For Immediate Release                                                           June 15, 2014

Lisa Garcia/SEIU Member

Mariam Noujaim/SEIU Member         916 834 8916

SEIU Confiscates Wages for Political Purposes

Objecting State Workers Obstructed by Red Tape.

SACRAMENTO- June 15, 2014. State workers Lisa Garcia and Mariam are standing up to their state employee union, the SIEU, for suppressing their First Amendment Rights. “We have launched our Campaign to educate all SEIU Participants about their option to discontinue paying SEIU dues that are used for political or ideological activities,” say Garcia and Noujaim.

 

They are spreading their message throughout California by sending it to email lists of fellow state workers and other interested friends and families. State workers who wish to opt out have little time, the month of June. Garcia and Noujaim are helping them wade through the complex forms and bureaucratese to restore their rights to contribute or not to the causes of their own choice, not those of union leaders.

WHAT SEIU 1000 DOES NOT WANT THEIR MEMBERS TO KNOW

A mass email campaign has been launched to inform all SEIU Local 1000 Participants of their right to choose. Over 83,000 emails have been rolled out to notify Members and Non Members that June is the month they have the option to become a Non Germane Objector. A Non Germane Objector, is an SEIU Participant who objects to a portion of their dues being used for purposes not related to collective bargaining

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/12/6479181/email-campaign-aims-to-cut-money.html#storylink=cp

www.SEIUNGO.com is a group of SEIU Members and Non Members whose goal is to educate and raise the awareness of ALL Participants that they are paying unknowingly a ‘voluntary’ contribution to political candidates and initiatives that they may not support. Participants can opt out of having to contribute towards that part of their dues. The Union does NOT want you to know, you CAN OPT OUT. The Union makes no attempt to notify their Members of their rights & options.

SEIU is not required to notify their Members in writing each year that June is the open enrollment period to Opt Out and become a Non Germane Objector. SEIU does send yearly notification to Non Members in an effort to encourage them to become Members to bring in additional revenue.

Members who choose to withdraw their ‘voluntary contribution’ lose their right to vote for the Officers who represent all collective bargaining for ALL Fair Share Fee Payers who are the ones who pay 66.4% of regular member dues. Non Germane Objectors are required every June to complete a new form to renew their Non Germane Objector status. SEIU is not required to send a notification to the Members to let them know of their right to Opt Out in June.

SEIU forces their Members to relinquish their membership as a requirement to Opt Out.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Lisa Garcia/SEIU Member                 916 893 4449              [email protected]

Mariam Noujaim/SEIU Member         916 834 8916              [email protected]

 

Below is the email that was sent to all SEIU Participants who have a State email:

OPEN ENROLLMENT FORM FOR SEIU/NGO 2014-12015

DEADLINE: July 1, 2014

 

www.seiuNGO.com

 

NGO (Non Germane Objector) Information can easily be verified by

SEIU Local 1000.  Phone Number:  (866) 471-7348.

 

The ‘Notice To Fair Share Fee Payers’ who object to expenditures not related to Collective Bargaining Activities i.e NGO (Non Germane Objector) is mailed by SEIU Local 1000 to Non-Members once a year.

 

Our mission is to educate & inform ALL SEIU Participants of their right/option to:

ONLY pay the dues amount required to cover the cost of

“Collective Bargaining”.

34% Saving Of Regular Monthly Dues

 

ADVANTAGE of Becoming a “Non Germane Objector” 2014 – 2015:

1-    REDUCE YOUR MONTHLY DUES by 34%

2-    STILL BE ENTITLED TO ‘FAIR & IMPARTIAL’ REPRESENTATION

 

“Effective July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 (the “2014-15 Fee Payer Year), SEIU LOCAL 1000 will charge fee payers who object to expenditures not germane to collective bargaining a fee of no more than 66.44% of regular membership dues for that salary level. In order to obtain this reduced amount, you must send an objection letter to SEIU LOCAL 1000’s Membership Processing Center”.

 

 

  • It must be received no later than July 1, 2014,

 

 

Completion of all 6 items on the ‘Objection Letter’ is a requirement.

(see form below)

 

 

OBJECTION LETTER TO SEIU LOCAL 1000’s MEMBERSHIP PROCESSING CENTER

SEIU Local 1000 Membership Cancellation & Non-Germane Objector (NGO)

www.seiuNGO.com

 

•       I am submitting this form to cancel my SEIU Local 1000 membership

•       I am filing for Non-Germane Objector

•       I object the use of my fees for activities NOT related to collective bargaining

 

________________________________________________________________

1-    SIGNATURE                                                                                   DATE

 

________________________________________________________________

2-        Print First/M.I./Last Name

 

3-        Street ADDRESS__________________________________________________

 

4-        CITY/State/ZIP: __________________________________________________

 

6-        Department: _____________________________

 

5-        Agency/Bargaining Unit see: www.seiuNGO.com                                      ________

6-        Last 4 digits of your SSN (for identification)   ___________

CSEA/SEIU Membership        1108 “O” Street, Ste 415         Sacramento, CA  95814

Objector letter must be received by July 1 2014.
 

Assemblyman Jim Patterson: Cap and Trade is a Slush Fund

We were told that “cap and trade” would save us from global warming. Instead it takes money from one company, gives it to another company—with the government taking a major cut—and the exact same pollution exists, just in a different place. Oh, the consumer gets to pay for all of this with higher prices for goods and services.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno has it right—this is a slush fund for politicians to give their donors, friends and supporters. Next years’ $250 million from this slush fund goes to the choo choo train to nowhere, for nobody but the unions the contractors and other donors to Democrat campaigns.

“This legislature has given the green-light to spend $250 million in cap-and-trade funds to prop up the fiscally irresponsible high-speed rail. Those funds come at the expense of our employers under the guise of offsetting carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade account has essentially become another slush fund for the Democrats to use when the money they want to spend doesn’t exist.”

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image18074825

Assemblyman Patterson’s Statement on the Passage of the State Budget

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, 6/16/14

SACRAMENTOAssembly Budget Committee member Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) made the following statement regarding the passage of the 2014-2015 state budget.

“The on-time passage of this budget is a win for legislators, who will continue to receive a paycheck, but it’s a real loss for the taxpayers of California and a blatant display of what happens when one party has all the power.”

“This budget increases spending by $12 billion over last year and is full of tax and fee increases, leaving only a paltry 0.4 percent reserve. Taxpayers have sent additional billions to Sacramento recently and this budget spends 99.6% of it. Not one cent is being returned to taxpayers.”

“This legislature has given the green-light to spend $250 million in cap-and-trade funds to prop up the fiscally irresponsible high-speed rail. Those funds come at the expense of our employers under the guise of offsetting carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade account has essentially become another slush fund for the Democrats to use when the money they want to spend doesn’t exist.”

“The short list of California doctors who still accept Medi-Cal patients will continue to work for free with the failure of this body to restore the 10 percent cuts to California’s already disproportionately low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. Patients will only find more doors closed to them when they seek treatment.”

“Lastly, trailer bill language that would tie the hands of our school districts, preventing them from building healthy reserve funds is disturbing and yet another example of the strangle-hold one party rule has on the Legislature.”

 

Economist: Twin Tunnels would spell disaster for California agriculture

In the end, it will be the consumer that will pay the more than $67 billion for the Delta Tunnel—really meant to pay off the unions and special interests. It will provide no new water—just push northern water to the south, kill off some of prime agriculture land in the State and raise the cost of water to everybody. This is such a bad plan, that while the confused Guv Brown is promoting it, I think Texas Guv Perry is really behind it—since it will force more productive California businesses and families to his State.

“Construction cost estimates for the BDCP’s twin water tunnels have increased from $4 billion to $15 billion;

• Anticipated water exports have decreased from 6.5 million acre-feet to about 5 million acre-feet with no increase in the water supply;

• Seismic benefit estimates have declined substantially;

• Chances of federal and state funding now or in the future have severely declined;”

On every level this is an economic disaster for the former Golden State.

ManInWater

 

Economist: Twin Tunnels would spell disaster for California agriculture
by Gene Beley, Delta Correspondent, Central Valley Business Times, 6/16/14

•  Jeffrey Michael says BDCP shifts risks to taxpayers

•  “The financial plan is a mess”
The controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan, if implemented, would spell disaster for California agriculture, says University of the Pacific economist Jeffrey Michael.

The massive, 40-foot in diameter twin water tunnels that are the reason more than $100 million has been spent on the BDCP plan could cost $67 billion, including interest on borrowed money, making the cost of any water the tunnels sent south of the Delta too costly for farming. Water for farming is the ostensible reason for the tunnels.

While it may have been a decent sounding project to the state’s water contractors when they started planning it back in 2006, the economics of the world have changed greatly since then, making it a huge financial risk, Mr. Michael told a recent meeting of the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

“So if these [water district] agencies are looking for good reasons to walk away form the project, I’ve given them a list of five,” he said.

Here they are:

• Construction cost estimates for the BDCP’s twin water tunnels have increased from $4 billion to $15 billion;

• Anticipated water exports have decreased from 6.5 million acre-feet to about 5 million acre-feet with no increase in the water supply;

• Seismic benefit estimates have declined substantially;

• Chances of federal and state funding now or in the future have severely declined;

• Urban water demand is declining and future population forecasts have dropped significantly.

“How much is this water going to cost?” Mr. Michael asked rhetorically. “Dr. Rodney Smith, a well known consulting economist who works with a lot of these water agencies, has expressed a lot of skepticism about the BDCP financing. Basically, he says, ‘I can’t tell you what the water will cost because no one will tell me what the yield of the product (twin tunnels) will be. It ranges from no extra water to best case scenario of 1.7 million acre feet of yield.’

“According to Dr. Smith, the best assumption is the water will cost over $500 an acre-foot to get it to Tracy. So that doesn’t work well for agriculture. If it doesn’t work well for agriculture, will it work for urban areas?”

That’s when Mr. Michael told about his experience appearing at Assemblyman Jim Frazier’s economic accountability hearing on the BDCP project February 12 and interacting with Dennis Cushman, assistant general manager of the San Diego Water Authority. Mr. Cushman told how they would have to pay $1.1 to $1.2 billion and that the “optimistic yield scenario” would be about 76,000 acre-feet.

So, although they have not opted out of the $67 billion BDCP twin tunnels yet, they opted to spend about $1 billion to build a desalination plant in Carlsbad that is guaranteed to produce 56,000 acre feet of purified water every year. “Basically, they said that the (BDCP) deal can not get any worse for us and keep us in,” said Mr. Michael.

“The product is designed as a very marginal product for urban areas and there has to be a lot of shifting of costs from agriculture users to urban users to make it work,” Mr. Michael said. “The financial plan is a mess. They still don’t have one after seven or eight years. The BDCP is counting on two or more water bonds to pass to finance the habitat.”

Risk Reduction – For Whom?

The UOP economist, who is the director of the university’s Business Forecasting Center, said that when BDCP’s supporters talk about risk reduction, they are talking about a select minority, not all users of water from the Delta, let alone all Californians.

“My view is most of the BDCP is reducing risk for the junior water rights holders that are customers of the projects and the State Water Project under the Department of Water Resources and increasing the risks to other users in that process. And that’s pretty important,” he said.

California water rights have been shaped by 150 years of legislation, litigation and violence. “Junior” water rights are much like the term would suggest – other rights holders have more say on getting water. Many of those getting water from the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project are junior rights holders.

Mr. Michael said if the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta needs more water, it would have to come from somebody else, which increases the risk to upstream users and taxpayers. “All this stuff needs to be accounted for from a state wide perspective,” he said.

“Another reason they [the water contractors] are worried is this big flood scenario. I have no idea what the probabilities are for that. In the Delta there are a lot of stakeholders who have an interest in flood control and integrity of those levees. It’s not risk reduction. It’s risk shifting. Be clear about that. The BDCP’s approach to risk reduction is to create an individual solution to take them out of the puzzle and leave everyone else on their own. If you take the water exporters out of the picture, indeed you’ll have less people there to share the common burden of that flood controls system.”

Regarding other parts of the BDCP package, he said the state “doesn’t have to build the tunnels to have that ‘stuff.’ It’s not being financed by the water exporters. It is being financed by bonds and the people of California. The BDCP — whether it is in the EIR [environmental impact report] or in their benefit cost analysis, in my view, shouldn’t be counted as benefits from habitat projects that aren’t financed by the proponents that can be reasonably expected to go forward within the tunnels. Those should be part of the baseline. If the state follows the 2009 Delta Reform Act, it says they have to achieve these co-equal goals, but doesn’t say only if we have a BDCP With or without the tunnels, they have to achieve that stuff. That is the proper baseline.”

He said in economics, if you want to make a project look good, you set up a weak alternative. “Another issue is evaluating environment,” Mr. Michael continued. “This is a sticky issue to do in economics.” He said he found an error in the BDCP: “Once it starts talking about environmental benefits of BDCP, it switches back to the EIR baseline.”

“I submitted those comments to the author of the report. They said they were going to correct the errors, but I haven’t seen a revised report yet.”

Mr. Michael also said there are “lots of optimistic assumptions” about construction by the BDCP — like no delays and everything happening on time. Nor have they factored in that San Diego’s Carlsbad desalinization plant will be on line by 2016, or other technological improvements that will happen in the next 50 years.

“I don’t think anybody that has an interest in California agriculture in the Delta or south of the Delta should be excited about the BDCP,” said Mr. Michael.

About Jeffrey Michael:

Mr. Michael received his Ph.D. from North Carolina State University. His areas of expertise include regional economic forecasting and environmental economics including work on the economic impacts of the Endangered Species Act, climate change, and regulation on land use, property values and employment growth.

He has been published in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Law and Economics, Southern Economic Journal, Energy Policy, and Ecological Economics.

Mr. Michael makes frequent presentations to the regional business and government audiences, and is cited over 200 times per year in the local and national press including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times Magazine, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsweek, National Geographic, Washington Post, NPR, and PBS.

Before coming to Pacific in 2008, he spent nine years as faculty, associate dean, and director of the Center for Applied Business and Economic Research at Towson University in Maryland.

Sen. Nielsen: State Budget Sets Record Spending and Depends on Rosy Revenue Projections

California is going to spend $12 billion MORE this year than last. Our very confused Guv Brown is still claiming a surplus and balanced budget—while the State Controller says we have an $8.5 billion cash deficit, the LAO says we have a $340 billion debt (which becomes $348.5 billion on July 1). The real unemployment in California –the U-6, total of unemployment, underemployed and discouraged is 16.7%. In April our sales tax revenues dropped 3.1% and in May it dropped 2.3%–while in May Texas sales tax collection increased by 8.6%.

California is in a Depression—and our economics are getting worse.

“The budget sets a new record on spending and depends on rosy revenue projections that may or may not become reality. If the revenues don’t come in as expected, the state could face deficits and tax increases,” Senator Nielsen added.”

money surplus budget bank

“State Budget Sets Record Spending and Depends on Rosy Revenue Projections,” says Nielsen.

Senator Jim Nielsen, 6/15/14

The Legislature barely passed the state’s spending plan before the Constitutional deadline Sunday night. Expressing his frustration with the broken budget process and backroom deals, Vice Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Jim Nielsen, voted against the budget.

“While this bill may be better than years past, it includes deals that were made without much public input particularly one that penalizes local school districts for being financially prudent,” said Senator Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber). “This is no way to do the people’s business.”

“The budget sets a new record on spending and depends on rosy revenue projections that may or may not become reality. If the revenues don’t come in as expected, the state could face deficits and tax increases,” Senator Nielsen added.

The budget bill – Senate Bill 852 – increases state spending for a variety of state programs from education to public safety. Below are the major reasons why Republicans opposed the final budget bill:

  • Record High Spending – Over $250 billion total funds represents a $20 billion increase over last year.  $108 billion General Fund spending level is about $12 billion higher than last year.
  • More Spending and Less Debt Repayment than Governor’s Original Plan – Appears to reduce the amount of debt repayment by about $800 million relative to Governor’s budget plan while increasing new permanent spending by at least $700 million annually.
  • Restrict Responsible Budgeting for Local Schools – In a last minute amendment, Democrat lawmakers sided with special interests to limit local school districts’ ability to save for a rainy day fund. This is a huge step backward for transparency and a disincentive for fiscal responsibility among local schools.
  • Lacks Quality Control to Maintain Program Integrity in the following programs:

o   High Speed Rail – $66.6 million in state operations funding to continue the development of the high-speed rail. Includes $32 million in federal funds for the Southern California improvements, which may require repayment to the federal government if the system is never built. This is in addition to the $8 billion appropriated in SB 1029 (Committee on Budget, 2012) for high-speed rail and connectivity costs.

o   Cap and Trade – Includes $850 million in Cap and Trade revenues to fund high speed rail, urban housing, wetland restoration, and low income weatherization.  These programs have no clear nexus to the Cap and Trade fee nor do any metrics exist to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions reductions that would result from these programs.

o   Air Resources Board – Provides funding for the California Air Resources Board to continue to impose more regulations and fees on Californians through their greenhouse gas emissions, Cap and Trade, diesel retrofits, and zero emission vehicle programs.

o   Drivers Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants – Includes more than $67 million from the Motor Vehicle Account for DMV to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.

o   Early Release of Criminals – Includes $3.1 million to expand sentence credits for second strikers.

o   In Home Support Services – $600 million increase to provide overtime compensation to caregivers. About 70 percent of recipients receive care from a family member and California is one of only eight states that pay spouses and parents to provide personal care services to their own family members.

o   Welfare Increase – $170.8 million to increase CalWORKs grants by five percent in 2014-15. California currently has the 5th highest welfare grant in the nation, and is 2nd highest amongst the ten largest states.

“This year’s budget spending is supported by a massive tax increase that sunsets in 2016. What do we do then? Extend this ‘temporary tax’?” concluded Senator Nielsen.

The budget bill and the accompanying trailer bills will head to the Governor’s desk for his veto or approval. At his discretion, the Governor can also use his “blue pencil” to eliminate a budget line item he deems objectionable.