Difference between revisions of "Paycheck protection on the ballot"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "==Also see==" to "==See also==")
(14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Aflsmall.gif|right|200px]]
+
[[Paycheck protection on the ballot]]: This subtopic of [[Wages and pay on the ballot|"wages and pay"]] refers to ballot measures regarding whether public employers (state government agencies, city and county governments, and public school districts) can deduct such things as union dues, any part of which will go into political activity, from public payroll checks without the advance authorization of the employee from whose paycheck the deduction is being taken.
  
'''Paycheck protection ballot measures''' have appeared on ballots in [[California]], [[Oregon]] and [[Colorado]].  This type of [[initiative]] or legislation is intended to prohibit public employers--state government agencies, city and county governments, and public school districts--from deducting union dues, any part of which will go into political activity, from public payroll checks without the advance authorization of the employee from whose paycheck the deduction is being taken.
+
Examples:
 
+
* [[Colorado Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative, Amendment 49 (2008)]]
In Colorado, this type of legislation is called [[Ask First]].
+
* [[Oregon No Public Resources To Collect Political Funds, Measure 64 (2008)]]
<div style="float:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em;">__TOC__</div>
+
{{On the ballot list
 +
|category1 = Paycheck_protection
 +
|category2 = paycheck_protection
 +
|text = paycheck protection
 +
}}
 
==History==
 
==History==
  
 
A United States Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in June 2007 said that states may create laws granting extra protections to public-sector workers who want to be asked first before the union can spend their money on political causes.  The Supreme Court ruling upheld a 1992 law in [[Washington]] approved by 73% of voters that required unions to receive "affirmative authorization" from non-member agency fee payers before spending mandatory fees on politics.<ref>[http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=152 ''Think Tank Lauds Major Decision for Free Speech'']</ref>
 
A United States Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in June 2007 said that states may create laws granting extra protections to public-sector workers who want to be asked first before the union can spend their money on political causes.  The Supreme Court ruling upheld a 1992 law in [[Washington]] approved by 73% of voters that required unions to receive "affirmative authorization" from non-member agency fee payers before spending mandatory fees on politics.<ref>[http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=152 ''Think Tank Lauds Major Decision for Free Speech'']</ref>
  
==List of paycheck protection initiatives==
+
==See also==
 
+
* [[Ask First]]
===2008===
+
 
+
* [[Colorado Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative (2008)]]
+
 
+
===2007===
+
 
+
* [[Centennial 200 (2007)]]
+
* [[Englewood 200 (2007)]]
+
* [[Greeley 200 (2007)]]
+
 
+
===2005===
+
 
+
* [[California Proposition 75 (2005)]]
+
 
+
===2000===
+
 
+
* [[Oregon Ballot Measure 98 (2000)]]
+
 
+
===1998===
+
 
+
* [[Oregon Ballot Measure 59 (1998)]]
+
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 38: Line 21:
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
  
 
[[Category:Paycheck protection]]
 
[[Category:Paycheck protection]]

Revision as of 11:08, 15 June 2012

Paycheck protection on the ballot: This subtopic of "wages and pay" refers to ballot measures regarding whether public employers (state government agencies, city and county governments, and public school districts) can deduct such things as union dues, any part of which will go into political activity, from public payroll checks without the advance authorization of the employee from whose paycheck the deduction is being taken.

Examples:

Ballot measures lists

Voting on
Paycheck Protection
Wages and pay.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Issues
IssuesBallot logo final.jpg

Measures by topic
Measures by year
Measures by state

History

A United States Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in June 2007 said that states may create laws granting extra protections to public-sector workers who want to be asked first before the union can spend their money on political causes. The Supreme Court ruling upheld a 1992 law in Washington approved by 73% of voters that required unions to receive "affirmative authorization" from non-member agency fee payers before spending mandatory fees on politics.[1]

See also

External links

Notes