Sept. 10, 1998
Letters
The Oregonian
Portland, Oregon
Dear Editor:
The Oregonian's front page story, "Fight for union coffer a duel of dualities," Sept. 8, 1998, by Steve Mayes, misrepresents the content and effect of Measure 59 as it will appear on the ballot in Oregon on Nov.3. In paragraph after paragraph this story describes the "payroll deduction" dispute as it has appeared in numerous states and in Congress - as an effort by Republicans and conservatives to require individual members of public employee unions to give written permission each year in order for union dues which will be used for political purposes to be withheld from paychecks. The story repeats the right wing arguments that union leaders believe their members won't agree to have dues withheld and that this is why union bosses oppose the requirement for permission.
The truth is that Sizemore and Norquist's Measure 59 would flatly prohibit the withholding of union dues to be used for political purposes, WITH OR WITHOUT workers' permission. The Apprentice quotes from the website of the Oregon Secretary of State: Under M-59 it would be illegal, "To recognize a public employee's request to payroll deduct part of the employee's wages and transfer that deducted money to an organization that uses all or part of that money to support or oppose candidates, initiatives or ballot measures."
The Oregonian's comparisons of the California and other "payroll protection" proposals to Oregon's Measure 59 is both direct and implied throughout the article, with the totally inadequate differentiating remarks first appearing in paragraph 29. Even then, the distinction is general and obscure and does not inform readers that much of the previous text, in particular that regarding union members supporting or not supporting their organization's political goals, is totally irrelevant to Oregon's Measure 59.
A second unfair aspect of this very biased anti-union article is that nowhere does it even mention the fact, recognized by the Election Division's Explanatory Statement Committee, that M-59, if passed into law, would forbid The Oregon Voters' Pamphlet from accepting statements supporting or opposing candidates or ballot measures (refer also to the above link to the Secretary of State's website). Such a stifling of the political debate might well be in the interest of The Oregonian and the political right, but it would not be in the interest of democracy.