Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Loading images
Thursday, less than two hours after Governor Schwarzenegger finished his State of the State address, a few hundred members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000 gathered to protest on the south steps of the State Capitol.
The SEIU, whose mission is to improve the lives of workers and their families, held seven simultaneous protests against budget cuts for state workers, including gatherings in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.
For many California families, problems with our national economy compounds the problems within the state's budget.
Although the crowd was roughly half the size of the previous day's protest, today's chants were louder and led by several protesters using megaphones. The protesters nearly all wore the same purple t-shirt and held the same SEIU sign which read "Value Us".
Tensions seemed to be escalated because of the Governor's presence in the Capital Building, and a handful of police officers on bicycles circled the group.
Yvonne Walker, President of the SEIU Local 1000 was the first of three speakers to address the audience.
When asked when she lost faith in Governor Schwarzenegger, she said, "I lost faith when he stopped governing California, and started governing sound bytes." She made it clear that the SEIU would do whatever they could until the governor fixes the state of the California.
"We can eliminate contracts for private employees who do the same job as state workers do for twice the price" she said in her speech. Her statement "We, are not a strain on the state budget, we are value added," drew loud cheers from nearly everyone present.
Meanwhile, another protester, Tom Stroud, said that recent budget cuts had affected "continuing training for teachers, cut funds to buy new textbooks, and eliminated other education programs entirely."
Stroud, a teacher in the state prison system, explained that he lost faith in the governor in 2005 when Schwarzenegger backed propositions 75 and 76 aimed at cutting state workers' pensions.
Proposition 75 passed, effectively prohibiting union members such as teachers, nurses, and law enforcement officers from voicing opposition to budget cuts. He promises to attend more SEIU protests whenever he could.
As the speeches neared the end, organizers led the crowd into spirited chants such as "Furlough Arnold", "We need California Safe", and "Value Us".
As the crowd dispersed, many stopped by a table where a few organizers handed out sack lunches and soda, a reimbursement to members for spending their lunchtime to protest together.
SEIU came about in the year 1921 when a group of janitors and security officers joined smaller unions in the Chicago area. In addition to being the most diverse union consisting of 56 percent women, the SEIU also represents the largest group of immigrant workers, more than any other union. They are the largest healthcare union in the U.S. and the second largest public services and property services union.
Was anyone there? Did you feel that the crowd was different from Wednesday's protest? Are you a state worker, and how is the budget affecting you? How can we solve the budget?
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I'm going to throw this out there. Everyone is selfish. They don't care about California's survival. Little do they realize that if California goes to hell in a hand basket, the end result is that their entire livelihood will go down with it, as opposed to the relatively minor pay cut that will result from the Governor's proposed work furlough program. The Governor is making the tough decisions. That is what Californians elected him to do. Anybody who has turned against the Governor, simply because he is doing his job and trying to save California from a dire situation that he had no role in creating, is completely incapable of grasping the big picture and should be fired for his complete and utter inability to view the world beyond his own nose.
who said anything about protecting them?
I see nothing written here that involves the exlusion of a union.
They have just as much right to air thier grievances as we do to fart in a bullhorn.
And I refuse to ask if you would give up pay, because it's easy for you to say no when you aren't losing a MONTH'S worth of salary.
HAHAHAHAHHHA!
Yeah right, these state employees need to live a little life in the private sector before they start whining.
Look, everyone else is feeling the pinch, who are they to think that they are above it all?
They should be glad they are getting furloughs and not getting fired or laid off.
I applaud the governor and his get tough with the union stance.
Maybe these coddled union babies can grow a pair and polish their resume and tough it out like the rest of us out here in reality-ville.
In the end the budget crisis affects every Californian, so every Californian should share in the burden of getting the State back on track. Not unfairly burdening one sector of the population. You're talking about approximately 238,000 people, or roughly .6% of the State's population (38 mil), taking on 3% (1.3 bil) of the burden of the budget problem (42 bil).
Oh and the "coddled union babies" are part of what made this country great, by not allowing employers to unfairly take advantage of labor and allowed the middle class to exist.
It's a UNION. Reps are obligated to do this, as they are paid to bring to attention what is in the best interest of thier members. They have a P.A., so you muttle under your breath how you think it's wrong?
Daniel, you refuse to ask a hypothetical question, yet you phrase it, anyways. Well, since you've so boldly stated a rhetorical hypothetical question, I will take it upon myself to answer it: Yes, I would give up pay. I would give up pay because the alternative is taking my chances at being laid off once the Government becomes insolvent and I would not want to take my chances at looking for work in a private sector where minimum wage jobs are suddenly in high demand (even though I am currently employed in the private sector). Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be particularly happy about it, but it is still better than the alternative.
Paul, the Governor is hardly saying that we should eliminate public goods and you're taking your argument to an extreme, which frankly would be reached in the event that the State becomes insolvent. However, he is saying that we should pare back the level of services in an attempt to get the State's finances under control. I'm not arguing that we should privatize state jobs, but I will say that some unions have caused for their employees to receive wage and benefit packages which are much too high for the value of the labor conferred. You're right, though. It sucks that state workers are going to have to suffer a disproportionate amount of the burden, but at the same time, those that keep their jobs should be counted amongst the fortunate, given the circumstances.
Jonathan, how does cutting spending increase the deficit?
"The problem is that government spending has outpaced growth."
Go sit in the gallery and listen. You will realize that alot of this money spending is not near as relevant to keeping the state in order.
I was not serious about firing everybody that has turned against Arnold. However, even if I were, that would not create a larger deficit and frankly could go a long way to solving the deficit, but I digress. I would just encourage everybody to try to understand the budget deficit from his perspective instead of lambasting him for trying to do his job.
During the election period of 2008, McClintock was accused of taking Per Diem when he didn't need it. I refuse to believe he is THE ONLY PERSON that is taking advantage of a loophole that gives a right to the tax-free payments.
But this is promising: http://www.politickerca.com/jamieklatell/269/pig-book-california-ranks-49th-pork-barrel-spending