Letters

Paycheck Deception — or Protection?

We live in a representative, not a participatory, democracy. In union terms, that means we elect our leaders and trust them to act to our advantage. If we are unhappy with them, we can elect people we approve of.

So you can see the deceit in "paycheck deception." Its advocates are trying to stun us into confusion. Our representatives — our AFSCME leaders — uphold our interests. It would be impossible for each union member to be familiar with all of the issues; that would take too much time out of the average member’s life.

—William Ohle
Local 1482 (DC 37)
New York City

My view of "paycheck protection" (May/June) is different than yours. In my job, I am forced to belong to AFSCME. Union dues, including the amount used for political action, is deducted from my paycheck. Although 40 percent of your members are Republican, they are forced to donate to support your liberal views and the Democratic Party.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

—Robert Henderson
Local 3464 (Council 31)
Peoria, Ill.

In your article on "Paycheck Protection" (May/June), I find many discrepancies. Although I am strongly against privatization, I take issue with the idea of using union dues to support particular political candidates or parties. While a union may exhort its membership to vote or support parties or candidates, it has no right to finance these.

The political use of the words "right" or "right wing" is a fallacy. The former Clinton administration was "right wing," despite all its supposed liberalism. In addition, the last election showed that the majority of people including union members appear to support the so called "right" and even "far right." Categorizing all "right wingers" as anti-union, capitalist or fascist is reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when anyone with progressive or liberal ideas was labeled a "pinko" or a communist.

—Hans Heckelman
NY/CSEA Retiree 
Chapter 1000 
Kenmore, N.Y.

 

Support Those Who Support Us

Backing the candidates who will protect our rights should be our criteria when we decide who to support. In the state of Washington, we have the opportunity to back a man who consistently supports the working person.

Congressman Brian Baird and his staff pursued a claim I made that was being ignored by a federal agency, brought it back to life and then gave me updates until the claim was resolved. Although I was working outside his district and will soon leave, one of his letters stated, "Don’t worry, Ed, I will not drop this just because you are moving."

This is the kind of elected official or candidate we should remember and support.

—Ed Wilson
Local 330 (Council 28)
Ellensburg, Wash.

In the Middle

I’ve always considered myself middle-of-the-road politically and have been able to see both sides of issues. However, reading the president’s column in the July/August issue, I was appalled at the one-sided rhetoric. On that one page, I counted at least five references to the differences between "working people" and "the wealthy." According to this union, the person who fulfills his dream becomes one of the reviled wealthy. I’m sick of it! Are readers brainwashed into believing that people who have a substantial amount of money don’t work, that they sit around all day being useless? Let’s not forget the American Dream: Work hard; earn money to purchase whatever it is that makes you happy; and perhaps, with perseverance, gain a position in which you are able to give other people jobs to allow them to earn the money to fulfill their dreams.

—Judy Allen
Local 587 (Council 48)
Mequon, Wis.

Count Those Troops

Regarding Secretary-Treasurer Lucy’s column, "From Now On, Make Every Vote Count" (March/April): What was not identified as a specific issue was the military absentee ballots. AFSCME has a large number of veterans among its members, myself included, and the manner in which the votes of our military people was handled makes my blood boil.

There was a concerted effort by overseers from the Democratic Party to challenge as many of the military votes as possible, and the total number invalidated was approximately 1,500. Things like missing postmarks from field stations, ships or outposts/frontlines were ruled to be invalid. That is a little strange considering a federal ruling that said those ballots are acceptable.

Reasons given for invalidation of a ballot were numerous: incorrect spelling, dates, signatures, etc. Considering that military personnel — overseas or out of state — took the time to cast ballots, as much effort should have been given to counting them as all the so-called "non-counted under votes."

—Gary D. Krause
Chapter 3, Local 1218 
(Council 24)
Wisconsin Rapids, Wis.

Editor’s Note — In a report published on July 15, The New York Times concluded that of the 2,490 Florida ballots cast for President last November by citizens living abroad, 680 were "questionable." Many of those came from military personnel, and hundreds were accepted by state and county officials "under intense pressure from the Republicans."

TO OUR READERS

Public Employee welcomes letters. Please include your council/local affiliations. Send your comments to:

Public Employee magazine
1625 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5687 
or e-mail: pubaffairs@afscme.org