Here are the excerpts from the Prop A portion of the the KUSI Show last night. Judge for yourself whether the Yes side or the No side speaks for San Diego Taxpayers.

First Segment – Yes on A – Crosby and Cate

Second Segment – No on A – Zaharopoulos

Third Segment – Roundtable – Nehring, Zaharopoulos, Crosby

1. Red Ryder says:

   June 1, 2012 at 8:35 am

   Wow is that the best the labor groups could come up with?

   Seems like Zaharopoulos was having problems reading or remembering the talking points that the union consultants gave her.

   Yes on A not only has done a much better job at getting it’s message out, they have a truthful message and are not distorting the facts.

   If the city has never used a PLA then why would labor spend thousands of dollars to fight Prop A? What do they have to fear?

   Maybe Ms. Zaharopoulos should take a look at the thug tactics that organized labor uses to intimidate non-union workers. If she is truly for fairness and justice then she would defend everyone’s right to work.
2. Alger says:

   June 1, 2012 at 1:49 pm

   “thug tactics that organized labor uses to intimidate non-union workers.” Can you provide specific examples?

   As you pointed out, and I concur, the Yes on A side has done a better job of getting its message out. In my opinion, however, resorting to stereotypes and name-calling detracts from that message.
3. Michael A. Schwartz says:

   June 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm

   Alger:
   Might not be right down the center of the subject, but it is an example of unscrupulous San Diego union leaders. Orrin is a friend of mine and the behavior of the local union thug during this election was atrocious. He lied and intimidated Orrin because Orrin was not a union member.

   Alger, do you condemn this union leader’s behavior in this specific instance? Or is it OK with you?

   http://sdrostra.com/?p=8901#comments
4. Michael A. Schwartz says:

   June 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm

   Alger,
   Here’s a lawsuit filed by a company that was being intimidated by some thugs from NECA.

   http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20060227_0002251.ECA.htm/qx

   They didn’t get their injunction, but it wasn’t because they weren’t being intimidated.

   Care to condemn NECA’s behavior too?
5. Richard Rider says:

   June 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm

   A massacre! Unions don’t do well when persuasion rather then coercion is the weapon of combat.

   I’m right proud of Chris and Scott in this debate, but, my Goodness! — THAT’s the union’s best and brightest???? Egad!

   Still, the Gods smiled on the unions. The format precluded a head-to-head debate. That would have been almost too painful to watch.

   Almost.
6. Alger says:

   June 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm

   Michael,

   I am not ok with any campaign piece that is not factual. If the piece in question was a lie, I do condemn it. I don’t, however, believe that Red Ryder was referring to mail hit pieces when referencing “thug tactics.”

   I will ask you the same thing. Do you condemn untruthful hit pieces put out by candidates you support?
7. Richard Rider says:

   June 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm

   OOPS! When I wrote the above posting, I had failed to watch the third video. Rectified that error.

   I was wrong about the painful part. That was fun!!!
8. Michael A. Schwartz says:

   June 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm

   I dunno yet. It’s never happened.

   I’ll let you know.
9. Alger says:

   June 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm

   Michael,

   As to the Helix case, I don’t think requesting certified payrolls constitutes thuggery. Do you?

   The term thug leads one to picture physical intimidation. I am still waiting for one example. Even the one that is the exception that proves the rule.

   As for your last post, I am quite sure you know that is B.S.
10. Red Ryder says:

    June 1, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Here you go Alger, since you are not capable of doing a search on the Internet, I did the work for you. You must be a union member and it is not in your work description to do a simple Internet search.

    These are just a few examples. Don’t believe these, then ask some non-union trade workers if they have seen it.

    http://tdn.com/news/local/article_839ae21c-de40-11e0-84ef-001cc4c002e0.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CkDnU-fXo

    http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2012/02/seiu-organizing-tactics-include-intimidation-and-lying-to-workers-company-alleges/
11. Alger says:

    June 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Red,

    Had to go out of state and an anti-union blog for examples? Maybe that’s why I failed to find any legitimate local examples when I tried searching.

    To repeat what I have often said, I am not nor have I ever been a member of any union.
12. Richard Rider says:

    June 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Alger, did you ever WORK for a labor union?
13. Alger says:

    June 2, 2012 at 6:15 am

    Richard,

    Since you say you know who I am, then you know the answer to that question is also no.
14. Alger says:

    June 2, 2012 at 6:23 am

    Another reason to think twice before voting yes on Prop A:

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/01/prop-a-could-hit-sds-bond-rating/
15. Richard Rider says:

    June 2, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Alger, you’re as hard to nail to the wall as Jello. And as slippery.

    Let’s try this — do you work for an association whose membership is OVERWHELMINGLY (if not entirely) labor union companies?

    An organization that (on its website) says [with proper redacting to protect your treasured anonymity] –

    “The primary services of the association are for signatory [companies] who hire union [employees]. Non-union firms may be approved for membership based upon the practice of each local chapter; however, many of our chapters do not accept non-union members.”
16. Red Ryder says:

    June 2, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Alger,

    you asked for an example and I provided several. Then you move the bar and now want one in the state. Then I will provide one in the state and you will say you want one in the city. Then I will provide one in the city and you will ask for a specific labor union.

    You’re only fooling yourself if you honestly believe that the local unions do not try to physically intimidate. That is the only reason I believe you are not a part of a union.

    On the other hand, Mat Kostrinsky didn’t work for one either, oops!
17. Alger says:

    June 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Yes Richard, you got me there. I guess this puts me in the same category as the CEO of SDG&E since all of their labor is unionized also.

    I am generally pro-union because, although I don’t always agree wiith their positions or tactics, I do believe that, on balance, unions do more good than bad for society and the world would be a worse place without them.

    What about you? Why do you hate unions so much? Were you kicked out of a union in your younger years? Maybe lose a job to a unionized worker? Or maybe you just believe that, on balance, unions do more bad than good and the world would be a better place without them.

    People can have strong opinions on a topic without having a personal stake in the outcome.
18. Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters says:

    June 2, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Alger, I’m made clear my biases. You have not.

    Moreover, my bias is ideological — based on years of reading and observation. Yours is based on your economic self interest. Your entire compensation is dependent on labor unions holding sway.

    Nice try, attempting to base my anti-union bias on some adverse personal labor union experience that somehow cost me money. Doesn’t fly.

    I WILL say I have had some government union workers working for me while I served as a Navy Supply Officer. THAT’S an education we all should experience at some time in our lives. Maybe I’ll share some stories sometime on Rostra.

    I might add that I’m not opposed to private labor unions — as long as they don’t use government to gain for themselves what they can’t negotiate without coercion. As you know better than I, that is the way unions and their members gain economic advantage — through legal coercion — at everyone else’s expense.

    I AM opposed to government employee labor unions. Public employees have enough advantages without unionization — and a unionized government monopoly service puts the public at the mercy of the union bosses.

    In sum — as you point out — “People can have strong opinions on a topic without having a personal stake in the outcome.” But everyone on Rostra needs to understand that — in YOUR case — you have a clear “personal stake in the outcome” — and weigh your thoughts accordingly.