Grassroots Infrastructure for Initiatives and Recalls is Growing in California

Local and State Initiatives – The Future of Policy in California?

Housing and Transportation – How California’s Legislature Gets EVERYTHING Wrong

How California’s Legislation Targeting Public Charter Schools Shows That Blue States Can Oppress Black People Too

WIN CASH: Proposition 65 Photo Contest

Win Big Dollars!

Proposition 65 Photo Contest





Have you seen a Proposition 65 sign lately? The signs are everywhere in California. Are they absurd? Funny? So absurd, they’re funny?

Now your sense of humor can win you a prize, just as it has for Contessa who has won $1500 (weeks 6 ,912,  14, 15, 18, 19, 20. 2223, 24, 26, 29, 32, and 47); Shanae, who has won $1200 (weeks 14, 5, 7 , 10, 1116, 21, 28, 43, 46, and 49); Joseph who has won $500 (weeks 41, 44, 45, 48, and 51); Danielle $400 (weeks 27,  30, 33, and 36) and John (weeks 37, 38, 39, and 40), who have won $400; Jamey (weeks 8 and 13) and Gary (week 25 and 42) who have won $200 and Tony (week 2), Stephen (week 3) Greg (week 17), Mary (week 31), Chantal (week 34), and David (week 35) who have each won $100. When you see a particularly absurd sign, snap a picture. The person who submits the best picture of the week will win $100 each and every week for the next 2 weeks. After, you are eligible to win an additional $1,000 if one of your winning pictures is voted the best of the 52 weekly winners.


Eligibility:  Everyone is eligible to participate.  There are no age limits.

Here’s How to Enter a Picture. 

Step 1:  Find a Prop 65 warning that you find humorous or absurd. Take a picture of the warning.  Make sure it is legible.  If the context is not clear, take a picture of the place that you found it as well and combine or post both pictures side by side.  Don’t forget to add a caption.

Step 2:  Post your photos on any or all of the following: Facebook, Twitter and/or Instagram. Use the tag @calpolicycenter (on Facebook or Twitter) or @californiapolicy (on Instagram) in your post and include the Hashtag “#Prop65Contest”.

Step 3: Make sure your account is public so we can see the post!

How Winners Will be Determined:

Clear Pictures Required – Pictures must show a clear legible Proposition 65 Warning and the Setting in which it was taken. See pool above and beach shoe example below.

A clever caption must be included– either in the picture or in the post message. Posts should make folks laugh or at the very least, smile.

Creativity And Impact Count! We will judge entrants on originality, humor, quality, and impact of message. The “impact of message” will be measured by checking out how many people liked/retweeted/shared your photo.

PRIZES

Weekly $100 Winner for 52 weeks!    Each week, we’ll choose a winner from the pictures posted during the week– and the winner will receive $100 payable via Venmo. The contest will run for 52 weeks. There’s no limit to the number of $100 prizes you can win.  Technically, you could win the prize for all 52 weeks. So keep posting new photos. Don’t stop even if you have been declared the week’s winner. Each week’s contest will begin on Monday and end on the following Sunday at 12:00 PDT. The weekly winner will be announced the next day (Monday) by 6:00 P.M. PDT .

$1,000 Prize for the Best of the Best – At the end of the contest, we’ll have a playoff – pitting the best of the best in a crowd-sourced vote to determine the No. 1 Prop 65 Warning photo.  The winner will receive the grand prize of $1,000 payable via Venmo.

How To Find Proposition 65 Signs  They are everywhere.  Just open your eyes and you will find them in any place that is open to the public, even Disney rides.  There’s another source that is making its way to store shelves. Products produced after August 30, 2018 are required to bear a Proposition 65 warning on the outside of the package.   Watch for the new packaging. It should provide you with even more photographic opportunities.

Why are we running this contest? Because Proposition 65 is not serving its intended purpose – to warn consumers of real risks of cancer or birth defects from chemicals.  Instead, Californians are warned that normal activities like breathing, eating (even healthy, organic foods), drinking (coffee*, beer, or alcohol), driving, swimming, walking in beach shoes, picnicking, or even using a restroom puts them at risk of cancer and their progeny for birth defects. To get an idea of the pervasive nature of Prop 65 warnings, watch



Why are there so many warnings?  Because of the way California assesses risk. More on this here.

 Of even greater consequence, is the slew of absurd warnings that result.  The warnings are virtually guaranteed to be disregarded, and in the process, much like the “Boy who cried Wolf,” ensure that the real warnings that should be heeded are ignored.

This contest is an effort to bring people to their senses.  There’s nothing like humor to illustrate a point.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTEST
By participating you affirm you are the sole author/owner of the photograph and are placing the photograph in the public domain with the understanding that it may be republished on our site and used inother social media.
We can change these rules at any time, for any reason.

By entering the Contest, you agree that you have read these Official Rules and are in agreement with them.  By participating, you hereby waive any and all rights that exist in your submission and any derivative works made therefrom, including any moral rights, right of publicity, copyright and other intellectual property rights.  You further agree that anyone may utilize, replicate, alter, adapt, modify, publish, perform, broadcast, translate, produce derivative works from, distribute, present, or display any and all portions of your submission in any media now known or later created, anywhere and forever.



STAY CONNECTED. USE THE FORM BELOW TO BE UPDATED WHEN NEW WINNERS ARE ANNOUNCED.



MORE GREAT ARTICLES



How Can Local Officials Prepare for the Upcoming Janus vs AFSCME Ruling?

“A public employer shall provide all public employees an orientation and shall permit the exclusive representative, if applicable, to participate.”
– Excerpt from California State Assembly Bill AB 52, December 2016

In plain English, AB 52 requires every local government agency in California to bring union representatives into contact with every new hire, to “allow workers the opportunity to hear from their union about their contractual rights and benefits.” What’s this all about?

As explained by Adam Ashton, writing for the Sacramento Bee, “New California government workers will hear from union representatives almost as soon as they start their jobs under a state budget provision bolstering labor groups as they prepare for court decisions that may cut into their membership and revenue.”

Ashton is referring to the case set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court early next year, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. A ruling is expected by mid-year. It is possible, if not likely, that the ruling will change the rules governing public sector union membership. In pro-union states like California, public sector workers are required to pay “agency fees,” which constitute the vast majority of union revenue, even if they laboriously opt-out of paying that portion of union dues that are used explicitly for political campaigning and lobbying.

Needless to say, this law is designed to allow union representatives to get to newly hired public employees as soon as they walk in the door, in order to convince them to join the union and pay those dues. But can anyone argue against union membership?

The short answer is no. To deter such shenanigans, SB 285, thoughtfully introduced by Senator Atkins (D-San Diego), adds the following section to the Government Code: “A public employer shall not deter or discourage public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization.” Governor Brown signed this legislation on October 9th. So much for equal time.

So what can local elected officials do, those among them who actually want to do their part to attenuate the torrent of taxpayer funded dues pouring into the coffers of public employee unions in California? Can they provide the contact information for public employees to outside groups who may be able to provide equal time?

Once again, the answer is no. To deter access even to the agency emails of public employees, a new law bans public agencies from releasing the personal email addresses of government workers, creating a new exemption in the California Public Records Act. Those email addresses could be used by union reformers to provide the facts to public employees. How this all became law provides another example of just how powerful public sector unions are in Sacramento.

In order to quickly get the primary provision of AB 52 enacted, which allows union representatives into new public employee orientations, along with a provision to deny public access to public employee emails, both were added at the last minute to the California Legislature’s 2017-2018 budget trailer bill, AB 119. The union access to new employee orientations is Article 1. The denial of email access is Article 2.

So how are the unions preparing for the Janus ruling? By (1) making sure the union operatives get to new employees as soon as they begin working, (2) by preventing agency employers from saying anything to deter new employees from joining the unions, and (3) by preventing anyone else from getting the official agency emails for new employees in order to inform them of their rights to not join a union. That’s a lot.

So what can you do, if union reformers control a majority on your agency board or city council, and you in a position to try to oppose these unions?

First, examine the legal opinions surrounding the wording of SB 285, “A public employer shall not deter or discourage public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization.” The words “deter” and “discourage” do not in any way preclude providing facts. Consider this preliminary opinion posted on the website of the union-controlled Public Employee Relations Board:

“One major concern I have is that the terms “deter” and “discourage” are not defined. What if an employee comes to an employer with questions about what it means to be a member of the union, and the employer provides truthful responses. For example, assume that the employer confirms that being a member will mean paying dues. What if that has the effect of deterring or discouraging the employee from joining the union?”

It is possible for employers to present facts regarding union membership without violating the new law. Find out what disclosures remain permissible, and make sure new employees get the information.

Another step that can be taken, although probably not by local elected officials, is to challenge the new law that exempts public agency emails from public information act requests. And apart from accessing their work emails, there are other ways that outside groups can communicate with public employees to make sure they are aware of their rights.

California’s public employee unions collect and spend over $1.0 billion per year. If the Janus vs AFSCME ruling takes away the ability of government unions to compel payment of agency fees, and imposes annual opt-in requirements for both agency fees and political dues, these unions will collect less money. How much less will depend on courage and innovative thinking on the part of reformers who want to rescue California from unionized government.

REFERENCES

Get a state job and meet your labor rep: How state budget protects California unions, Sacramento Bee, June 21, 2017
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article156146364.html

AB 52, Public employees: orientation and informational programs: exclusive representatives, California Legislature
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB52

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Supreme Court of the United States Blog
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees-council-31/

SB 285, Atkins. Public employers: union organizing, California Legislature
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB285

2017-2018 budget trailer bill, AB 119, California Legislature
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB119

California Public Records Act, Office of the Attorney General
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf

Fact Sheet – AB 52 (Cooper) & SB 285 (Atkins), California Labor Federation
http://calaborfed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2-AB-52-Cooper-and-SB-285-Atkinsweb.pdf

Legislative Bulletin – California School Employees Association
http://www.csea.com/web/portals/0/csea_pdf/leg_rpt.pdf

SB 285: Public Employers Cannot Discourage Union Membership, Public Employee Relations Board
http://www.caperb.com/2017/04/04/sb-285-public-employers-cannot-discourage-union-membership/

Public employee unions wield hefty Atkins stick [SB 285], San Diego Reader
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/aug/28/ticker-public-employee-unions-wield-atkins-stick/#

Legislature’s scary precedent: Giving unions private workers’ cell phones and home addresses