« BCE Pledge Day | Main | Grab your paintbrushes. Paint Burlingame is almost here! »

September 26, 2012

Comments

Joe

Comcast's announcement was yesterday, now today:

Campbell Soup announces closing of Sacramento plant
By Bill Lindelof

Campbell Soup Company today announced the closing of its Sacramento plant where the firm has made canned soup for more than 60 years.
Built in 1947, the Sacramento plant is the oldest in Campbell's U.S. network and has high production costs compared to the Camden, N.J.-based company's more modern plants. In total, 700 full-time employees will lose their jobs.
A Campbell public relations spokesman said outside the gates of the big soup plant on Franklin Boulevard that the facility will close in phases, with plans to cease operations in July 2013.
"It's a tough day in Sacramento for the company and for these employees," said company spokesman Anthony J. Sanzio.

Read the rest here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/27/4859774/campbell-soup-announces-closing.html#storylink=cpy

Holyroller

I wonder where the production of Campbells Soup is going to?
State, Country?

John Q ByTheBay

Money - the live wire, and lifeblood of politics. I share your concern about the feeding of money from unions into the political realm... and a few years ago, would have been a stronger supporter of 32.

However, the flood of money from corporations (Citizens United), and corporations shielding/fronting a few rich individuals truly scares me. We have gone from 1 monster (union funding)to a 2 headed monster, with few/no limits on either side now.

JF

Where does our ambitious assemblyman soon-to-be state seantor stand on prop 32? Has anyone asked him at one of his java with Jerry town halls?

Joe

Holyroller: You can click through the link and read that The company said it plans to shift most of Sacramento's production to Campbell's remaining plants in Maxton, N.C.; Napoleon, Ohio; and Paris, Texas.

John Q.: Your concern is pretty common at least in California. I would say there are a couple of key things to consider. First, the idea of paycheck deductions for this kind of thing being voluntary is key. The Thursday Journal indicated that in Wisconsin more than a third of the American Federation of Teachers and more than half of the AFSCME members have left those unions since a similar law went into effect. It's just fair to let people decide how their own money is spent.

Regarding Citizen's United, two things to keep in mind are very few corporations donate on issues related to public service employee terms and conditions. So that one-sidedness doesn't really exist on the public sector issues.

Second, according to the numbers I have seen, corporate money is pretty evenly divided between the two major parties and, in fact, changes election to election--many donate to both! So again, the one-sideness is overstated. Lastly, there are plenty of rich individuals giving plenty of money on the left side of the spectrum including plenty of bankers and most of Hollywood.

In total, I think Prop 32 actually balances things out more than unbalances them. Thanks for the comment.

Joe

I've come to expect the San Jose Mercury Times to spout a bunch of nonsense on its editorial page, but I do expect more intelligence from the Daily Journal. Unfortunately, I have just been disappointed by their stance on Prop. 32. They write:

This proposition would prohibit political contributions by payroll deductions by changing state campaign finance laws to restrict state and local campaign spending by public and private sector labor unions, corporations and government contractors.

Though it includes corporations and government contractors, the main aim of this proposition is that of unions and their support of certain political causes. Most can agree that union influence is strong and that their stances on certain issues is not representative of all its members. However, that is an issue for the individual unions and change to their policies should come from its membership. Vote no.
-------

So what part of "Most can agree that union influence is strong and that their stances on certain issues is not representative of all its members." is unclear to the DJ editors???? If the union leadership takes cold cash from its members to finance things they DISAGREE with, somehow we are supposed to think that is OK? Common Daily Journal--wake up. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

VOTE YES on 32!


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.