Many states are considering laws that would require union members to sign
"permission slips" before their unions get involved in legislative and political
activities. They would require unions to put complicated, bureaucratic procedures in place
before dues could be used to lobby for laws that benefit working families--or even to
educate and register voters.
Backers of these so-called "paycheck protection" laws claim they would give
union members more say in how their dues are spent. But what they really would do is
infringe upon the democratic rights of union members. Union members set their own dues and
elect their own leaders. They should be the ones to decide how their unions work.
The vast majority of members approve of their unions speaking out on political and
legislative issues. But union members need the facts. It's up to union leaders to make
sure members hear the truth about union dues.
Can union dues be used to make contributions to political candidates and
campaigns?
Under federal law and in many states, the answer is no. The Federal Election Campaign
Act forbids the donation of union dues or fees to federal-level candidates or political
campaigns, and many states impose the same restrictions on state-level races.
Contributions by union members to union political action committees are voluntary and made
separately from their dues payments. Union dues may, however, be used for such activities
as member education about the issues in elections or candidates' records, communication,
voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.
Can any worker be forced to pay for union political or legislative activities
with which he or she disagrees?
No. Although polls show that the vast majority of members support their union's
legislative and political activities, no worker can be required to join a union and help
pay for such activities. Members may not join and choose to pay only the fees required to
cover the costs of bargaining and representation. Unions are required by law to notify
workers of that right.
What did the Supreme Court rule in Communications Workers of America vs.
Beck?
In decision after decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the rights of both the
majority and dissenters within union must be protected and balanced. In 1988, in the
so-called Beck decision, the court reaffirmed the right of unions to require workers who
choose not to join the union to pay fees covering the expenses of their representation. It
also ruled that a union cannot use the fees of nonmembers for political activities over
their objections.
Who decides whether union dues should be spent on political and legislative
activities?
Union members decide. They elect their own officers and vote on their constitution and
bylaws, the amount of their dues and how the money is spent. Union members and their
elected leaders decide what positions their unions will support. The AFL-CIO's political
program is approved by elected union leaders. In the union, the majority rules. And the
minority of members who disagree can choose not to participate or to resign from the union
and withdraw financial support for political and legislative activities.
So why do critics claim that unions are placing compulsory charges on workers
to support political activities?
Big business and their supporters falsely claim that labor organizations are forcing
employees to pay for election-related activities. The true purpose of these misleading
statements is not to protect workers or the interests of the minority, but to
silence the majority. The burdensome requirements being proposed would effectively
circumvent the will of the majority of union members who support legislative and political
involvement in working family issues of their unions and the AFL-CIO. As America's unions
become more aggressive in educating members, exposing the votes of elected leaders and
challenging the corporate agenda, big business interests are responding with a concerted
effort to restrict union members' participation in political education and mobilization
activities.
When it comes to political activities, do unions have special advantages that
other organizations don't?
In fact, it's quite the opposite. Like other organizations, including corporations,
unions have a First Amendment right to inform, educate and express political views. But
unions are subject to more stringent financial disclosure requirements than any other
organization, including corporations, the American Medical Association, the American Bar
Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If these same proposals applied to
corporations, they would have to get advance permission from stockholders before spending
money on politics or legislative--which is enough to paralyze any organization. And that's
precisely what these proposals are designed to do to unions. When it comes to political
activities, corporations accounted for more than 40 percent of the $1.6 billion raised by
political candidates and parties in the 1996 election cycle--while unions accounted for
less than 4 percent. These proposals would give corporations and right-wing special
interests the whole playing field.
During the 1996 election year, did the AFL-CIO raise members' dues to give $35
million to political candidates?
No. Union leaders, elected by their members, voted to launch an AFL-CIO grassroots and
media campaign focusing on working family issues--not elections. Through Labor '96, the
AFL-CIO educated and organized members around working family issues such as living wages,
retirement security, health care, education, job safety and workers' rights. This campaign
was not funded by a membership dues increase, but rather through a reallocation of
existing resources adopted by a democratic vote among the member unions of the AFL-CIO.
Union members' dues did not go up as a result. The campaign compared the voting records of
candidates and shared that information with members. And the overwhelming majority of
union members supported the campaign and the positions of the AFL-CIO took on the issues.
What The Heck Is Beck?
An actor portraying a disgruntled union member complains about how "my
union's wasting my money." At the end of the ad, a 1-800 number is given which a
union member can call to get a packet of information on "getting your money
back."
What's it all about?
Well, it involves a 10-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision, Communications Workers
of America v. Beck, and how the right wing in this country is trying to use it and
other means to silence the voices of workers and their unions in American politics.
Here are some questions and answers about Beck and the right wing's anti-union
campaign:
What is the Beck decision?
On June 29, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Communications
Workers of America v. Beck. Twenty non-members in a CWA bargaining unit at AT&T
objected to the use of their agency fees for purposes other than collective bargaining.
Specifically, they alleged that the union's expenditure of their fees on activities such
as organizing the employees of other employers, lobbying for labor legislation and
participating in social, charitable and political events violated the union's duties to
them.
The Supreme Court held that although the National Labor Relations Act permits an
employer and a union to enter into an agreement requiring all employees in the bargaining
unit--including non-members--to pay periodic union dues and initiation fees as a condition
of continued employment, the union may not, over the objections of non-union members,
expend the fees on activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
What's the connection between the Beck decision and this advertising campaign?
The Beck decision is the key to the "getting your money back" theme of the ad
campaign. What the ads don't tell you is that for a union member to get a refund
of union dues under the Beck decision, he or she must resign from the union and become a
non-member. And becoming a non-member means losing some significant rights. For example,
non-members cannot vote on contracts or whether to strike. They give up their right to
attend union meetings and conventions, run for union office and vote for union officers or
representatives. They also give up their eligibility for any benefits provided exclusively
to union members, such as credit cards and insurance.
Who's running this ad campaign, and why?
The ads, which first ran in February in the Fling-Saginaw-Bay City areas and now are
running in western lower Michigan, are paid for by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and
the Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan (ABC), a group of non-union
construction companies.
The reason the Chamber and ABC give for running the ads is to inform union members
about their Beck rights. But unions are already required by law to notify their members
about their Beck rights.
Maybe the Chamber and ABC are just standing up for workers and their rights.
It's ludicrous for anyone to imagine the Chamber and ABC as champions of workers. These
are the same people who want to eliminate the prevailing wage. Slash workers' compensation
and unemployment insurance benefits. Wipe out the minimum wage and the eight-hour day,
40-hour work week. Raid pensions. Privatize government services. Cut Medicare and Social
Security. Set up company unions through a "TEAM" Act. And eventually make
"right to work" the law of the land.
So what's the real reason for the Chamber/ABC ad campaign?
The Chamber, ABC and their right wing allies want to further de-fund unions because
labor was an effective force in the 1996 elections, primarily through communications with
its own members. Part of the money the Chamber and ABC want union members to get refunded
is used for political communications between a union and its members.
In 1996, labor helped defeat Bob Dole and many Republican congressional representatives
like Dick Chrysler. And here in Michigan, labor helped Democrats take back control of the
Michigan House. All of this angered the right wing which wants labor out of the way so it
can achieve its political agenda. After all, the only reason why the Chamber, ABC and the
right wing haven't succeeded in achieving their political objectives is because of
vigorous opposition from the labor movement.
It's important to know that the Chamber/ABC ad campaign is part of a coordinated
nationwide effort by right wing businesses and groups to de-fund labor. Unions are being
attacked in all 50 states and at the federal level. Through ad campaigns, state and
federal legislation, ballot initiatives and lawsuits, the right wing and their allies are
trying to dry up funds for political communications between unions and their members.
Isn't the Chamber/ABC campaign just an attempt at "leveling the playing
field" when it comes to influencing elections?
No. It's an attempt to further widen the gap between what business and labor spend on
elections.
In the 1996 election cycle, corporate interests spent more than $677 million on
political contributions--11 times what unions spent. While unions contributed less than 4
percent of the $1.6 billion raised by candidates and political parties in 1996,
corporations contributed more than 40 percent. In "soft money" contributions
(unrestricted contributions to political parties), corporations spent more than $176
million in 1996--19 times what unions spent.
Putting campaign finance issues aside, don't union members resent political
communications from their unions?
No. A 1996 poll by Peter Hart revealed that 90 percent of union members approve of
unions communicating with their members about elections and encouraging them to vote.
Eighty-eight percent of AFL-CIO members said they approved of unions urging members to
contact their representatives in Congress on important issues, and 84 percent approved of
union voter guides comparing candidates' positions.
Shouldn't unions simply not be involved in politics and elections?
The fate and well-being of unions are inextricably linked to political and legislative
action. Indeed, the modern-day labor movement exists only because of political and
legislative action: passage by Congress of labor's "Magna Carta," the 1935
National Labor Relations Act. The very fact that labor is now under attack by political
and legislative forces is the most compelling reason why labor must be
involved in politics and elections.
Although the preceding article was taken from the March 1998 Michigan AFL-CIO News,
the radio and TV ads referred to are being broadcast in all states. |