By Gerald W. McEntee, President American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)
Radical right-wing conservatives these days seem to be intent on inventing a warped
America, one in which up is down, in is out and fiction is fact.
Foremost among these radical inventors have been House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott. These two and their loyal lieutenants have been piecing
together failed idea after failed idea to produce some real monsters.
First there was the "Contract with America." Then there was the push to gut
Medicare to give $270 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. Then they wanted to
"revise" the fair Labor Standards Act and the Occupational Safety and Health
Act.
Their latest monster, the so-called "paycheck protection," or as I
prefer to call it, "paycheck deception," is directly targeted at labor unions
and their ability to participate in the political process.
Before I go any further, I want to set the record straight on what exactly
"paycheck deception" would do. While each piece of legislation and ballot
initiative is different, they each share the common characteristic of barring unions from
using members' dues on lobbying, political education (including distribution of voter
guides) and even participating in the formulation of government policies which directly
impact on our members' lives.
And if our union does want to do these things, then we would have to get the advance
written approval of our members before spending one nickel.
And to add insult to injury, the people behind this movement are trying to make it
sound like "paycheck deception" would only ban unions from giving money to
candidates. As the law stands right now, members' dues cannot be used for political
contributions. Instead, our members voluntarily contribute to our political action
committee.
With this understood, we must ask ourselves "why are they targeting labor
unions?
Like all inventors, Gingrich, Lott and company aren't too proud of their failures. But
before 1996, the radical right didn't seem to pay much attention to the labor movement,
maybe because we seemed to be half asleep. Two years ago, Gingrich was too busy violating
the elastic ethics of the House of Representatives. Two years ago, Bob Dole was busy on
the campaign trail trying to convince people he had original ideas that were of
twentieth-century origin. And two years ago, Trent Lott was busy jockeying for position so
that he could become Senate Majority Leader when Dole left.
And while they weren't paying attention to what labor had to say, the members
of labor unions were.
On Election Day 1996, record numbers of union households went to the polls, about one
quarter of all who voted, and supported pro-labor candidates. As a result, Newt and the
GOP actually lost seats in the House of Representatives. And Trent Lott didn't get his
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
We had not only gotten their attention, but we had also raised their ire. In the
process of protecting our members (incidentally, that's why unions exist) organized labor
spent $60 million in the 1996 campaign. It is important to note that in the same campaign,
in 1996, corporations and wealthy contributors spent $667 million. That's an 11-to-1
advantage.
Apparently for Gingrich and Lott, 11-to-1 is not enough. Instead, their goal is to
silence the voice of working people. In every great story throughout history, villains
always have a sidekick. To stay true to this formula, Gingrich called on one of his old
pals, Grover Norquist, to handle the details.
Norquist, whose resume includes political dirty tricks (remember the "Willie
Horton" ad back in 1988) and lobbying for foreign governments, also runs an
organization called "American for Tax Reform."
Norquist is stumping the country proclaiming that so-called "union bosses"
are ruining American democracy. I'm one of those union leaders he likes to talk about. The
fact is that unions are among the most democratic institutions in this country.
The members of AFSCME who elected me take our democracy very seriously. For
Grover Norquist to question the labor movement's commitment to democracy is further proof
that his ideas are bankrupt.
And when confronted with the fact that unions are among the most democratic
organizations in our nations, Norquist quickly changes the subject.
Unlike Grover Norquist and his friends, I don't think that there's a single millionaire
among AFSCME's 1.3 million members. Every one of them works for a living. They all know
what a paycheck means: food on the table, shoes for the kids, gas for the car and a roof
over their head. And a union will fight for them.
That's why union members pay dues. They know that politics is increasingly dominated by
"old money," cyber-billionaires, corporation millionaires and wannabes. Workers
need a voice if they are to avoid being steam-
rollered in the workplace, the community and the Congress. The union is their voice.
In America today, some 14 million men and women are union members in a workforce that
number some 127 million. But in speaking for 14 million, unions also are addressing the
concerns of all the rest.
If radical right-wing conservatives manage to silence the ability of labor
unions to speak out against unfair wages, sweatshops, dangerous workplaces, contracting
out, taxes that penalize wage earners and policies that deny equality on the basis of race
or anything else, then who is left to speak out? And how long will they last in radical
conservative America? |