|
Jewish World Review / May 25,1998 / 29 Iyar, 5758
Cal Thomas
Union dues and don'ts
LOS ANGELES -- California voters will decide on June 2
which Democrat they want running for governor against the
sole major Republican candidate, State Atty. Gen. Dan
Lungren. An important initiative, Proposition 226, will also
appear on the ballot.
The proposition asks voters whether union members should
continue to be forced to pay $40 million of their union dues
without their permission for causes and candidates many of
them don't support. The proposition would require union
leaders to get their members' written permission before using
union dues for political purposes. And it would block
employers from making automatic deductions from
paychecks for such political contributions or expenditures
without the workers' annual written permission.
The question is huge because Big Labor has announced an
expensive nationwide campaign to regain the House of
Representatives for the Democratic Party in the November
elections. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has pledged to
recruit, train and deploy a grass-roots army of union
campaign workers to elect more Democrats to the House.
A Los Angeles Times poll found that 66 percent of likely
voters and 58 percent of union members support Proposition
226. But union leaders continue to spend their members'
money to oppose it. The California Teachers Association
promises to spend $3 million to defeat Proposition 226,
despite the fact that 70 percent of its union members favor
the measure.
California's 2.2 million public- and private-sector union
members pay about $880 million per year in union dues,
according to an analysis by former Labor Department
economist Mark Wilson, now with The Heritage Foundation.
Union leaders, he writes, spend as much as 4.6 percent of
dues, or $40.5 million, for political causes. If Proposition 226
passes, workers could demand significant sums be returned to
them if they disagree with the way their dues are spent. That
means 230,000 teachers would have access to $4.2 million,
118,000 truck drivers could get back $2.2 million, 62,000
police officers could demand $1.1 million, 85,000 postal
workers could draw $1.6 million, and $3.8 million would be
available to 204,000 mechanics and repairers. Some might
choose to support their unions' political activities, but they
would have a choice.
Current law supports such choices, but many workers
complain of intimidation by union officials or say they weren't
aware they have such a choice. In 1988, the Supreme Court
ruled in Communications Workers of America vs. Beck that
members of unions may choose what political activities they
support. That means a pro-school-choice teacher can refuse
to allow her union dues to be spent against education
vouchers. An electrician who favors free trade would not be
required to underwrite with his dues a union effort in support
of trade barriers.
President George Bush ordered that notices of union workers'
rights be posted in workplaces. But when President Clinton
took office in 1993, one of his early acts was to order the
notices removed.
If Proposition 226 passes, it will fuel similar efforts in 26 other
state legislatures. Nevada and Oregon are among several
states collecting signatures for ballot initiatives that would
enshrine workers' rights in state law.
Some estimates show that if all union-covered, private-sector
employees in states without protective Right-to-Work laws
learned of their rights under Beck, and just 25 percent chose
to object to the way their dues are spent, Big Labor would
forfeit $266 million per year (assuming a 20 percent average
refund of their compulsory union dues used for politics). Right
now, that money gives unions an unfair advantage in politics
and an unfair amount of power over some of its members.
No one should be forced to subsidize causes with which he or
she disagrees as part of the condition of employment. The
passage of Proposition 226, and a wider dissemination of
workers' rights under Beck, will help bring more equality to
the political process and reduce the unfair advantage Big
Labor has had for too long over the consciences of its own