Thursday, February 5, 2009
Card Check
With all the recent discussion of a top priority "payback" for political support from the major labor unions, Congress has been debating a bill which both significantly eases the bar for organizing a company, makes decertification of a union more difficult, and apparently would at least partly nullify the effect of a 20+ year old Supreme Court decision. Certain features of the Worker Protection Act may impinge elements of Beck vs Communications Workers (1988). Beck applied to union expenses the kind of full disclosure required of most other non-profits, and would allow union members to redirect that portion of their dues spent on political campaigning. Union hate the measure, and have invented some creative ways to avoid the disclosure -- SEIU has for instance insisted that their efforts in behalf of Democrats during the past two years were in fact completely neutral "voter education." Here are a few pages from a paper I heard at a symposium possibly a dozen years ago, but which is still wholly relevant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I missed pasting the paper:
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that certain features of the “Worker Protection Act” presently being debated in Congress would rescind a number of elements of the US Supreme Court decision in re: Beck vs. Communications Workers (1988). Beck applied to the expenditure of union political funds the same kind of disclosure required of most other kinds of organization. Unions have almost uniformly hated Beck, and almost uniformly have refused to comply, and have widely defeated State measures to require disclosure. Yet independent polling suggests that at least 20% of union workers would apply for a refund of that portion of their dues used for political campaigning, and up to 85% would appreciate periodic disclosure of how dues moneys are allocated. Here are a few pages from a paper delivered at a symposium I attended about 10 years ago.
In 1988, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case Communication
Workers v. Beck, which established the rights of employees working under union contracts to
pay only those union dues or fees necessary for performance of a union’s employee
representation duties. Under Beck, fees to support union expenditures unrelated to
workplace representation, such as political, social, or charitable contributions, are not
mandatory.
Although these “Beck rights” of union workers are well established as a matter of
American labor policy, they go largely unrealized in practice for the following reasons:
• Most workers simply do not know that they have these rights;
• Workers who are aware of these rights are forced to make the sometimesuntenable
choice of resigning from their union in order to exercise them;
• Workers do not have recourse to an effective legal enforcement mechanism if
their Beck rights are denied them by their employer or union; and
• Unions, who don’t agree with the exercise of Beck rights, often engage in a
variety of tactics to delay and frustrate workers who wish to limit their dues
payments.
Several states, including Idaho and Washington, have enacted a measure known as
“paycheck protection” to remedy these deficiencies in Beck rights enforcement. Paycheck
protection safeguards worker rights by requiring unions to obtain up-front, written approval
from individual workers before they spend dues money on political or other non-workplacerelated
activities.
Michigan has taken a significant, though limited, step in this area by enacting Public
Act 117 of 1994. Under this legislation, individual workers must give their consent each
year before payroll dues deductions can be used for political action fund contributions. Full
paycheck protection would extend these requirements to cover all union non-workplacerelated
dues expenditures.
Paycheck protection is not a cure-all for workers who are trapped in compulsory
union arrangements because the law grants to unions privileges that subordinate workers’
individual rights to the “collective good” of the union membership. Paycheck protection is,
however, a more balanced pro-worker approach:
In 1988, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case Communication
Workers v. Beck, which established the rights of employees working under union contracts to
pay only those union dues or fees necessary for performance of a union’s employee
representation duties. Under Beck, fees to support union expenditures unrelated to
workplace representation, such as political, social, or charitable contributions, are not
mandatory.
Although these “Beck rights” of union workers are well established as a matter of
American labor policy, they go largely unrealized in practice for the following reasons:
• Most workers simply do not know that they have these rights;
• Workers who are aware of these rights are forced to make the sometimesuntenable
choice of resigning from their union in order to exercise them;
• Workers do not have recourse to an effective legal enforcement mechanism if
their Beck rights are denied them by their employer or union; and
• Unions, who don’t agree with the exercise of Beck rights, often engage in a
variety of tactics to delay and frustrate workers who wish to limit their dues
payments.
Several states, including Idaho and Washington, have enacted a measure known as
“paycheck protection” to remedy these deficiencies in Beck rights enforcement. Paycheck
protection safeguards worker rights by requiring unions to obtain up-front, written approval
from individual workers before they spend dues money on political or other non-workplacerelated
activities.
Michigan has taken a significant, though limited, step in this area by enacting Public
Act 117 of 1994. Under this legislation, individual workers must give their consent each
year before payroll dues deductions can be used for political action fund contributions. Full
paycheck protection would extend these requirements to cover all union non-workplacerelated
dues expenditures.
Paycheck protection is not a cure-all for workers who are trapped in compulsory
union arrangements because the law grants to unions privileges that subordinate workers’
individual rights to the “collective good” of the union membership. Paycheck protection is,
however, a more balanced pro-worker approach:
All workers are notified of their option to contribute or withhold dues money;
All employees continue to be represented by the union;
All workers are compelled to pay for union representation services from which they benefit; and
The union is able to continue spending on matters it deems important--but only with dues money consciously and voluntarily contributed by its dues payers.
The concept of paycheck protection is popular among workers, even those who recent voted against a proposal in California because of certain concerns and criticisms
raised by opponents. But paycheck protection, understood as a positive step toward fulfilling
the promise of the Beck decision, withstands these concerns and criticisms.
Michigan should build upon Public Act 117 and enact full paycheck protection
reforms to safeguard the individual rights of the state’s nearly one million union workers.
Full text is available as “Paycheck Protection in Michigan” by Robert P. Hunter, J.D., LL.M., Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Midland, Michigan.
Hey Bruce, where's the balance here? When do stockholders get the right to block political expenditures by corporations? It seems to me that Beck imposes a double standard: Unions can't back up politicians who support their aims but corporations are free to back up their boys while dissenting stockholders are ignored.
ReplyDeleteI have an instant recourse for a company whose politics I dislike: it is the "SELL" button on my browser. There is no such button on my Union Card -- in fact, frequently union membership is a prerequisite for holding the job. My wife could not be employed as a professional staff person with advanced degree at Lamoille Mental Health division of Copley Health Systems, Inc, without paying dues to AFSCME. I have previously recounted how her own union negotiated for her to receive lower wages. Instead of claiming disability for her advanced Rheumatoid Arthritis, she arranged to work limited hours. So her Bargaining Unit, in order to free up agency funds for certain categories of full-time employees which included all the Chapter officers, negotiated to lower the wages of part-time employees. For that she turned over $350/ year to those same self-dealing officers. At least she should have had the pleasure of directing her political contribution (about $180 per member) to someone other than Bernie Sanders.
ReplyDelete