May 15, 1998
Desperate Union Lies
by
Charles Baird
On June 2 the voters of California will decide whether to require labor unions to get permission from workers who pay union dues and fees before any of those dues and fees can be used for political contributions and expenditures. Proposition 226, if enacted, would protect a worker's right to choose. It is a pro-choice initiative that should be appealing to liberal and conservatives alike.
I explained the merits of 226 in my March column. Now that we are less than three weeks away from the June 2 vote, I wish here to uncover the desperate campaign of deception that the union hierarchy has now undertaken.
Perhaps the most egregious part of the unions' deception campaign began only last week. They have hired telemarketing firms in Florida and Nevada to call California voters and assert that if passed Proposition 226 would kill cops. Police union officials are complicit in this big lie, but rank-and-file officers have not been fooled. The unions' assert that the political spending permission slip that 226 would require unions to obtain from the rank-and-file makes the officers' home addresses and telephone numbers a matter of public record and, therefore, criminals would know where to find them and do them in. First, the initiative does not make the permission slips a matter of public record. Second, the initiative does not require that any worker's home address and telephone number appear on the permission slip. Third, there are already three separate California laws that make it a felony for anyone to disclose the home addresses and telephone numbers of any law enforcement officials.
Next, the union hierarchy has enlisted the support of United Way of America in its campaign of deception. United Way's Board of Governors includes four AFL-CIO officials, and it has a long track record of siding with unions in public policy debates. On May 4 United Way sent out a "legislative alert" wherein it was alleged that, if adopted, 226 would make employers liable for the political expenditures and donations of charities, HMOs, mortgage companies, etc. Its argument is that since employers often deduct money from employees' paychecks for such things as United Way donations, HMO copayments, and mortgage payments, and since 226 explicitly requires employers to get permission from employees before deductions are made for political expenditures and contributions, employers will have to police any political spending by such organizations. This big lie is given the lie by the fact that 226 affects only political "expenditures" and "contributions" as those terms are defined in the 1974 California Political Reform Act. Those definitions clearly exempt paycheck deductions that are made for "consideration" - i.e., in exchange for something of value like health insurance and mortgage services. They also exempt payroll deductions for charitable giving since existing federal and state law already make it illegal for tax-exempt charities like the United Way to make political "expenditures" and "contributions." It appears that United Way is implying that it violates this proscription. Perhaps its tax-exempt status should be reconsidered.
Next, the union hierarchy claims that other membership organizations like the Sierra Club and the Rotary will be adversely affected by 226 because they, along with labor unions, will have to seek permission from each of their members before any dues can be spent on politics. This big lie is given the lie by the fact that 226 affects only membership dues and fees collected by "labor organizations" as that term is already defined in California law. A labor organization is defined as "a membership organization constituted for the purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning grievances and terms and conditions of employment." Clearly, the Sierra Club and the Rotary do not qualify.
Next, the union hierarchy claims that the passage of 226 will endanger Social Security, Medicare, the Minimum Wage, the environment, education, and just about everything else that it thinks California voters worry about. This lie is given the lie by the simple fact that 226 does not refer to any of these issues. If workers want to have their union dues and fees used to support these and other government programs they are perfectly free to do so. The unions' argument is based on their fear that if they cannot force members and fee payers to make political contributions, most workers will not do so. The initiative lets all workers decide for themselves whether to do so, and the unions are afraid of the choices the workers might make. Here the unions admit that the rank-and-file may not be sympathetic to the political causes the unions pursue. Given the choice, workers might choose to support other political causes or even not to support any political causes.
Finally, the union hierarchy claims that unions are democratic organizations and that if a majority of union members vote to make political contributions all members and fee payers should be forced to go along. That is what democracy is - majority rule. This argument is especially disingenuous. First, political free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. An individual's right to choose which political speech to support is not subject to majority rule. It is a right that the Constitution guarantees to every person no matter what a majority wants. Just as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of association are not subject to majority vote, neither is freedom of political speech. Second, only union members get to vote on union questions. Non-union workers, who cannot vote, are forced to pay agency fees to unions that represent them. If they don't pay they are fired. The union's democracy argument does not apply to these victims of compulsory unionism.
What lies behind the union hierarchy's campaign of deception was best said by a Democratic pollster discussing anti-226 strategy, who was quoted in the May 18, 1998 issue of The Nation, as asserting "We have to ... get away from the debate over how much control union members should have over dues." This pollster realizes that if voters understand that the real issue in 226 is protecting a worker's right to choose, 226 will win big on June 2.