"Protection?" Come On!
Fairness is one of our most prized values. So the current
national campaign that claims to advocate for "worker
paycheck fairness" or "paycheck protection" is
getting a lot of attention. But the campaign has nothing to do
with ensuring fairness to workers or protecting their paychecks
(another potent idea)--and everything to do with denying working
people a political voice.
The campaign is well financed by right-wing groups and individuals--the same people who defeated campaign-finance reform--and it aims to pass legislation or referendums in 28 states. Right now, attention is focused on the California ballot initiative, Proposition 226, which is coming up in June and which requires unions to get written permission each year from each member before using any dues money on "political activities." This places a huge bureaucratic burden on unions that would not apply to any other kind of organization involved in the political process.
Contrary to what its advocates say, the legislation would not
provide workers with a new protection--because they already have
it. Right now, unions are obliged by law to give their members
the option of not contributing, through their dues, to
legislative or political activities. But despite the clever
packaging, safeguarding workers’ paychecks is not what the
folks who are running this campaign have in mind. They have never
been interested in making sure workers get a fair deal, and they
aren’t now. The goal is quite simple: to make it extremely
difficult for unions to participate in policy making in any
meaningful way.
A Snarl of Red Tape
Take California’s Proposition 226, which will come up for a vote on June 2. On the face of it, the California initiative is a little different from the others because it is disguised as a campaign finance reform initiative, but the guts of the proposal are the same. If Prop 226 passes, all union members will have to file a government-mandated form with their employer every year saying whether any of their union dues can be used for political or legislative purposes. Obviously, this would create a yearly snarl of red tape and a big unfunded mandate, the costs of which would burden employers and taxpayers as well as unions.
But we’re not just talking about an expensive pain-in-the-neck. Supporters of Prop 226--and its lookalikes all over the country--would make it prohibitively expensive for union members to participate in the political process but would do nothing to put the brakes on contributions from corporations or rich individuals--people like J. Patrick Rooney, CEO of an Indianapolis insurance company, who has given over half a million dollars to candidates he likes and has already contributed $49,000 to the California initiative. Working people who can give only a few dollars a year can't make that kind of impact unless their contributions are pooled together.
My union, the American Federation of Teachers, spends only a
few dollars a year ($4.17) of a member’s dues on political
and legislative activities. But we’ve been able to make some
important contributions to the public debate on education issues
like higher academic standards, smaller class size, and zero
tolerance for school violence.
What Ever Happened to Democracy?
This new government requirement would burden us with the costs of collecting pledge cards and maintaining records for hundreds of thousands of members every year Instead of protecting people who do not want to contribute to their unions’ political activities, these so-called fairness campaigns would disenfranchise those who do.
Of course unions seek to influence elections, legislation, and public policy on behalf of their members. But corporations, business groups, and other membership organizations, like the National Rifle Association or Handgun Control, Inc, do exactly the same thing--they all spend stockholders’ or members’ money on political activities. Indeed business interests spend a lot more money than unions. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the difference in the last election cycle was an enormous 11 to 1. But only unions would be required to jump through the financial hoops set up by Prop 226 and other similar legislation. Is this the kind of level playing field we expect in a democracy?
The groups and individuals who are funding and leading this campaign would like to shut unions up because, on most issues, we fundamentally disagree. But democracy works by giving opposing sides a chance to be heard in a fair and open debate. And what is wrong with the way our political process is currently operating will not be cured by silencing the unions that represent working men and women.
