by Tula Connell, Sep 29, 2006

So many issues that significantly impact the lives of working families are so difficult to explain.

Paycheck deception is one of them.

We noted this week the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of anti-union “paycheck deception” measures aimed at silencing workers’ voice in politics—one of nine cases the court recently added to its docket from among the nearly 2,000 submitted for review.

Most paycheck deception initiatives take away the right of union members to use payroll deductions for political purposes, which is one of the best ways for union members to pool resources—bit by bit, through our unions. The funds are used to counter the big money contributors who relentlessly write fat checks for corporate-backed candidates. In the 2004 election cycle, corporations outspent unions by a ratio of 23­­­–to–1.

Nathan Newman provides some legal background:

Back in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that employees benefiting from a union contract had a right to request and receive a refund of the portion of “agency fees” paid to the union that went to political activities.

But a Washington State ballot initiative passed in 1992 went further, requiring active consent from nonunion members before unions can spend any part of their fees on political activity. The law was declared unconstitutional by the Washington Supreme Court in March. The court found the affirmative consent requirement imposed an “extremely costly” and “significant” burden on a union’s political activities and declared it unconstitutional.

Whether union or nonunion members are allowed to easily contribute to union funds is not an arcane issue. Paycheck deception initiatives put a chokehold on working families’ participation in the political process and further tilt the balance of power in favor of wealthy corporate interest groups.

A measure similar to the one in Washington State was defeated last year in California, and at the time was described by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center as one that

…would prohibit state and local government employers from withholding union deductions from a worker’s paycheck if the money is used for political donations.

Public employee unions are among the largest financial donors to Democratic campaigns in California. Of all the ballot measures being circulated for a possible special election later this year, the so-called paycheck protection measure is the biggest threat to Democrats’ power.

Although these legislative and ballot initiatives are introduced at the state level, they typically are backed by outside anti-worker special interests like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Grover Norquist, who was Newt Gingrich’s right-hand man in designing the 1994 Contract with [on] America. Norquist is most famously known for his stated goal to cut government in half “to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Norquist and his ilk have misleadingly dubbed such legislation “paycheck protection,” making it sound like it’s a good deal for employees. But it’s not. By singling unions, these measures propose tight controls and burdensome regulations that wouldn’t apply to anyone else—like, say, corporations. Funny how none of the paycheck deception measures demand that corporations get shareholder approval for their political spending.

Unlike the ban on corporate and union contributions and expenditures in the Federal Election Campaign Act, which is narrowly drawn to limit only direct corporate and union contributions or expenditures in connection with candidate elections, paycheck deception bills and ballot initiatives have, for the most part, attempted to regulate a much broader range of union political activity, including legislative activity, voter registration, ballot question activity and public communications about working families issues

When the issue goes to the Supreme Court in November or December, the high court will hear two consolidated cases, both involving teachers who are members of National Education Association (NEA) state affiliates.

In one case, some 3,500 teachers chose not to join the union, and so instead pay “agency fees” rather than union dues. The state sued the Washington Education Association in response to a complaint the union was violating the 1992 law by failing to get authorization from the nonmembers before using a portion of their fees for political activities. In the other, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed on behalf of five teachers who had brought a private class-action lawsuit against the union to recover fees they alleged had been improperly spent.

According to The New York Times:

The [Supreme] court’s precedents make clear that non-members who object to their fees being used to advance the union’s political agenda may request a rebate of the amount spent on political activities. The question in the new case, from the state of Washington, is whether a state may go further and require affirmative consent from non-members before the union can spend any part of their fees on political activity.

Here’s the rub—paycheck deception measures are unnecessary, because no worker can be forced to fund a union’s political and legislative activities. Union members choose whether to join the union, set their own dues, elect their own leaders and vote on how and where their money will be spent. The minority of workers who disagree with union political activities can choose not to belong to the union. In those states where they still pay a fee to cover the representation the union is required to provide them, they are not required to pay the amount that goes for political and legislative activities. Corporations, by contrast, don’t give shareholders, employees or customers any say in their political activities.

Working families should have the same right to make our voice heard in politics as anyone else. The key backers of these attacks on workers are the same groups that consistently try to block increases in the minimum wage, dismantle job safety laws and cut Medicare, education and pensions. They know working families and their unions are at the forefront of the effort to rein in unchecked corporate greed, and they want to silence our voice on the job, in legislation and in politics. In addition to Norquist, here are a few of the organizations behind these anti-worker initiatives.

The National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Each year, the National Right to Work Committee spends more than $2 million to push members of Congress to enact so-called  “right to work” bills, paycheck deception proposals and other anti-worker initiatives. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has hired lawyers to argue 1,800 anti-union cases from arbitration hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court. The organization routinely vilifies workers trying to join together in a union—from health care workers, port workers to steelworkers and teachers. 

Americans for Tax Reform. Founded by Norquist, this organization laid the foundation for the attack on working families over the years by producing and disseminating a resource and strategy guide for introducing anti-worker state ballot initiatives and legislation. In the guide, Norquist gloats that if more states introduce anti-worker bills, “the more divided the counterattack by labor union bosses will have to be.”  

American Legislation Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC purports to be a “good government” group operating in the public interest. But it’s real purpose is to advance corporate interests in state legislatures around the country. ALEC develops model anti-worker legislation for extremist legislators and introduces state legislation and initiatives to silence working families and their unions. ALEC actively supports repealing the minimum wage, privatizing Social Security and replacing guaranteed health benefits with medical savings accounts.

More than 95 percent of ALEC’s funding comes from contributions from large corporate interests and extremist foundations. ALEC’s more than 300 corporate sponsors pay annual membership fees ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 to ensure ALEC carries their message to state legislators around the country. Enron was once among its corporate sponsors, which now include Wal-Mart, Texaco and Coors, as well as many of the major pharmaceutical companies. 

Bottom line: Paycheck deception measures are bought and paid for by those who oppose the interests of working people. That’s why the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court is so important.  

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article | Comments (0)