This page was last updated on March 23, 2014.
Op-Ed: Dishonest Representation; Rick Galiano - President Beaver-Lawrence Central Labor Council (BLCLC), Eric Hoover - Executive Vice President BLCLC, Bernie Hall, Vice President BLCLC; Beaver Countian; March 18, 2014.
Below are some comments about parts of the subject opinion piece.
“Unions are the only organizations whose sole purpose is to advocate for and defend working people and their families. Whether you work in an industrial facility, on a construction site, a class room or an office, the institution of collective bargaining was conceived and implemented to raise your standard of living, not only directly for those represented by a union, but also indirectly for those not represented but whose income is benefited by the influence that unions exert on the labor market and the workers’ rights for which they fight. Over the decades since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act unions forged the American middle class, and that has been a good for working families.”
[RWC] “Working people and their families” likely does not mean what you think. More often than not, “working people” is leftyspeak for dues-paying union members (forced or by choice), just over 37% of government employees and just over 7% of the private sector workforce. A more general definition provided by Carl Davidson (Beaver County Reds) is, “If someone else [signs your paycheck], you’re in the working class.” I suspect most business owners - large or small - (who pay SS and Medicare taxes just as the rest of us) would be surprised to learn they aren’t “working people.”
“Some people with a lot of money and power, though, see unions as an obstacle to them having even more money and power, and they actively seek to weaken and ultimately abolish unions. They use a number of stealth tactics to attain their goals. One of their favorite methods is to misrepresent the system and get some ethically challenged politician(s) to propose and support legislation that would weaken the voice of workers. Their strategy is to go to states that have a Governor and legislators who are willing to accept donations in return for doing their bidding. They dump in a ton of money, and they expect a return. It’s been seen across the country in states such as Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, special interest groups funded by wealthy donors and corporations have waged an assault on workers’ rights to belong to and participate in a Union.”
[RWC] You have to appreciate the chutzpah. The authors just described the tactics of Big Union management.
“In the Pennsylvania House of Representative Jim Christiana is pushing House Bill 1507, a bill that would stop payroll deduction of union dues for public employees. He claims that he supports it for reasons of fairness and ethics. When one looks at Christiana’s history it becomes amusing that he would talk of ethical behavior. Christiana is among the politicians who are put into office by big donations from wealthy special interests. In April of last year the Beaver Countian ran an investigative article (http://beavercountian.com/content/daily/representin-like-a-representative-campaign-cash-2012) that reported on some of these donations to Mr. Christiana and related the amazement of some local officials that someone so inexperienced as Christiana has attracted so much money from outside the state special interest groups.”
[RWC] Again, you have to appreciate the chutzpah. By the way, unions don’t consider themselves to be “special interest groups.”
The “investigative article” was based on required reports available to the general public.
This is probably a good point to mention John (Paul) Vranesevich once referred to Mr. Christiana as “a coward” because their positions on same-sex marriage differ.
“Not only has he co-sponsored the bill for these out of state interest he seems to be leading the effort to mislead his own constituents on the issue. He would have us believe these deductions are costing the state scarce tax dollars and that the collected dues were given to politicians. Neither is true. Dues are deducted electronically. There is very little or no additional cost to the state to perform the function. A fact he conveniently leaves out of the conversation. As for the dues being used for political donations; it’s against the law. It has been law for many years that dues dollars cannot be contributed to political campaigns. Any money donated to candidates by Unions comes from the Union’s PAC funds. Those contributions are 100% voluntary.”
[RWC] This statement is intentionally deceptive. Note the authors wrote about contributions to “political campaigns” and “candidates.” It is true direct contributions from unions (and other businesses) to candidates and government officials are illegal. It is also true no part of collective-bargaining fees collected from non-members may be used for any political purpose. During the 2008, 2010, and 2012 election cycles (two-year periods), the total donated by all union-related federal PACs was $192.4 million. During those cycles, PACs directed by Big Union management made 92%, 93%, and 90% of their contributions to Democrat candidates for a total of $176.3 million. If you think this is a lot of money, keep reading and you’ll find union-affiliated federal PACs spend “chump change” on political activities compared to the unions themselves.
Here is the authors’ deceit. The authors failed to mention is it is legal and standard operating procedure for Big Union management to use member dues for “political purposes” such as lobbying, taking positions on political issues, and so on. According to their U.S. Department of Labor LM-2 forms (Labor Organization Annual Report), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $70 million in 2012 on “Political Activities and Lobbying,” the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) spent $21.5 million, the National Education Association (NEA) spent $39.9 million, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $113.8 million, and the AFL-CIO spent $45 million. These expenditures were by the unions themselves, not their affiliated PACs. Those five unions alone spent $290.2 million in a single year on “Political Activities and Lobbying” vs. PAC spending of $192.4 million over six years. Since the same groups control PAC and direct union spending on political activities, should we expect direct union spending on “Political Activities and Lobbying” to show a different distribution? Are we to believe only 7% - 10% of union-represented employees are Republicans?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have no problem with union management spending membership dues (customer revenue) on political activities and lobbying, just like any other business can choose how to spend the income from its customers. It’s a matter of free speech. What I don’t get is why union management doesn’t make that argument, but instead wants people to believe the spending of membership dues on political activities doesn’t happen or is trivial. Perhaps it’s because of Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled union management could not forcibly collect dues for activities not directly related to collective bargaining. This decision applies whether or not you work in a closed shop. The basis of the decision is that union management violates employees’ First Amendment free-speech rights when union management forces employees to contribute to political activities and charities they oppose. As a result of the Beck decision, an employee can refuse to pay dues in excess of that required to support collective bargaining activities. As a result, union management must provide a detailed audit to show how dues are spent.
“Here are the facts about dues check-off: it is an agreement between unions and management that goes back several decades. It is a benefit workers bargain into their agreements to make dues payment more convenient. It’s no different than having health insurance premiums or a car payment automatically deducted. It is a stable, efficient and inexpensive system which allows the parties to focus their efforts on addressing both the competing and the mutual interests of employers and employees. It is actually a very conservative and effective approach that has produced some excellent results over the years. Asking a union to collect dues from each individual member would be no different from asking Christiana to collect his salary from each individual constituent.”
[RWC] How does serving as a union’s bill collector benefit the employer?
The last sentence is BS. Mr. Christiana is a government official. Though they tend to claim otherwise, labor unions are businesses selling collective-bargaining services. Why shouldn’t labor unions bill their customers as other businesses do?
“Our representatives should publicize their positions on issues. They should do the best they can to inform voters on the issues. It is their responsibility to do so. Most importantly though they should inform their constituency of the facts and not some talking points that a political donor has handed them. In doing so they should at a minimum be honest.
“They also should not waste the taxpayers’ money on efforts to attack law abiding organizations that will probably not stand legal challenges. In Alabama, Arizona, and Washington, these kinds [sic] bogus laws were ruled unconstitutional by state Supreme Courts. Despite the propaganda these extremist groups like to propagate, the courts have ruled such laws violate the first amendment rights of Union members.”
[RWC] “Extremist group” is leftyspeak for non-leftist group.
“Mr. Christiana needs to stand up for the working families in PA instead of out of state special interests.”
[RWC] As mentioned above, “working families” means union families (less than 7% in the private sector) and unions don’t consider themselves to be “special interests.” Unions also ignore their own interstate spending on political issues.
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.