Bill Bubb – 3/12/14

This page was last updated on March 18, 2014.

HB 1507 isn’t what Christiana says; Bill Bubb; Beaver County Times; March 12, 2014.

Previous letters from Mr. Bubb were entitled “Learning that words have consequences,” “Virginia’s third senator,” “Marriage and GOP agenda,” “Paying at the pump” (10/10/07), and “A Franklin quote worth heeding” (4/22/09).

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I think it’s time to end Jim Christiana’s misleading the voters of this region. In his article in Sunday’s (March 9) Times asking for support of HB 1507, Rep. Christiana has tried to make it look like unions use dues for political purposes. This is not true and is against the law.”

[RWC] Mr. Bubb is either ill-informed or intentionally deceptive. 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. It is, however, 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. In fact, union-affiliated federal PACs spend “chump change” compared to the unions themselves. Those five unions alone spent $290.2 million in a single year on “Political Activities and Lobbying,” vs. $192.4 million by all union-related federal PACs over six years. During the 2008, 2010, and 2012 election cycles (two-year periods), PACs directed by Big Union management made 92%, 93%, and 90% of their contributions to Democrat candidates for a total of $176.3 million. 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 letter-writing supporters of union management don’t make that argument, but instead want 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.

“Union members who wish to support pro-worker candidates can make voluntary contributions outside of their dues through their union’s PAC. Their dues paid to the union are used solely for the business of representing its members.”

[RWC] The first sentence is true when it comes to direct contributions to campaigns. The second sentence was shown to be false above. Representing employees is simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities. Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.”

Note: “Pro-worker” is leftyspeak for pro-Big Union management, or pro-BUMs.

“The collection of monies, both dues and PAC contributions, is done by ‘check off’ where the employer deducts those monies from a worker’s paycheck and forwards them to the union.”

[RWC] Mr. Bubb appears to claim it is the individual employee’s choice to have union dues (or collective-bargaining fees from non-members) deducted from his paycheck. From everything I’ve read, this is not correct. In any case, taxpayers should not be the dues/fees collectors and contribution aggregators for PACs.

For the record, the government should not be involved in charitable deductions either. Why? Government should not be allowed to guide charitable giving by determining which charities are “worthy” or “unworthy” of automatic deductions. It’s also none of the government’s business.

This is probably a good time to repeat my long-held position that taxes also should not be subject to automatic/forced deduction. I believe a good way to keep taxation in check is by “hitting taxpayers between the eyes” with the magnitude of taxes by making us write tax checks every month, quarter, or whatever. Paying taxes is necessary but should not be painless. Automatic deduction tends to mask the magnitude/pain of taxes. I’d also like to see gas stations reinstate the practice of itemizing the diesel/gas taxes on their signs, pumps, and receipts.

“HB 1507 is the first step to ‘Right to Work’ (for less) laws in Pennsylvania. It is an attempt to hamper the public sector unions’ ability to collect its monies and put a burden on the workers.”

[RWC] Hmm, one of Mr. Bubb’s fellow travelers wrote, “A more accurate label for House Bill 1507 would be ‘The Deadbeat Protection Plan.’”

“A number of other deductions, such as FICA and Social Security, are also made from a workers [sic] paycheck before they see it. Having an employer make another is minimal as all due [sic] collected are rolled into one deposit and PAC contributions another.”

[RWC] FICA and SS are not separate things. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax is the law that allows the federal government to confiscate part of an employee’s paycheck for Medicare and Socialist Security taxes.

“Please don’t fall for this deceit and understand that unions built this area and are necessary for its continued survival.”

[RWC] Sure.