This page was last updated on March 23, 2014.
Mistaken assertions; Robin Cox; Beaver County Times; March 18, 2014.
Below is a copy of the letter as I submitted it.
Title: Union dues pay for political activity
A couple of letters during the past week claimed union membership dues are not spent for political purposes. These assertions were incorrect.
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 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, 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, and the AFL-CIO spent $45 million. These expenditures were by the unions themselves, not their affiliated PACs.
The specific letters to which I referred are here and here. After I submitted my letter, the BCT published other letters defending Big Union management including, but not limited to, “Christiana off base,” “Flawed charter funding more pressing,” “Smokescreen to weaken unions,” and “Focus on something else.” The Beaver Countian also published “Op-Ed: Dishonest Representation.”
Though my letter simply stated facts and took no position, you’ll see below one reader read a whole lot more.
beavertimes posted at 12:02 pm on Fri, Mar 21, 2014. (I don’t know “beavertimes’” real name.)
“I love when those who (willingly or not) support corporate CEOs and their agenda against the middle class think they’ve found ‘the dirt’ on unions.
“Is workplace safety and materials hazards a ‘political issue?’ What about sexual harrassment in the workplace? ER nurse overtime laws? Education funding levels? Charter school policy?
“Of course they are, because policy is decided by politicians. Why is it fair for corporations to throw millions of dollars at ‘political issues’ but nurses, teachers, ironworkers, electricians, firefighters, and police can’t combine their hard (and honestly!) earned dollars to have a voice in legislative politics?”
[RWC] “beavertimes” (bt) uses a tactic routinely used by lefties on this topic. That is, if you point out letter-writers are wrong when they claim “union membership dues are not spent for political purposes,” you oppose union spending on such activities and want to silence “nurses, teachers, …” This is an example of the straw-man tactic, used throughout by bt. In this tactic, your opponent claims someone did or said something they didn’t do or say and then attacks them for it.
sdcox posted at 1:44 pm on Fri, Mar 21, 2014. (“sdcox” is my brother’s ID and it’s his BCT subscription.)
“As I wrote in another thread on this topic, 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.
“Robin Cox”
beavertimes posted at 2:27 pm on Fri, Mar 21, 2014.
“‘Union management!’ Too clever by half!
“Again, the answer is in your question: ‘political issues’ such as the state education budget, overtime policies, or staff regulations directly relate to collective bargaining.
“And every time those audits have been challenged, the courts have confirmed that the dues were used properly.”
[RWC] Between this and her/his previous comment, it appears bt believes just about any political issue can be considered to be “relate[d] to collective bargaining.”
I’m not sure what bt’s problem is with “union management,” but I have an idea. It’s my experience lefties/unionists don’t like it when unions are referred to as businesses, though they clearly are. If that’s the case with bt, he/she may not like the usage of “management” in connection with a union.
If bt’s comment about audits is important to you, I recommend you check it out for yourself.
sdcox posted at 4:43 pm on Fri, Mar 21, 2014.
“beavertimes, you seem to be reading something neither written nor intended. In an effort to be even clearer, I think it’s OK for union management to spend union income on ANY political activities (related to collective bargaining or not) just as it’s OK for any other business’ management to do the same with business income as long as both do so within the law. I mean that.
“Robin Cox”
beavertimes posted at 5:04 pm on Fri, Mar 21, 2014.
“My apologies. It seems we’re in agreement that Christiana’s ‘paycheck protection’ proposal is a fraudulent, unnecessary, and politically-motivated attack on unions. Most importantly, it is a diversion from the important work our legislators should be focusing on such as growing jobs and strengthening education.”
sdcox posted at 5:41 pm on Sat, Mar 22, 2014.
“beavertimes, at no point in my letter or in my comments in this and other threads have I mentioned HB 1507. If you want to continue to claim I wrote/implied things I did not, fine.
“So long for this thread.
“Robin Cox”
[RWC] This is a good place for a quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens): “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” This is one reason I tend to avoid commenting on the BCT website. People hiding behind screen names makes it even worse.
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.