Jarrod McCowin – 3/13/14

This page was last updated on March 18, 2014.

Bad argument; Jarrod McCowin; Beaver County Times; March 13, 2014.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Rep. Jim Christiana’s op-ed in The Times on March 9 was an excellent example of how to overcome a weakness: If you don’t have a good argument, then try several bad ones.

“His primary complaint seems to be that ‘there is still taxpayer money being used for political purposes.’ He’s talking about union dues that are automatically deducted from workers’ paychecks.

“He suggests that this service costs taxpayers a bundle – ‘your hard-earned money is being used to sway election results.’ That sounds awful. Fortunately, it’s far from the truth.

“It’s not ‘your’ money (unless you are a union member), and it’s not spent on politics. The money he is talking about comes out of union members’ paychecks and helps pay for membership services such as legal representation, labor negotiation and professional development.”

[RWC] Mr. McCowin is either ill-informed or is being 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.

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.”

“If you read Rep. Christiana’s editorial carefully, you’ll see that he never actually explains how this costs taxpayers anything. That’s because the cost is negligible. The dues are deducted by the same system that already takes taxes, retirement contributions, and charitable donations to groups like The United Way.”

[RWC] Deductions made for “retirement contributions, and charitable donations” are voluntary choices made by the employee. Deductions made for taxes are not. Likewise, union membership (or paying a collective-bargaining fee) is an employment requirement – not a choice – for most government employees. Does Mr. McCowin really want to liken union dues to an employee tax?

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.

“So why would Rep. Christiana and his colleagues really want this bill? Just consider who it would weaken if it were passed.”

[RWC] Mr. McCowin seems to have the same opinion (“deadbeats”) of union members as the author of “Bill a direct attack on unions.”