WHERE DID THE DUES DOLLARS GO?

In this year’s election, the Democratic Party is receiving unprecedented contributions from unions. With the efforts of hundreds of thousands of volunteers from labor organizations, $65 million from the SEIU, more than $40 million from the AFL-CIO, collaboration with Rock the Vote and Rap the Vote – unions are putting hundreds of millions of dues dollars into this year’s presidential campaign.

As they donate millions in political contributions during this election year, organized labor is fighting the Department of Labor’s revisions to the financial reporting forms (LM-2 and T-1) used in accordance with the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

In 1959, Unions were forced into financial disclosure through the Landrum-Griffin Act that targeted union corruption and denial of union democracy. The information requested in the LM-2 form used for this financial disclosure, however, has not been updated for more than 40 years.

In 2002, the Department of Labor issued a proposal for new financial disclosure rules to ensure that unions disclose how they spend workers’ dues dollars on political operations. The amended law requires organizations with more than $250,000 in annual receipts to supply details of receipts and disbursements over $5,000. This additional disclosure would give workers access to critical financial data that would aid in their understanding of union governance and viability. After several successful attempts by the AFL-CIO to delay the new disclosure requirements, the Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports Final Rule became effective July 1, 2004, but compliance is not mandated until March 2005. Why don’t unions want their constituencies to know how they spent their money?

The Public Service Research Foundation commissioned a Zogby International pollⁱ on National Attitudes Toward Unions in February of 2004. The study supports the Supreme Court’s decisions that allow non-member workers, who are forced to pay dues because of union security clauses, to opt out of paying the portion of regular union dues that is used for political and ideological purposes.

Sixty-three percent of the general public and 61 percent of union members believe that Union members should not be required to contribute through their union dues to political or ideological groups with which they disagree.

The poll also shows that 71 percent of the general public and 71 percent of union members in the poll agreed that Government ought to do more to protect union members from corrupt union officials. Unions should be required to give detailed reporting of union finances to discourage abuse.

Protectionist policies will not protect jobs

The United States has been making efforts to repair fragile international trade relationships. Opening up our ports to more free trade will lead to an expanded US economy, global economic growth, enhanced competition and, as a result, improved products and services for American consumers. Labor unions and other advocacy groups have opposed free trade on many fronts.

Unions have historically lobbied for protectionist policies, which limit outsourcing and halt negotiations for free trade. Either of these is detrimental. Together they hinder the growth of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, diminish our presence among international purchasers and reduce the competitiveness of US companies. Contrary to Labors’ claims, these actions will lead to a decline in the US economy and the loss of US jobs.

Big Labor has been able to hold up implementation of Free Trade Agreements like NAFTA, and they hope to do the same with pending agreements including those withAustralia and Morocco. In an expression of his opposition to The Central American Free Trade Agreement, Teamsters’ President Hoffa resigned from his appointment on President Bush’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. CAFTA, a treaty designed to open up trade between the US and Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, will benefit both regions by encouraging multiparty trade; developing new policies on labor rights; and building stronger economies.

Employers forced to turn the other cheek

In our Fall 2003 Newsletter, PTI highlighted neutrality agreements and card check organizing tactics being used by labor organizations to bolster their diminishing membership. Unions clearly regard these organizing methods as crucial to their future success. These efforts deny employees the right to a confidential election while employers are required to be silent or neutral in communications about unionization. In return for neutrality, unions often make up-front concessions that may not be in the best interest of the employee.

To persuade companies to accept provisions that promote union organizing at the company, the union uses the collective bargaining process. In some cases, they may agree to short-term sacrifices in contract negotiations in efforts to support long-term strategic growth of the union. As an example, an important factor in many neutrality agreements is the extended coverage of its provisions to all affiliates of the company adopting the agreement.

In A Nationwide Survey of Union Members and Their Views on Labor Unionsⁱⁱ, by Zogby International for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, union workers polled disagreed with neutrality agreements and card check organizing tactics. Fifty-three percent say secret ballot elections are the fairest way to decide on union representation. Union members expressed the importance of maintaining their privacy and 78 percent would keep the current secret-ballot process, rather than replace it with one less private.

In employees’ interests, confidential elections and education about the pros and cons of unionization would allow for the most informed decision.

In neutrality, the information presented by the unions is biased and card check authorization leaves employees vulnerable to intimidation from organizers. Under card check provisions, the employer must recognize a union if a majority of the employees sign union authorization cards. One of the reasons unions prefer card check recognition is because recognition could happen faster than NLRB elections, sometimes in less than a month.

Card check agreements and neutrality agreements erode employee rights and their ability to make their own decisions about unionization without intimidation or fear of retribution.