Read our DAILY
reports and links
to labor-related
news.
OCTOBER 2006
Unions
and politics are democracy at its best
by Rick S. Bender, President of
the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Every
election season I hear howls about unions spending money in support of
candidates that some of their members oppose.
I
suspect I’ll hear it for many elections to come because the effort to
politically silence unions has been a pretty lucrative (though fruitless)
endeavor. But for those of you
who agree with some complaints put forward by the partisan right-wing
conservatives anonymously funding these efforts, I offer this column.
First,
the why.
It’s
never been clearer than it is today, that important workers’ rights can
be lost with the stroke of a pen in
Unions
have a responsibility to their members, and their founders, to protect
these standards. Many
Americans take basic worker rights for granted, but we remember it was
previous generations of trade unionists who fought for and won these
rights -- and some paid with their lives.
In
this country, protecting labor standards means being politically active.
In addition to educating and rallying union members and lobbying
legislators on these standards, being politically active also means
exercising what courts say is part of our right to free speech: making
campaign contributions.
Now,
the how.
Union
members all have the right -- and I would say responsibility -- to
participate in their union’s political activity.
They have the right to debate and vote on which candidates to
support, or the right to seek election to a political committee that makes
those decisions.
Here
at the Washington State Labor Council, we have two major conventions every
election season where delegates representing our more than 500 affiliated
local unions vote upon which candidates to support.
From Boeing Machinists to Walla Walla Fire Fighters, these
delegates vote based on the positions their own unions have taken.
A two-thirds majority is necessary to win the WSLC’s endorsement.
Our
critics like to point out that 30 to 35 percent of union members vote for
Republicans, but unions give more than 85 percent of their contributions
to Democrats. That should
surprise no one. It’s called
democracy. That’s why John
Kerry doesn’t share half (or more?) of the Oval Office with George Bush.
That’s why school levies raise the taxes for everyone, including
those who vote against them.
Such
is the case with union endorsements and political spending.
The vast majority of union members understand that Democrats’
positions on labor issues are much more closely aligned to theirs than
those of Republicans. (It
wasn’t always that way; Republicans didn’t always so aggressively
pursue a corporate anti-worker agenda.)
So we vote on it and most often, but not always, the Democrats win.
So
what about individual rights?
Under
existing law, individual members who just can’t stomach the outcome of
their union’s endorsements have the right to prevent their dues money
from going to candidates they oppose.
They can withdraw from the union, pay a representation fee that
covers only the costs of bargaining and enforcing their contract, and
specify that none of their dues should be spent on political activity.
So
then, what’s the problem?
The
only “problem” is among the anonymously funded right-wing conservative
groups that oppose unions and their politics.
These groups -- like the National Right-to-Work Foundation and our
state’s Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) -- spend millions every year
attempting to convince individual members to withdraw from their unions,
with little success.
They
also try to pass laws creating restrictions or administrative hurdles for
unions to engage in politics. That
campaign would take another whole column to describe, so let’s just say
that it, too, has met with little success.
Still
not convinced that union political spending is fair?
Consider
this: Corporations have no democratic process for determining how they
spend their political cash, and they pump FAR more money into political
campaigns than unions. So far
in 2006, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics, corporations
have spent about $850 million on this fall's elections, outspending unions
by more than a 17-to-1 margin.
But
corporations don’t seek the input or permission of shareholders or
employees in deciding who to support.
Unlike union members, individual shareholders cannot prevent their
money from being spent on candidates they oppose.
How
come EFF & Co. doesn’t demand “protections” for shareholders
like they demand for union members? Because
you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Organized
labor will not be deterred by partisan efforts to silence the voices of
working people. We will
continue to advocate for our members and for working people in general.
But as long as there's money to be made, EFF and other “think tanks” will be thinking of new ways to harass unions in courts, in legislatures, and in newspapers.
Rick Bender is President of the
Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO,
the largest labor organization in the state.
Return to index of President's Columns
Copyright © 2006 Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO