THE LEADERSHIP of California’s largest public labor unions declared a crisis last week–and it had nothing to do with outsourcing, Enron, WorldCom, the minimum wage, healthcare, or any of the other causes that usually whip union bosses into frenzy. Instead, the controversy surrounds an initiative called “paycheck protection” which is now headed to Golden State voters in a special election this fall. The measure would require public sector unions to receive written permission from rank-and-file members before spending their dues on political activities.
While the issue doesn’t sound earth-shattering, the consequences for organized labor could be devastating. Most news stories have framed the initiative as an attempt by pro-business Republicans to weaken labor’s political machine. But if the measure passes, union leaders will only have themselves to blame for supporting political candidates and positions that don’t square with a sizeable chunk of their membership.
In almost every election cycle, labor’s leadership takes millions of dollars in dues from rank and file members and ships it off to Democratic headquarters without asking. Then, a significant portion of these same rank and file members turn around and vote for Republican candidates. The system is highway robbery for union members who are forced to fund politics with which they don’t agree.
Exit polls and campaign finance data make the divide clear. For example, nationally, 38 percent of union members voted for George W. Bush in 2004. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 87 percent of all labor donations either went to John Kerry or other Democratic candidates. Republican presidential candidates aren’t alone. Looking at California’s recall election, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante received tremendous financial and logistical support from union bosses–even though 37 percent of the rank-and-file voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The initiative which will go before the voters this fall only applies to public sector unions. Under current law, public sector union members have very few mechanisms to influence how their dues are used. While some unions technically allow members to get a refund of the portion of their dues that is spent on politics, doing so is complicated, cumbersome, and unadvertised. The process forces members to jump through numerous hoops before they see any of their money returned to them. In the end, it’s usually more trouble than its worth–especially since the onus is on the individual union member to make the case why his money shouldn’t go to the Democrat piggy bank.
Paycheck protection acts as an opt-in clause, forcing the leadership to get the written consent of union members before any of their money is spent on politics. This will ultimately benefit conservative union members–usually found in public sector unions representing firefighters and police officers–who can simply say no.
Of course the unions will not go quietly into the night. They defeated a similar measure in 1998 and are optimistic about their abilities to win political battles with the Governator, having sunk a Schwarzenegger plan earlier this year which would have moved state workers into 401(k)-style retirement plans. Their success against Schwarzenegger might be part of the reason why the governor has not officially endorsed the paycheck protection initiative, even though the measure was put on the ballot by his allies.
THE CAMPAIGN’S BIGGEST IRONY is that labor leaders are fighting the initiative by raising rank and file union dues. The California Teacher’s Association did exactly that recently, telling their membership that the dues increase will go to fight the paycheck protection provision. Their message: We want to take more of your money to make sure you won’t be able to control any of your money.
It’s a strange situation for union leaders to find themselves afraid of their own members.
Bryan O’Keefe is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.
