{"id":1962,"date":"2008-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-06T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-30T04:00:00","slug":"big-labor-s-massive-political-machine","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/","title":{"rendered":"Big Labor’s Massive Political Machine"},"content":{"rendered":"

*Originally published September 9, 1997, by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research<\/a>.*<\/p>\n

After ignoring the problem for decades, the media elite’s attention
\nfinally shifted to organized labor’s use of forced union dues for its political
\nmachine in 1996.<\/p>\n

Of course, Big Labor’s coercion of employees into paying union dues
\nto subsidize its political agenda isn’t new, since this practice is as
\nold as the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  But with AFL-CIO
\npresident John Sweeney beating his chest about the Federation’s political
\nspending, the coercion  of workers to fund the AFL-CIO\u2019s political
\noperations became news.<\/p>\n

As John Cunniff of the Associated Press reported just before Labor Day
\nlast year, workers \u00abin 29 states and the District of Columbia, where right-to-work
\nlaws don’t exist, can be fired for refusing to pay union dues, even if
\nthose dues are used for purposes abhorrent to their religious, moral or
\npolitical beliefs.\u00bb (1)<\/a><\/sup>  Those employees
\ndo have the right not to pay for union political activities with which
\nthey disagree, thanks to US Supreme Court decisions won by employees with
\nthe help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. But, Cunniff reported, \u00abmost workers are unaware of this right, and union
\nleadership seldom informs them of it.\u00bb (2)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Of course, Big Labor could not get away with such brazen flouting of
\nthe law without federal labor board bureaucrats sanctioning it, and a president
\nin Bill Clinton who owes his elected office to the forced-dues-fed support
\nhe has received from Big Labor.  In the face of these roadblocks,
\nit is no surprise that the same Harry Beck who led the fight to win this
\noption in the Supreme Court recently wrote that instead of \u00abregulat[ing]\u00bb
\na system where employees first pay forced dues, then negotiate with union
\nbosses over how much they will get back, Congress should \u00abEND IT\u00bb by repealing
\nits federal sanction. (3)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In an earlier issue brief, the National Institute for Labor Relations
\nResearch showed that union officials extract forced union dues from over
\n8 million private sector employees annually, and that the true cost of
\nBig Labor’s nationwide campaign of mailings, phone banks and voter turnout
\ndrives adds up to at least $400 million each election cycle. (4)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

With the dust still settling from the 1996 campaign, the evidence of
\nBig Labor’s use of forced dues for the above mentioned \u00abin-kind\u00bb activities,
\ncontinues to accumulate, as it has for nearly 30 years<\/p>\n

Snapshots From 1996<\/h3>\n

Previously, the Institute documented a series of snapshots from past
\nelections highlighting Big Labor’s in-kind politicking across the country. What follows are the latest examples from 1996.<\/p>\n

* While the AFL-CIO today claims to have targeted only 32 House districts,
\nThe New York Times  reported on October 31 that \u00aborganizers paid by
\nthe national AFL-CIO are active in 96 House districts\u00bb putting together
\n\u00abthe greatest get-out-the-vote effort unions have mounted in many years.\u00bb<\/p>\n

As the Times points out, these were political operatives from the national
\nAFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, DC only. According to the disclosure
\nforms submitted by all private sector unions, local, state and national,
\ntheir total payroll expenses are approximately 2.25 billion dollars a year. 
\nIf only 10 percent of that time was spent on the \u201896 election this year
\n— a low estimate — that alone adds up to $225 million in unreported political
\nactivities.<\/p>\n

Of course, there was also the AFL-CIO massive television campaign to
\naccount for.  It’s highly unlikely that the mere $35 million assessment
\nof each union member under the AFL-CIO\u2019s control which Sweeney bragged
\nabout paid for the TV ads.  Here are just a few glimpses from different
\nangles of the iceberg.<\/p>\n

* In Ohio’s 10th district, the AFL-CIO told The New York Times on October
\n11 that it spent $385,000 on television advertising between April and September. 
\nBut an ad tracking agency informed the Republican Congressional Committee
\nthat the AFL-CIO actually spent $1.2 million on TV ads in that same time
\nperiod against Republican Congressman Martin Hoke.<\/p>\n

As the Times noted, \u00abBy any standard, it is a lot of money, especially
\nwhen [Hoke\u2019s opponent, Dennis] Kucinich estimates he will spend only $300,000
\non his campaign \u2026 And it is only part\u00bb of the union effort in the 10th,
\nthe Times goes on:  \u00abDavid Lauridsen at AFL-CIO headquarters detailed
\nother activities, from phone banks making \u2018persuasion calls\u2019 to union members
\nand retirees, to door-to-door canvassing in the heavily pro-labor precincts,
\nto recruiting\u00bb union members to help in Kucinich\u2019s campaign.<\/p>\n

* In Arizona’s 6th district, the Times also reported on October 11, the AFL-CIO
\npaid to run ads against freshman congressman J.D. Hayworth \u00abas many as
\n300 times a week\u2026 up to 50 times a day.\u00bb  The cost?  At least
\n$1 million, according to the Times.<\/p>\n

* In Michigan’s eighth district, the AFL-CIO told the Times on October 31
\nthat it had spent about $400,000 in advertising to unseat Dick Chrysler. 
\nBut the GOP congressional committee insisted that its ad tracking showed
\nat least $600,000 in spending by the AFL-CIO.<\/p>\n

In that same article, Dr. Anthony Corrado, a political science professor
\nat Colby College in Waterville, Maine, described those estimates of the
\nunion ad spending as \u00abvery good\u00bb because of new technology making it possible
\nto track such spending. <\/p>\n

Indeed, the Times reports, \u00abIn Maine’s First District, where [organized]
\nlabor has been pummeling representative James B. Longley, Jr., [Corrado]
\nsaid, the [GOP congressional committee’s] figure of $901,703 was more believable
\nthan the Federation’s estimate of $450,000.\u00bb  All of which adds credibility
\nto Congressman Bill Paxon\u2019s statement that, all in all, the union hierarchy
\nspent some $100 million in advertising alone.<\/p>\n

Tip of the Iceberg: 30 Years & Counting<\/h3>\n

On March 21, 1996, professor Leo Troy of Rutgers University told the
\nUS House of Representatives Oversight Committee that organized labor’s
\nin-kind political expenses \u00abcould reasonably be a multiple of 3 to 5 times\u00bb
\nthe total expenses of union Political Action Committees (PACs).  In
\nother words, while union PACs spent about $95 million on the 1992 campaign,
\ntotal union political spending actually hovered between $300 million and
\n$500 million.<\/p>\n

Troy\u2019s estimate is simply the latest confirmation that organized labor’s
\npolitical activities cost American workers far more than union officials
\nadmit.  For 30 years, various experts on unions have confirmed, and
\neven union officials themselves have admitted that their political expenses
\nfar exceed what is reported to federal authorities.<\/p>\n

Victor Riesel Pulls Back the Veil<\/h4>\n

Until his retirement in 1990, Victor Riesel was probably the nation’s
\nbest-known labor columnist.  Raised in a union household, Riesel \u00abnever
\nstopped inveighing against gangster infiltration and other corruption in
\nlabor unions that had stirred his emotions since his youth,\u00bb according
\nto his obituary in the January 5, 1995 New York Times.  Indeed, for
\nexposing corruption in a Long Island local of the International Union of
\nOperating Engineers, Riesel was blinded by an acid attack in 1956.<\/p>\n

Based on his in-depth knowledge of union finances, Riesel estimated
\nthat in addition to organized labor’s direct contributions of around $1
\nmillion to federal candidates in 1968 and 1972, union officials actually
\nspent $60 million in \u201868 and $50 million in \u201972.<\/p>\n

When Alexander Barkan, director of the AFL-CIO Committee on Political
\nEducation (COPE), complained that these were gross overestimates, Riesel
\nreplied in the Orlando Sentinel-Star on November 3, 1973:<\/p>\n

> If you apply cost accounting to what the unions do in a political
\n> way \u2026 you will find that the noncash contributions consist of staff time
\n> \u2014 meaning union officials who are assigned to campaigns for months on end
\n> \u2014 printing costs, postage, telephone and various other support services
\n> financed entirely with compulsory union dues and fees.
\n>
\n> It is time and services, not just cash contributions alone, which I
\n> consider in making my estimates.  I know my estimates are right.  I know they spent the time and money.  Let them open their books if
\n> they say they didn’t.<\/p>\n

In 1976, Riesel reported, organized labor spent more than $100 million
\non their political operations \u2014 more than 10 times the $10 million in PAC
\ncontributions which union officials reported to the Federal Election Commission
\n(FEC). (5)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

1992:  Union Boss Spills Beans<\/h4>\n

During the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Dennis Rivera, chief
\nof the Health Care Employees union’s New York City local, told CBS reporter
\nPaula Zahn that organized labor \u00abput $47 million into the candidates for
\nthe Democratic Party,\u00bb with the nationwide Fall campaign still to come.
\n(6)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

When Rivera made that comment on July 15, only $10 million in union
\nPAC contributions had been reported to the FEC.  Thus, by a union
\nboss’s own admission, total union political spending at this stage was
\nnearly five times their reported PAC contributions.  By the end of
\n\u201992 campaign, union PACs had contributed $41.4 million.  By the standard
\nset by Riesel, it is clear that Big Labor spent some $400 million nationwide
\non its political machine.<\/p>\n

Former Teamster Exposes Massive Politicking<\/h4>\n

For 14 years, F.C. \u00abDuke\u00bb Zeller was head of Public Relations at the
\nTeamsters\u2019 Washington, DC headquarters until he was fired by new union
\npresident Ron Carey.  In his book, Devil’s Pact, Zeller quotes a Teamsters
\nvice president, Gene Giacumbo, who revealed that Carey once boasted to
\nthe union’s executive board that the Teamsters spent $56 million 
\nto aid the Democrats\u2019 campaign. (7)<\/a><\/sup>  Officially,
\nthe Teamsters PAC reported $2.4 million in direct contributions to candidates
\nin 1992.<\/p>\n

High Court Compromise Fails to Protect Employees\u2019 Freedom of Speech<\/h3>\n

Faced with the dilemma of workers forced to pay union fees for political
\ncauses with which they disagree, the US Supreme Court has spent more than
\n30 years trying to forge a compromise.  Union officials have been
\nallowed to force employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment,
\nbut not pay for political and other non-bargaining activities.  This
\ncompromise was crowned in 1988, with the High Court’s decision in Communications Workers v. Beck<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, Supreme Court precedents are not self-enforcing, and so long
\nas union officials are allowed to thrust their hands into employees\u2019 pockets,
\nit is impossible for any employees or group of employees to effectively
\nensure that they are not subsidizing  a union’s political agenda.<\/p>\n

To begin with, most unions, with the approval of the National Labor
\nRelations Board (NLRB), still negotiate contracts stating that \u00abmembership
\nin good standing\u00bb is required \u2013 in other words, join the union and pay
\nfull membership dues or be fired.  Even after the Eighth Circuit Court
\nof Appeals ruled in 1994 that such clauses should be stricken from union
\ncontracts, the NLRB still refuses to follow that order. (8)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus, while exit polling showed that nearly 40% of union members did
\nnot vote to reelect Bill Clinton in 1996, nearly three-quarters of all
\nunion members do not know of their right not to pay forced dues for politics.
\n(9)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Even when employees do discover this right, they must still attempt
\nto negotiate with union officials over how much the officials get to seize
\nfrom their paychecks.  The late Justice Hugo Black understood the
\nproblem well when, in 1961, he dissented from the Supreme Court’s first
\nruling involving the use of forced union dues for politics:<\/p>\n

> It may be that courts and lawyers with sufficient skill in
\n> accounting, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus will be able to
\n> extract the proper microscopic answer from the voluminous and complex accounting
\n> records of the local, national, and international unions involved. 
\n>
\n> It seems to me \u2026 however, that \u2026 this formula with its attendant trial
\n> burdens promises little hope for financial recompense to the individual
\n> workers whose First Amendment freedoms have been flagrantly violated. (10)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The only proper remedy in this case, Justice Black concluded, was to relieve
\nprotesting workers of all<\/u> payment of dues. (11)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

However, there is perhaps no greater authority on the misuse of forced
\ndues for politics than the telephone lineman whose 12-year legal battle
\nwon for most private sector employees the right not to pay for union politics,
\nHarry Beck.<\/p>\n

As Beck wrote in the Wall Street Journal on November 1 of last year,
\nhis fight really began in the 1960s when, as an organizer for the Communications
\nWorkers of America (CWA), he \u00abnoticed that the CWA brass paid little attention
\nto the needs of the rank and file, concentrating instead on supporting
\nDemocratic political campaigns and liberal social causes.\u00bb  Yet, when
\nhe resigned his formal membership in the CWA, the union hierarchy slapped
\nhim with compulsory \u00abagency fees\u00bb equal to full membership dues.<\/p>\n

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense
\nFoundation, Beck filed suit against the CWA in 1976, and was finally vindicated
\nby the US Supreme Court on June 29, 1988.  But with union bosses continuing
\nto lie to employees about their rights, the NLRB continuing to sanction
\nthe lies, and a Clinton administration which was willing to tear down all
\nworkplace notices about employees\u2019 Beck rights, Beck himself concluded:<\/p>\n

> [U]ntil Congress repeals or the High Court overturns the federal
\n> sanction of compulsory dues, workers will not have their full freedoms.<\/p>\n

In Beck’s view, the only bill pending in Congress which would accomplish
\nthat is the National Right to Work Act. (12)<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The freedom Beck speaks of is at least as old as Thomas Jefferson, who
\nwrote in 1779, \u00abTo compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
\npropagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.\u00bb 
\nIt is clear that John Sweeney and the president he helped reelect are suffering
\nfrom dramatic memory lapses.<\/p>\n

\n

Notes<\/h3>\n

<\/a>(1) John Cunniff, \u00abMembers can get dues
\nback; Law works against union political spending,\u00bb Beacon Journal, August
\n31, 1996.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(2) Ibid.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(3) Harry Beck, Letter to the Editor<\/i>,
\nJuly, 1997.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(4) National Institute for Labor Relations
\nResearch, Issue Brief<\/i>, \u00abForced Dues\u2014Fuel For Big Labor\u2019s Political
\nMachine,\u00bb June 11, 1996.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(5) Victor Riesel, \u00abUnions Collect Huge
\nBankroll For Campaign,\u00bb
\nThe Commercial Appeal<\/i>, Sept. 5, 1976.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(6) Paula Zahn, interview with Dennis
\nRivera (Hospital Workers Union), CBS-TV, 10:00-11:00 PM, July 15, 1992.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(7) Jerry Seper, \u00abBook claims Teamster
\nkept Clinton slush fund,\u00bb The Washington Times<\/i>, October 28, 1996.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(8) Ray LaJeunesse, National Right to
\nWork Legal Defense Foundation attorney, testifying before the Senate Committee
\non Rules Hearing on Campaign Finance, June 25, 1997.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(9) Luntz Research Companies, Initial
\nFindings of a National Survey of Union Members, April 29, 1996.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(10) Machinists v. Street<\/i>, 367
\nUS 740 (1961) at 795-96.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(11) Id. at 796.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/a>(12) Harry Beck, \u00abHow the AFL-CIO Funds
\nits War Chest,\u00bb
\nWall Street Journal<\/i>, November 1, 1996.<\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

*Originally published September 9, 1997, by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.* After ignoring the problem for decades, the media elite’s attention finally shifted to organized labor’s use of forced union dues for its political machine in 1996. Of course, Big Labor’s coercion of employees into paying union dues to subsidize its political agenda […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1962","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nBig Labor's Massive Political Machine - National Right to Work Foundation<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Big Labor's Massive Political Machine - National Right to Work Foundation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"*Originally published September 9, 1997, by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.* After ignoring the problem for decades, the media elite’s attention finally shifted to organized labor’s use of forced union dues for its political machine in 1996. Of course, Big Labor’s coercion of employees into paying union dues to subsidize its political agenda […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"National Right to Work Foundation\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Tiempo de lectura\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"12 minutos\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\\\/\",\"name\":\"Big Labor's Massive Political Machine - National Right to Work Foundation\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"National Right to Work Foundation\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.nrtw.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Big Labor's Massive Political Machine - National Right to Work Foundation","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"Big Labor's Massive Political Machine - National Right to Work Foundation","og_description":"*Originally published September 9, 1997, by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.* After ignoring the problem for decades, the media elite’s attention finally shifted to organized labor’s use of forced union dues for its political machine in 1996. Of course, Big Labor’s coercion of employees into paying union dues to subsidize its political agenda […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/","og_site_name":"National Right to Work Foundation","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Tiempo de lectura":"12 minutos"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/","url":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/","name":"Big Labor's Massive Political Machine - National Right to Work Foundation","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/big-labor-s-massive-political-machine\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/","name":"National Right to Work Foundation","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"es"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1962","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}