Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
44162821
label
Labor - AFL-CIO: [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
44162821
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Labor - AFL-CIO: [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Political Affairs (Clinton Administration)
Craig Hughes' Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
44162821
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-5665379-20130306F-024-001-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
476874d1f1373b6b
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0306-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Political Affairs
Series/Staff Member:
Craig Hughes
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
14933
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Labor - AFL-CIO: [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
28
3
7
2
AFL-CIO FACT SHEET
The Key Backers
Who's really behind the nationwide campaign to silence
working families and their unions?
The key backers of the state legislation and ballot initiatives are the same groups that consistently
try to block increases in the minimum wage, dismantle job safety laws, and cut Medicare,
education, and pensions. They are retaliating against working families and their unions for their
role in the 1996 elections, and trying to remove them from the political playing field in future
policy debates and campaigns. Here's a look at the key players:
John Patrick Rooney. A former chairman of Golden Rule Insurance Company, Rooney is a
conservative businessman who funds political and lobbying initiatives to push school vouchers,
medical savings accounts and reductions in state workers' compensation systems. He stands to
gain millions of dollars if Medicare is rolled back to allow the implementation of medical
savings accounts. Rooney has already contributed $49,000 to the California initiative -- just
under the $50,000 contribution limit that triggers disclosure of campaign finance. "I don't need
the publicity," he said. (Washington Post, November 13, 1997)
Golden Rule Insurance Company. Golden Rule's long-term profitability is threatened by the
trend toward managed care, which undercuts the market for the individual (rather than group)
health insurance the company provides. That's why Golden Rule is aggressively advocating
Medicare medical savings accounts, which would preserve the company's billion-dollar business
in the changing health care market. Members of the Golden Rule "family" gave more than $1
million to the Republican party and Republican candidates in the 1993-94 elections.
Grover Norquist. This long-time Republican consultant and president of Americans for Tax
Reform is one of the leading backers of the initiatives to silence working families. His past
accomplishments include "discovering" Willie Horton while working on the Bush campaign. His
philosophy: "If you privatize Social Security, if you voucher-ize education, if you sell $270
billion worth of airports and wastewater treatment plants, eliminate welfare and so on, you can
cut the government to basically half its present size." (Reason Magazine, February 1997)
Americans for Tax Reform. This well-known organization laid the foundation for the attack
on working families by producing and disseminating a resource and strategy guide for
introducing the state ballot initiatives and legislation. In the guide, Norquist gloats: "The more
states succeed in placing 'pro-worker' initiatives, the more divided the counterattack by labor
union bosses will have to be." During the 1996 elections, Americans for Tax Reform received
$4.6 million dollars from the Republican National Committee to run phone banks and direct mail
supporting Republican issues and candidates, as well as attack ads against New Jersey State
Senator Bob Torricelli. (Time Magazine, November 3, 1997)
Page Two
California Governor Pete Wilson. The governor is actively promoting the California ballot
initiative campaign. In response to political consultant Doug Bailey's claim that the AFL-CIO
would have to spend $20 to 25 million to fight the initiative, he crowed: "They're going to have to
spend more than that." (C-Span broadcast of Republican Governors Association meeting,
November 22, 1997)
American Legislative Exchange Council. This group, which frequently develops anti-worker
legislation for conservative legislators, is coordinating the nationwide effort to introduce state
legislation and initiatives to silence working families and their unions. In the past, ALEC has
actively supported so-called "right-to-work" bills, the TEAM Act, repealing the minimum wage
increase, flat taxes, and, of course, vouchers and medical savings accounts.
Big Business Groups. For the last several years, big businesses have been working in coalition
to diminish the political role of unions on a variety of fronts. Now, as Thomas Donahue, the
president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, puts it: "You're going to see us everywhere. We
will energetically oppose union-led programs to hijack the American political system (Donahue
speech, November 24, 1997)
National Center for Policy Analysis. A right-wing think-tank funded largely by Rooney and
other business leaders, the Center has been actively promoting the anti-worker legislation. The
Center is also a leading proponent of medical savings accounts and endorses "right-to-work" bills,
the privatization of Social Security, the TEAM Act and school vouchers. It actively opposed
raising the minimum wage. More than 43 percent of the Center's funding comes from corporations
and wealthy individuals; the rest comes from conservative foundations.
Newt Gingrich and GOPAC. One of the charter members of GOPAC, House Speaker Newt
Gingrich's political action committee, is Rooney's Golden Rule Insurance Company. That helps to
explain why Newt Gingrich has been leading the charge to roll back Medicare to allow for medical
savings accounts. Gingrich has been an outspoken critic of union political education and
mobilization, and has repeatedly accused unions of coercing members into participating in the
political process.
RNC and the Republican Congressional Leadership. Co-sponsors of the federal version of
the attempt to silence working families -- the so-called "Paycheck Protection Act" -- include
Congressmen Harris Fawell, Cass Ballenger, Michael Enzi, James Talent and many others who
have consistently voted against legislation that would benefit working families. Many of these co-
sponsors have aggressively advanced anti-worker legislation designed to gut OSHA and other
workplace safety and health standards. The new initiatives have proven to be a fundraising boon
for the Republican party. For example, a union-bashing mailer from the Nevada Republican Party
"is the most successful fundraising letter we've ever done," said Dan Burdish, executive director of
the state party. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 12, 1998)
OVERVIEW AND KEY POINTS
The Attempt to
Silence Working Families
Initiatives to limit the role of working families and their unions
have only one purpose, and that's to further skew the political
balance of power in America
As working families and their unions increasingly speak out on important political and
legislative issues, a coordinated, nationwide campaign to silence them is mounting.
Corporations, right-wing foundations and national anti-union lobbying groups are introducing
initiatives and legislation in all 50 states designed to limit working families' participation in the
political process by singling out unions for burdensome restrictions.
Backers of the initiatives claim to be protecting the interests of working Americans and represent
their proposals as "campaign finance reform." In truth, the initiatives are designed to silence the
voice of working America. They exacerbate -- they don't alleviate -- the flaws and imbalances in
a campaign finance system that already heavily favors corporations and the wealthy. And they
are a direct response to the AFL-CIO's aggressive education and mobilization efforts among
working families that in 1996 increased the minimum wage and prevented cuts in Medicare,
pensions and education.
In the political process, corporations already outspend unions 11-to-1. In the 1996
election cycle, corporations accounted for more than 40 percent of the $1.6 billion raised by
political candidates and parties -- while unions accounted for less than 4 percent. And the
disparity is growing. Corporations outspent unions by a ratio of 11-to-1 in 1996, compared to a
ratio of 9-to-1 in 1992. In "soft money" contributions (unlimited contributions to parties and
committees), the gap is even wider: In 1996, corporations spent 19 times more than unions did.
New restrictions on unions' participation in the political process will further tilt the balance of
power in favor of corporations.
The initiatives single out unions, proposing tight controls and burdensome regulations
that wouldn't apply to anyone else. They would silence the voice of working families, without
limiting political spending by corporations or special interest groups such as the National Rifle
Association, Chamber of Commerce or Christian Coalition. And they're just unnecessary: Union
members already have more protections than members of other organizations, and unions are
already subject to more stringent reporting requirements.
Page Two
This is a concerted effort to retaliate against working families and their unions for
exposing the right-wing agenda. This is not a grassroots movement by union members. The
overwhelming majority of union members support their union's involvement in political
activities. It is a nationwide, coordinated effort by corporations and national right-wing
foundations and lobbying groups, who are introducing similar initiatives and legislation in all 50
states. These are the same groups that tried to block the increase in the minimum wage, dismantle
job safety laws, and cut Medicare, education and pensions. In 1996, working families -- through
the AFL-CIO's "Labor '96" education and mobilization campaign -- stopped them, and now it's
pay-back time.
As it stands, union members have a choice. No worker can be forced to fund a union's
political and legislative activities. Union members choose whether to join the union, set their
own dues, elect their own leaders and vote on where and how their money will be spent. The
minority of workers who disagree with union political activities can choose not to belong to the
union. In those states where they still pay a fee to cover the representation the union is required
to provide them, they are not required to pay the amount that goes for political and legislative
activities. Corporations, by contrast, don't give shareholders, employees or customers any say in
their political activities.
Union members want their unions to be active in the political arena. By a 6-to-1 margin,
union members want their unions and the AFL-CIO to speak out about politics and legislation,
according to a 1996 poll by Peter Hart Research and Associates. The overwhelming majority of
union members support the AFL-CIO's position on working family issues: 86 percent, for
example, approved of "fighting to protect Medicare from large cuts" and "fighting to increase the
minimum wage." A full 90 percent approved of their union's efforts to educate and involve them
in the political process.
Initiatives to further skew the political balance of power are being disguised as
"campaign finance reform." They're not. The current campaign finance system already
unfairly rewards wealthy contributors. To be serious, reform efforts can't just limit the role of
working families and their unions. Instead, serious reform should limit all campaign spending,
provide for public financing to give voters a chance to hear from all candidates, and take other
steps to make sure no group has an unfair say in how our government is run.
Common Claims by Proponents of the Initiatives
Below are some of the claims that show up again and again in OpEds and publications by
proponents of "paycheck protection act"-type initiatives. Don't be put off by them. Get clear on the
facts by studying the Overview and Fact Sheets. Then practice responding, using our strongest
points from all the material enclosed.
Claim 1: If the chairmen of Fortune 500 companies were forced to turn over a portion of
their paychecks to politicians to pay for their election campaigns, a wave of outrage would
wash over the nation and Congress would quickly step in. This type of extortion happens to
millions of Americans and it's time to put an end to the extortion and shameful political
shakedown of members. It seems that when it's the middle class or working poor who have
their pockets picked instead of those who rely on investments or elected office to provide
their income, the silence is deafening. It's time to protect workers.
Claim 2: Big Labor claims that current laws already protect union members, but, as we've
seen, President Clinton has rescinded regulations that were issued by the Labor Department
under the Bush Administration requiring unions to publicly reveal what portion of their dues
workers could keep. It's clear that current laws will never be enforced by politicians who are
in the pockets of Big Labor. We need new laws to make sure that employees are aware of
their rights.
Claim 3: Many workers who have expressed an interest in obtaining a refund for the non-
collective bargaining portion of their dues have been harassed, threatened, or have suffered
other repercussions for attempting to exercise their rights under the Supreme Court's Beck
decision. The California initiative places the burden on labor leaders to first obtain the
consent of members to use their money for political purposes, instead of continuing to force
union members to jump through hoops to obtain a refund after their dues have been paid.
Claim 4: An increase in mandatory union dues paid for the hostile attack ads that Big Labor
ran against Republicans in 1996.
Claim 5: The AFL-CIO's Labor '96 program was completely out of step with union
members -- look at the blatantly partisan ads attacking Republicans even though a full 40%
of union members are Republicans. That's wrong. Why should workers be required to
support political candidates and causes they don't believe in?
Claim 6: These initiatives will put union members back in charge of their own money. The
California initiative puts political power back in the hands of the union worker. We believe
working people are perfectly capable of deciding to whom they will make political
contributions, if at all.
Claim 7: Union members, not union bosses, should decide whether money should be spent
on politics. The use of mandatory member dues for political purposes gives unions the
muscle and money to unduly influence elections without the knowledge of the membership.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
815 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
JOHN J. SWEENEY
RICHARD L. TRUMKA
LINDA CHAVEZ-THOMPSON
Washington, D.C. 20006
PRESIDENT
SECRETARY-TREASURER
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
(202) 637-5000
Edward T. Hanley
Wayne E. Glenn
Vincent R. Sombrotto
Gerald W. McEntee
CONGRESS AFL OF INDUSTRIAL -CIO
John T. Joyce
Morton Bahr
Robert A. Georgine
Gene Upshaw
Jay Mazur
Lenore Miller
John J. Barry
Moe Biller
George J. Kourpias
John N. Sturdivant
Frank Hanley
James J. Norton
Michael Sacco
Ron Carey
Arthur A. Coia
Frank Hurt
Gloria T. Johnson
Douglas H. Dority
George F. Becker
Stephen P. Yokich
J. Randolph Babbitt
Clayola Brown
M.A. "Mac" Fleming
Carolyn Forrest
Pat Friend
Michael Goodwin
Joe L. Greene
Sonny Hall
Sumi Haru
Carroll Haynes
James LaSala
William Lucy
Leon Lynch
Doug McCarron
Andrew McKenzie
A.L. "Mike" Monroe
Arthur Moore
Arturo S. Rodriguez
Robert A. Scardelletti
Robert E. Wages
Jake West
Alfred K. Whitehead
Andrew L. Stern
Edward L. Fire
Martin J. Maddaloni
John M. Bowers
Sandra Feldman
To:
State Federation Presidents
State and Regional Directors
Fr:
Denise Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs, AFL-CIO
Re:
Press Materials on the Attempts to Silence Working Families
Dt:
January 19, 1998
Attached is an initial set of materials to help your respond to "paycheck protection act"-
type bills if they show up in your state on January 21st - as has been threatened by a national
consortium of big business and right-wing front groups.
Contents include:
The Attempt to Silence Working Families
Corporate VS. Union Spending on Politics
Union Members and Politics
Real Campaign Finance Reform
The Truth About Union Dues
Unions Are Good for America
Common Claims by Proponents of the Initiatives
Sample Press Advisory
We will be developing additional materials over the coming weeks. Please let us hear
what activities occur in your state as soon as possible.
3
Tips for setting up your press activities
If activity is planned in your state, you will either want to:
Schedule an immediate press conference (in the same "news cycle") to respond, or
Issue a press statement and background to local reporters with additional press work to
follow.
Remember that any press conference should also feature workers, friendly state
legislators and coalition allies such as representatives of women's, civil rights, religious and
consumer groups. Do not have a press conference with union leaders as the sole spokesperson.
If you have a press conference, you should:
1. Line up other spokesperson and share the background information with them.
2. FAX your press advisory to all media outlets in the area, including
Reporters you know, especially political, labor and state capital reporters
City desk and political editors at newspapers
News directors at radio stations
Assignment editors at TV stations
Sympathetic columnists
3. Follow up the FAXES with phone calls to assure press turnout.
4. At the press conference, hand out your release, fact sheets and your press statement.
5. Following the press conference, FAX out the release to any reporters or media outlets
that did not attend.
In the days that follow the press conference, you should:
1. Concentrate on generating calls to talk radio shows and letters to the editor
2. Set aside time for one-on-one background sessions with key reporters
3. Work to place op-eds in the paper
4. Book spokespersons onto TV and radio show.
Sample Press Advisory
For more information:
(contact, phone number)
MEDIA ADVISORY FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21
WORKERS, UNION AND COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS
TO DENOUNCE INTRODUCTION OF (HOUSE BILL _)
Area leaders charge big businesses, right-wing backers and out-of-state lobbying groups
with attempting to silence (state' 's) working families in the political process
(City/State) - On Wednesday, January 21, 1998, leaders from across (state) will come together
to announce their opposition to (House Bill ). (State Representative
) is
introducing the bill as part of a coordinated effort by big business leaders, conservative
foundations, right-wing front groups, and the Republican Congressional leadership to use such
measures to diminish the political voice of working families and "de-fund" their unions.
WHO:
Union members and leaders, community activists, clergy
WHAT:
A press briefing outlining the legislative attempt to silence working
families
WHEN:
[Time]
[Day and Date]
WHERE:
[Location]
Although corporations already outspend working families by a margin of 11-to-1, according to
the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, (House Bill ) will widen the gap by singling
out unions for burdensome restrictions - without imposing any such limits on corporations or
other organizations. Union and community leaders say the bill is similar to those being
introduced in other states as part of a nationwide effort to retaliate against working families and
their unions. It comes at a time when increased political activism by union families have
successfully challenged corporate-backed attempts to block an increase in the minimum wage,
dismantle job safety laws, and cut Medicare, pensions and education.
###
Sample Press Release
For more information:
(contact, phone number)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 21, 1998
COMMUNITY AND UNION LEADERS DENOUNCE
LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT TO SILENCE WORKING FAMILIES
By limiting the participation of working Americans and their unions in political issues,
(House Bill ) further tilts the balance of power in favor of corporations, critics charge
(CITY/STATE), January 21 A group of community, union, women's group and civil rights
leaders from across the state joined together today to denounce the introduction of (House Bill
), a measure they said was intended to silence the voice of working families in political and
legislative issues.
The state legislation, introduced today by (State Representative
), is similar to
other legislative and ballot measures being proposed nationwide that would single out labor
unions and place burdensome new restrictions on their participation in the political process --
without imposing any controls or limits on the political spending of corporations and other
organizations.
Backed by a nationwide group of corporations and out-of-state right-wing foundations
and lobbying groups, the legislative proposal comes at a time when increased education and
mobilization by working Americans and their unions prompted an increase in the minimum wage
and prevented deep cuts in Medicare, education and pensions.
"(H.B. ) is part of a concerted, coordinated effort to retaliate against working families
for speaking out on important political and legislative issues," said (name, title, organization.) "It
has only one purpose, and that's to eliminate working families from the political playing field --
and further tilt the balance of power in America towards corporations."
In the 1996 elections, corporations outspent unions by a ratio of 11-to-1, and new
restrictions on unions would further widen the gap, labor and community leaders charged.
Ironically, they said, proponents of the legislation are trying to disguise it as an effort to protect
workers' interests and as "campaign finance reform."
"It doesn't alleviate the flaws and imbalances in our campaign finance system. It
exacerbates them," said (name, title, organization). "If the backers of this legislation were really
interested in campaign finance reform, they wouldn't just limit the role of working families and
their unions. They'd be proposing to limit all campaign spending, and to make sure that no single
group has an unfair say in how our government is run."
- more
Page Two
The legislation proposes a complex, cumbersome process requiring unions to solicit
written permission from each member before engaging in any political or legislative activity.
"That would be tantamount to demanding that elected representatives get written permission
from each constituent before voting on every issue," said (name). "The impact would be
paralyzing."
Under current law, union members already have a choice, (he/she) added. No worker can
be forced to join a union or to fund a union's political and legislative activities. In addition, union
members elect their own leaders, set their own dues, vote on how their money will be spent and
are covered by more protections and democratic procedures than members of most other
organizations. "Can you imagine a stockholder or customer deciding how to spend a
corporation's money on political activity?" asked (name).
The vast majority of union members do support their union's involvement in political
activities. According to 1996 polls by Peter Hart Research and Associates, for example, 90
percent of union members approved of their union's efforts to educate and involve them in the
political process, 86 percent approved of their union "fighting to protect Medicare from large
cuts" and "to increase the minimum wage," and three-quarters approved of unions investing
"time and money in politics and legislation to counter the influence that corporations and
wealthy special interests have."
Portraying the bill as protections for workers and union members is blatantly false and
misleading, union and community leaders said. "Just look at who's behind these initiatives," said
(name). "They're corporate special interests and their allies and out-of-state lobbying groups
the same ones who tried to dismantle our job safety laws, raid our pensions, stop the increase in
the minimum wage and cut Medicare."
"If they're so concerned about my interests as a working American, why are they trying
to destroy the laws that protect my safety on the job?" asked (name), a (occupation) at
(workplace) and member of (union). "As an individual, I can't do much to stop them and I'll
certainly never be able to raise the millions of dollars big corporations do. But through the union,
my co-workers and I have a say in the way government is run. I see this for what it is, and that's
an attempt to weaken our unions."
Noting that in some states the measures are deceptively being labeled as "paycheck
protection acts," (he/she) added: "This isn't about paycheck protection. It's about fat cat
protection."
"But we're going to work harder than ever before to make sure the voices of working
families are heard," said (name). "We're going to intensify our fight for good jobs, health care,
pensions, child care, equal pay for women and safe workplaces."
###
Sample Press Statement
For Immediate Release
For information, contact:
(name, phone)
Statement by (name)
(title, organization)
On (House Bill XX),
An Attempt to Silence Working Families
January 21, 1998
Corporations, right-wing foundations and conservative lobbying groups are mounting a
coordinated campaign all across the country to silence the voice of working families in the
political process. Today, that movement came to our state with the introduction of (House Bill _).
Like its counterparts in other states, this bill has only one purpose - and that's to further
skew the political balance of power in America toward corporations. It singles out unions for
burdensome regulations restricting the only voice working families have for influencing
political decisions. It imposes no such limits on businesses or other organizations, at a time when
corporations outspend unions in the political arena by a ratio of 11-to-1.
Proponents of the bill would have us believe it's meant to protect the interests of working
Americans. It isn't. Just look at who's behind it. They're the same corporate special interests and
lobbying groups who tried to block the increase in the minimum wage, dismantle our job safety
laws, and cut our Medicare, education, and pensions.
If they were genuinely interested in protecting working families, they'd be proposing real
campaign finance reform, such as limits on all campaign spending and checks and balances to
guarantee that no group has an unfair say in how our government is run.
In truth, the bill is part of an all-out retaliation campaign against working families and their
unions for speaking out and for mobilizing to stop the cuts in Medicare and to raise the minimum
wage. It's designed to give big businesses sole control of the political playing field and the
nation's policy agenda - and a clear path to greater profits and higher executive salaries, even if it
comes at the expense of working Americans.
As it stands, no worker is ever forced to join a union or pay for political and legislative
activities with which he or she does not agree. But the vast majority of union members want their
unions to speak out on legislative issues. The polls show that a full 90 percent of them approve of
their union's efforts to educate and involve them in the political process.
As more and more corporations downsize, hold wages down, ship jobs overseas and
convert good full-time jobs into part-time work with no benefits, the voice of working America
needs to be stronger not stifled.
###
AFL-CIO FACT SHEET
Corporate VS. Union Spending on Politics
There's too much money in politics -- but it 's not union money
The political balance of power is already tilted heavily in favor of corporations. In the
1996 election cycle, corporate interests spent more than $677 million on political contributions --
11 times more than unions spent. So while unions contributed less than 4 percent of the $1.6
billion raised by candidates and parties in 1996, corporations contributed more than 40 percent.
The disparity between corporate and union spending is growing. Since 1992 (when the
ratio was 9-to-1), corporate political contributions have increased by $229.8 million, while union
contributions rose by only $12.1 million.
In "soft money" contributions, the gap
Total Contributions
is even wider. While both corporations and
unions have increased their unrestricted, so-
Corporations
Unions
Ratio
called "soft money" contributions since
1996
$677,442,423
$60,352,761
11-to-1
1992, corporate spending grew twice as fast.
In 1996, corporations spent more than $176
1994
$492,956,181
$48,319,054
10-to-1
million -- 19 times more than unions did.
1992
$447,594,985
$48,152,256
9-to-1
Corporate special interests are pushing
initiatives that would skew the balance
even further. By backing special
Soft Money Contributions
restrictions on unions while imposing no
such limits on themselves, big corporations
Corporations
Unions
Ratio
are trying to remove working families and
1996
$176,108,186
$9,505,745
19-to-1
their unions from the political playing field.
1994
$ 64,753,971
$4,293,459
15-to-1
Corporations, right-wing foundations
1992
$ 66,342,241
$4,251,334
16-to-1
and anti-union lobbying groups are
raising hundreds of millions of dollars to
"de-fund" unions. At a recent meeting of
the Republican Governors Association,
Hard Money Contributions
proponents of the initiatives noted that the
Corporations
Unions
Ratio
de-funding ploy has two strategic benefits: If
it works, unions will lose funding. Even if it
1996
$501,334,237
$50,847,016
10-to-1
doesn't, unions will be forced to spend
1994
$428,202,210
$44,025,595
10-to-1
millions of dollars in the fight.
1992
$381,252,744
$44,067,720
9-to-1
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics
AFL-CIO FACT SHEET
Union Members and Politics
Members solidly support union political and legislative involvement
An overwhelming majority of union members want their unions involved in the
legislative and political process. Three quarters of all union members -- regardless of party
affiliation -- approve of unions investing "time and money in politics and legislation, to counter
the influence that corporations and wealthy special interests have."
The AFL-CIO's positions on key issues reflect the opinions of its membership. For
example, 86 percent of AFL-CIO members said they approve of unions "fighting to protect
Medicare from large cuts" and "fighting to increase the minimum wage." These two issues were
the focus of the AFL-CIO's "Labor '96" campaign to educate and mobilize working families.
When it comes to issue education, union members approve not only of the "what" but
the "how." In 1996, 71 percent of union members supported using a small portion (a total of
$1.80) of their regular dues on a one-time basis for education about working family issues and
the election. In addition:
88 percent of AFL-CIO members said they approved of unions urging members to
contact their members of Congress on important issues;
84 percent approved of union voter guides comparing candidates' positions;
72 percent approved of running television and radio ads to inform union members
and other voters about how their representatives voted in Congress; and
90 percent approved of unions communicating with their members about the
elections and encouraging them to vote.
Republican-leaning union members support the AFL-CIO's education and mobilization
activities around working family issues. A full 89 percent of these members said they approved
of union activities to get out the vote, 76 percent approved of union voting guides comparing
candidates' positions, and 65 percent approved of television and radio ads informing voters about
how their representatives voted. Nearly three-quarters said they approved of unions fighting to
increase the minimum wage (73 percent) and to protect Medicare from large cuts (70 percent).
Claims that 40 percent of union members are or lean Republican are blatantly false. In a
survey by an independent polling firm, 18 percent of union members said they were or leaned
Republican -- half what Republican leaders claim.
SOURCE: Surveys conducted among union members by Peter D. Hart Research Associates
in August 1996, November 1996, and January 1998
AFL-CIO FACT SHEET
The Truth About Union Dues
Questions and answers on workers' rights and current law
Q. Can union dues be used to make contributions to political candidates and campaigns?
A. Under federal law and in many states, the answer is no. The Federal Election
Campaign Act forbids the donation of union dues or fees to federal-level candidates or political
campaigns, and many states impose the same restrictions on state-level races. Contributions by
union members to union political action committees are voluntary and made separately from
their dues payments. Union dues may, however, be used for such activities as member education,
communication, voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.
Q. Can any worker be forced to pay for union political or legislative activities with which
he or she disagrees?
A. No. Although polls show that the vast majority of members support their union's
legislative and political activities, no worker can be required to join a union and help pay for
such activities. Workers who so choose may resign and confine any required fees to the cost
of bargaining and representation. And unions are required by law to notify workers of that right.
Q. What did the Supreme Court rule in Communications Workers of America vs. Beck? Did
it prohibit the use of union members' dues for political activities?
A. In decision after decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the rights of both the
majority and dissenters within unions must be protected and balanced. In 1988, in the so-called
"Beck" decision, the court reaffirmed the right of union members to require workers who choose
not to join the union to pay fees covering the expense of their representation. It also ruled that a
union cannot use the fees of non-members for political activities over their objections.
Q. Is it true that the Clinton administration is not enforcing the "Beck" decision and
rescinded regulations issued by the Bush administration to protect union members?
A. No. The Clinton-appointed National Labor Relations Board is enforcing the Beck
decision and has issued a comprehensive decision that fully defines the various rights and duties
contained in it. President Clinton did revoke an order that Bush issued late in the 1992 election
campaign to curry favor with business interests. That order required government contractors to
make unfair and misleading statements designed to discourage workers from supporting unions.
Q. Who decides whether union dues should be spent on political and legislative activities?
A. Union members do. They elect their own officers and vote on their constitution and
bylaws, the amount of their dues and how the money is spent. They and their elected leaders
decide what positions their union will support. In the union, majority rules. And the minority of
members who disagree can choose not to participate, or to resign from the union and withdraw
financial support for political and legislative activities.
Page Two
Q. So why do critics claim that unions are placing compulsory dues on workers to support
political activities?
A. Big businesses and their supporters falsely claim that labor organizations are forcing
employees to pay for election-related activities. The true purpose of these misleading statements
is not to protect workers or the interests of the minority, but to silence the majority. The
burdensome requirements being proposed would effectively circumvent the will of the majority
of union members who support their union's legislative and political involvement in working
family issues. As America's unions become more aggressive in educating members, exposing the
votes of elected leaders and challenging the corporate agenda, big business interests are
responding with a concerted effort to restrict union members' participation in political education
and mobilization activities.
Q. When it comes to political activities, do unions have special advantages that other
organizations don't?
A. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Like other organizations, including corporations, unions
have a First Amendment right to inform, educate and express political views. But unions are
subject to more stringent financial disclosure requirements than any other organizations,
including corporations, the American Medical Association, American Bar Association and the
Chamber of Commerce. Furthermore, when it comes to political activities, corporations outspend
labor unions by a margin of 11 to 1.
Q. During the 1996 election year, did the AFL-CIO raise members' dues to give $35 million
to political candidates?
A. No. The AFL-CIO launched a grassroots and media campaign focusing on legislative
issues, not elections. Through Labor '96, the AFL-CIO educated and organized members around
working family issues such as living wages, retirement security, health care, education, job safety
and workers' rights. The campaign compared the voting records of Republican and Democratic
candidates, and disseminated that information to the public. This campaign was not funded by a
membership dues increase, but rather through a reallocation of existing resources adopted by a
democratic vote among the member unions of the AFL-CIO. Union members' dues did not go up
as a result. And the overwhelming majority of union members supported the campaign and the
positions the AFL-CIO took on the issues.
AFL-CIO FACT SHEET
Real Campaign Finance Reform
Genuine reform limits spending and eliminates unfair advantages
Initiatives to impose new restrictions on union members are not campaign finance
reform. Instead, they tilt the already uneven balance of power even more sharply in favor of big
businesses. Corporate special interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to
persuade elected officials to give them free rein to make higher profits, reap obscene executive
salaries, hold wages down and ship jobs overseas.
Nothing is more important to our democracy than the integrity of our election system.
The current system unfairly rewards wealthy contributors by amplifying their voice at the
expense of ordinary citizens. Real campaign finance reform will give all Americans a place at the
table, not just the ones who can afford to buy the seat.
Real campaign finance reform makes sure no group has an unfair advantage. The
essential elements of real campaign finance reform are not at all complicated or hard to
understand. A fair system would include the following changes:
Campaign spending should be limited. It is undemocratic to allow those who are
able to raise and spend the most to tilt the political playing field in their favor.
Corporate interests currently outspend working families by 11-to-1, and the
advantage is growing!
Campaigns should be publicly financed so that narrow private interests cannot
exert unfair advantage.
Unlimited contributions -- so-called soft money -- to political parties and/or
independent committees should be repealed.
The aggregate limit on individual campaign contributions is set way too high.
Individual contributions should be limited so that a level playing field exists, not
just among candidates, but among citizens.
Political parties are essential to a healthy democracy. They should be allowed to
accept contributions from all sources, but the total that parties may accept from
individuals and groups should be limited.
Voters deserve to hear more information about a candidate's positions than the
30-second sound bites that currently dominate the airwaves. Free television and
radio time, as well as reduced postage rates, would go a long way toward ensuring
that candidates engage in real and vigorous debate about the issues impacting
working families.
AFL-CIO FACT SHEET
Unions Are Good for America
Unions are America's way of giving workers a voice on the job,
in the economy and in the political process
A greater share of the wealth workers create. At a time when the gap between the wealthy
and everyone else is growing, unions ensure that working Americans are fairly rewarded for their
hard work. Union workers earn an average $155 (or 33 percent) more each week than non-union
workers earn.
A remedy for discrimination in the workplace. Unions help narrow the wage gap for
women and people of color. Compared with the paychecks of their non-union counterparts, union
women earn 38 percent more, African American union members earn 42 percent more and
Latino union members earn 52 percent more.
Health care, retirement and job security for working families. Compared with only 74
percent of non-union workers, 85 percent of union members receive health coverage on the job.
A full 87 percent of union members earn pension benefits and 79 percent are covered by
guaranteed "defined-benefit" pension plans; by comparison, 78 percent of non-union workers
earn pensions and only 44 percent are covered by the far superior defined-benefit plans. Union
members have more secure jobs: six in 10 of them have been with the same employer for 10
years or more, compared to three in 10 non-union workers.
Higher productivity and thriving businesses. Studies have proven that, by allowing workers
to have input on the job and lowering turnover rates, unions enhance efficiency and productivity
in the workplace. For example, unions boost productivity 19 to 24 percent in manufacturing, 17
to 38 percent in construction and up to 16 percent in hospitals.
Stronger communities. The higher incomes of union members translate into more consumer
purchases, healthier local economies, stronger tax bases, better schools and infrastructures and
higher living standards for the entire community.
Laws and policies that work for working families. Historically, unions have fought for
protections such as the 40-hour work week, Social Security, equal opportunity and child labor
laws. Unions helped win passage of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act allowing workers to
take time off to care for their families. In 1996, unions increased the minimum wage, protected
job safety laws, and prevented deep cuts in Medicare, education and pensions.
Enforcement of job safety, civil rights and other laws. As well as bargaining for safe
workplaces, family-friendly policies and anti-discrimination provisions, unions provide a
mechanism for enforcing rules and regulations designed to protect workers on the job.
Brief Analysis of State Legislative Proposals
to Silence Working Families
January 19, 1998
ARIZONA
House Bill No. HB 2412, "Labor Organizations Deductions Act"
This bill would preclude unions from spending treasury money on lobbying, political
activities, independent expenditures, party or candidate contributions and voter registration that
aren't directly related to the ratification or administration of collective bargaining agreements. A
union could spend for such purposes only from a separate "political activities fund." No dues-
based moneys could be contributed to that fund, nor could the union pay the fund's
administrative expenses. The fund could be financed only by direct voluntary contributions, but
an employee could not contribute via payroll deduction, voluntary or otherwise, to the fund or to
any other political action committee.
ALASKA
Senate Bill No. 114 (JUD)
This bill would preclude private and public employers from diverting any portion of an
employee's wages for political contributions or contributions to groups unless the employee files
at least an annual written authorization. Employers and unions would be precluded from
discriminating against officers or employees due to their political activity or failure to make a
political contribution, and the authorization form would have to inform employees of this non-
discrimination protection.
ALASKA
House Bill No. 181 (STA)
This bill would require at least an annual written authorization from an employee in order
to enable an employer to withhold from payroll compensation or a union to withhold from
member dues or fees any moneys for the purpose of contributing to a candidate, political party or
group, or to influence any ballot issue. Any such moneys withheld would have to be deposited in
a separate segregated fund.
MICHIGAN
Senate Bill No. 650, "Contribution Disclosure Act"
This bill would require a union to obtain at least an annual written authorization from any
employee who pays dues or fees as a condition of employment under a collective bargaining
agreement before the union could spend any portion of the employee's dues or fees for political,
social, charitable or other activities that aren't related to collective bargaining, contract
administration or grievance processing. The authorization form would have to include an
extensive statement of the employee's right not to authorize such a contribution. A union that
violates this provision would be liable to the employee for double the amount expended plus
interest and attorney's fees, and other equitable relief.
Senate Bill No. 651, "Michigan Campaign Finance Act"
This bill would permit unions and corporations to establish separate segregated funds that
could contribute to committees for candidates, ballot questions, political parties and other
"political" and "independent" activities. Corporations could secure contributions to such a fund
from officers, directors, stockholders and managerial employees, and unions could secure
contributions to such a fund from officers or managerial employees, through payroll deduction or
another "automatic" basis only upon the person's annual written authorization; the bill does not
prescribe the form or content of this authorization. A union could obtain contributions from its
members through payroll deduction or another "automatic" basis only if the member executes the
annual written authorization form prescribed in Senate Bill 650.
MISSISSIPPI
House Bill No.
, "Worker Paycheck Fairness Act"
This bill would require unions to secure at least an annual written authorization from any
member before it could use any portion of the member's dues or fees for activities that aren't
"necessary" to "performing the duties of the exclusive representative of employees in dealing
with the employer on labor-management issues." Members would be informed of their right to
refrain from making such an authorization by both a statement on the authorization form and a
notice posted by the employer. A union that violated this provision would be liable to the
member for double the amount expended with interest, attorney's fees, expert witness fees and
other costs and equitable relief.
MISSISSIPPI
House Bill No. (untitled)
This bill would preclude unions and employers from increasing the salary of or making
any other payments to an officer or employee with the intent that the moneys involved will be
contributed or expended to support or oppose a candidate, political party, political committee or
ballot measure.
PENNSYLVANIA
House Bill No. 1968 (untitled)
This bill would preclude private and public employees from making any payroll
deductions that would support any candidate, separate segregated fund, political action
committee, legislative campaign fund, political party or ballot issue, thereby barring even
voluntary employee authorizations of such deductions.
WISCONSIN
Assembly Bill No. 624 (untitled)
This bill would preclude an employer from making any payroll withholding for the
purpose of making a contribution to a "committee" except upon the employee's consent, which
must be secured at least annually. The bill would also preclude a union from using moneys
derived from non-members under a union security clause for the purpose of making a
contribution or "disbursement" unless the non-member affirmatively authorizes it.