Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "44162821",
    "label": "Labor - AFL-CIO: [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/44162821"
}

{
    "id": "44162821",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/44162821",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Labor - AFL-CIO: [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/44162821",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Political Affairs (Clinton Administration)",
        "Craig Hughes' Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/5665379/42-t-5665379-20130306F-024-001-2016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/5665379/42-t-5665379-20130306F-024-001-2016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/5665379/42-t-5665379-20130306F-024-001-2016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/44162821",
    "naId": 44162821,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-5665379-20130306F-024-001-2016"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/5665379/42-t-5665379-20130306F-024-001-2016.pdf",
    "mediaId": "476874d1f1373b6b",
    "ocrText": "FOIA Number: 2013-0306-F\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the William J. Clinton\nPresidential Library Staff.\nCollection/Record Group:\nClinton Presidential Records\nSubgroup/Office of Origin:\nPolitical Affairs\nSeries/Staff Member:\nCraig Hughes\nSubseries:\nOA/ID Number:\n14933\nFolderID:\nFolder Title:\nLabor - AFL-CIO: [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nS\n28\n3\n7\n2\nAFL-CIO FACT SHEET\nThe Key Backers\nWho's really behind the nationwide campaign to silence\nworking families and their unions?\nThe key backers of the state legislation and ballot initiatives are the same groups that consistently\ntry to block increases in the minimum wage, dismantle job safety laws, and cut Medicare,\neducation, and pensions. They are retaliating against working families and their unions for their\nrole in the 1996 elections, and trying to remove them from the political playing field in future\npolicy debates and campaigns. Here's a look at the key players:\nJohn Patrick Rooney. A former chairman of Golden Rule Insurance Company, Rooney is a\nconservative businessman who funds political and lobbying initiatives to push school vouchers,\nmedical savings accounts and reductions in state workers' compensation systems. He stands to\ngain millions of dollars if Medicare is rolled back to allow the implementation of medical\nsavings accounts. Rooney has already contributed $49,000 to the California initiative -- just\nunder the $50,000 contribution limit that triggers disclosure of campaign finance. \"I don't need\nthe publicity,\" he said. (Washington Post, November 13, 1997)\nGolden Rule Insurance Company. Golden Rule's long-term profitability is threatened by the\ntrend toward managed care, which undercuts the market for the individual (rather than group)\nhealth insurance the company provides. That's why Golden Rule is aggressively advocating\nMedicare medical savings accounts, which would preserve the company's billion-dollar business\nin the changing health care market. Members of the Golden Rule \"family\" gave more than $1\nmillion to the Republican party and Republican candidates in the 1993-94 elections.\nGrover Norquist. This long-time Republican consultant and president of Americans for Tax\nReform is one of the leading backers of the initiatives to silence working families. His past\naccomplishments include \"discovering\" Willie Horton while working on the Bush campaign. His\nphilosophy: \"If you privatize Social Security, if you voucher-ize education, if you sell $270\nbillion worth of airports and wastewater treatment plants, eliminate welfare and so on, you can\ncut the government to basically half its present size.\" (Reason Magazine, February 1997)\nAmericans for Tax Reform. This well-known organization laid the foundation for the attack\non working families by producing and disseminating a resource and strategy guide for\nintroducing the state ballot initiatives and legislation. In the guide, Norquist gloats: \"The more\nstates succeed in placing 'pro-worker' initiatives, the more divided the counterattack by labor\nunion bosses will have to be.\" During the 1996 elections, Americans for Tax Reform received\n$4.6 million dollars from the Republican National Committee to run phone banks and direct mail\nsupporting Republican issues and candidates, as well as attack ads against New Jersey State\nSenator Bob Torricelli. (Time Magazine, November 3, 1997)\nPage Two\nCalifornia Governor Pete Wilson. The governor is actively promoting the California ballot\ninitiative campaign. In response to political consultant Doug Bailey's claim that the AFL-CIO\nwould have to spend $20 to 25 million to fight the initiative, he crowed: \"They're going to have to\nspend more than that.\" (C-Span broadcast of Republican Governors Association meeting,\nNovember 22, 1997)\nAmerican Legislative Exchange Council. This group, which frequently develops anti-worker\nlegislation for conservative legislators, is coordinating the nationwide effort to introduce state\nlegislation and initiatives to silence working families and their unions. In the past, ALEC has\nactively supported so-called \"right-to-work\" bills, the TEAM Act, repealing the minimum wage\nincrease, flat taxes, and, of course, vouchers and medical savings accounts.\nBig Business Groups. For the last several years, big businesses have been working in coalition\nto diminish the political role of unions on a variety of fronts. Now, as Thomas Donahue, the\npresident of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, puts it: \"You're going to see us everywhere. We\nwill energetically oppose union-led programs to hijack the American political system (Donahue\nspeech, November 24, 1997)\nNational Center for Policy Analysis. A right-wing think-tank funded largely by Rooney and\nother business leaders, the Center has been actively promoting the anti-worker legislation. The\nCenter is also a leading proponent of medical savings accounts and endorses \"right-to-work\" bills,\nthe privatization of Social Security, the TEAM Act and school vouchers. It actively opposed\nraising the minimum wage. More than 43 percent of the Center's funding comes from corporations\nand wealthy individuals; the rest comes from conservative foundations.\nNewt Gingrich and GOPAC. One of the charter members of GOPAC, House Speaker Newt\nGingrich's political action committee, is Rooney's Golden Rule Insurance Company. That helps to\nexplain why Newt Gingrich has been leading the charge to roll back Medicare to allow for medical\nsavings accounts. Gingrich has been an outspoken critic of union political education and\nmobilization, and has repeatedly accused unions of coercing members into participating in the\npolitical process.\nRNC and the Republican Congressional Leadership. Co-sponsors of the federal version of\nthe attempt to silence working families -- the so-called \"Paycheck Protection Act\" -- include\nCongressmen Harris Fawell, Cass Ballenger, Michael Enzi, James Talent and many others who\nhave consistently voted against legislation that would benefit working families. Many of these co-\nsponsors have aggressively advanced anti-worker legislation designed to gut OSHA and other\nworkplace safety and health standards. The new initiatives have proven to be a fundraising boon\nfor the Republican party. For example, a union-bashing mailer from the Nevada Republican Party\n\"is the most successful fundraising letter we've ever done,\" said Dan Burdish, executive director of\nthe state party. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 12, 1998)\nOVERVIEW AND KEY POINTS\nThe Attempt to\nSilence Working Families\nInitiatives to limit the role of working families and their unions\nhave only one purpose, and that's to further skew the political\nbalance of power in America\nAs working families and their unions increasingly speak out on important political and\nlegislative issues, a coordinated, nationwide campaign to silence them is mounting.\nCorporations, right-wing foundations and national anti-union lobbying groups are introducing\ninitiatives and legislation in all 50 states designed to limit working families' participation in the\npolitical process by singling out unions for burdensome restrictions.\nBackers of the initiatives claim to be protecting the interests of working Americans and represent\ntheir proposals as \"campaign finance reform.\" In truth, the initiatives are designed to silence the\nvoice of working America. They exacerbate -- they don't alleviate -- the flaws and imbalances in\na campaign finance system that already heavily favors corporations and the wealthy. And they\nare a direct response to the AFL-CIO's aggressive education and mobilization efforts among\nworking families that in 1996 increased the minimum wage and prevented cuts in Medicare,\npensions and education.\nIn the political process, corporations already outspend unions 11-to-1. In the 1996\nelection cycle, corporations accounted for more than 40 percent of the $1.6 billion raised by\npolitical candidates and parties -- while unions accounted for less than 4 percent. And the\ndisparity is growing. Corporations outspent unions by a ratio of 11-to-1 in 1996, compared to a\nratio of 9-to-1 in 1992. In \"soft money\" contributions (unlimited contributions to parties and\ncommittees), the gap is even wider: In 1996, corporations spent 19 times more than unions did.\nNew restrictions on unions' participation in the political process will further tilt the balance of\npower in favor of corporations.\nThe initiatives single out unions, proposing tight controls and burdensome regulations\nthat wouldn't apply to anyone else. They would silence the voice of working families, without\nlimiting political spending by corporations or special interest groups such as the National Rifle\nAssociation, Chamber of Commerce or Christian Coalition. And they're just unnecessary: Union\nmembers already have more protections than members of other organizations, and unions are\nalready subject to more stringent reporting requirements.\nPage Two\nThis is a concerted effort to retaliate against working families and their unions for\nexposing the right-wing agenda. This is not a grassroots movement by union members. The\noverwhelming majority of union members support their union's involvement in political\nactivities. It is a nationwide, coordinated effort by corporations and national right-wing\nfoundations and lobbying groups, who are introducing similar initiatives and legislation in all 50\nstates. These are the same groups that tried to block the increase in the minimum wage, dismantle\njob safety laws, and cut Medicare, education and pensions. In 1996, working families -- through\nthe AFL-CIO's \"Labor '96\" education and mobilization campaign -- stopped them, and now it's\npay-back time.\nAs it stands, union members have a choice. No worker can be forced to fund a union's\npolitical and legislative activities. Union members choose whether to join the union, set their\nown dues, elect their own leaders and vote on where and how their money will be spent. The\nminority of workers who disagree with union political activities can choose not to belong to the\nunion. In those states where they still pay a fee to cover the representation the union is required\nto provide them, they are not required to pay the amount that goes for political and legislative\nactivities. Corporations, by contrast, don't give shareholders, employees or customers any say in\ntheir political activities.\nUnion members want their unions to be active in the political arena. By a 6-to-1 margin,\nunion members want their unions and the AFL-CIO to speak out about politics and legislation,\naccording to a 1996 poll by Peter Hart Research and Associates. The overwhelming majority of\nunion members support the AFL-CIO's position on working family issues: 86 percent, for\nexample, approved of \"fighting to protect Medicare from large cuts\" and \"fighting to increase the\nminimum wage.\" A full 90 percent approved of their union's efforts to educate and involve them\nin the political process.\nInitiatives to further skew the political balance of power are being disguised as\n\"campaign finance reform.\" They're not. The current campaign finance system already\nunfairly rewards wealthy contributors. To be serious, reform efforts can't just limit the role of\nworking families and their unions. Instead, serious reform should limit all campaign spending,\nprovide for public financing to give voters a chance to hear from all candidates, and take other\nsteps to make sure no group has an unfair say in how our government is run.\nCommon Claims by Proponents of the Initiatives\nBelow are some of the claims that show up again and again in OpEds and publications by\nproponents of \"paycheck protection act\"-type initiatives. Don't be put off by them. Get clear on the\nfacts by studying the Overview and Fact Sheets. Then practice responding, using our strongest\npoints from all the material enclosed.\nClaim 1: If the chairmen of Fortune 500 companies were forced to turn over a portion of\ntheir paychecks to politicians to pay for their election campaigns, a wave of outrage would\nwash over the nation and Congress would quickly step in. This type of extortion happens to\nmillions of Americans and it's time to put an end to the extortion and shameful political\nshakedown of members. It seems that when it's the middle class or working poor who have\ntheir pockets picked instead of those who rely on investments or elected office to provide\ntheir income, the silence is deafening. It's time to protect workers.\nClaim 2: Big Labor claims that current laws already protect union members, but, as we've\nseen, President Clinton has rescinded regulations that were issued by the Labor Department\nunder the Bush Administration requiring unions to publicly reveal what portion of their dues\nworkers could keep. It's clear that current laws will never be enforced by politicians who are\nin the pockets of Big Labor. We need new laws to make sure that employees are aware of\ntheir rights.\nClaim 3: Many workers who have expressed an interest in obtaining a refund for the non-\ncollective bargaining portion of their dues have been harassed, threatened, or have suffered\nother repercussions for attempting to exercise their rights under the Supreme Court's Beck\ndecision. The California initiative places the burden on labor leaders to first obtain the\nconsent of members to use their money for political purposes, instead of continuing to force\nunion members to jump through hoops to obtain a refund after their dues have been paid.\nClaim 4: An increase in mandatory union dues paid for the hostile attack ads that Big Labor\nran against Republicans in 1996.\nClaim 5: The AFL-CIO's Labor '96 program was completely out of step with union\nmembers -- look at the blatantly partisan ads attacking Republicans even though a full 40%\nof union members are Republicans. That's wrong. Why should workers be required to\nsupport political candidates and causes they don't believe in?\nClaim 6: These initiatives will put union members back in charge of their own money. The\nCalifornia initiative puts political power back in the hands of the union worker. We believe\nworking people are perfectly capable of deciding to whom they will make political\ncontributions, if at all.\nClaim 7: Union members, not union bosses, should decide whether money should be spent\non politics. The use of mandatory member dues for political purposes gives unions the\nmuscle and money to unduly influence elections without the knowledge of the membership.\nAmerican Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations\nEXECUTIVE COUNCIL\nAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR\n815 Sixteenth Street, N.W.\nJOHN J. SWEENEY\nRICHARD L. TRUMKA\nLINDA CHAVEZ-THOMPSON\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nPRESIDENT\nSECRETARY-TREASURER\nEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT\n(202) 637-5000\nEdward T. Hanley\nWayne E. Glenn\nVincent R. Sombrotto\nGerald W. McEntee\nCONGRESS AFL OF INDUSTRIAL -CIO\nJohn T. Joyce\nMorton Bahr\nRobert A. Georgine\nGene Upshaw\nJay Mazur\nLenore Miller\nJohn J. Barry\nMoe Biller\nGeorge J. Kourpias\nJohn N. Sturdivant\nFrank Hanley\nJames J. Norton\nMichael Sacco\nRon Carey\nArthur A. Coia\nFrank Hurt\nGloria T. Johnson\nDouglas H. Dority\nGeorge F. Becker\nStephen P. Yokich\nJ. Randolph Babbitt\nClayola Brown\nM.A. \"Mac\" Fleming\nCarolyn Forrest\nPat Friend\nMichael Goodwin\nJoe L. Greene\nSonny Hall\nSumi Haru\nCarroll Haynes\nJames LaSala\nWilliam Lucy\nLeon Lynch\nDoug McCarron\nAndrew McKenzie\nA.L. \"Mike\" Monroe\nArthur Moore\nArturo S. Rodriguez\nRobert A. Scardelletti\nRobert E. Wages\nJake West\nAlfred K. Whitehead\nAndrew L. Stern\nEdward L. Fire\nMartin J. Maddaloni\nJohn M. Bowers\nSandra Feldman\nTo:\nState Federation Presidents\nState and Regional Directors\nFr:\nDenise Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs, AFL-CIO\nRe:\nPress Materials on the Attempts to Silence Working Families\nDt:\nJanuary 19, 1998\nAttached is an initial set of materials to help your respond to \"paycheck protection act\"-\ntype bills if they show up in your state on January 21st - as has been threatened by a national\nconsortium of big business and right-wing front groups.\nContents include:\nThe Attempt to Silence Working Families\nCorporate VS. Union Spending on Politics\nUnion Members and Politics\nReal Campaign Finance Reform\nThe Truth About Union Dues\nUnions Are Good for America\nCommon Claims by Proponents of the Initiatives\nSample Press Advisory\nWe will be developing additional materials over the coming weeks. Please let us hear\nwhat activities occur in your state as soon as possible.\n3\nTips for setting up your press activities\nIf activity is planned in your state, you will either want to:\nSchedule an immediate press conference (in the same \"news cycle\") to respond, or\nIssue a press statement and background to local reporters with additional press work to\nfollow.\nRemember that any press conference should also feature workers, friendly state\nlegislators and coalition allies such as representatives of women's, civil rights, religious and\nconsumer groups. Do not have a press conference with union leaders as the sole spokesperson.\nIf you have a press conference, you should:\n1. Line up other spokesperson and share the background information with them.\n2. FAX your press advisory to all media outlets in the area, including\nReporters you know, especially political, labor and state capital reporters\nCity desk and political editors at newspapers\nNews directors at radio stations\nAssignment editors at TV stations\nSympathetic columnists\n3. Follow up the FAXES with phone calls to assure press turnout.\n4. At the press conference, hand out your release, fact sheets and your press statement.\n5. Following the press conference, FAX out the release to any reporters or media outlets\nthat did not attend.\nIn the days that follow the press conference, you should:\n1. Concentrate on generating calls to talk radio shows and letters to the editor\n2. Set aside time for one-on-one background sessions with key reporters\n3. Work to place op-eds in the paper\n4. Book spokespersons onto TV and radio show.\nSample Press Advisory\nFor more information:\n(contact, phone number)\nMEDIA ADVISORY FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21\nWORKERS, UNION AND COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS\nTO DENOUNCE INTRODUCTION OF (HOUSE BILL _)\nArea leaders charge big businesses, right-wing backers and out-of-state lobbying groups\nwith attempting to silence (state' 's) working families in the political process\n(City/State) - On Wednesday, January 21, 1998, leaders from across (state) will come together\nto announce their opposition to (House Bill ). (State Representative\n) is\nintroducing the bill as part of a coordinated effort by big business leaders, conservative\nfoundations, right-wing front groups, and the Republican Congressional leadership to use such\nmeasures to diminish the political voice of working families and \"de-fund\" their unions.\nWHO:\nUnion members and leaders, community activists, clergy\nWHAT:\nA press briefing outlining the legislative attempt to silence working\nfamilies\nWHEN:\n[Time]\n[Day and Date]\nWHERE:\n[Location]\nAlthough corporations already outspend working families by a margin of 11-to-1, according to\nthe nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, (House Bill ) will widen the gap by singling\nout unions for burdensome restrictions - without imposing any such limits on corporations or\nother organizations. Union and community leaders say the bill is similar to those being\nintroduced in other states as part of a nationwide effort to retaliate against working families and\ntheir unions. It comes at a time when increased political activism by union families have\nsuccessfully challenged corporate-backed attempts to block an increase in the minimum wage,\ndismantle job safety laws, and cut Medicare, pensions and education.\n###\nSample Press Release\nFor more information:\n(contact, phone number)\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:\nJanuary 21, 1998\nCOMMUNITY AND UNION LEADERS DENOUNCE\nLEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT TO SILENCE WORKING FAMILIES\nBy limiting the participation of working Americans and their unions in political issues,\n(House Bill ) further tilts the balance of power in favor of corporations, critics charge\n(CITY/STATE), January 21 A group of community, union, women's group and civil rights\nleaders from across the state joined together today to denounce the introduction of (House Bill\n), a measure they said was intended to silence the voice of working families in political and\nlegislative issues.\nThe state legislation, introduced today by (State Representative\n), is similar to\nother legislative and ballot measures being proposed nationwide that would single out labor\nunions and place burdensome new restrictions on their participation in the political process --\nwithout imposing any controls or limits on the political spending of corporations and other\norganizations.\nBacked by a nationwide group of corporations and out-of-state right-wing foundations\nand lobbying groups, the legislative proposal comes at a time when increased education and\nmobilization by working Americans and their unions prompted an increase in the minimum wage\nand prevented deep cuts in Medicare, education and pensions.\n\"(H.B. ) is part of a concerted, coordinated effort to retaliate against working families\nfor speaking out on important political and legislative issues,\" said (name, title, organization.) \"It\nhas only one purpose, and that's to eliminate working families from the political playing field --\nand further tilt the balance of power in America towards corporations.\"\nIn the 1996 elections, corporations outspent unions by a ratio of 11-to-1, and new\nrestrictions on unions would further widen the gap, labor and community leaders charged.\nIronically, they said, proponents of the legislation are trying to disguise it as an effort to protect\nworkers' interests and as \"campaign finance reform.\"\n\"It doesn't alleviate the flaws and imbalances in our campaign finance system. It\nexacerbates them,\" said (name, title, organization). \"If the backers of this legislation were really\ninterested in campaign finance reform, they wouldn't just limit the role of working families and\ntheir unions. They'd be proposing to limit all campaign spending, and to make sure that no single\ngroup has an unfair say in how our government is run.\"\n- more\nPage Two\nThe legislation proposes a complex, cumbersome process requiring unions to solicit\nwritten permission from each member before engaging in any political or legislative activity.\n\"That would be tantamount to demanding that elected representatives get written permission\nfrom each constituent before voting on every issue,\" said (name). \"The impact would be\nparalyzing.\"\nUnder current law, union members already have a choice, (he/she) added. No worker can\nbe forced to join a union or to fund a union's political and legislative activities. In addition, union\nmembers elect their own leaders, set their own dues, vote on how their money will be spent and\nare covered by more protections and democratic procedures than members of most other\norganizations. \"Can you imagine a stockholder or customer deciding how to spend a\ncorporation's money on political activity?\" asked (name).\nThe vast majority of union members do support their union's involvement in political\nactivities. According to 1996 polls by Peter Hart Research and Associates, for example, 90\npercent of union members approved of their union's efforts to educate and involve them in the\npolitical process, 86 percent approved of their union \"fighting to protect Medicare from large\ncuts\" and \"to increase the minimum wage,\" and three-quarters approved of unions investing\n\"time and money in politics and legislation to counter the influence that corporations and\nwealthy special interests have.\"\nPortraying the bill as protections for workers and union members is blatantly false and\nmisleading, union and community leaders said. \"Just look at who's behind these initiatives,\" said\n(name). \"They're corporate special interests and their allies and out-of-state lobbying groups\nthe same ones who tried to dismantle our job safety laws, raid our pensions, stop the increase in\nthe minimum wage and cut Medicare.\"\n\"If they're so concerned about my interests as a working American, why are they trying\nto destroy the laws that protect my safety on the job?\" asked (name), a (occupation) at\n(workplace) and member of (union). \"As an individual, I can't do much to stop them and I'll\ncertainly never be able to raise the millions of dollars big corporations do. But through the union,\nmy co-workers and I have a say in the way government is run. I see this for what it is, and that's\nan attempt to weaken our unions.\"\nNoting that in some states the measures are deceptively being labeled as \"paycheck\nprotection acts,\" (he/she) added: \"This isn't about paycheck protection. It's about fat cat\nprotection.\"\n\"But we're going to work harder than ever before to make sure the voices of working\nfamilies are heard,\" said (name). \"We're going to intensify our fight for good jobs, health care,\npensions, child care, equal pay for women and safe workplaces.\"\n###\nSample Press Statement\nFor Immediate Release\nFor information, contact:\n(name, phone)\nStatement by (name)\n(title, organization)\nOn (House Bill XX),\nAn Attempt to Silence Working Families\nJanuary 21, 1998\nCorporations, right-wing foundations and conservative lobbying groups are mounting a\ncoordinated campaign all across the country to silence the voice of working families in the\npolitical process. Today, that movement came to our state with the introduction of (House Bill _).\nLike its counterparts in other states, this bill has only one purpose - and that's to further\nskew the political balance of power in America toward corporations. It singles out unions for\nburdensome regulations restricting the only voice working families have for influencing\npolitical decisions. It imposes no such limits on businesses or other organizations, at a time when\ncorporations outspend unions in the political arena by a ratio of 11-to-1.\nProponents of the bill would have us believe it's meant to protect the interests of working\nAmericans. It isn't. Just look at who's behind it. They're the same corporate special interests and\nlobbying groups who tried to block the increase in the minimum wage, dismantle our job safety\nlaws, and cut our Medicare, education, and pensions.\nIf they were genuinely interested in protecting working families, they'd be proposing real\ncampaign finance reform, such as limits on all campaign spending and checks and balances to\nguarantee that no group has an unfair say in how our government is run.\nIn truth, the bill is part of an all-out retaliation campaign against working families and their\nunions for speaking out and for mobilizing to stop the cuts in Medicare and to raise the minimum\nwage. It's designed to give big businesses sole control of the political playing field and the\nnation's policy agenda - and a clear path to greater profits and higher executive salaries, even if it\ncomes at the expense of working Americans.\nAs it stands, no worker is ever forced to join a union or pay for political and legislative\nactivities with which he or she does not agree. But the vast majority of union members want their\nunions to speak out on legislative issues. The polls show that a full 90 percent of them approve of\ntheir union's efforts to educate and involve them in the political process.\nAs more and more corporations downsize, hold wages down, ship jobs overseas and\nconvert good full-time jobs into part-time work with no benefits, the voice of working America\nneeds to be stronger not stifled.\n###\nAFL-CIO FACT SHEET\nCorporate VS. Union Spending on Politics\nThere's too much money in politics -- but it 's not union money\nThe political balance of power is already tilted heavily in favor of corporations. In the\n1996 election cycle, corporate interests spent more than $677 million on political contributions --\n11 times more than unions spent. So while unions contributed less than 4 percent of the $1.6\nbillion raised by candidates and parties in 1996, corporations contributed more than 40 percent.\nThe disparity between corporate and union spending is growing. Since 1992 (when the\nratio was 9-to-1), corporate political contributions have increased by $229.8 million, while union\ncontributions rose by only $12.1 million.\nIn \"soft money\" contributions, the gap\nTotal Contributions\nis even wider. While both corporations and\nunions have increased their unrestricted, so-\nCorporations\nUnions\nRatio\ncalled \"soft money\" contributions since\n1996\n$677,442,423\n$60,352,761\n11-to-1\n1992, corporate spending grew twice as fast.\nIn 1996, corporations spent more than $176\n1994\n$492,956,181\n$48,319,054\n10-to-1\nmillion -- 19 times more than unions did.\n1992\n$447,594,985\n$48,152,256\n9-to-1\nCorporate special interests are pushing\ninitiatives that would skew the balance\neven further. By backing special\nSoft Money Contributions\nrestrictions on unions while imposing no\nsuch limits on themselves, big corporations\nCorporations\nUnions\nRatio\nare trying to remove working families and\n1996\n$176,108,186\n$9,505,745\n19-to-1\ntheir unions from the political playing field.\n1994\n$ 64,753,971\n$4,293,459\n15-to-1\nCorporations, right-wing foundations\n1992\n$ 66,342,241\n$4,251,334\n16-to-1\nand anti-union lobbying groups are\nraising hundreds of millions of dollars to\n\"de-fund\" unions. At a recent meeting of\nthe Republican Governors Association,\nHard Money Contributions\nproponents of the initiatives noted that the\nCorporations\nUnions\nRatio\nde-funding ploy has two strategic benefits: If\nit works, unions will lose funding. Even if it\n1996\n$501,334,237\n$50,847,016\n10-to-1\ndoesn't, unions will be forced to spend\n1994\n$428,202,210\n$44,025,595\n10-to-1\nmillions of dollars in the fight.\n1992\n$381,252,744\n$44,067,720\n9-to-1\nSOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics\nAFL-CIO FACT SHEET\nUnion Members and Politics\nMembers solidly support union political and legislative involvement\nAn overwhelming majority of union members want their unions involved in the\nlegislative and political process. Three quarters of all union members -- regardless of party\naffiliation -- approve of unions investing \"time and money in politics and legislation, to counter\nthe influence that corporations and wealthy special interests have.\"\nThe AFL-CIO's positions on key issues reflect the opinions of its membership. For\nexample, 86 percent of AFL-CIO members said they approve of unions \"fighting to protect\nMedicare from large cuts\" and \"fighting to increase the minimum wage.\" These two issues were\nthe focus of the AFL-CIO's \"Labor '96\" campaign to educate and mobilize working families.\nWhen it comes to issue education, union members approve not only of the \"what\" but\nthe \"how.\" In 1996, 71 percent of union members supported using a small portion (a total of\n$1.80) of their regular dues on a one-time basis for education about working family issues and\nthe election. In addition:\n88 percent of AFL-CIO members said they approved of unions urging members to\ncontact their members of Congress on important issues;\n84 percent approved of union voter guides comparing candidates' positions;\n72 percent approved of running television and radio ads to inform union members\nand other voters about how their representatives voted in Congress; and\n90 percent approved of unions communicating with their members about the\nelections and encouraging them to vote.\nRepublican-leaning union members support the AFL-CIO's education and mobilization\nactivities around working family issues. A full 89 percent of these members said they approved\nof union activities to get out the vote, 76 percent approved of union voting guides comparing\ncandidates' positions, and 65 percent approved of television and radio ads informing voters about\nhow their representatives voted. Nearly three-quarters said they approved of unions fighting to\nincrease the minimum wage (73 percent) and to protect Medicare from large cuts (70 percent).\nClaims that 40 percent of union members are or lean Republican are blatantly false. In a\nsurvey by an independent polling firm, 18 percent of union members said they were or leaned\nRepublican -- half what Republican leaders claim.\nSOURCE: Surveys conducted among union members by Peter D. Hart Research Associates\nin August 1996, November 1996, and January 1998\nAFL-CIO FACT SHEET\nThe Truth About Union Dues\nQuestions and answers on workers' rights and current law\nQ. Can union dues be used to make contributions to political candidates and campaigns?\nA. Under federal law and in many states, the answer is no. The Federal Election\nCampaign Act forbids the donation of union dues or fees to federal-level candidates or political\ncampaigns, and many states impose the same restrictions on state-level races. Contributions by\nunion members to union political action committees are voluntary and made separately from\ntheir dues payments. Union dues may, however, be used for such activities as member education,\ncommunication, voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.\nQ. Can any worker be forced to pay for union political or legislative activities with which\nhe or she disagrees?\nA. No. Although polls show that the vast majority of members support their union's\nlegislative and political activities, no worker can be required to join a union and help pay for\nsuch activities. Workers who so choose may resign and confine any required fees to the cost\nof bargaining and representation. And unions are required by law to notify workers of that right.\nQ. What did the Supreme Court rule in Communications Workers of America vs. Beck? Did\nit prohibit the use of union members' dues for political activities?\nA. In decision after decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the rights of both the\nmajority and dissenters within unions must be protected and balanced. In 1988, in the so-called\n\"Beck\" decision, the court reaffirmed the right of union members to require workers who choose\nnot to join the union to pay fees covering the expense of their representation. It also ruled that a\nunion cannot use the fees of non-members for political activities over their objections.\nQ. Is it true that the Clinton administration is not enforcing the \"Beck\" decision and\nrescinded regulations issued by the Bush administration to protect union members?\nA. No. The Clinton-appointed National Labor Relations Board is enforcing the Beck\ndecision and has issued a comprehensive decision that fully defines the various rights and duties\ncontained in it. President Clinton did revoke an order that Bush issued late in the 1992 election\ncampaign to curry favor with business interests. That order required government contractors to\nmake unfair and misleading statements designed to discourage workers from supporting unions.\nQ. Who decides whether union dues should be spent on political and legislative activities?\nA. Union members do. They elect their own officers and vote on their constitution and\nbylaws, the amount of their dues and how the money is spent. They and their elected leaders\ndecide what positions their union will support. In the union, majority rules. And the minority of\nmembers who disagree can choose not to participate, or to resign from the union and withdraw\nfinancial support for political and legislative activities.\nPage Two\nQ. So why do critics claim that unions are placing compulsory dues on workers to support\npolitical activities?\nA. Big businesses and their supporters falsely claim that labor organizations are forcing\nemployees to pay for election-related activities. The true purpose of these misleading statements\nis not to protect workers or the interests of the minority, but to silence the majority. The\nburdensome requirements being proposed would effectively circumvent the will of the majority\nof union members who support their union's legislative and political involvement in working\nfamily issues. As America's unions become more aggressive in educating members, exposing the\nvotes of elected leaders and challenging the corporate agenda, big business interests are\nresponding with a concerted effort to restrict union members' participation in political education\nand mobilization activities.\nQ. When it comes to political activities, do unions have special advantages that other\norganizations don't?\nA. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Like other organizations, including corporations, unions\nhave a First Amendment right to inform, educate and express political views. But unions are\nsubject to more stringent financial disclosure requirements than any other organizations,\nincluding corporations, the American Medical Association, American Bar Association and the\nChamber of Commerce. Furthermore, when it comes to political activities, corporations outspend\nlabor unions by a margin of 11 to 1.\nQ. During the 1996 election year, did the AFL-CIO raise members' dues to give $35 million\nto political candidates?\nA. No. The AFL-CIO launched a grassroots and media campaign focusing on legislative\nissues, not elections. Through Labor '96, the AFL-CIO educated and organized members around\nworking family issues such as living wages, retirement security, health care, education, job safety\nand workers' rights. The campaign compared the voting records of Republican and Democratic\ncandidates, and disseminated that information to the public. This campaign was not funded by a\nmembership dues increase, but rather through a reallocation of existing resources adopted by a\ndemocratic vote among the member unions of the AFL-CIO. Union members' dues did not go up\nas a result. And the overwhelming majority of union members supported the campaign and the\npositions the AFL-CIO took on the issues.\nAFL-CIO FACT SHEET\nReal Campaign Finance Reform\nGenuine reform limits spending and eliminates unfair advantages\nInitiatives to impose new restrictions on union members are not campaign finance\nreform. Instead, they tilt the already uneven balance of power even more sharply in favor of big\nbusinesses. Corporate special interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to\npersuade elected officials to give them free rein to make higher profits, reap obscene executive\nsalaries, hold wages down and ship jobs overseas.\nNothing is more important to our democracy than the integrity of our election system.\nThe current system unfairly rewards wealthy contributors by amplifying their voice at the\nexpense of ordinary citizens. Real campaign finance reform will give all Americans a place at the\ntable, not just the ones who can afford to buy the seat.\nReal campaign finance reform makes sure no group has an unfair advantage. The\nessential elements of real campaign finance reform are not at all complicated or hard to\nunderstand. A fair system would include the following changes:\nCampaign spending should be limited. It is undemocratic to allow those who are\nable to raise and spend the most to tilt the political playing field in their favor.\nCorporate interests currently outspend working families by 11-to-1, and the\nadvantage is growing!\nCampaigns should be publicly financed so that narrow private interests cannot\nexert unfair advantage.\nUnlimited contributions -- so-called soft money -- to political parties and/or\nindependent committees should be repealed.\nThe aggregate limit on individual campaign contributions is set way too high.\nIndividual contributions should be limited so that a level playing field exists, not\njust among candidates, but among citizens.\nPolitical parties are essential to a healthy democracy. They should be allowed to\naccept contributions from all sources, but the total that parties may accept from\nindividuals and groups should be limited.\nVoters deserve to hear more information about a candidate's positions than the\n30-second sound bites that currently dominate the airwaves. Free television and\nradio time, as well as reduced postage rates, would go a long way toward ensuring\nthat candidates engage in real and vigorous debate about the issues impacting\nworking families.\nAFL-CIO FACT SHEET\nUnions Are Good for America\nUnions are America's way of giving workers a voice on the job,\nin the economy and in the political process\nA greater share of the wealth workers create. At a time when the gap between the wealthy\nand everyone else is growing, unions ensure that working Americans are fairly rewarded for their\nhard work. Union workers earn an average $155 (or 33 percent) more each week than non-union\nworkers earn.\nA remedy for discrimination in the workplace. Unions help narrow the wage gap for\nwomen and people of color. Compared with the paychecks of their non-union counterparts, union\nwomen earn 38 percent more, African American union members earn 42 percent more and\nLatino union members earn 52 percent more.\nHealth care, retirement and job security for working families. Compared with only 74\npercent of non-union workers, 85 percent of union members receive health coverage on the job.\nA full 87 percent of union members earn pension benefits and 79 percent are covered by\nguaranteed \"defined-benefit\" pension plans; by comparison, 78 percent of non-union workers\nearn pensions and only 44 percent are covered by the far superior defined-benefit plans. Union\nmembers have more secure jobs: six in 10 of them have been with the same employer for 10\nyears or more, compared to three in 10 non-union workers.\nHigher productivity and thriving businesses. Studies have proven that, by allowing workers\nto have input on the job and lowering turnover rates, unions enhance efficiency and productivity\nin the workplace. For example, unions boost productivity 19 to 24 percent in manufacturing, 17\nto 38 percent in construction and up to 16 percent in hospitals.\nStronger communities. The higher incomes of union members translate into more consumer\npurchases, healthier local economies, stronger tax bases, better schools and infrastructures and\nhigher living standards for the entire community.\nLaws and policies that work for working families. Historically, unions have fought for\nprotections such as the 40-hour work week, Social Security, equal opportunity and child labor\nlaws. Unions helped win passage of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act allowing workers to\ntake time off to care for their families. In 1996, unions increased the minimum wage, protected\njob safety laws, and prevented deep cuts in Medicare, education and pensions.\nEnforcement of job safety, civil rights and other laws. As well as bargaining for safe\nworkplaces, family-friendly policies and anti-discrimination provisions, unions provide a\nmechanism for enforcing rules and regulations designed to protect workers on the job.\nBrief Analysis of State Legislative Proposals\nto Silence Working Families\nJanuary 19, 1998\nARIZONA\nHouse Bill No. HB 2412, \"Labor Organizations Deductions Act\"\nThis bill would preclude unions from spending treasury money on lobbying, political\nactivities, independent expenditures, party or candidate contributions and voter registration that\naren't directly related to the ratification or administration of collective bargaining agreements. A\nunion could spend for such purposes only from a separate \"political activities fund.\" No dues-\nbased moneys could be contributed to that fund, nor could the union pay the fund's\nadministrative expenses. The fund could be financed only by direct voluntary contributions, but\nan employee could not contribute via payroll deduction, voluntary or otherwise, to the fund or to\nany other political action committee.\nALASKA\nSenate Bill No. 114 (JUD)\nThis bill would preclude private and public employers from diverting any portion of an\nemployee's wages for political contributions or contributions to groups unless the employee files\nat least an annual written authorization. Employers and unions would be precluded from\ndiscriminating against officers or employees due to their political activity or failure to make a\npolitical contribution, and the authorization form would have to inform employees of this non-\ndiscrimination protection.\nALASKA\nHouse Bill No. 181 (STA)\nThis bill would require at least an annual written authorization from an employee in order\nto enable an employer to withhold from payroll compensation or a union to withhold from\nmember dues or fees any moneys for the purpose of contributing to a candidate, political party or\ngroup, or to influence any ballot issue. Any such moneys withheld would have to be deposited in\na separate segregated fund.\nMICHIGAN\nSenate Bill No. 650, \"Contribution Disclosure Act\"\nThis bill would require a union to obtain at least an annual written authorization from any\nemployee who pays dues or fees as a condition of employment under a collective bargaining\nagreement before the union could spend any portion of the employee's dues or fees for political,\nsocial, charitable or other activities that aren't related to collective bargaining, contract\nadministration or grievance processing. The authorization form would have to include an\nextensive statement of the employee's right not to authorize such a contribution. A union that\nviolates this provision would be liable to the employee for double the amount expended plus\ninterest and attorney's fees, and other equitable relief.\nSenate Bill No. 651, \"Michigan Campaign Finance Act\"\nThis bill would permit unions and corporations to establish separate segregated funds that\ncould contribute to committees for candidates, ballot questions, political parties and other\n\"political\" and \"independent\" activities. Corporations could secure contributions to such a fund\nfrom officers, directors, stockholders and managerial employees, and unions could secure\ncontributions to such a fund from officers or managerial employees, through payroll deduction or\nanother \"automatic\" basis only upon the person's annual written authorization; the bill does not\nprescribe the form or content of this authorization. A union could obtain contributions from its\nmembers through payroll deduction or another \"automatic\" basis only if the member executes the\nannual written authorization form prescribed in Senate Bill 650.\nMISSISSIPPI\nHouse Bill No.\n, \"Worker Paycheck Fairness Act\"\nThis bill would require unions to secure at least an annual written authorization from any\nmember before it could use any portion of the member's dues or fees for activities that aren't\n\"necessary\" to \"performing the duties of the exclusive representative of employees in dealing\nwith the employer on labor-management issues.\" Members would be informed of their right to\nrefrain from making such an authorization by both a statement on the authorization form and a\nnotice posted by the employer. A union that violated this provision would be liable to the\nmember for double the amount expended with interest, attorney's fees, expert witness fees and\nother costs and equitable relief.\nMISSISSIPPI\nHouse Bill No. (untitled)\nThis bill would preclude unions and employers from increasing the salary of or making\nany other payments to an officer or employee with the intent that the moneys involved will be\ncontributed or expended to support or oppose a candidate, political party, political committee or\nballot measure.\nPENNSYLVANIA\nHouse Bill No. 1968 (untitled)\nThis bill would preclude private and public employees from making any payroll\ndeductions that would support any candidate, separate segregated fund, political action\ncommittee, legislative campaign fund, political party or ballot issue, thereby barring even\nvoluntary employee authorizations of such deductions.\nWISCONSIN\nAssembly Bill No. 624 (untitled)\nThis bill would preclude an employer from making any payroll withholding for the\npurpose of making a contribution to a \"committee\" except upon the employee's consent, which\nmust be secured at least annually. The bill would also preclude a union from using moneys\nderived from non-members under a union security clause for the purpose of making a\ncontribution or \"disbursement\" unless the non-member affirmatively authorizes it."
}