Here is a Supreme Court decision that has
generally slipped by the media eye. June 21 the court made its decision on Knox
v. SEIU saying that unions cannot set aside funds for political campaigns
without certain limitations; meaning any member of the union can opt out (really they must opt is the requirement) of contributing to those funds. (I can
hear dmarks clicking his heals at this point; end coercion and proponents of
the bill advocate.) This is all under the guise of the 1st amendment.
But as Harvard Law Professor Benjamin Sacks
notes “the Court's concern for avoiding compelled funding of union
political speech stands in stark contrast to the lack of concern for compelled
funding of corporate political speech.”
The Citizens
United ruling stands in sharp contrast to this ruling which said
corporations and unions have First Amendment rights to fund independent
political expenditures from their general treasuries.
Again as Sacks writes, “To put
it simply the law gives employees the right to opt out of funding union
political speech, but shareholders get no right to opt out of funding corporate
political speech. This kind of differential treatment of political speakers is
inconsistent with the American ideal of treating political speakers equally.”
These are obvious political decisions by
the court.
I would encourage you to what Bill Moyer’s
Show this week entitled, “Full Show: Is Labor a Lost Cause?” You can likely
catch it later on his blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I can hear dmarks clicking his heals at this point; end coercion and proponents of the bill advocate"
ReplyDeleteSorry, I can't parse this sentence.
But my argument has always been, that in situations where union membership is coerced, strict limits on political usage of dues money is necessary.
In situations where union membership is voluntary (such as in the laudable Freelancers union you mentioned, or in right-to-work states), there's absolutely no reason to meddle in what the union chooses to do with the money that the workers choose to give it.
As for the point given, "but shareholders get no right to opt out of funding corporate political speech.", it is entirely invalid, as it is apples and oranges. No one is forcing the shareholders to get involved in the corporation.
Anyway, the solution to the problem here is a national "right to work" law. Then I would take the side of the SEIU and other unions like this.
A better title for your post might have been "Court Favors Workers Over Unions".
"No one is forcing the shareholders to get involved in the corporation." Given typical CEO pay, it is a wonder they haven't all sold out.
DeleteLike the real citizen vs the corporate citizen,
most groups of shareholders include the huge power block (which calls the shots), various institutional investments and the small investors
who are not only powerless, but whose bailing out
would have no effect whatsovever. I agree, they
cannot be 'forced'. It would take an accountant
to do a damage survey whether union
scandals hurt the workers more or corporate scandals hurt the shareholders more. Both types of crooks wear the same tie and only the lawyers benefit.
A corporation has 3 primary groups of stakeholders not limited to the shareholders. And let's not pretend that a corporation is an egalitarian democratic institution or association of citizens. As a legal power structure it is, at best, on a plutocratic oligarchy.
DeleteAnd shareholders are but 1/3 of the equation. The corporation gets all of its money from customers, and gets all of its value-adding and profit from work produced by its workers. To the extent that it ventures outside of this to tell us what to believe, how to vote, etc. it is now marshaling the resources of a 'coalition of the unwilling' who, while they may want (or need to) purchase the company's product may not agree with its political goals (which may be secret and well-hidden behind murky funding channels anyway).
This is NOT what freedom looks like. This is Freedom's opposite: Concentrated Power.
No one forces anyone to take a labor union job either.
ReplyDeleteActually, in Michigan this happens most of the time. Most workers who are in unions were forced to join, and had no choice. This is also true in California, New York, and other states.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise they would be fired from their jobs for refusing to join an outside political pressure group that had nothing to do with their ability to do their job.
I side with the workers, each of who should have a choice of whether or not to give money to these outside groups. It is no different than my opposition to a job where someone is forced to join the Catholic Church or the NRA.
An important point is to be made about your own state: where it is obvious that MOST of the teachers were in the union against their will. Once one of your governor's very pro-worker reforms went into place, these teachers quickly quit the union. They were only in it before because they were forced.
ReplyDeleteTeamsters leaders in Indiana also expect most private sector members to flee the union there, due to reforms that also give workers the choice.
No use paying union dues when your union is legally forbidden to negotiate. From what I hear from Wisconsin teacher friends it's no use to continue teaching if your state doesn't want you.
DeleteUnlike many jobs, teaching can be rewarding intrinsically, but intrinsics do not pay the bills. (one GOP teacher friend has changed sides polically and is looking for a better job
anywhere) We'll have to see how it plays out..I'm thinking Walker will appoint some of his wealthy crony's ex-con kids to teach, and pay them as much as he paid the ex-con to take over a big state department before he was shamed into letting the useless guy go....
...unions were a stopgap against economic darwinism..what state or company would want to pay any more than the absolute minimum? Besides,
now the students that were in education can switch to business.
Once Walker made it illegal for the union to do the primary thing it was created for, it really is a wonder that it retained any membership at all, even amongst the most ardent pro-union members. It's like belonging to an army that gets sent to war, but isn't allowed to bring any weapons.
DeleteThe message sent to union members was, "Resistance is futile." I would expect union-busting efforts to expand to the private sector to take out the remaining vestiges of those unions in the next phase.
Once more, no one is forced to take a union job; some jobs require that you join their union. dmarks, you talk about being able to turn off your TV; this is the same logic.
ReplyDeleteThe real point is that unions were a vital force in building a fair America and ended many abuses. In turn some unions became unfair themselves; but the concept of unions, which create balance between management and workers is vital to the economy. We have swung way too far in favor of corporate management. Yin Yang.
No, Hugh. When as a condition of employment, you must join an outside organization that has nothing to do with the work, or be fired, you are being forced.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same if the workers are forced to join the Baptist church, a union, or the NRA. As such membership has nothing to do with the organization, and it is outside of the job.
The problem here is the false concept of "the union job". No job is an actual 'union job' outside of someone employed, say, at the UAW office building.
"The real point is that unions were a vital force in building a fair America and ended many abuses"
I don't find this to be any sort of excuse for forcing workers to join union against their will: that is an abuse by unions against workers.
.."forcing workers to join union against their will: that is an abuse by unions against workers." The word union is related to united;
Deletea shop of mixed union and non-union is essentially non-union in terms of negotiating
ability or worker protection. IMO, the result of
successful union-busting will be interesting-will
companies return to abusive treatment and unions
come back, or will companies be relieved of the
hassle of negotiating with worker groups and treat their workers with respect and dignity?
..probably not; altruism doesn't fit in with profit.
United against the will of the workers... it is worker of course who suffer the most under that.
DeleteBB: a question.
ReplyDeleteYou consider the 1950s a sort of golden age, partially due to high unionization.
Do you have any idea back then how much of union dues were used for political campaigns? I suspect it was little or nothing.
This sort of abuse has caused major problems across the board now. For one thing, it has turned unions into partisan political fund raising organizations. For another, it violates the rights of workers in "closed shop" states; roughly half of the workers oppose the dues money going to candidates who are not acting in their interest.
This type of abuse is very controversial, and likely explains MOST of the workers who have fled Wisconsin's public unions.
In contrast, traditional union collective bargaining points would tend to be pretty popular.
Want to see union membership rise? Cut out the political abuse and return them to being organizations fighting for workers in the workplace. Then a lot more people would want to join them.
Until then, the main form of "union busting" has been, and is, unions bullying workers.