Forced Unions Fizzle

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

--- Thomas Jefferson

Why, in the year 2015, is it still legal, in some states, to compel American workers to furnish funds for political campaigns that violate their individual conscience? To this day, only 25 states protect American workers from forced labor union dues to support politics the worker does not support. These 25 states are called 'Right-to-Work States’. The other 25 states are called 'Compulsory Union States’, accent on the word compulsory. That means you cannot get or keep your job unless you join the labor union that holds an exclusive right to negotiate your contract for wages and working conditions. From 1948 until 1988, as a result of the Taft-Hartley Act, individual labor union members in compulsory union states had no way to protect their union dues from winding up supporting politics they despised. The Act left it to the several states to decide if compulsory union membership and forced political dues, was lawful in their state.

That changed in 1988 with the Supreme Court decision CWA v BECK. Thanks to the work of the National Right-To-Work Legal Defense Foundation, Mr. Harry Beck’s 22-year appellate journey through lower was rewarded.

First, here’s a little history of Compulsory labor unionism in America resulting from the inept passage of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

“(Wikipedia notes): The Labor–Management Relations Act, 80 Pub.L. 101; 61 Stat. 136, informally the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that monitors the activities and power of labor unions. The act, still effective, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. and legislated by overriding U.S. President Harry S. Truman's veto on June 23, 1947; labor leaders called it the "slave-labor bill" while President Truman argued it would "conflict with important principles of our democratic society," though he would subsequently use it twelve times during his presidency. The Taft-Hartley Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA; informally the Wagner Act), which Congress passed in 1935.”

Have labor unions played an essential part of social justice in America? Yes. Have labor unions been part of the American economic solution? Most definitely. Are compulsory union memberships now part of the problem? Absolutely. Do I still belong to a labor union? Yes. Why?

At the age of 13, I organized my first caddy strike at Kernwood Country Club in Salem, Massachusetts. As a charter union member, I organized the faculty at Westfield State University, Local 2167 American Federation of Teachers. I was 26. In 1986 as an elected member of the Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors, I filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the landmark labor union case CWA v BECK at the Supreme Court. Led by Charlton Heston, the brief was signed by four other past SAG

Presidents. The high court agreed with Mr. Beck (and with Thomas Jefferson) that compelling someone to finance other people's political agenda through forced labor union dues, is both sinful and tyrannical, and, therefore, unconstitutional. The decision was 5-3. The upshot of the "Beck" decision means that if compulsory union members object to their forced dues used to finance politics they reject they can shield their dues by declaring 'financial core' status in that union's jurisdiction. The phrase derives from an earlier SCOTUS decision ( NLRB v General Motors 1963, 373 U.S. 734) where Justice Byron White (a JFK appointee) ruled that, 'Membership as a condition of employment is whittled down to its financial core'. Unions can only extract compulsory dues for collective bargaining, not for politics.

Filing my brief earned me the accolade, "...a controversial and widely hated figure" among the nation’s union bosses. So, while a union man all my life, I oppose compulsory union membership and especially forced union dues to finance a political agenda I find repugnant to conscience.

How much compulsory union dues goes to political spending? In the BECK case is that a court appointed steward found that 80% of the compulsory dues collected from Communication Workers of America union members went to finance the unions extensive political spending. Only 20% was used to negotiate and enforce their union contract for jobs, wages, and working conditions. Yet, negotiating and enforcing collective bargaining agreements is the sole purpose of labor unions.

Union leaders argue that union political spending is necessary to turn the tide falling union membership. They ignore economic analysis that their efforts are not only futile but also counterproductive. In fact, union political spending is the main reason why the number of Right-To-Work States has increased from 22 to 25 since the BECK decision was handed down by SCOTUS in 1988.

Surely there are global economic factors that play into the increase of Right-To-Work states. Those will be hammered out in future blogs. However, the focus here is the underlying freedom principle driving forced unions to fizzle and fade into a dwarf star. Compulsion of any stripe runs against the soul of American individualism. Compelling an American workers to finance ideas they reject in conscience is the most basic attack on individual freedom in a democratic society. To illustrate, here’s an article from 1986 published in the L. A. Times that gives you insight on how the mindless collectivists in the Screen Actors Guild lost to Charlton Heston and his SAG allies protecting the freedom of conscience for individual workers in compulsory union states like California.

Actors Guild Dispute Erupts Over Right to Work: Charlton Heston's Support of Idaho Law Revives Union's Ideological Split

September 11, 1986|HENRY WEINSTEIN | Times Labor Writer

The simmering ideological dispute that has plagued the Screen Actors Guild for several years boiled over again Wednesday.

The latest flare-up was precipitated by a split in the guild on a right-to-work law referendum on the November ballot in Idaho.

Charlton Heston, former president of the guild and a leader of its conservative wing, has appeared in television commercials endorsing the retention of the law, which was enacted last year.

Additionally, members of Actors Working for an Actors Guild, the union's conservative faction, are campaigning for the measure in Idaho.

On Wednesday, Patty Duke, current president of SAG, announced that in response to a request from the Idaho AFL-CIO she will do television commercials and make other appearances advocating overturn of the law.

"As a union affiliated with the AFL-CIO for over 50 years, we strongly believe that right-to-work laws are detrimental to a union's ability to protect workers in all occupations," Duke said. "These laws are intended to weaken the power of unions by allowing employees to enjoy the hard-won benefits of union contracts without the necessity of joining the union or paying dues to support union services."

Less than an hour later, Heston held a press conference at his Beverly Hills estate in which he defended his role in the Idaho referendum campaign. "I'm a union man," he said. But he added that union membership should be voluntary and quoted Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, on the evils of compelling people to join unions.

In response to repeated questions, Heston said he does not think that right-to-work laws, which exist in 22 states, are detrimental to unions, a view disputed by virtually all union officials.

At a Screen Actors Guild board meeting Monday, a member proposed stripping Heston of his dues-free life membership because of his participation in the right-to-work campaign. In the ads, Heston mentions that he is a former union president. On the advice of a union lawyer, the proposal to strip Heston of his life membership was withdrawn, according to sources who were at the meeting.

Heston said he called his news conference because a representative of the AFL-CIO leaked to the press news of what had occurred at the Monday meeting. He said the split in the guild is between "those who want us, as a small, very poor union to concentrate on the problems of film actors and those on the board who want to pursue a broad social agenda."

Heston was asked whether going to Idaho to campaign constituted pursuing "a broad social agenda." He responded: "No. I'm not on the board and I'm spending my own money on this." Duke said she also will pay her own way to Idaho.

Ideological disagreements are not new to the guild. During the early 1980s they became particularly bitter when Heston, a staunch ally of President Reagan, clashed with then-SAG President Ed Asner, an outspoken critic of Reagan's policies in Central America. Asner was succeeded last year by Duke, who has attempted to heal the wounds created by the Heston-Asner battle.

On Wednesday, Heston praised Duke's efforts "to moderate" the differences that have split the guild in recent years.

"Perhaps we can put this behind us," Heston said when asked about the rift stemming from the Idaho campaign. But it became clear Wednesday that the split runs deeper than the current right-to-work battle.

Fielded Questions

At her news conference, Duke also fielded questions about another issue dividing the guild. She acknowledged the truth of a report that appeared in Daily Variety, the trade publication, Wednesday that she has asked for an investigation of Mark McIntire, a conservative SAG board member.

McIntire (also Chairman of AWAG) has been circulating a memo telling members of the union that court decisions and National Labor Relations Board rulings give them the right to withdraw from the union while deriving union benefits. The memo also contends that, as an alternative, guild members can elect to pay only that portion of their dues that go directly to collective bargaining and membership representation, as distinct from money used for political activities or other such purposes.

Duke declined to elaborate on the McIntire investigation. However, sources at the guild confirmed that she has sent him a letter highly critical of his memo. "It is a blueprint for action to destroy unions by encouraging resignation from membership and attacking the legal requirement that a nonmember must pay dues in order to work under union contract," the letter states. "We believe the blueprint to be flawed and misleading."

McIntire, interviewed at Heston's home, said the investigation of him is an attempt to suppress his free speech rights. Heston characterized the McIntire investigation as "politically inspired."

--- source: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-11/local/me-11343_1_actors-guild )