Diary of a Mad Voter: Unions singing yesterday's song

Joining a union in 2007 is like buying a Britney Spears CD. You do it because it makes you nostalgic for those good old days before reality set in.

In contemporary American life, unions are largely irrelevant — that is, everywhere except for politics. Union bosses regularly abuse workers to achieve their political objectives — and in states like Colorado, they get away with it.

In 2006, the nation’s largest union, the Service Employees International Union, funneled nearly $1 million from the compulsory dues of their members to fund small donor committees designed to elect Democrats running for everything from county treasurer to governor. And the SEIU was successful.

Utilizing a loophole in Colorado campaign finance law, they were able to forcibly use dues money of union members from across the country for the cause — all without the consent or disclosure of individual workers. How truly unfair to the janitor in Florida that he could be forced to give money to his union, only to see this money translated into campaign contributions supporting out-of-state causes or candidates he doesn’t believe in.

Last week, the Federal Election Commission agreed that union tactics are out of control, making the decision to fine a union-funded campaign committee $750,000 for illegally diverting more than $100 million in forced dues and other contributions to federal candidates.

Unfortunately, while the committee, Americans Coming Together (which received $26 million from SEIU in 2004 alone) has now been disbanded, its unwilling contributors won’t receive a penny in compensation for having their hard earned money misused.

When voters across the nation began enacting a wave of so-called campaign finance reform during the last decade, they wanted transparency in our system. If union participation proves anything, however, it’s that the system has only become more captive to the secrecy of anonymous contributors.

Union membership has plummeted nationally over the last fifty years, the result of a changing economy — one that was once industrial, briefly becoming the “office” economy, and today, at least for the moment, is tied primarily to a service economy and technology. While the U.S. population has nearly doubled since 1960, we have 700,000 less unionized workers than we did four decades ago.

In Colorado, the unionized workforce is extremely small — less than 10 percent of the total workforce — a statistic representative of a fact that most employers here aren’t massive manufacturing or retail giants, but rather small mom-and-pop shops.

Beyond very vocal casino workers in Las Vegas, most people in the West are also saying no to union membership for a very simple reason. They don’t feel the need. Why be forced into group salary negotiations, known by the flowery phrase “collective bargaining,” when you can better advocate a pay raise for yourself? If the guy down the hall isn’t working as hard as you, why should he get the same benefits?

While more and more workers are opting to fend for themselves — when the law allows — as it only sometimes does in Colorado, union bosses are fighting back with the aid of Democrats in power, including Gov. Bill Ritter, who has opened the door to unions seeking to raise the percentage of public employees belonging to unions.

In the end, it’s a losing cause. Our workforce is becoming more specialized, more sophisticated, and our economy simply cannot—and will not—maintain jobs that hand out benefits and salaries based on group bullying and not individual merit.

The truth is clear that states rejecting forced unionism, commonly known as “Right to Work” states, attract better employers and more diversified industries. It’s a win-win for both workers and business owners.

As Democrats prepare for their party’s convention in Denver next summer, they couldn’t pander any harder to the far left elements of the organized labor movement. They’re not likely to appear in public with Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the son of a man whose mysterious and infamous disappearance in 1975 is often tied to his tough-talking union ways.

Democrats are, however, likely to heed Hoffa’s extreme message that workers should be forced to join unions or pay representation dues in the absence of membership.

Jessica Peck Corry is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.Jessica Peck Corry is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

The younger Hoffa was referred to in a 1997 National Review article as “the Pillsbury Doughboy of the union movement” for being “not particularly sharp” and for being “more interested in building a muscular union than in forming grand left-wing alliances.” In other words, he’s a relic of the past.

In 2005, Hoffa announced that the Teamsters were ending their affiliation with the AFL-CIO in an effort to help “stem the losses that we have endured over the past decade.” While the losses continue, the political contributions only continue to add up.

Money in politics has a way of talking. Even outdated messages like those still perpetuated by Hoffa have a way of being heard when they directly result in campaign contributions.

There was a time when unions served a societal good. They fought against horrible working conditions and gave a voice to the voiceless. Today, however, they serve special interests largely out of touch with the American workforce — small business employees and employers like those in my family.

Just like we all loved Britney, Americans have an ongoing affinity for unions. Both are largely out of touch with life in the 21st century, however, and it’s time to let them go. As much as Britney might today dream of a sold-old concert, she simply can’t force people to buy tickets. Hoffa and his union buddies should have to play by the same rules. Forced unionism has got to go.

Editor’s note: Jessica Peck Corry's weekly blogs are part of a feature on PoliticsWest.com called "Diary of a Mad Voter." The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics, is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the '08 election cycle.




unions vs workers

The commenter below is incorrect. Unless workers rights are are protected by "right to work", workers are routinely forced to pay unions membership dues which go into a slush fund which is used for political purposes,

If a worker does not like the union, the only fair share is $0 payment of any sort of union dues. This is nothing at all like homeowner associations. Union membership has nothing to do with qualifications for being able to do the job.

"Organized labor is a primary avenue to bridge economic inequality and the imbalance of opportunity between average people and Wall street."

So, it is to solve a nonexistent problem of the fact that some people have better skills and earh others? No, what you claim is not even true, as no union ever negotiates to bring down manager pay. Actually, it is the average people who get screwed by unions, as the "pay some people way more than what their work is worth" demands result in higher priced produccts and services, store closures, and devastated communities when unions force factories to close.

"labor haters should stop pretending to care about workers by branding labor unions as the enemy."

Which side are you on? Less than 10% of American workers want to have anything to do with unions. As long as unions force workers to pay them money, they are the enemy of workers. Anyone who looks at the facts will see unions as 100% political organizations that have a negative impact on workers lives and the economy.

If unions truly were good for workers, unions would support "paycheck protect" and oppose closed shop.


So tell me.......

Federal law already protects the rights of non-members. Nobody has to join a union or engage in union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. In a union shop however, the democratic principle of majority rule does require non-members to pay a fair share expense fee if they choose not to join the union. Employees who increase their salary as a result of collective bargaining should pay their share for the efforts of others. I wonder how many business would advocate giving away their products and services for free?

Why do people have to join homeowners associations? Same reasoning and same principles, but I know you "bosses" at the Independence Institute do not want to upset developers.

Organized labor is a primary avenue to bridge economic inequality and the imbalance of opportunity between average people and Wall street. The labor haters should stop pretending to care about workers by branding labor unions as the enemy. Anybody who takes a non-political look at the facts knows who is truly on the side of employees and that is the unions who set the standards for labor protections.


More misinformation from Corry and the Independence Institute

You left out some important context

I'm sure it was an oversight, but you failed to note that most of the states bordering Colorado -- including several "right-to-work" states such as Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma -- have higher union membership or representation rates than Colorado. (The figures are readily available from the U.S. Department of Labor, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf#page=11)

That makes your argument that "right to work" laws are a "win-win" for workers and for businesses at best specious (and at worst blatantly misleading), given your arguments that "it's time to let [unions] go." If unions are an outdated relic, and neighboring "right to work" states have even greater union representation than Colorado does with no "right to work" law on the books, clearly there's a disconnect between your argument and what actually is happening in the real world.

Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters


interesting

"including several "right-to-work" states such as Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma -- have higher union membership or representation rates than Colorado. "

That is interesting. It might be because "right to work" forces unions to actually appeal to workers and represent their interests. Such organizations can actually get workers to flock to them.

This is contrast to the nuisance-union of the rust belt, where all the union has to do is bully (sometimes with actual violence) and trick 51% of workers to let the union in the shop, and after that the union doesn't have to bother to satisfy the workers. There is no getting them out at this point. The union has to become extremely unpopular in order to be de-certified. Illegally-obtained campaign money from all over the country is funneled into any local decertification effort, and threats are also used, to keep workers from breaking free.


Forced Unionism

If unions are so great, then why do they need to force their members to join? They are antiquated dinosaurs. The teacher's unions are hurting schoolchildren by protecting teachers at the expense of students, parents, and any school that wants to depart from the union chokehold.


As long as big businesses continue to mess with workers...

There will be a need for unions. Witness the mess with Walmart refusing to give benefits to workers and holding the majority of workers to less than full time status. Yet Walmart seems to be able to stack the deck in their favor in terms of getting sweetheart deals with municipalities. Eisenhower warned against developing a 'military-industrial' complex. We seem to have ingratiated a 'business-political' complex, which is totally skewed in favor of big businesses.
It's ironic to me that most white-collar workers today get a "Labor Day" holiday, while most underpaid hourly workers have to work on "Labor Day".
I'll bet Ms. Peck Corry enjoyed a Labor Day holiday, though I'm sure she checked in on her email.


wal-mart

"There will be a need for unions. Witness the mess with Walmart refusing to give benefits to workers and holding the majority of workers to less than full time status"

There will be no need for unions. The situation with government-mandated (not earned) benefits for full-time workers actually forces companies like Wal-Mart to keep workers' hours just short of the necessary full-time level. This is just one of the "unforseen circumstances" of government (often encouraged by unions) forcing companies to give away stuff to people that don't earn it.

Now some states are trying to force Wal-Mart to "give" workers a large unearned health-care program. This will force the company to cut wages and benefits elsewhere to make up for it.


most white-collar workers today get a "Labor Day"

Just like most veterans don't get Veteran's Day off, but union teachers do..


unions

I was taken aback by the ignorant comment that unions "serve special interests largely out of touch with the American workforce". I've been in a union for 35 years and I see almost daily the union standing up for working conditions, pay and benefits, things workers are mightily concerned with. The only abuse I've seen is from arrogant, bullying management that thinks we're chattel because we show up to work. Time and again I've seen the force of collective bargaining save powerless employees from mistreatment by irresponsible, small-minded bosses who've come to see themselves as lesser gods.
Your "flowery" right-wing logic notwithstanding, unions suffer internal abuses like any large hierarchy, but they hardly cost society as much as a Lay or a Nacchio or an Abramoff. I see them as a check and balance for working people to such overly-influential, self-serving powers. I know I and my coworkers would not live so well if it weren't for unions.


they cost much more

"Your "flowery" right-wing logic notwithstanding, unions suffer internal abuses like any large hierarchy, but they hardly cost society as much as a Lay or a Nacchio or an Abramoff."

They cost society much, much more. Just visit the rust belt where union wage demands that are entirely disconnected with real-world economics and the real values of things have resulted in major factory closings and are diminishing America's manufacturing base.

" I know I and my coworkers would not live so well if it weren't for unions"

You must actually not be that good at your jobs, then. Unions do protect and boost wages for the below-average worker by "evening things out" for all members. This looks pretty good for the lazy and those who lacks skills, but drags down those who are good at what they do.


How about

we go to the day before yesterday? You know, before union won 40 hour work weeks, before child labor laws, before worker saftey mandates.

Yes, let's talk about loopholes too. How about the loophole that allows every single LLC of a business owner to make maximum political contributions? And speaking political contributions, David Sirota points out that buisnesses dontate 15 times what unions do to political interests.

Finally, I can spin FEC reports too, but I'll provide evidence:

Yesterday, the Federal Election Commission agreed that business tactics are out of control, making the decision to fine a business interest-funded campaign committee $350,000 for failing to register as a political committee.

See what you can do by only changing a few words?

Drinking Liberally in a SquareState.


How about....

"Yes, let's talk about loopholes too. How about the loophole that allows every single LLC of a business owner to make maximum political contributions?"

So? There is nothing wrong with that, as every single cent of that is voluntary. They choose to do that. Nobody forces them.

"See what you can do by only changing a few words?"

Business choose to make campaign donations. Workers in unions are forced to against their will.