Dues and don'ts: union officials are illegally compelling members to support candidates they oppose.

Union officials are illegally compelling members to support candidates they oppose.

AS it does every four years, Labor Day this year will mark not only the traditional end of summer, but also the beginning of the stretch run in the races for Congress and the Presidency.

For millions of American workers, however, the usual Labor Day mix of picnics and politics will offer little cause for celebration, as union officials dig into the pockets of union members to support candidates many of the members personally oppose.

Union involvement in politics is nothing new. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, union officials admit that their political-action committees spent some $95 million on politics in 1992. In testimony to the House Oversight Committee this spring, Professor Leo Troy of Rutgers University estimated that "in-kind expenditures -- for phone banks, mailings, get-out-the-vote efforts, and the like -- could reasonably be a multiple of three to five times" the reported $95 million.

In years past, union officials vigorously denied using dues money for political expenditures. But earlier this year organized labor changed tactics when AFL - CIO President John Sweeney announced that the giant union federation would levy a "per-capita" assessment on each of its affiliate unions to raise an extra $35 million for a campaign targeting 75 House members, mostly GOP freshmen.

Rank-and-file union members are given no choice: most unions will levy the special assessment even though opinion polls show that at least 40 per cent of union members typically vote for Republican candidates for federal office.

In law, union members cannot be compelled to pay the assessment. They don't have to allow union officials to use their money for politics. However, most union members don't know this. And there appears to be a conspiracy between organized labor and the government to keep them in the dark.

Under the 1988 Supreme Court decision in Beck v. Communication Workers of America -- a case brought by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on behalf of Maryland telephone-company worker Harry Beck -- union members can be required to pay only dues and fees which are directly related to the costs of collective bargaining and contract administration, not those which underwrite the political and lobbying activities of organized labor.

Late in his Administration, President Bush finally issued an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to post notices in their workplaces informing employees of their rights under the Beck decision. One of the first actions of the new Clinton Administration, however, was to order the signs taken down.

Clinton Administration officials are now carrying this cover-up one step further. In March of this year, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board charged a Pennsylvania company --whose employees are represented by Sweeney's union -- with breaking the law because the company attempted to inform its employees of their rights under Beck.

The NLRB complaint probably won't be acted on until after the election. But it already has had a chilling effect, by blacking out a source of information to employees about their rights under the decision. Only union officials, the NLRB's general counsel found, should have the "privilege" of informing workers of their rights.

Unfortunately, the union officials entrusted with this privilege are the same officials who are dishonestly docking the pay of union members to support the AFL - CIO's political slush fund.

Both Bill Clinton and Bob Dole will make the round of Labor Day picnics, as will candidates for the House and Senate. All will talk about the contributions the working men and women of America have made to our country.

This year, however, the word "contribution" will take on a different meaning as union members are forced to pay a $35-million "assessment" for political campaigns many of them oppose.

No American who values political freedom should be pleased with this outrageous turn of events.