Jobs with justice?

WASHINGTON, D.C.-At a rally outside the White House by striking Eastern Airlines workers, members of the Communications Workers of America came to show their support with placards reading: "CWA demands jobs with justice." There is no little irony in this, because the CWA turned a deaf ear to former member Harry Beck when he questioned the justice of having three out of every four dollars of his compulsory dues spent on political causes he opposed. Even though he ultimately won his case-and the Supreme Court's June 1988 ruling was considered a landmark-workers still have an exceedingly difficult time getting their unions to refund their money. Indeed, CWA president Morton Bahr says that unions shouldn't have to comply with the ruling, because "all of the things we do are in the best interest of the workers."

That may change, however: tucked into President Bush's campaign-reform package was a little-noticed provision that would force unions to advise workers of their right not to fund the unions' political activities, and to reveal the findings of an annual independent audit showing how much of their money goes toward each of their various activities, including specific candidates and particular political causes that were funded. Many unions still tell employees they have to join as a condition of their employment, whereas that is not the case even in nonright-to-work states. Others who know their rights find their requests for refunds stalled by union bureaucracy; there are currently pending over three hundred court cases based on the Beck decision. Senator Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) says legislation to implement that decision would "bring some democracy to the unions' political operations."

As the senator notes, the reform would at least force unions to acknowledge their political activities, something they are loath to do. The 47 per cent of union households that voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and the nearly 40 per cent that voted for George Bush in 1988-and even some of the ones that voted Democraticmight be upset to find out, for example, that union PACs gave roughly $33 million to Democrats in the last election campaigns.

The real scandal, however, is the way unions give their members' dues to political campaigns in the form of "soft money." Soft money goes toward nationwide phone banks, campaign schools for grassroots operatives, partisan campaign literature, massive voterregistration drives, and consultants to manage campaigns and union workers to staff them. It plays a role in every congressional and presidential race and gives an enormous campaign advantage to whichever candidate big labor supports. "Unlike PAC contributions, soft money doesn't have to be reported," says Karl Gallant of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Nobody even knows how large this is, though we estimate that in the 1987-88 campaign cycle it was anywhere between $100 million and $355 million. By comparison, contributions from all PACs totaled about $160 million over the same period."

This is the reason why unions, whose members make up less than 20 per cent of the work force, exercise a disproportionate amount of political influence. Soft money was a factor in at least four of the five 1986 Senate races in which Republican incumbents were defeated. So it should come as no surprise to find that today there are numerous labor-backed bills pending in Congress-on the minimum wage, parental )cave, child care, and just about everything else the unions couldn't get from their own employers at the bargaining table. In a 1987 Time magazine article, AFL-CIO executive Howard Samuels boasted: "We control the committees and the agenda on the floor."

So far, pro-labor advocates in Congress such as Edward Kennedy (who is chairman of the Senate Labor Committee) and Howard Metzenbaum (D., Ohio) have been silent about possible legislation concerning the Beck case. The Democratic leadership, virtually all of which receives soft money ftom unions, would rather not talk about it. And since most voters can't get too excited about campaign reform, it hasn't been difficult for politicians to avoid it. Chances of passage for the Bush finance-reform package appear slim unless the President gives it his outspoken support. "I think it will take a major push by the White House to get the Beck decision moving," says Representative Tom DeLay (R., Tex.). "It's a win-win for the President. There might be some union leaders in town who don't like it, but few people can argue against freedom of information and the right to make a decision on how your own money is being spent."