Archive

ShareThis Page
Time to pass Employee Rights Act | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Time to pass Employee Rights Act

No matter what party they supported, all Americans had something to celebrate the morning after Election Day: the end of political ads.

For months, we have been bombarded with them every time we turn on our televisions, computer screens and car radios. One group of Americans is especially happy: union members. Millions of them were forced to fund political ads through their union dues, even if they opposed the candidates that their money supported.

That’s because political spending by union leadership is far more lopsided than the ideological makeup of the unions in general. Election exit polls indicated that 38 percent of voters from union households voted for Republican representatives while 60 percent voted for Democrats. Compare that to the political contributions by the unions themselves. According to data from OpenSecrets and FollowTheMoney, nearly 90 percent of union contributions went to Democrats in 2014.

This means some union members are funding politicians who want to put them out of work. Take coal miners, for example. Their union, the United Mine Workers of America, donated $50,000 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s House Majority PAC in 2012 and 2013, despite its platform bent on destroying the coal industry. It sent roughly $20,000 to anti-coal Democrats including Pelosi and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. This was in addition to dues the union paid the AFL-CIO, which itself gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups linked to Democrats.

Construction workers face the same injustice, with millions of dollars of their union dues going to support politicians who are blocking construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline — a project that would create more than 4,000 jobs in the construction industry.

The United Association of plumbers and pipefitters, for instance, has written some big checks — at least $2.7 million worth — to the anti-Keystone party using its members’ money.

The practice of taking money from workers’ paychecks to spend on political causes they don’t support is both abusive and a violation of basic fairness. Congress should put an end to it.

The paycheck protection provision of the Employee Rights Act, now before Congress, would ensure that unions get explicit permission from members to spend their dues on political purposes. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Orrin Hatch and by Tom Price in the House.

Like paycheck protection, the other provisions of the Employee Rights Act are all common sense, like guaranteeing a secret ballot on important decisions such as whether to join a union and whether to strike, as well as requiring that unions be recertified periodically so all employees get a say in whether they’ll be paying union dues.

The next Congress should make it a priority to pass the Employee Rights Act. While all Americans are resigned to the fact that they will be bombarded with political ads in the next election cycle, no Americans should be forced to finance them — especially if this could put them out of a job.

Newt Gingrich is former speaker of the House and an adviser to the Center for Union Facts.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.