Unions have been in politics for more than a century. Over the years, they have won major legislative battles that have improved the lives of you and your family. You probably take these important benefits for granted, and may have no idea of the long and often bitter struggle it took to win them. Here are a few examples that should interest you.

You may find it hard to believe but until the mid - 1930s, workers lucky enough to have a full-time job were toiling 60 hours a week, a half-day on Saturday, with no premium pay for overtime. There was no federal minimum wage law, so that employers, in the absence of a union, were able to pay their workers a bare subsistence wage. Employers were free to use child labor, even in coal mines.

From the 1880s on, unions fought to establish the eight-hour workday, even to the point of bloody strikes, but they were largely unsuccessful because of fierce opposition from employers. The conventional wisdom was that an eight-hour workday would be economically disastrous, leading to an epidemic of business shutdowns and massive unemployment. Newspaper editorials argued that the shorter workday would encourage idleness, drunkenness and crime. What would workers do with all that free time except booze, gamble and get into all kinds of mischief, they said.

It was persistent union pressure, aided by the friendly New Deal government of President Franklin Roosevelt, that led to passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (also known as the Wages and Hours Act) in June 1938. That landmark legislation established the eight-hour day 40-hour workweek, with time and a half for overtime. It also, for the first time, decreed a federal minimum wage that would rise with the improvement of the economy. The Act also forbade the labor of children under 16 in most occupations and under 18 in hazardous ones.

Contrary to the clamorous campaign of business associations and their battery of lobbyists, the economy didn’t collapse because of the eight-hour law. Companies reluctantly adjusted to the new situation. Productivity, in fact, increased. Employers got used to paying for overtime work when they needed it.

Although the law has been in effect for 60 years, the nation’s corporations still regularly mount campaigns to weaken it.

How Unemployment Insurance Was Won

Until the 1930s, workers who lost their jobs had no unemployment insurance benefits to tide them over until they could find a new job. They had to depend on their family or friends for survival or else seek help from a charity or go to a poorhouse. Neither the government nor the employers felt the slightest obligation to help them.

The situation changed during the Great Depression when nearly one-third of the nation’s workers were unemployed. While the federal government did what it could to provide temporary relief and public works jobs, labor activists campaigned vigorously for an unemployment insurance law that would enable the jobless to survive.

The business community, aided by friends in Congress and the media, initiated a powerhouse campaign against the proposed law with seemingly persuasive arguments. Employers ridiculed the idea of paving workers for doing nothing. They said it would bankrupt the government and impose an intolerable burden on business. They warned that it would destroy the moral fiber of the American worker. Who would want to work if he or she could get a regular weekly government check? Fortunately, the provision for unemployment insurance became law as part of the Social Security Act of’ August, 1935.

The notion of a government-supported pension system to which employers would have to make contributions had also been actively opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. They insisted that workers should he prudent and save enough during their working years to take care of themselves after they retired. Social Security, they said, was a dangerous, radical scheme promoted by Soviet Russia as a major step to create a Communist America. And besides, it was unworkable and would cause economic havoc.

In retrospect, we should thank our lucky stars that unions put up a winning political fight for Social Security. Try to imagine the suffering that millions of working families would have had to endure over the past six decades if Big Business propaganda had prevailed. Today, nearly 45 million retired and disabled workers are getting a monthly Social Security check, which is how most of them manage to survive. And nearly all of the tens of billions of dollars that Social Security pays out each month is poured back into the economic mainstream to he spent by retirees on food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life.

Other Examples of Labor’s Legislative Victories

It was the same old story every time organized labor tried to win favorable laws for workers. Employers spent huge sums to lobby against these measures, repeatedly insisting that they would he too costly, interfere with their operations and cut into their profit margins. Consider these examples:

Free public schools.
As far back as 1828, union members were involved in a Workingmen’s Party which campaigned actively for free elementary schools so that working class kids could get a basic education. Employers opposed the idea, not only because it would he very expensive, but because they believed that education, like the feeding and clothing of children, was the responsibility of parents. If parents were so keen about educating their children, they were told to send them to private schools and pay the costs.

Protection against adulterated food and dangerous drugs.
Unions, in coalition with consumer groups, pressured Congress into passing the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906), while companies complained about government meddling with their right to run their business as they saw fit.

Worker’s compensation for accidents on the job.
Thanks to a lobbying campaign by the American Federation of Labor (AFL), some 30 states, by 1917, had adopted laws providing compensation for workers injured on the job. Over the past 80 years, this legislation has benefited millions of workers who were temporarily or permanently disabled.

Civil rights.
The AFL-CIO was in the forefront of the uphill fight in Congress to secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. In its Title VII, the Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin. Employers have been trying to undermine this law, because they can suffer fines and unfavorable publicity if they are found guilty of discriminating against women and minorities in their workforce.

Private pension funds.
Unions knight hard for the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as ERISA. This 1974 federal law is aimed at halting the frequent abuse and mismanagement of private pension funds by employers and insuring that workers who contributed to these funds would get the pensions they had been promised.

Health and safety protection in the workplace.
Unions were deeply disturbed by the exposure of their members to dangerous, unregulated chemicals that could cause respiratory illness and possibly contribute to a cancerous condition. After years of campaigning, they succeeded in getting Congress to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1970. But ever since, employers have sought to shrink the agency’s budget and restrict inspections of their workplaces.

The Political Fight for the Right to Join a Union

Probably the most important legislation won by organized labor was the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which Congress passed in 1935. This law gave workers the legal right to join a union, which would represent them in collective bargaining with their employers. The idea behind the Act was to give workers organized protection against the arbitrary power of the employers and create a “level playing field” between labor and management. In the next four years, millions of workers, both skilled and unskilled, took advantage of the law to join the new industrial unions in auto, steel, communications, electrical, meat-packing and other mass production industries under the newly formed Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO). Working women and people of color were welcomed into membership in these vigorous industrial unions, which brought them periodic improvements in wages and benefits and a grievance machinery to protect them against unfair treatment.

Before that, employers had various ways to intimidate workers who sought the protection of a union. They could make them sign a “yellow dog” contract in which they had to swear never to join a union; they could fire and then blacklist pro-union workers so they could never get another job in the industry. If workers went out on strike, employers could rush to the courts where they had no problem getting an injunction to force the workers to end the walkout or face jail sentences. (That changed somewhat with passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act in 1932.)

From the outset, Big Business was never reconciled to a law that encouraged workers to join unions, and they lobbied strenuously to undermine it. By 1947, after a wave of major strikes by workers trying to make up for the World War II wage freeze, they succeeded in getting Congress to pass the Taft-Hartley Act which virtually negated the original purpose of the NLRA. Among its provisions, it gave the employer the right of “free speech,” under which he could intimidate his workers by saying why he was adamantly opposed to unions. At the same time, it placed a number of restrictions on organizing activities of unions. Under the Taft-Hartley amendments to the NLRA, workers who try to exercise their right to join a union are frequently fired. And when an employer is found guilty of violating the law, his only punishment after a year or more is a Labor Board order to rehire the worker with back pay. For the employer it’s an effective, virtually risk-free way to demoralize a union organizing campaign.

The Internal Debate About Unions in Politics

In the earlier decades of the labor movement, there was heated debate as to whether unions should he involved in politics, particularly in election campaigns. Many labor activists maintained that unions should stick to economic issues alone and avoid political entanglements; that the test of a unions’ effectiveness was how well it improved the wages and working conditions of its members, not how many politicians it helped to elect.

Politics, they said, was best left to the individual. It was unwise for unions to insist on conformity when their members differed in their political views and supported opposing political parties. They argued that helping to elect a political candidate was a waste of union funds, resources and time that could he better spent on organizing new members and servicing current ones.

Those who favored a union’s involvement in politics offered strong counter-arguments. They declared that unless organized labor had sufficient political clout to impress the politicians in Washington, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to defend a workers standard of living. For example, a wage increase won at the bargaining table could be nullified by federal and state tax increases.

Moreover, there were benefits that working families needed that couldn’t be won at the bargaining table, such as decent schools, affordable housing, clean air and water, fair taxes, civil rights and protection against crime. It required political pressure-lots of it-to make significant gains on any of these issues.

Unions had to participate in the electoral process, they insisted, because they needed pro-labor legislators in Congress to speak up in their behalf; it made no sense to surrender the political field by default to corporate lobbyists and their labor-hating allies in Congress.

Life itself settled the debate in favor of the advocates of political action. When unions saw Congress passing laws that flavored corporations at the expense of working people, they had to get involved. And when a group of reactionary members of Congress introduced bills weakening laws that benefited working families, unions had no choice but to work for their defeat in an upcoming election.

How Unions Engage in Politics

Unions have a keen interest, especially in economic issues, about what goes on in Congress, state capitols and city halls. At each level, they draw up a legislative agenda listing measures they favor and those they oppose.

On the national level, the AFL-CIO monitors the votes of each member of Congress on legislation it considers important for working families. Periodically, it publishes a tabulated record of how each legislator voted on a series of important issues, and it gives each one a score on performance. (This updated data becomes a useful part of a guide for appraising candidates at election time.)

AFL-CIO legislative representatives are often invited to congressional hearings to testify in favor of or in opposition to a particular bill. They may also get a legislator to introduce or co-sponsor a bill dealing with, say, job training, health care, occupational hazards or other legislation that could affect working people. They spend time on Capitol Hill, lobbying members of the Senate and House and trying to develop friendly, cooperative relations with them.

The unfortunate fact is that no matter how skilled the AFL-CIO staffers are, they are no match for high-priced corporate lobbyists in terms of numbers, resources and power. The latter swarm around Capitol Hill and have no trouble getting the attention of members of Congress and their staffs because they represent the nation’s strongest and wealthiest corporations in oil, banking, real estate, military contracting, telecommunications, transportation and a host of other industries.

Corporate lobbyists have a lot more to offer lawmakers to win their vote for a particular bill than do labor lobbyists. They can hold out the promise of hefty campaign contributions, many times more than unions can possibly pledge. They have other inducements for senators and representatives, especially if they head an important committee: lavish “lecture” fees, golf weekends, yacht parties, fund-raising events, and opportunities to hobnob with the titans of industry and finance. Unions can’t compete against such seductive bait.

To make matters even more difficult, there is the business-controlled media to contend with. In a conflict between corporations and unions on a bill before Congress, you don’t have to guess which side the mass media are on.

It’s the same story at the state and city level. So you may wonder how organized labor manages to win any legislative battles in behalf of working people.

A Union’s Political Strength Is in Its Members

There is no magic formula by which unions can persuade Congress to enact a law that is high on their legislative agenda. What gives unions their political power is how well they reflect the needs of their enormous constituency, their 13,000,000 members and their families. And they act as surrogates for the millions of workers who do not have a union to speak up for them.

Understandably, Big Business uses its control of the major print and electronic media in an incessant campaign to create suspicion and mistrust of unions and their leaders. Corporate managers are fully engaged in this high-stakes struggle for the hearts and minds of working people because they know that any new law to benefit workers can he even more costly than a wage increase they may be compelled to agree to in collective bargaining with a union.

To achieve their political objectives, unions generally follow a sequential process that consists of these elements: 1. choice of issue, 2. education, 3. motivation, 4. mobilization and 5. sustained action.

Choice of Issue
In selecting the issues around which to build their legislative campaign, unions base their judgments on several criteria. Each proposal must have a strong appeal, not only for their own members but also for non-Union workers and a fair-minded public. If there is some uncertainty, unions often conduct a survey to determine how their members feel about the issues. They must also take into account the size, breadth and strength of opposition groups.

Decisions must be made about how much funds, staff and resources to invest in the campaign and what chance a bill has to win congressional approval within a specified time frame.

Education
Unions must use all of their communications channels to persuade their members that these issues are sufficiently important to engage their active participation in the legislative campaign. In appealing for support, unions will use their official publication, handbills, newsletters and pamphlets, as well as letters to the homes of members to reach the entire family. The issues will be brought up and explained at membership meetings and other union forums. Union leaders and their staffs will take great pains to refute every argument of opposition groups. They will try to develop catchy slogans that will convey the bill’s central message for use on car bumpers, buttons, T-shirts and other paraphernalia. If funds permit, they will publicize the issues in newspaper ads and radio and TV spots.

Motivation
The big test for the union’s educational effort is whether it has excited members’ interest sufficiently to respond to a call for some form of action in support of the campaign. Some unions will distribute pledge cards in which members promise to give a certain amount of time or engage in a specific activity. Another possibility is to set up a task force of rank-and-file volunteers with responsibility to promote the legislation. In short, unions must find a variety of ways to generate strong commitment for their legislative proposals if they expect to add sufficient muscle for a winning campaign.

Mobilization
Commitment must be translated into action. Unions have developed several ways to impress members of Congress. They deluge them with hundreds of personal letters from their constituents. Unions also instigate an incessant flow of phone calls (on a toll-free number) to overwhelm congressional switchboards. Using modern technology, they grind our faxes by the hundreds and use E-mail and web sites on the Internet to make their case.

The larger international unions hold legislative conferences in Washington, during which they organize delegations to buttonhole members of Congress from their particular state and district. They pay special attention to those legislators who have not made up their minds. Union members are urged to meet their representatives face-to-face when they are home during congressional recesses.

Nearing the climax of a legislative campaigns unions may call on their members to turn our for a march or rally or mass picketline to focus public attention on an issue.

Unions strive to broaden their political clout by coalition-building and seeking joint actions with other organizations that have a stake in the outcome of a bill. The may court celebrities and well-known public figures and media commentators whose support could influence public opinion.

Sustained action
On some legislative issues, unions must be prepared for the long haul. Congress moves slowly; bills have to pass both the Senate and the House and survive joint conferences to iron out points of difference. It may take years for some bills, no matter how worthy, to become law.

Union strategists have to make sure that their campaign does not peak too early and that their members do not suffer burnout at a time when their involvement is most needed. This requires keeping members regularly informed of what is happening to the proposed legislation. Some unions set up special committees to focus on a particular bill and to design a series of activities to maintain membership interest over a long time period. They may also institute a hot line” so that members can get updated information about particular hills and supportive actions.

Labor’s Victories Are Based on Moral Appeal

What gives added power to organized labor’s legislative agenda is that the issues it advocates usually have a strong moral component: to improve the quality of life of the nations working people or to prevent its deterioration. Employer objections to labor legislation follow their historic pattern: it would be 1. too costly; 2. too complex to apply: 3. disruptive to business operations and 4. counter-productive for workers.

Take the 1996 battle over whether the federal minimum wage should be increased. The AFL-CIO position was simple and straightforward. Low-paid workers deserved an increase in their minimum pay, which had not been raised in several years. In a booming economy with upgraded profits. employers could afford to pay a living wage to those workers who were stuck in poverty.

Lobbyists for fast-food chains, retail outlets and hotels argued that any increase in the minimum wage would mean a loss of jobs for tens of thousands of’ low-paid workers. Their hypocritical concern for the jobs of these workers did not prevent passage of an increase in the minimum wage. And despite their dire predictions, the job market for low-wage workers, rather than worsening, has even improved.

The AFL-CIO has been the most outstanding fighter to prevent tens of thousands of decent-paving U.S. jobs from going to Mexico, where the average wage is 54 cents an hour. It was able to block the “fast track” trade legislation proposed by President Clinton and strongly supported by major corporations, which would have extended the exodus of jobs to low-wage areas throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Enemies Try to Tag Labor as “Special Interest”

In an effort to downgrade the political status of the AFL-CIO, the media repeatedly refer to it as a “special interest,” trying to equate it with military real estate, banking, cattle-raising, machine tools and other such lobbies. That, of course, is nonsense. The labor movement is concerned with the needs of all workers, regardless of trade and occupation, not just with a single group. When it wins favorable legislation, the benefits are enjoyed by workers who don’t belong to unions as well as those who do.

In the minimum wage battle, the AFL-CIO fought solely on behalf of the lowest-paid workers because union members earn significantly higher wage rates than the minimum. The term “special interest” can be applied to unions only in the sense that they are the only institution in American society that has fought consistently, and with some demonstrable success, to improve economic conditions of working people, on and off the job. By contrast, the hundreds of employer associations are focused on enhancing the profitability of their members, with only incidental regard for the needs of their employees.

The media practice of calling union leaders “bosses” is silly name-calling. It is intended to persuade naive people that labor officials have absolute control over their members and can command them to do things against their will. The label “boss” more accurately has been applied to employers, who have the power to hire and fire their workers and thus can force them to do their bidding in the workplace.

The term “Big Labor” is often used by anti-union editorial writers and commentators as a synonym for the AFL-CIO. It’s meant to counteract the pejorative use of the phrase, “Big Business.” The term is manifestly ridiculous, since the same writers are constantly pointing out the decline in union membership. Corporate America boasts about its bigness, as exemplified by the continuing mergers and acquisitions by giant corporations. Maybe some day-let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later-the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions will be able to merit the tide of “Big Labor.”

Unions Seek to Maintain Political Independence

Polls show that union members overwhelmingly feel that it’s essential for organized labor to remain deeply involved in legislative issues and electoral politics. There is, however, discussion on how labor can best maximize its strength as an independent political force in behalf of working families.

AFL-CIO unions are reviewing their relations with the Democratic Party, particularly in presidential and congressional elections. A major complaint has been that when unions provide endorsements, financial help and volunteers to Democratic Party candidates, they get very little in return. Those candidates assume that the labor vote is in their pocket, so that many of them shift to the political right to court conservative and even anti-union votes. Under this arrangement, the unions have minimal bargaining power because they have no political alternative, except to withhold their support and pave the way for the election of Republican candidates.

A Strategy to Increase Labor’s Political Power

In considering candidates in an election contest, the AFL-CIO should not be locked into just one choice, but should have four options. The criteria for the choice of candidates should be the extent to which they support, in word and deed, those issues of major importance to working families. Here are the options:

1. Democratic Party candidates: They must he disabused of the idea that they are automatically entitled to the votes of working people because the party, since the 1930s, has been traditionally pro-labor. These candidates are not going to get much of the labor vote if the rely on large contributions from anti-union employers or have nothing favorable to say on such issues as corporate downsizing, worker rights, child care, occupational hazards in the workplace and the preservation of Social Security.

2. Republican Party candidates: Union members must get over the idea that all Republicans are cast in the mold of Newt Gingrich. On some issues, moderate Republicans break party ranks to vote with Democrats. There are candidates among them who would welcome labor support and they should be encouraged to seek it by adopting labor’s electoral agenda.

3. Independent candidates: Where the candidates of either of the two major parties can’t be persuaded to take pro-labor positions in their campaign speeches and television spots, unions can consider endorsing independent candidates who have broad public support and are prepared to articulate the kind of program that union members will want.

4. Union candidates: If there are no candidates in a particular election that satisfy labor’s criteria for endorsement, unions can consider running their own candidates in primaries or on independent lines. Surely there are union leaders and rank-and-file activists who are as qualified for public office as the many politicians who come from the ranks of business, banking, education, real estate, the legal profession and the ultra-right wing.

An effective union strategy in any political campaign is to highlight those issues they consider most important, and to compel all candidates to address them.

Unions Can Enjoy a Stronger Bargaining Position

With its 13,000,000 members and their families and an estimated 50,000 local unions in cities and towns across the country, the AFL-CIO represents an enormous, well-organized constituency that is deeply rooted in the nation’s day-to-day economic fife. It has the obvious potential to play a dominant role in future elections.

In the 1996 elections, the AFL-CIO provided evidence of its new-found political strength when it succeeded in defeating 17 anti-labor Republican candidates for Congress and played a principal role in electing the Clinton-Gore ticket. The AFL-CIO added many millions of dollars to its campaign war chest, developed techniques for mobilizing union-member support and ran a number of TV spots that rivaled those of the two parties in their effectiveness.

At its 1997 convention, the AFL-CIO adopted several important initiatives which will augment its status as an independent political force. it served notice on both Democrats and Republicans that it will provide funds and resources only to political candidates who publicly support the right of all workers to join unions and who will speak out against employers who violate the labor laws.

The AFL-CIO will have more money to spend on political education. By convention action, per capita payments of affiliated international unions were raised from 42 cents to 47 cents per member to finance a $12 million Member Mobilization and Education Fund over two years.

To reinforce its increasingly independent position, the AFL-CIO will train and give full support to 2,000 union-member political candidates by the year 2000.

For all of these reasons, the labor federation can he in a stronger position to engage the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties in tough political bargaining over candidates and issues.

Labor Proves Its Political Strength

Organized labor faced one of its severest tests in 1998 when Big Business and right-wing organizations, with a war chest of $145 million, launched a nationwide campaign which, had it been successful, would have deprived unions of their ability to defend their members’ economic and political interests.

The anti-labor coalition made its big move in California where the sponsored Proposition 226, a measure to prohibit unions from using the dues money of their members for any kind of political activity without their annual written authorization. A victory in California, they hoped, would serve as a springboard fur similar legislation in all 50 States.

Advocates of Proposition 226 figured they could dupe union members into supporting the measure on the promise they would get a rebate on their dues money if they disavowed the political protection of unions. In the early stages of the campaign, they appeared to be making considerable headway, with polls showing that voters supported the anti-union proposition by nearly 3 to 1.

But then, California’s labor movement swung into action. In the final three months before last June’s statewide vote on Proposition 226, the unions conducted an incredible, come-from-behind, whirlwind campaign to defeat what they called “poison pill” legislation by a margin of 52 to 48. Here is how they did it:

• Union volunteers made a spectacular 650,000 phone calls to voters across the State.
• Educational materials were distributed to residents in more than 5,000 precincts and to workers at 18,000 worksites.
• As many as 24,000 union members and their families participated in phone banks, precinct canvassing and worksite visits.
• More than 3,500 men and women unionists were involved in “get-out-the-vote” efforts.
• Unions ran an expanded schedule of hard-hitting TV and radio 30-second spots, as well as large ads in the State’s newspapers.

The California victory highlights the importance of political education. Had the unions not conducted a sustained educational campaign to expose the deceitful and hypocritical intent behind Proposition 226, they could never have mobilized the thousands of union members and their families to participate in the extraordinary campaign that resulted in a major political victory for labor.

Labor’s Economic and Political Roles Are Linked

One of the phony arguments employed by the advocates of Proposition 226 (and similar “paycheck protection” proposals) is that its okay for unions to engage in economic activity but they should be prohibited from spending dues money on politics without written consent from each member. That kind of separation, of course, is nonsense; its sinister purpose is to silence labor’s voice.

When unions fight for working people at the bargaining table and when they strive for favorable laws or campaign to elect pro-worker candidates, it’s all part of the same struggle: to improve the well-being of American families. There’s a strong connection between labor’s economic and political functions: a curb on either function damages both.

Workers know they must have strong unions to represent them in the political arena if they expect a fighting chance to get decent schools, affordable health care, a cleaner environment and other needs to make their lives more livable. Labor can’t win anything for them with one hand tied behind its back.

Union Members Favor involvement in Politics

“Paycheck protection” advocates are trying to spread the idea that union members don’t want their dues money to be used for political purposes. In actual fact, most members, regardless of political party; strongly favor labor’s participation in politics, because they need-and want-a strong organization like the AFL-CIO to represent their interests.

To cite one of many examples In a 1996 Election Day exit poll conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates, three quarters of all union members agreed that unions need to “invest time and money in politics and legislation today to counter the influence that corporations and wealthy special interests have.”

In their fund-raising efforts, the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions followed democratic procedures by submitting their proposals to a vote at a special convention. No such procedure was followed by the nation’s corporations when they made huge contributions to pro-business candidates. They did not consult their stockholders and certainly not their employees. By the logic of anti-union Republicans, no corporation should be allowed to spend a penny on political donations or lobbying unless it has the written permission of each stockholder.

Legal Facts About Dues and Political Rights

Traditionally, under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, unions and employers negotiate agreements requiring covered employees to pay the normal membership dues and initiation fees, which the unions can use for whatever purposes accord with their needs.

In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled, in the so-called Beck case, that non-members who pay union fees (because they benefit from being represented by a union in collective bargaining) can apply for a rebate of that portion of their dues money spent on non-bargaining activities. The “non-member” category represents a relatively small minority of workers employed under an “agency shop” contract.

But if labor’s enemies have their way, it wouldn’t be the objectors to union political activity, but the advocates (the overwhelming majority) who are required to give written authorization on how their dues money can be used.

It should be pointed out that union political action committees which make contributions to candidates are strictly voluntary in nature and, by law, are not funded by union member dues.

Considering the scandalous fund-raising by both Republicans and Democrats, it is outrageous that their idea of “campaign finance reform” is to single out unions as targets.

Unions Follow Time-Honored, Democratic Rules

Workers are free to join or not to join a union tinder the National Labor Relations Act. When they do join, they agree to abide by the constitution and bylaws of that particular union-and to share in the many benefits of belonging to a labor organization.

They are entitled by law to elect their leaders and participate in decisions about how their dues money is spent. And like members of all democratic institutions, including Congress, they have to respect the principle of majority rule. As Americans, we do not refuse to pay our taxes because we disagree with specific laws of our government or our political leaders. Similarly, union members should not he permitted to withhold their dues money because they may disagree with individual policies or leaders. And, if they want to get out of the union, they are legally free to do so, without jeopardizing their jobs.

It is an obvious fact that virtually all union members are abiding by these rules. There is no public outcry from members for getting their unions out of politics. Quite the contrary, union members clearly see the need for organized political action if their views and needs are to carry any weight in Congress or local governments.

A Big Corporate Payoff If Labor Is Silenced

Why do you think Big Business and its right-wing allies are continuing to promote the fraud they call “paycheck protection?” Do you think they’re really interested in protecting your wages? Do you imagine their real purpose is to cut your union dues?

If “paycheck protection” were to pass in any State, unions would he denied the funds they need to engage in effective political activity. With an enfeebled labor movement, the Big Business bloc in Congress, urged on by corporate lobbyists, would have a free hand to tamper with the overtime provisions of the wage-hour law, wipe out federal prevailing wage regulations, reduce worker compensation benefits, cut down on workplace safety and health inspections, squeeze Medicare and Medicaid and turn over the Social Security system to the Wall Street crowd.

The stage would he set for an enormous windfall for Corporate America, amounting to billions of dollars annually-largely at the expense of workers and their families.

In this enormously high stakes battle, unions everywhere must he on the alert to defend labor’s political voice with the same vigor displayed by their brothers and sisters in California.

How Unions Can Challenge Corporate Power

If organized labor is to develop the capacity to challenge the economic power and political influence of Corporate America, it will have to expand its own constituency and build working coalitions with allied organizations. The market for a mushrooming growth of People Power is there for the taking: underpaid working women, minorities, seniors, students, veterans, the homeless and the helpless poor-that vast army of people who have been treated unfairly by the government or been victimized by corporate greed.

Simply put, there are at least a thousand worker votes to every corporate-based vote. With their advantage in numbers, unions should he able to win progressive legislation in Congress and enjoy victories at election time. The major problem is that the ideologues of the corporate rich are adept at causing confusion and dissension among the working population, even to the point of persuading many of them through the media to vote against their own interests.

Unions can counteract right-wing propaganda by expanding their communications network. It would be tremendously helpful if the AFL-ClO established a national weekly labor newspaper or magazine in which it would publicize its policies and the actions of its affiliated unions while refuting the phony arguments of the union-busters. (Why should union members have to rely on the business-controlled media for their labor news?)

A weekly AFL-CIO cable television program could reach out to countless thousands of unorganized workers with labor’s message. (A number of religious and educational institutions have national weekly T\/ programs; why not labor?)

And Here is Where YOU Fit Into the Picture

Did you know that if there had been a better turnout of union members in some key congressional districts in the 1994 and 1996 elections, many right-wing candidates who squeaked through by slim margins might have been defeated?

Its a fact that a lot of union members have become so angry and cynical about the political process that they don’t bother to vote or even register. However justified their feelings, that attitude makes no sense at all, because it is in their personal interest to vote and to choose candidates who will work for them, not against them.

Here’s what you, as a committee of one, can do with a limited amount of time and eflbrt that will give you a feeling of self-satisfaction:

Register to vote and see to it that members of your immediate family, relatives and shopmates do the same. You can register at motor vehicle branches, post offices, public libraries and public assistance offices. In case of problems, check at union headquarters thr help.

Get involved in your union’s political action programs. There’s lots for you and your family members to do: simple things like distributing educational materials, staffing phone banks and talking up labor’s message to your friends and neighbors.

Make voluntary financial donations-whatever you can spare-to labor’s political efforts, and persuade the people you know to contribute.

On Election Day, help your union get out the vote by making it convenient for members to go to the polls and cast their ballots.

Remember, elections are one of the few times when politicians will listen to you, because they need your vote. If you sit silently on the sidelines, you’re giving them a blank check which they may use to your disadvantage.

Your best bet is to join with millions of other working people to…

SPEAK UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

The preceeding is an admittedly unauthorized reproduction of Mr. Kelber's book. Please buy a hard copy from him.

TO ORDER ADDITIONAL COPIES
Fill out this order form and make your check payable to:
The Labor Educator, P.O. Box 2368, New York, N.Y. 10185
Tel: 718-858-7728 • Fax: 718-488-0072

I wish to order the following publications:

___copy(ies) of “Why Unions Are in Politics”

___copy(ies) of “Why Unions Are Good for You and Your Family”

___copy(ies) of “A Training Manual for Union Organizers”

Enclosed is my check for $______ to cover the cost of my order on the basis of the price list shown below. Please print.

NAME ________________ TITLE _____

ADDRESS_________________________

_________________________________

PRICE LIST
“Why Unions Are in Politics”
“Why Unions Are Good for You and Your Family”
1-9 copies $4.00 each
10-99 copies $3.00 each
10o-499 copies $2.50 each
500 or more copies $2.00 each

“A Training Manual for Union Organizers”
1-24 copies $25.00 each
25 or more copies $22.50 each

Prices include postage and handling.

>>> return to top of page <<<<

>>> contact the webmaster <<<