The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MANDATORY ASSESSMENT OF UNION DUES” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1010-E1011 on June 6, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MANDATORY ASSESSMENT OF UNION DUES
______
HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Worker Right to Know Act, legislation which will make real the rights created by the U.S. Supreme Court in Communication Workers of America versus Beck. This legislation strengthens Beck and gives workers a procedural bill of rights so they will have the ability and the knowledge to stand up to unions and exercise their right to object to the payment of dues not necessary for collective bargaining. This legislation places workers on more even footing with unions who have the extraordinary power, bestowed upon them by the Congress, to compel employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
The Worker Right to Know Act is necessary because, under current law, unfortunately Beck does not offer employees a meaningful right to object to union dues payments not necessary for collective bargaining. The problems begin with the notice, or lack therefor, that employees have of their rights under Beck. A recent poll of union members conducted for Americans for a Balanced Budget found that only 19 percent of union members know that they can object to the use of union dues for political purposes. The National Labor Relations Board has taken few steps to address this widespread lack of notice and, in its recent ruling, some 8 years after the Beck decision, concluded that it was enough for the union to print a notice of Beck rights once a year in the inside of its monthly magazine. Although, why nonunion fee payers are expected to pick up and read the union magazine is less than clear. Further, both the Board and the current administration have steadfastly refused to require that Beck notices be posted in the workplace.
Employees who clear this initial hurdle of knowledge of their rights under Beck and want to object to the use of their union dues for political or social causes may be required to first resign their membership in the union. This is not an easy thing for many employees to do for a number of reasons. First and foremost, unions often either wittingly or unwittingly mislead their employees on the effect resignation from the union will have on their employment. Union security clauses often require membership in the union as a condition of employment, even though the courts have made it clear that this is not allowed. Even for employees who find out the truth, many who object to the union's extracurricular activities may believe that union representation brings them benefits in the workplace and thus may be reluctant to resign. Some employees may also fear the reaction that union resignation may bring from fellow employees.
On top of these more personal reasons, once an employee resigns from the union they lose their right to have a voice in the myriad decisions made between the exclusive bargaining representative and the employer about the terms and conditions affecting his or her employment. In most workplaces, employees who are part of a bargaining unit that is represented by a union, but who are not union members, have no right to participate in the internal affairs of the union, for example, cannot vote in union elections, have no right to vote in decisions to strike an employer, and have no right to vote to ratify a contract offer of an employer. Under a union security agreement, a nonmember can be forced--
as a condition of employment--to pay for the costs of union representation but can be denied participation in all decisionmaking with regard to what that representation entails.
If the employee is willing to accept these very real limitations on his or her role in the workplace, there are additional practical obstacles that dilute the meaningfulness of the employee's right to object to dues being used for political purposes. The procedural hurdles faced by employees include limited window period for making objections, annual renewal requirements for objectors, very specific requirements regarding mailing objections, objections must be made to multiple parties, and so forth. Further, the employee must rely on the union to determine what percentage of dues is used for purposes related to collective bargaining and thus how much dues the employee may be required to pay. And, the union may use its own auditors to make this determination. The employee may ultimately file a lawsuit or unfair labor practice charge to challenge the union's determination, but it is often months and years before the appropriate amount of dues is resolved. Keep in mind that, throughout this process, the employee may be required to pay the disputed amount on pain of losing his or her job.
Suffice to say there are not any easy answers for employees, whether they are union members or not, who want to take issue with the activities of the union that go beyond what may be a yeoman's effort by that union in representing employees in the workplace. It seems to me that we are talking about basic issues of fairness. Employees have a right to know why money is taken out of their paycheck, how money legitimately taken is used, and a realistic and available right to stop money from being taken out of their paychecks that is illegitimately used. This is exactly what the Worker Right to Know Act is designed to provide.
The Worker Right to Know Act provides that an employee cannot be required to pay to a union--nor can a union accept payment of--any dues not necessary for collective bargaining unless the employee first agrees to pay such dues in a signed written agreement with the union. The bill also provides that the agreement must include a ratio--
certified by an independent auditor--of both collective bargaining and noncollective bargaining dues. The legislation requires such agreements to be renewed annually and requires employers to post notices at their plants and offices advising employees that their obligation to pay dues only refers to dues necessary for collective bargaining.
The Worker Right to Know Act also increases the quality of the financial information available to workers by requiring unions to annually report their expenses to the Department of Labor by function classification in sufficient detail to allow employees to determine whether expenses were necessary for collective bargaining or were for other purposes. The bill also gives all employees paying dues to a union greater access to the union's financial records.
The Worker Right to Know Act will give all workers who pay union dues as a condition of employment the right to know how their dues are spent and the right to stop unions from taking money out of their pockets that is not used for legitimate collective bargaining purposes. I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation.
____________________
