[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1010-E1011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   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.

[[Page E1011]]

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.

                          ____________________