[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6971-S6972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ARE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS VOLUNTARY?

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. David Stewart and 
millions of workers like him, who hold their political freedoms in this 
country in the highest regard, I send the June 25, 1997 Rules Committee 
testimony of Mr. David Stewart of Owasso, Oklahoma to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Testimony of David Stewart, Transport Workers Union of America-Local 
      514, regarding Senate Bill S. 9, the Paycheck Protection Act

       My name is David Stewart, I am a member of the Transport 
     Workers Union of America, Local 514 located in Tulsa, 
     Oklahoma. I am here today to support changes in legislation 
     that will protect the hard earned money of myself, and my co-
     workers. We are tired of funding political agendas and/or 
     candidates that we do not endorse or vote for. I want to 
     first make the point that I am not anti-union, I have 
     received decent wages and benefits as a result of my 
     membership with the T.W.U. and believe that union membership 
     is beneficial and would recommend that all working men and 
     women of the United States join in a union.
       Let me submit a brief overview of my history in Organized 
     Labor. I became a union member (Transport Workers Union of 
     America) in September 1983, when I was hired as a welder at 
     American Airlines Inc. I was very interested in the affairs 
     of the union and attended all union meetings and quickly 
     became a Shop Steward around December 1983. As my interest 
     continued, I was offered Labor Study classes in the evenings 
     at Tulsa Junior College in 1984. I accepted and attended the 
     following courses: History, Organization, and Functions of 
     Unions, Labor and Politics, Labor Laws, and Grievance 
     Handling and Arbitration.
       In 1985-86 I was elected Vice-President of the Northeastern 
     Oklahoma Labor Council. This was a very short lived position 
     as I am the father of three boys and the time needed to 
     perform these duties conflicted with my requirements as a 
     father and resigned this position after about eight months. 
     In any event, my involvement with the union continued as a 
     member. I continued my duties as Shop Steward and was very 
     involved with the Political Wing of the Union. This Political 
     Wing has a ``sign factory'' behind the Union Hall where 
     volunteers print, assemble, and distribute yard signs for 
     political campaigns. I spent many hours in this building 
     learning of political issues and candidates that the union 
     supported.
       In 1991, I transferred to a newly created local in Fort 
     Worth, Texas. As I spent time away from Tulsa and the strong 
     political wing of the Tulsa local union, my personal

[[Page S6972]]

     political views began to change toward a more conservative 
     position and I began to realize that I really do not agree 
     with some of the agendas and the candidates that the union 
     endorses. Yet, we are all required to fund these agendas and 
     campaigns just by virtue of our membership in the union. As I 
     searched for relief from this unjust requirement, I found out 
     about the ``Beck Supreme Court Decision'' which in effect 
     gives a union member the right to a refund of the non-
     bargaining expenditures of the union. The problem is, I must 
     relinquish my union membership and the rights associated with 
     that membership to seek this refund. It is absurd to require 
     me to fund the contract bargaining, contract enforcement and 
     administration of the Local, yet require me to forfeit my 
     rights to a voice in these affairs, only because I oppose the 
     political expenditures of the union. I still attend the union 
     meetings and enjoy having a voice in the affairs of the union 
     and my career, I am not willing to give up this activity to 
     receive the refund afforded me by the ``Beck Decision.''
       In September of 1996, I transferred back to Tulsa as a Crew 
     Chief. I have duties and responsibilities covering the 
     assignments of 20 mechanics and welders. I have attended 
     about six union meetings in the past eight months, I have had 
     no conflicts with the union that would influence my decision 
     to come to Washington and testify. I would like to believe 
     that my status as a union member of the T.W.U. will not be 
     affected by my testimony before this committee.
       My options under current law are best described as follows:
       Option A:
       During the month of January, of any given year I can send a 
     notice of my objection to the International Secretary 
     Treasurer. I must first assume non-member status in my union. 
     I am required to renew this objection in January of each year 
     to object for the subsequent twelve months. As an objector, I 
     shall have neither a voice nor a vote in the internal affairs 
     of the Local Union or of the International Union; nor shall I 
     have a voice or a vote in the ratification of or in any 
     matter connected with the collective bargaining agreement, 
     whether or not it covers my employment. My paycheck shall 
     continue to have a fee equal to full union dues deducted by 
     my employer and transmitted to the union. The Local and the 
     International, place these fees in an interest bearing escrow 
     account. After completion of an audit, I will receive a 
     rebate equal to an amount ascribed by the audit to non-
     chargeable activities. This rebate of course does not 
     include any portion of the interest applied to the escrow 
     account. I can at my own expense challenge the validity of 
     the audit. This procedure is very cumbersome and probably 
     cost more than the challenge would change the audit 
     report.
       Option B:
       I can continue to fund all of the non-germane and political 
     expenditures of my union. This option allows me to maintain 
     the very important voice and vote in the affairs of the Local 
     and International Union. More importantly, as a bonus for 
     funding these activities, I have a voice and a vote in the 
     ratification of the collective bargaining agreement. It 
     should be pointed out here, that I will fund the collective 
     bargaining process regardless of which option I choose. I 
     only get a voice and a vote as a reward for funding the other 
     non-germane expenses.
       Option C:
       Seek assistance from my government representatives and 
     attempt to get the laws changed that hold my voice and vote 
     hostage as a result of the Supreme Court Beck Decision of 
     1988. The bottom line is this, I continue to fund the non-
     germane expenditures so that I can receive the reward for 
     voice and vote in the union business associated with the 
     germane.
       I am currently a participant for Option B, and I appear 
     before this committee today to exercise Option C.
       It is my understanding that Organized Labor will oppose 
     this legislation. I find this to be an interesting position, 
     because it will not outlaw expenditures, only require consent 
     from each member. If Labor is convinced that the membership 
     supports their non-germane spending, they should also be 
     convinced that the consent to continue, and even an increase 
     in this spending should be very easy to obtain. I have no 
     pride in the 35 Million Dollar attack on members of Congress 
     in the election of last fall. I was disgusted to watch the 
     misleading television ads attacking decent members of 
     Congress, and I know many of my co-workers feel the same. On 
     the other hand, an active campaign has begun to garner 
     support for changes to the Federal Aviation Regulations, a 
     bill to equalize regulations between domestic and foreign 
     Aviation Repair Stations, this is a political expenditure 
     that myself, and my co-workers must spend whatever it takes 
     to seek support, this is one issue I should not oppose 
     expenditures and volunteer funds for. This is where I stop 
     and think to myself . . . why does everything require 
     political funding for passage? Or, why don't we just do the 
     right thing for the voter anymore? However, these hearings 
     are not about Federal Aviation Regulation changes, Republican 
     vs. Democrat, Pro-Union vs. Anti-Union, Right-to-Work Laws 
     vs. Union Security Agreements. The issue is about allowing 
     a union member to object to political expenditures and 
     retain the right to vote on issues associated with the 
     germane expenditures of the union that he will fund 
     regardless of which option described above is exercised.
       I feel privileged to sit before this committee today, as 
     the debate over the campaign finance becomes the focus of our 
     government. Very few Americans today believe that a single 
     voter as myself without a huge bankroll of cash to fund the 
     next campaign could ever reach this level of participation. I 
     have already, and will continue to spread the word that 
     indeed with persistence and knowledge of the issue, a 
     constituent is still welcome on the hill.
       I believe very strongly that the Paycheck Protection Act 
     introduced by Senator Nickles is the answer to my woe as a 
     union member. I can object to the collection by intimidation 
     of my hard earned money for political views and agendas I 
     oppose, yet continue to have involvement and support those 
     affairs of my union that I have no opposition to. It is 
     refreshing to see that my Senator, has the insight and 
     courage to help the union members of this country by 
     authoring ``the Paycheck Protection Act'' Senate Bill No. 9.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that Tom Perez on my staff be 
given floor privileges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________