[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AMERICA NEEDS THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 12, 1997

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, during a recent weekend of 
site visits, in the eastern Colorado congressional district I 
represent, a constituent approached me and posed a sensible question, 
``Why am I forced to contribute my hard-earned dollars to my union's 
political activities?'' He went on to explain that for him, every 
paycheck includes a deduction for union dues. These dues pay for legal 
services and collective bargaining costs. Dues, he agrees, are useful 
to promote his trade. He has no problem with union dues so long as they 
are used for their intended purpose.
  He objects, however, to the millions of dollars his union puts toward 
political causes he does not support and at the expense of thousands of 
union members like him. Most union members disagree with giving their 
wages to political activities because they are excluded in deciding how 
their money is spent.
  Something needs to change.
  In 1947 Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act, also 
known as the Taft-Hartley Act. This legislation prohibited so-called 
closed shop workplaces, where one could not be hired without first 
joining a union.
  Calling the act a ``slave labor bill,'' President Harry Truman vetoed 
the measure. Subsequently, Congress voted to override the veto, thereby 
enacting Taft-Hartley into law.
  Convinced the bill would destroy the labor movement, union members 
felt justified in circumventing the legislation. Rather than require 
workers to join the union prior to employment, labor bosses instead 
required union membership after the worker was hired.
  The Taft-Hartley Act challenged the unions' ability to maintain 
membership which no longer rested upon the utility of their 
collectivism, but upon the ability to lobby Congress. Thus, unions 
became proficient political machines.
  Union bosses recruited and supported candidates who would pledge 
allegiance to the unions. In return for loyalty, unions produced money 
and manpower to aid political campaigns. The tactic proved decisive. 
For many years, Congress operated in lockstep with the unions.
  Workers who opposed the unions' political antics turned to the 
Supreme Court. In 1988, the Court ruled in Communications Workers v. 
Beck, 487 U.S. 735, that nonunion members can only be required to pay 
for the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and 
grievance adjustment but not political activities. Unions made little 
effort to educate their members about Beck, and found ways to keep 
workers from exercising their Beck rights.
  Today, many union members continue to pay for more than just 
collective bargaining. They are also paying for politics. During the 
1996 congressional and Presidential campaigns, for example, labor 
unions spent more than $400 million on political activities. A recent 
poll indicated that 68 percent of union members are unaware of the Beck 
decision.
  Testimony before Congress confirms the difficulty workers have had 
exercising their Beck rights. This past spring, worker after worker 
told Congress of the near-impossible task of actually recovering hard-
earned wages.
  Under current laws, the only way some union members can refuse 
contributions to political activities is to quit the union, which also 
means quitting their jobs and risking their livelihoods.
  Saying ``no'' should not come at such a high price. That is why I 
introduced H.R. 2608, the Paycheck Protection Act. The Paycheck 
Protection Act protects workers who are forced to contribute to 
political activities by way of their union dues. The Paycheck 
Protection Act requires separate, prior, written, voluntary 
authorization before any money can be deducted from a wage earner's 
paycheck for political activity. By requiring prior approval, the wage-
earner is given a choice. Furthermore, the bill applies to corporations 
just as it does unions.
  More than one-third of the U.S. House is already cosponsoring the 
Paycheck Protection Act, and over 70 percent of working Americans 
express support for the Paycheck Protection Act. I believe we may 
finally have a chance to help American workers by protecting their 
paychecks.

                          ____________________