[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              WHY I INTRODUCED THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, no one 
would argue against an individual's right to deny the use of his money 
to support a cause he opposed. The very idea of being coerced into 
doing so violates the basic tenets of a democratic society. But what if 
the consequences of protecting this right were to cost powerful labor 
unions a great measure of influence they wield in Washington?
  Suddenly, as one might have guessed, the issue becomes muddied with 
flawed rhetoric and vitriol. Indeed, the principle of involuntary 
contributions is at the center of the debate over the Paycheck 
Protection Act currently being considered by Congress.
  The act, which I authored and introduced along with 161 other 
cosponsors, would require explicit consent from American workers to 
allow use of their wages for political purposes. Though aimed at union 
abuses, the bill also applies to corporations.
  Not surprisingly, union-friendly forces in Congress have variously 
referred to the act as a violation of unions' rights. Some say it's 
partisan retribution for the $400 million unions spent bashing 
Republicans in the 1996 elections.
  Opponents also claim the act is redundant because of the Supreme 
Court's 1988 Beck decision ruling that forbids involuntary political 
union contributions. Each of these arguments is very weak and upon 
closer examination, simply falls apart.
  Claims that the Paycheck Protection Act would limit unions' free 
speech ignore the fact that unions use other peoples' money--including 
that of conservative Republicans--to support liberal candidates. In 
fact, the act does not forbid the unions continuing this practice. It 
merely requires that union bosses and corporations first have written 
permission from the individual worker whose wages are withheld and 
spent on politics. Of course, union bosses retain the ability to make 
``soft money'' contributions, but they do not have the right to 
unilaterally appropriate their members' salaries for the same purpose.
  Union leaders and their supporters also argue that the Paycheck 
Protection Act is an attempt by Republicans to prevent a repeat of 1996 
when union PAC's spent nearly $50 million on an issue advocacy campaign 
aimed at Republican candidates. The wise should not be persuaded by 
this argument. In the current climate of rabid partisanship, only 
political insiders narrowly view this debate in terms of what will be 
gained or lost by either party.
  What is forgotten however, is that the battle is primarily waged on a 
human level. Indeed the main impetus for reform stems from a legitimate 
concern for individuals--not a political party, union, or corporate 
agenda.
  Oklahoma's Don Nickles, the act's lead sponsor in the Senate, became 
aware of the issue at one of his Tulsa town hall meetings. There, union 
workers, whether Democrat, Republican, or unaffiliated, simply objected 
to having portions of their salaries taken from them, regardless of how 
it's used. For these people--and for many Republicans in Congress--the 
issue begins and ends there.
  In the 1988 Communication Workers versus Beck decision, the Supreme 
Court ruled that unions must return dues used for political purposes to 
those requesting repayment. Currently, these workers' only recourse is 
to apply for a rebate of the money that has already been donated. But 
most unions have created a rebate procedure that is deliberately 
arduous and not often attempted. According to accounts from union 
members who have sought a return of their money, this process can be a 
harrowing one.
  There are widespread reports of harassment of workers who seek a 
rebate. One union member for example, was asked to give up his union 
membership before getting a refund. The National Right to Work 
Committee found that most unions provide a very small period of time 
during which members can apply for the refund.
  Rebates are made even more difficult through the practice of 
publishing obscure notices in union newspapers informing workers of 
these limited time frames. The courts have failed to enforce the Beck 
decision and Congress is right, even obligated to make a stronger 
attempt at justice.
  Unions were founded on the premise that workers need to collectivize 
to preserve their rights in the workplace. The UAW, the AFL-CIO and the 
Teamsters have grown very powerful because millions of Americans have 
put great faith in this notion.
  How ironic it is that the union practice of using involuntarily-
collected member dues to further their political agenda offends the 
very rights they claim to protect. The Paycheck Protection Act is a 
reasonable, sound, and timely response to this abuse.

                          ____________________