Geoff Metcalf 
KSFO Radio 

February 16, 1998 
 

Once upon a time, not too long ago, and not that far away,  the American worker was being abused by a management class.  Factory owners subscribed to that special "Golden Rule"/The guy with the gold makes the rules.  There was routine and consistent abuse of power under the presumed color of authority (sound familiar?).  In order to redress wrongs, and provide a forum for good faith negotiations, the Labor movement was born. 

However, the axiom of power corrupting,  and absolute power corrupting absolutely,  is not restricted to just the political arena.  In many ways, today’s national labor leaders have become the very evil for which the labor movement was supposed to be the antidote. 

Proposition 226 is designed to require labor unions to get individual approval from members before union dues can be used for political activities. This seems reasonable.  Not all members of unions subscribe to the political philosophies of the overpaid union leadership.  Given the over two million union members in California, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in dues, unions have enjoyed huge lobbying clout. 

The prospect of  having to annually get permission from the mere rank and file,  could significantly erode the lobbying clout of labor, and the leaders don't like that.  Having tasted the power and leverage of buying politicians who stay bought, national labor leaders intend to fight Proposition 226 in California. 

Now think about this a bit.....Unions are supposed to represent their membership.  The nexus of a union is to  protect the worker, to represent the members interest.  However, what if the members interest is contrary to that of the big shot leaders? 

Labor's elitist leaders have announced they will spend some $8-million or more, of their members dues, to prevent their members from being able to provide input on how the members dues money is spent.  The irony of this smacks of an Ionessco play.  Union honchos, whose job it is to represent the wishes of their members and protect their members from management abuse, have announced they will spend over $8-million of their members money to prevent their members from deciding how to spend the members money.  What's wrong with this picture? 

By the way, California is not the Lone Ranger with this issue.  Eighteen other states have or are addressing the same issue.  Michigan and Washington have already approved similar measures. 

The myopic arrogance of the AFL-CIO  is astonishing.   First their political director Steve Rosenthal calls Prop 226 "...the worst assault (on labor) in 18 years."  Then he parrots Hillary by saying "...there really does seem to be a right wing conspiracy out to do in the labor movement."  But the height of absurdity comes from an AFL-CIO lawyer who said "These measures obviously strike at the heart of the First Amendment activities."  BULLFEATHERS. 

If anything, the concept of permitting members to decide what political activity to support and how to fund it, is precisely supported by the First Amendment.  Conversely, refusing to allow members to decide for what purposes their dues money is being spent, appears to directly offend the First Amendment and undermine the dues paying union members constitutional rights.