A Stitch in Haste

To celebrate Labor Day, a labor-oriented post:

In 1988 the Supreme Court handed down a glorious — but incomplete — decision: Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).

The Court held that non-union employees of agency shops could not be required to pay union dues that were spent for political purposes (i.e., they could only be compelled to pay that portion of union dues that represented the bona fide expenses of collective bargaining).

(The agency shop, common in government employment, does not require union membership but does require the payment of a union representation or service fee. The union shop requires union membership.)

A great decision as far as it went — which wasn't nearly far enough.

First, Beck was not decided on constitutional grounds, but merely on provisions of the National Labor Relations Act and the Railroad Labor Act. This despite the fact that it is well-settled law that compelled speech is forbidden under the First Amendment (i.e., you cannot be forced to support, financially or otherwise, a cause that you do not actually advocate).

Second, the Beck decision only concerned non-union employees of agency shops, not employees of union shops.

Since 1988, the law on this subject has hardly evolved, although President Bush did issue an executive order in 2001 requiring employers to notify those employees affected by the decision of their "Beck rights."

That's too bad in the wake of the disaster commonly referred to as McCain-Feingold, as NRO observes:

Meanwhile, so-called "campaign-finance reform" has cleared the path for 527s to receive the millions of dollars in compulsory union dues that were once given directly to the Democratic party in the form of "soft-money" contributions. Accordingly, union officials have set up a number of their own 527s that are becoming, in effect, Big Labor's own political party.

The idea that, in the modern era, unions exist at all, let alone that membership in them can be legally required as a condition of employment, are archaic monstrosities of the highest order. That union dues can be extracted for the sake of the political whims and fancies of union bosses is perhaps one the last great disgraces of American socialism.

Since labor unions are creatures of the state (with emphasis on the word "creature"), there is no rational basis for ascribing them any First Amendment protections. They should be muzzled and their un-American leeching of dues to build warchests for exerting political influence should be terminated.

Perhaps a test case will eventually wind its way through the courts, giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to extend Beck to its full and proper potential. It is now desperately urgent, in the era of the 527, to extend Beck not only to union shop employees, not only to an opt-out provision, but to a flat-out ban on unions using dues to fund contributions to candidates, parties or 527's.

The truly ironic part is, the union members would be the first to agree (who wouldn't want their union dues reduced without any corresponding decrease in direct services provided?).

The NRO piece has more commentary on the generally sorry state of unions in America today — definitely worth a read.

UPDATE: Some more evidence that labor unions are just plain silly in the modern era:

A majority of Americans say they find satisfaction in their jobs, according to an Associated Press poll, though many express concerns about job stress, health care and retirement benefits.
...
As people celebrate Labor Day this weekend, about nine in 10 workers say they find their job at least somewhat satisfying, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. "The level of the public's satisfaction with work is high and has been quite stable for the last 30 years," said Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago.