labor and november eighth

Are liberals abandoning labor? The editorial boards of stalwart liberal publications like the Los Angeles Times and the Santa Cruz Sentinel have editorialized in favor of proposition 75, the initiative which would hamstring public employee unions in their ability to influence public policy. Citing “out of control” power of public-sector unions and “members’ rights” to control their dues money, our erstwhile friends are working to hand the Governor and his corporate friends a huge victory. This is a huge disappointment. Two facts should be enough for every liberal to work hard to defeat proposition 75:

-Corporations outspend unions 24 to 1 nationally.

-Union leaders are democratically elected by members.

There is an obvious affinity between the cause of labor and the cause of liberalism, though the link isn’t as organic as some might think. American liberalism is, despite its social-democratic inflections, essentially an individualistic philosophy. The big liberal tent includes those who understand broad issues of power in our society, and those who simply do not. For the more “mealy-mouthed” of our liberal friends, proposition 75 makes a sort of dumb sense. Democracy is about choice, and so people should be given the choice of opting in or out of their union’s political agenda.

This is, of course, a very thin understanding of democracy. Reforming the labor movement to more directly involve members is an ongoing and important task. The same is true for advocacy organizations, political parties and the state itself. However, unions are already more democratic, more member-driven and accountable than most other actors in the political sphere. Simply giving people the option of opting in or out of monetary contributions isn’t democracy, and some liberals forgets that.

Of course, as many liberals and feminists are rightly concerned about labor’s relative silence on reproductive choice issues, or it’s reluctance to take on “noneconomic” issues in a meaningful way. This is a conundrum, given the fact that it is precisely when unions strike out on such territory that cynical conservatives trumpet efforts like Proposition 75. However, a truly progressive politics can both support labor, as it is and not merely as we would want it to be, while also fighting for progress on fronts that labor is unwilling or unable to lead in. It’s in everyone’s interests- a weakened labor movement is not good news for middle-class feminists, just as the rise of fundamentalist politics has hurt labor. We’re in it together and its time we started acting like it.

The pro-75 side, has certainly done it’s homework. A mailer which went to union households, and which was financed by employers and Republican donors, features rank-and-file workers complaining about their dues money being used to fund candidates and issues they don’t agree with. It is clearly-argued and reassures its audience that “Prop 75 does not restrict public employee unions from undertaking all the activites they currently do.” It simply requires that unions ask members’ permission to do so. What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with it is that unions would be required to seek such permission every year, an onerous and unique burden. Corporate stockholders aren’t similarly asked, and neither are NRA, Sierra Club or National Right to Life Committee members. People have a choice about joining a union, even where agency-shop agreements require that everyone covered by a union contract pay a service fee to the union. They have the constitutionally-guaranteed right to opt out of the portion of their dues used for political advocacy. Furthermore, campaign-finance laws place heavy restrictions on what unions can use dues money for. Federal races cannot be financed with union dues. Most unions raise special, voluntary, earmarked funds to give to candidates or run political ads. Prop 75 would require annual permission even to use money on lobbying or to do internal political education, two functions that public-sector unions carry out in order to win victories on bread and butter issues like wages, pensions and working hours. Ultimately, the government is our employer. We should have every right to influence its decisions.

The pro-75 lobby is also cynically using rifts in labor to its advantage. If it weren’t abundantly clear that the SEIU-led split in the AFL-CIO was both ill-advised and ill-timed, consider this quote in the abovementioned mailer from “SEIU member and Healthcare Worker” Wanda Ferra: “I want my dues money to go for more organizing, not for some politician. It’s my union and my money. It should be my choice and Proposition 75 will give me that choice.” For the most part, California labor has hung together in fighting the Governor’s agenda. However, this is not the first time that some of Andy Stern’s sloppy rhetoric about “working with management” or moving the focus off of electoral politics has been used against the overall interests of the labor movement.

So, labor has an uphill battle, and it may not be able to count on its liberal friends at this crucial juncture. All the more reason that the focus should be on internal mobilization. A similar initiative in the early 1990’s went down largely due to a last-minute swing in union members’ resolve. A heavy union turnout against 75, especially given the low-turnout expected this year, should put us over the top.

If you are reading this, and are a union member in California, you need to get your ass to a phonebank. Nobody else is going to do it for you.