Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Jan. 18, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Union squabbling

Worker dues and political activity

The leaders of the Culinary union -- the most powerful association of non-government workers in Nevada and one of the few non-government unions in this country not in decline -- withheld their endorsement for this weekend's Nevada Democratic caucuses till the final days.

The fact that the Culinary's leadership favored freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was an ill-kept secret. The delay was most reasonably attributed to caution: The union bosses wanted to keep open a line of retreat to the Hillary Clinton camp had Sen. Obama fared poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Sen. Obama won in Iowa, and made it close in New Hampshire. The Culinary promptly endorsed him. Now the fact that the state Democratic Party plans a number of "at-large" caucus locations near the major Strip hotels on Saturday -- making it easier for Culinary members who work Saturday shifts to participate -- is seen as favoring Sen. Obama's chances.

Immediately, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the other largest Democratic union in Nevada -- the state teachers union -- challenging the at-large caucus locations.

Most Popular Stories
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism
  • J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth
  • J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
  • JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
  • EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
  • EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
  • LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
  • ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
  • LETTERS: Judge gave drunken driver a wrist slap
  • LETTERS: If you follow orders, no one gets hurt



    • Why? Do individual teachers want some fellow Democrats shut out of the process?

    Highly unlikely.

    Instead, though the teachers may have made no official endorsement, the leadership of the their union clearly favors the candidacy of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, now seen as the loser if the party makes it easier for Culinary workers to flock to the polls Saturday and caucus for Sen. Obama.

    So much for worker solidarity -- let alone the standard Democratic insistence that it should be as easy as possible for everyone to participate in elections.

    On Friday, U.S. District Judge James Mahan ruled against the attempt by the teachers union to block at-large precincts on the Strip. Judge Mahan said the Democratic Party had the right to set its own rules.

    It's a good ruling, not because it helps Sen. Obama (to the extent it really does), but because the judge followed the law.

    What are rank-and-file union members to make of such internecine political squabbling on their dime? What does any of this have to do with the better pay and working conditions most people seek when they join a union?

    In a ruling with more direct relevance to "union shop" states, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 20 years ago that while even non-member workers can be required to pay partial dues to the unions that bargain on their behalf, they can't be required to pay that portion of the union's dues that go to fund partisan political activism.

    That ruling -- Communication Workers v. Beck -- is soundly grounded in the First Amendment. No one can be required to hand over money to someone else, if those funds will then be used to promote political views or causes which are anathema to the person whose money is being used.

    Republicans, who occasionally do the right thing, ordered summaries of the Beck decision to be posted at union workplaces, so workers would know they can apply for a refund of that part of their dues used for politicking with which they disagree. But one of the first things the incoming Clinton Democrats did in 1993 was order such signs taken down -- their union backers were much happier if workers were kept in ignorance of this right.

    The Beck decision is less relevant in Nevada, which fortunately is a right-to-work state. Because no Nevadan can be required to join a union just to get or keep his or her job, disgusted union members here have an even more effective option. They can keep their jobs and quit the union.

    But this inter-union squabbling highlights why it was so important for the court to give members control over whether they want their dues used to support such cynical partisan activities.

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 7 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    tomdc wrote on January 18, 2008 07:01 PM: So then you agree that if a citizen doesn't support a war they should be able to withhold taxes to support that war.

    No one should be forced to pay for something they disagree with.


    John Smallberries wrote on January 18, 2008 04:41 PM: Monica Lewinsky announced her candidacy for President, positioning herself as an alternative to Hillary. "Hey, it worked the first time," she said.


    asoka wrote on January 18, 2008 02:10 PM: I am emailing a link to a video which has not been spoken of in the mainstream media. It raises very serious issues with the Clintons. I hope that you will do what good journalism is supposed to do and verify and investigate. In the 23:00 minute there is Roger Clinton, under police surveillance, snorting cocaine and using the N-word multiple times. I don't need to disseminate what this 56 minute video means. Please take time to watch and notify your state of this aberration.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7349140906801270904&q=mena&total=5509&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4


    douglas wrote on January 18, 2008 11:37 AM: clintons' colors were exposed with the "gotcha question" response regarding legalization, citizenship, enfranchisement, driver's licenses for illegal infiltrators.

    combined with hapless harry reid's "pre-citizens" spin, the current middle class taxprayers massive attacks to their takehome pay.


    John F wrote on January 18, 2008 09:28 AM: From Hillary Clinton's website:

    "Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders and ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country and an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers."

    What's objectionable in that? How is this a call for open borders, amnesty, or instant citizenship for illegal immigrants? Check out your non-progressive John McCain if you want a candidate who's for amnesty. His web site contains a series of evasions and obfuscations on this issue.


    RJ Editors,

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, private sector union membership in the United States actually increased by about 75,000 from 2005 to 2006. Hardly a boom, but I don't know how that leads you to conclude that all but a few non-government unions are in decline. Certainly that's been the case over the last twenty years, but recently the trend seems to have bottomed out and there are definite signs that unions are once again gaining in popularity, especially as more and more service industry jobs go union.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t03.htm


    douglas wrote on January 18, 2008 08:11 AM: what's amusing about union support for the "progressive" candidates is that the party agenda is for open borders and amnesty/instant citizenship for tens of millions of unskilled laborers. add the bazillions who will inundate the u.s. borders, and the base value of menial labor may approach a few dollars an hour. today's illegal infiltrator cash/day labor rate seems to be about $8 an hour. that's with the hundred or two such day laborers loitering about many landscape/nursery centers. that hourly rate must plummet if there are a thousand such laborers instead of only a hundred.

    the good news is that the lower cost of labor to consumers might partially offset the billions of dollars spent on instant, free health and education consumed by the "new" citizens, paid by current taxprayers.


    LittleBird wrote on January 18, 2008 07:54 AM: This is just another little trick in the game of politics to try to thwart your opponent from getting more votes.It just didn't work this time, but the games' not over yet, there's still time for more slime.