It’s worth noting that even if employees choose to withdraw from automatic dues payments, the unions are still legally obligated to represent them.
2011 has been a year where state battles have raged over "paycheck protection" laws, the deceptively named bills aimed at stripping unions of their right to collect union dues directly from members' paychecks. Paycheck deception, as opponents call it, became law in Kansas, was pushed for desperately by conservatives in Florida, and was most recently derailed in Maine. Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Ohio, Michigan and Washington are among the states with paycheck deception already in place.
Now, a Washington Post story reports, South Carolina freshman Congressman, Tim Scott (R), has introduced the deceptively re-named Empower Employees Act, which would prohibit the collection of union dues from federal employees' paychecks. In his press release, Scott notes that "Sen. Jim DeMint (SC) will be introducing companion legislation when the Senate reconvenes."
Matthew Biggs, political and legislative director of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, told WaPo that the bill is "union-busting at its best."
The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), a union representing 110,000+ government workers, echoed Biggs' sentiment in a press release:
“The deceptively-named ‘Empower Employees Act’ is union busting in its purest form. The ‘Bust Federal Workers’ Rights Act,’ as it should rightfully be called, seeks to deprive federal workers of their right to a union voice in the workplace by stripping them of the ability to have dues deducted from their paycheck.
It is laughable that the Congressman would suggest that this bill increases federal employees’ rights in the workplace. By law, all federal union membership is completely voluntary. No employee can pay union dues without proactively approaching the union and submitting a form to their agency expressing their will to do so. Congressman Scott and his Republican colleagues know this, but they’re not letting that get in the way of busting federal unions.
Let me be clear: the sole intent of this proposal is to make it as difficult as possible for federal workers to form or join a union. This proposal is straight out of the Scott Walker union-busting handbook, and we will not stand for it. When narrow-minded, ideologically-driven partisan politics trump workers’ rights, everybody loses.
But paycheck deception was not the only House attack on federal workers this week. A brutal, job-slashing measure that would enforce a 1-in-for-every-3-out rule on the Federal level was also introduced:
Three high-ranking Republican members of the House of Representatives yesterday introduced the 2011 Reducing the Size of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act, a bill that would force agencies to hire only one new employee for every three who retire. Introduced by Darrell Issa (R-CA), Dennis Ross (R-FL), and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the proposed legislation would mandate that the federal workforce be reduced by 10 percent – or 200,000 full time equivalents – by the beginning of 2015.
Though this is not the first time members of the House majority have sought to cut the federal workforce, it appears to be the most serious. At a congressional hearing last week, two Republican members of the House advocated for their bills to institute a government-wide hiring freeze, and a one-for-two attrition rate, respectively.
How's that for job-creation!?
The NFFE website, which ran the above excerpt, adds that "in spite of the high costs and reduced services that come with the mass elimination of federal jobs, the House majority is nonetheless determined to institute a sweeping policy to abruptly slash the federal workforce. If their intent is to reduce the workforce, they have a responsibility to the American people to explain the consequences of their actions."
WaPo columnist Joe Davidson, in yet another article this week, compared House activity to "Chinese water torture," saying "the House Republican approach to issues affecting federal employees is a steady stream of niggling hits at their pay, benefits and now their labor organizations." The attack du jour in Davidson's piece surrounds something called "official time," characterized by Davidson as legislation that "would severely limit the ability of labor representatives to do union work on government time." The goal of the bill, presumably, is prevent union leaders from performing work that the government considers to be against what it finds to be in its best interest. This might include fighting paycheck deception and job-slashing attrition laws. Read Davidson's entire article HERE