Bush OKs Order on Political Use of Union Dues

President Bush ordered the federal government Monday to begin enforcing a Supreme Court decision granting workers greater control over organized labor’s use of political funds--a step seen by critics as an effort to divide workers and union leaders in an election year.

The President signed an executive order that requires employers working for the federal government to remind workers that they are not required to join unions, that non-members can object to the use of mandatory union payments for such purposes as political activities unrelated to collective bargaining and that they can get refunds or reductions in future dues payments when that occurs.

“I want to emphasize that the principles affirmed by (this) decision are precious to all Americans. . . “ Bush said. “Full implementation of this principle will guarantee that no American will have his job or livelihood threatened for refusing to contribute to political activities against his will.”

Key figures in organized labor, beginning with Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, immediately denounced Bush’s move.

“By his obsequious pandering to the ultra-right special interests of his party, the President has given hypocrisy a bad name,” Kirkland said at a news conference. “It is entirely a political gesture.”

Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a written statement that the measure demonstrates that Bush “is more interested in attacking a segment of the population that does not support him,” than in “the rights of workers and those who are unemployed.”

Bush denied that the order was meant to hurt organized labor. After the signing ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House, he was asked if the action amounted to union busting. “We enforce individual rights,” he declared. “Read what I said carefully.”

Added White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater: “Now that we’re into the year of the national political campaign, when these funds are being sought and used most aggressively for political purposes and when the complaints . . . by union members are the highest, we thought it was important to go ahead and do this.”

Specifically, the President’s order would force government agencies to include in contracts a requirement that the companies working for the government tell employees of their rights under the Supreme Court decision.

Thus, they would be told that non-union members must only pay their share of union costs relating to collective bargaining, contract administration and grievances and that--if they have paid for other activities--they may be entitled to a refund and reduction in their dues. Failure to abide by such notification requirements could result in cancellation of a contract.

The President’s order would affect between 2 million and 3 million workers, the White House estimated. It stems from a 1988 decision involving Harry Beck, who in 1968 began a 20-year crusade after objecting to the Communications Workers of America’s use of his union dues to support Hubert H. Humphrey, the Democratic presidential candidate.

By a White House estimate, the decision could cut off as much as $2.4 billion in union funds available for such activities as phone banks and get-out-the-vote operations. The figure represents the maximum amount, if each worker demanded a refund.

Whether Bush had to sign the executive order is open to some question, because the court already had acted. The order was signed with Beck, two Cabinet members and an invited audience that included former Screen Actors Guild President Charlton Heston looking on. The White House argued that the executive order was necessary because workers remained unaware of their rights, and the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor had been slow in enforcing the ruling.

But one lawyer and Democratic Party activist, questioning the need for Bush’s action, said: “Basically, it’s a flimflam, because the court did it. It’s clearly political and he’s trying to beat up on the unions, as Ronald Reagan did.”

Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a statement that the order “is clear evidence that President Bush is playing politics with labor instead of providing real leadership for our workers. If President Bush really cared, he’d be creating jobs for America’s workers instead of picking fights with our unions.”

An AFL-CIO committee has recommended that the organization endorse Clinton’s candidacy, which it is expected to do May 5.

Ironically, when the case was argued before the Supreme Court, the Reagan Administration opposed Beck, arguing that federal labor law allows unions in the private sector to collect dues and spend them as they choose, an argument that outraged conservatives generally allied with the Administration.

The Rose Garden ceremony served as a reminder of the importance to the Bush election campaign of the support, similar to that which Reagan received, from blue-collar Democrats, among them union workers who do not always agree with their leaders on political issues.

According to a Times poll of voters in 1988, Bush won 42% of the votes of union members to 56% for Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. A Times poll, conducted by telephone from March 27 to 29 this year, found that 34% of union members supported Bush, while 58% favored Clinton.

By taking a step adamantly opposed by organized labor, Bush could be giving up a slice of this vote in exchange for gaining more fervent support among anti-labor conservatives.

Union members made up 18% of the nation’s electorate in 1988. Self-styled conservatives amounted to 40% of the vote four years ago and they supported Bush by an overwhelming margin.