The Iowa Union Revolt

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 1/29/04 | David Kendrick

[kattracks]

During the Iowa caucuses, union members' money flowed to Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, while they cast their votes for John Kerry and John Edwards.

Why the paradox? Government unions and service unions like the Service Employees International Union backed Dean. Industrial unions like the Teamsters backed Gephardt. Neither candidate was favored by the rank and file, but that mattered little to the union elite. All that mattered was that union members' dues money there for the taking, so the top brass spent it any way they saw fit.

Most news media focused on the split between the different factions of organized labor. But the real story in Iowa was that 51 percent of the union vote went to Kerry and Edwards, while union-boss favorites Dean and Gephardt garnered only 41 percent, according to the Edison/Mitofskey Iowa Exit Poll. So much for the belief that "labor" is synonymous with "union official."

Union money poured into Iowa from all over the country. Yet members nationwide had no idea how much of their dues was spent on Dean and Gephardt. That's because the financial disclosure forms that unions are required to file with the Department of Labor, called LM-2 forms, require no information as to how much is spent on politicking.

A revised version of LM-2 forms that do require such information was supposed to take effect January 1. But it only took a Big Labor-friendly judge - U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler - to delay their implementation for a year, while union lawyers push to revoke the new forms altogether.

In Iowa, no workers were forced to fund the unions' political operations, thanks to that state's Right to Work law, which guarantees that no person can be compelled to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.

But who paid for the more than 800 organizers brought into Iowa by the "Alliance for Economic Justice," a coalition of major industrial unions, all of whom endorsed Gephardt? The Alliance is not a political action committee, which can only be supported with voluntary contributions, but rather an
"issue advocacy group," whose organizers worked for Gephardt in Iowa. The group presumably (since disclosure forms are nonexistent) gets its money from the general funds of its member unions. And much of that money is derived from the forced union dues of employees in the 28 states that lack Right to Work laws.

And who paid for the Alliance's Iowa director, Brett Voorhies, to work on the Iowa caucus campaign? Most likely, it was rank-and-file members of the steelworkers union.

Voorhies was identified in the press as the legislative and political director of the United Steelworkers of America. And according to the Labor Department, "Brett A. Voorhies" is identified as a "technician" at the Steelworkers' national headquarters in Pittsburgh. So its members - voluntary and involuntarily - are apparently paying Voorhies for his political expertise. The same likely holds true for Chuck Rocha, Gephardt's former labor coordinator. Described in press reports as the Steelworkers' political director, "Charles Rocha" is identified by the Labor Department as a "section head" at the union's Pittsburgh headquarters.

Unfortunately, those who access the Steelworkers' LM-2 form have no idea how much staff salaries were spent in Iowa and the rest of this year's campaign, since the current forms do not require disclosure of unions' political spending.

The new disclosure forms will likely be upheld. But begging Judge Kessler to suspend the forms in this election year amounted to an admission by the union elites. They don't want to explain to their forced dues captives - who don't follow them in lock step to the voting booth - how much they're paying for union politics in 2004.

---

David Kendrick is Director of the Organized Labor Accountability Project of the National Legal and Policy Center, a nonprofit organization tracking union corruption nationwide.

[woofer]

Most likely, it was rank-and-file members of the steelworkers union.

When the Steel Mill two of my brothers worked at closed down two years ago, the Steelworkers told the assembled members to seek out gubmint help, they had nothing for them, but did say that they could continue paying dues, you know, to maintain their "member-in-good-standing" status.

[2banana]

Unions have become so corrupt. Forced membership, threats of violence, a leadership that cares nothing for it's membership, a leadership that supports candidates whom institute legislation that negatively impact jobs, an attitude that corporations are so very bad but whine to the high heavens when those same corporations finally give up and move somewhere else...

[randita]

ping

[codercpc]

For the last two weeks, whenever I saw on TV a couple of "rank and file" union members going door to door, in both Iowa and NH, I asked my husband if they are getting paid to do that. If they are, who is paying them? Also are they doing it on their own time (after work and weekends).

Does any Freeper union member know these answers? This article talks about the union leaders, and the transportation of members, but not about their time.

[Common Tator]

There is an interesting corollary between who the union leaders support and who the rank and file vote for.

In bad economic times or when the members are scared, they vote the union line.

For Example in 1992 the unions voted the union line. The did in 2000 as well.

But in 1980 and 1984 they did not. Reagan I believe got a majority of auto workers votes in 1984.

I do know the Unions had their membership lined up in 2000. They came within 3 points of carrying Ohio when Gore had given up the state 3 weeks before. You can make a pretty good case that if Gore had spent the effort he made in Florida before the election on Ohio he would have won. Remember that Gore broke a long standing tradition of not campaigning on Election day. Gore campaigned on Election day in Florida.

But this year so far Unions have not been able to control their members. They could in 1988 when they gave Iowa to Gephardt. They were saying back in 1980 that Unions had lost control of their members, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000 prove that to not be the case.

What that says is union members are not nearly as concerned about the economy as the media would have you believe. That is not good news for the union leaders or Democrats.