Using Union Dues for Political Action

Contrary to what George Will states (Column Right, Feb. 8), the Saddleback Valley Educators Assn. does not force teachers to be members. They are compelled to pay a fair representation fee to cover the cost of contract negotiations and enforcement. They are not forced to contribute to political campaigns.

In our local, we remind members frequently that we have a political action committee. We tell them what its purposes are and inform them about the endorsements made by our 71-member Representative Council. We also let them know how they can opt out of participation. Of the approximately 1,500 employees in our bargaining unit, 1,395 (93%) are members. About 7% have exercised the option not to join (and not to contribute to the PAC), and an additional 2% have indicated their preference not to contribute to our PAC.

The contention that our union spent $70,000 to defeat Frank Ury is demonstrably false. SVEA spent only about half the amount cited by Will in that election, and those funds were contributions to three different candidates. Our support of the candidates equaled about $10 per contributing member per endorsed candidate and had been collected over a two-year period.

Will makes a disingenuous implication that the union exercised undue influence in the election in which Ury was defeated. When put into perspective, a fairer picture emerges. Since school board races receive very little media coverage, about the only way to provide voters with the information they need to get to know the candidates is to use campaign mailers. Our contributions to the three candidates we supported amounted to about 35 cents per registered voter. Ury used basically the same approach and spent about the same amount on his campaign.

GEORGE ANDERSON, President

SVEA, Laguna Hills

* * The so-called Campaign Reform Initiative does absolutely nothing to balance the campaign finance equation. Currently, corporations outspend unions by 17 to 1.

Will contends that CRI “will radically reduce unions’ political muscle, thereby substantially altering politics in the state.” But how will politics be altered? Look at where political money is spent by both unions and corporations. In 1996, more union money in California went to fight an increase in the minimum wage, protect our public schools, to fight to keep daily overtime pay for workers and protect safe working standards.

CRI’s real intention is to have workers and their unions spend countless hours collecting yearly signatures from millions of members before they can contribute to the political process. Corporations, meanwhile, merely have to sign on the dotted line in order to mark their campaign contribution ballot.

CRI is not a pro-worker initiative. It is a deceptive measure being sponsored by special interest groups and right-wing lobbyists.

MIGUEL CONTRERAS

Executive Secretary-Treasurer

Los Angeles County Federation

of Labor, AFL-CIO