Paycheck Protection

Basics

“Paycheck Protection” is an effort to undermine labor’s political clout by dramatically limiting the ability of labor unions to collect (and spend) union dues for any broadly defined “political” purpose. As it stands, labor’s political spending is already sharply constrained: The Taft-Hartley Act (1947) prohibits direct spending on federal candidates or campaigns. The Federal Election Campaign Act (1971) allowed labor unions to create political action committees (PACs), but also required them to fund PACs with voluntary, non-dues contributions. A string of Supreme Court cases (covering railway workers [1961], public sector workers [1977], and private sector workers [1988]) gave non-members covered by union contracts (many of whom pay reduced “agency fees” dues for representation) the right to opt out of political spending. In 2007, the court upheld a Washington State law which took this one step further by requiring public sector worker to “opt-in” to any political spending. In recent years, “paycheck protection’’ proposals—drafted, funded, and promoted by right-wing groups—have pressed to embed this in state law (see “Current” tab for details).

Current

Paycheck deception laws and proposals vary somewhat in approach:  Those targeting public sector unions and their members include not just “paycheck protection” efforts to segregate and limit political spending but more sweeping efforts (as in Wisconsin) to end all automatic dues deduction. Those targeting private sector workers (often dubbed “the voluntary contribution act”) force unions to manage political spending through voluntary contributions to a separate account. As of last fall, six states hade some form of “paycheck protection” in place: Washington, Michigan, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Ohio. Despite a concerted effort by ALEC and others to push model legislation in this area after the 2010 elections, new laws passed only in Alabama (covering public sector workers) and Arizona (covering all workers).

 

 

FAQ

Shouldn’t political contributions by voluntary?

Yes, of course. But organizations take political positions on behalf of their members all the time.  Paycheck protection singles out unions and union members for burdensome restrictions that don’t apply to the shareholders of corporations or the members of other organizations (like the NRA or the AARP). Indeed, of all these groups, unions already offer extensive protection of individual rights: Union members choose whether to join the union, set their own dues, elect their own leaders and vote on where and how their money will be spent. Because paycheck protection targets only unions, its real impact (and intent) is to further skew political spending (in which corporate interest outspend unions almost 20-1).

Can’t unions separate their bargaining and political activities?

Not really.  While proponents of paycheck protection like to portray union dues as little more than a Democratic slush fund, they are actually targeting the labor movement’s broader political influence—as a voice for working families, as an advocate for decent working conditions.  Union participation in campaigns and elections is well-regulated by existing law.  These laws seek to silence working women and men and their unions.

 

Learn More

The AFL-CIO’s “States of Denial” project tracks recent state efforts to enact paycheck protection; ballot measures are tracked by Ballotpedia.  The web resource “ALEC Exposed” has the text of various model bills pressed by the right wing group. For a concise summary of the goal of paycheck protection laws, from the beginnings of the right’s campaign in the late 1990s, see Robert Dreyfuss, “Paycheck Protection Racket,” Mother Jones (1998).

 

Recent Research Highlights

Better Jobs for In-Home Direct Care Workers

Added August 22, 2011 Source: COWS
Issue: Family Leave, Health Care, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Paid Sick Leave, Paycheck Protection, Retirement Security, Spotlight on Inequality, Wage Theft, Workforce Development
State: Wisconsin

By: Laura Dresser and Adrienne Pagac Direct care workers labor in the homes of the elderly, frail, and people with disabilities, to provide them with critical hands-on care and support to lead independed lives. This paper offers data on the in-home direct care workforce, wages and benefits in those jobs, and discusses issues related to working conditions

Read More

Cities and Jobs: Local Strategies for Improving Job Quality and Access

Added August 22, 2011 Source: COWS
Issue: Minimum Wage, Other, Overtime, Paycheck Protection, Prevailing Wages, Wage Theft
State: Wisconsin

By: Pablo Mitnik In spite of the extraordinarily high productivity of U.S workers, a large share of the country’s workers hold bad jobs. These low-wage workers are not mainly teenagers without economic responsibilities, as is often claimed. Most are adults, most are married or have been married, and there is good evidence that the low

Read More

Research Summary: Wisconsin public-sector workers are under-compensated compared to their private-sector counterparts

Added August 22, 2011 Source: COWS
Issue: Health Care, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Paycheck Protection, Prevailing Wages, Project Labor Agreements, Public Sector Bargaining, Retirement Security, Right to Work, Spotlight on Inequality, The Great Recession, Unemployment Insurance, Wage Theft, What Do Unions Do?
State: Wisconsin

Read More

The Wisconsin Retirement System Is One of the Healthiest in the Country (March 2011)

Added August 22, 2011 Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research, COWS
Issue: Child Care, Family Leave, Health Care, Paid Sick Leave, Paycheck Protection, Project Labor Agreements, Public Sector Bargaining, Retirement Security, Spotlight on Inequality, The Great Recession, What Do Unions Do?
State: Wisconsin

Read More

The Wisconsin Values Budget: Better Choices for Wisconsin

Added August 22, 2011 Source: COWS
Issue: Budget Basics, Child Care, Family Leave, Health Care, Other, Paid Sick Leave, Paycheck Protection, Prevailing Wages, Privatization, Project Labor Agreements, Public Sector Bargaining, Retirement Security, Revenue Options, Right to Work, Spotlight on Inequality, The Great Recession, Unemployment Insurance, What Do Unions Do?
State: Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Values Budget is a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges that demonstrates Governor Scott Walker’s choices are not necessary choices. Through sacrifice that is fairly shared, and by building on Wisconsin’s history of progressive innovation, we can maintain and further improve public structures that work for everyone. The Wisconsin Values Budget, unlike the

Read More

Wisconsin’s Jobs: Don’t Credit (or Blame) Walker Where He Has No Real Influence

Added August 22, 2011 Source: COWS
Issue: Other, Paycheck Protection, Prevailing Wages, Project Labor Agreements, Public Sector Bargaining, Right to Work, The Great Recession, What Do Unions Do?
State: Wisconsin

Governor Scott Walker promised in his campaign to “create” 250,000 jobs during his first term, and his press office and the media regularly measure progress towards this goal. However, this brief says that Governor Scott Walker should not get credit (or blame) for overall jobs numbers in Wisconsin. These numbers are almost entirely driven by

Read More

Wisconsin’s Public Employees: A Foundation for Quality of Life in the State

Added August 22, 2011 Source: COWS
Issue: Budget Basics, Health Care, Paycheck Protection, Prevailing Wages, Privatization, Project Labor Agreements, Public Sector Bargaining, Retirement Security, Revenue Options, Right to Work, Spotlight on Inequality, The Great Recession, Unemployment Insurance, What Do Unions Do?
State: Wisconsin

In this brief, we offer data on public-sector workers — their pay relative to the private-sector workforce, the size of Wisconsin’s public workforce over time, and analysis of what the wage reductions in the 2011-13 budget will cost different public workers — and data on the most most important cause of the state’s budget deficit:

Read More