TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Congressional Record
105th-106th Congress (1997-1998)
On June 25th, 1997 Testimony was given before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee by TWU Local 514 Member David Stewart. On July 08, 1997 Senator Don Nickles entered that testimony into the 105th-106th Congressional Record. The testimony was in regards to Senate Bill 9 "Paycheck Protection Act"
ARE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS VOLUNTARY? (Senate - July 08, 1997)
Senator Don Nickles from Oklahoma:
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. David Stewart and millions of workers like him, who hold their political freedoms in this country in the highest regard, I send the June 25, 1997 Rules Committee testimony of Mr. David Stewart of Owasso, Oklahoma to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Testimony of David Stewart , Transport Workers Union of America-Local 514, regarding Senate Bill S. 9, the Paycheck Protection Act
My name is David Stewart , I am a member of the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 514 located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I am here today to support changes in legislation that will protect the hard earned money of myself, and my co-workers. We are tired of funding political agendas and/or candidates that we do not endorse or vote for. I want to first make the point that I am not anti-union, I have received decent wages and benefits as a result of my membership with the T.W.U. and believe that union membership is beneficial and would recommend that all working men and women of the United States join in a union.
Let me submit a brief overview of my history in Organized Labor. I became a union member (Transport Workers Union of America) in September 1983, when I was hired as a welder at American Airlines Inc. I was very interested in the affairs of the union and attended all union meetings and quickly became a Shop Steward around December 1983. As my interest continued, I was offered Labor Study classes in the evenings at Tulsa Junior College in 1984. I accepted and attended the following courses: History, Organization, and Functions of Unions, Labor and Politics, Labor Laws, and Grievance Handling and Arbitration.
In 1985-86 I was elected Vice-President of the Northeastern Oklahoma Labor Council. This was a very short lived position as I am the father of three boys and the time needed to perform these duties conflicted with my requirements as a father and resigned this position after about eight months. In any event, my involvement with the union continued as a member. I continued my duties as Shop Steward and was very involved with the Political Wing of the Union. This Political Wing has a `sign
factory' behind the Union Hall where volunteers print, assemble, and distribute yard signs for political campaigns. I spent many hours in this building learning of political issues and candidates that the union supported.
In 1991, I transferred to a newly created local in Fort Worth, Texas. As I spent time away from Tulsa and the strong political wing of the Tulsa local union, my personal political views began to change toward a more conservative position and I began to realize that I really do not agree with some of the agendas and the candidates that the union endorses. Yet, we are all required to fund these agendas and campaigns just by virtue of our membership in the union. As I searched for relief from this unjust requirement, I found out about the `Beck Supreme Court Decision' which in effect gives a union member the right to a refund of the non-bargaining expenditures of the union. The problem is, I must relinquish my union membership and the rights associated with that membership to seek this refund. It is absurd to require me to fund the contract bargaining, contract enforcement and administration of the Local, yet require me to forfeit my rights to a voice in these affairs, only because I oppose the political expenditures of the union. I still attend the union meetings and enjoy having a voice in the affairs of the union and my career, I am not willing to give up this activity to receive the refund afforded me by the `Beck Decision.'
In September of 1996, I transferred back to Tulsa as a Crew Chief. I have duties and responsibilities covering the assignments of 20 mechanics and welders. I have attended about six union meetings in the past eight months, I have had no conflicts with the union that would influence my decision to come to Washington and testify. I would like to believe that my status as a union member of the T.W.U. will not be affected by my testimony before this committee.
My options under current law are best described as follows:
Option A:
During the month of January, of any given year I can send a notice of my objection to the International Secretary Treasurer. I must first assume non-member status in my union. I am required to renew this objection in January of each year to object for the subsequent twelve months. As an objector, I shall have neither a voice nor a vote in the internal affairs of the Local Union or of the International Union; nor shall I have a voice or a vote in the ratification of or in any matter connected with the collective bargaining agreement, whether or not it covers my employment. My paycheck shall continue to have a fee equal to full union dues deducted by my employer and transmitted to the union. The Local and the International, place these fees in an
interest bearing escrow account. After completion of an audit, I will receive a rebate equal to an amount ascribed by the audit to non-chargeable activities. This rebate of course does not include any portion of the interest applied to the escrow account. I can at my own expense challenge the validity of the audit. This procedure is very cumbersome and probably cost more than the challenge would change the audit report.
Option B:
I can continue to fund all of the non-germane and political expenditures of my union. This option allows me to maintain the very important voice and vote in the affairs of the Local and International Union. More importantly, as a bonus for funding these activities, I have a voice and a vote in the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement. It should be pointed out here, that I will fund the collective bargaining process regardless of which option I choose. I only get a voice and a vote as a reward for funding the other non-germane expenses.
Option C:
Seek assistance from my government representatives and attempt to get the laws changed that hold my voice and vote hostage as a result of the Supreme Court Beck Decision of 1988. The bottom line is this, I continue to fund the non-germane expenditures so that I can receive the reward for voice and vote in the union business associated with the germane.
I am currently a participant for Option B, and I appear before this committee today to exercise Option C.
It is my understanding that Organized Labor will oppose this legislation. I find this to be an interesting position, because it will not outlaw expenditures, only require consent from each member. If Labor is convinced that the membership supports their non-germane spending, they should also be convinced that the consent to continue, and even an increase in this spending should be very easy to obtain. I have no pride in the 35 Million Dollar attack on members of Congress in the election of last fall. I was disgusted to watch the misleading television ads attacking decent members of Congress, and I know many of my co-workers feel the same. On the other hand, an active campaign has begun to garner support for changes to the Federal Aviation Regulations, a bill to equalize regulations between domestic and foreign Aviation Repair Stations, this is a political expenditure that myself, and my co-workers must spend whatever it takes to seek support, this is one issue I should not oppose expenditures and volunteer funds for. This is where I stop and think to myself . . . why does everything require political funding for passage? Or, why don't we just do the right thing for the voter anymore? However, these hearings are not about Federal Aviation
Regulation changes, Republican vs. Democrat, Pro-Union vs. Anti-Union, Right-to-Work Laws vs. Union Security Agreements. The issue is about allowing a union member to object to political expenditures and retain the right to vote on issues associated with the germane expenditures of the union that he will fund regardless of which option described above is exercised.
I feel privileged to sit before this committee today, as the debate over the campaign finance becomes the focus of our government. Very few Americans today believe that a single voter as myself without a huge bankroll of cash to fund the next campaign could ever reach this level of participation. I have already, and will continue to spread the word that indeed with persistence and knowledge of the issue, a constituent is still welcome on the hill.
I believe very strongly that the Paycheck Protection Act introduced by Senator Nickles is the answer to my woe as a union member. I can object to the collection by intimidation of my hard earned money for political views and agendas I oppose, yet continue to have involvement and support those affairs of my union that I have no opposition to. It is refreshing to see that my Senator, has the insight and courage to help the union members of this country by authoring `the Paycheck Protection Act' Senate Bill No. 9.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that Tom Perez on my staff be given floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
105th-106th Congress (1997-1998)
On June 25th, 1997 Testimony was given before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee by TWU Local 514 Member David Stewart. On July 08, 1997 Senator Don Nickles entered that testimony into the 105th-106th Congressional Record. The testimony was in regards to Senate Bill 9 "Paycheck Protection Act"
ARE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS VOLUNTARY? (Senate - July 08, 1997)
Senator Don Nickles from Oklahoma:
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. David Stewart and millions of workers like him, who hold their political freedoms in this country in the highest regard, I send the June 25, 1997 Rules Committee testimony of Mr. David Stewart of Owasso, Oklahoma to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Testimony of David Stewart , Transport Workers Union of America-Local 514, regarding Senate Bill S. 9, the Paycheck Protection Act
My name is David Stewart , I am a member of the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 514 located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I am here today to support changes in legislation that will protect the hard earned money of myself, and my co-workers. We are tired of funding political agendas and/or candidates that we do not endorse or vote for. I want to first make the point that I am not anti-union, I have received decent wages and benefits as a result of my membership with the T.W.U. and believe that union membership is beneficial and would recommend that all working men and women of the United States join in a union.
Let me submit a brief overview of my history in Organized Labor. I became a union member (Transport Workers Union of America) in September 1983, when I was hired as a welder at American Airlines Inc. I was very interested in the affairs of the union and attended all union meetings and quickly became a Shop Steward around December 1983. As my interest continued, I was offered Labor Study classes in the evenings at Tulsa Junior College in 1984. I accepted and attended the following courses: History, Organization, and Functions of Unions, Labor and Politics, Labor Laws, and Grievance Handling and Arbitration.
In 1985-86 I was elected Vice-President of the Northeastern Oklahoma Labor Council. This was a very short lived position as I am the father of three boys and the time needed to perform these duties conflicted with my requirements as a father and resigned this position after about eight months. In any event, my involvement with the union continued as a member. I continued my duties as Shop Steward and was very involved with the Political Wing of the Union. This Political Wing has a `sign
factory' behind the Union Hall where volunteers print, assemble, and distribute yard signs for political campaigns. I spent many hours in this building learning of political issues and candidates that the union supported.
In 1991, I transferred to a newly created local in Fort Worth, Texas. As I spent time away from Tulsa and the strong political wing of the Tulsa local union, my personal political views began to change toward a more conservative position and I began to realize that I really do not agree with some of the agendas and the candidates that the union endorses. Yet, we are all required to fund these agendas and campaigns just by virtue of our membership in the union. As I searched for relief from this unjust requirement, I found out about the `Beck Supreme Court Decision' which in effect gives a union member the right to a refund of the non-bargaining expenditures of the union. The problem is, I must relinquish my union membership and the rights associated with that membership to seek this refund. It is absurd to require me to fund the contract bargaining, contract enforcement and administration of the Local, yet require me to forfeit my rights to a voice in these affairs, only because I oppose the political expenditures of the union. I still attend the union meetings and enjoy having a voice in the affairs of the union and my career, I am not willing to give up this activity to receive the refund afforded me by the `Beck Decision.'
In September of 1996, I transferred back to Tulsa as a Crew Chief. I have duties and responsibilities covering the assignments of 20 mechanics and welders. I have attended about six union meetings in the past eight months, I have had no conflicts with the union that would influence my decision to come to Washington and testify. I would like to believe that my status as a union member of the T.W.U. will not be affected by my testimony before this committee.
My options under current law are best described as follows:
Option A:
During the month of January, of any given year I can send a notice of my objection to the International Secretary Treasurer. I must first assume non-member status in my union. I am required to renew this objection in January of each year to object for the subsequent twelve months. As an objector, I shall have neither a voice nor a vote in the internal affairs of the Local Union or of the International Union; nor shall I have a voice or a vote in the ratification of or in any matter connected with the collective bargaining agreement, whether or not it covers my employment. My paycheck shall continue to have a fee equal to full union dues deducted by my employer and transmitted to the union. The Local and the International, place these fees in an
interest bearing escrow account. After completion of an audit, I will receive a rebate equal to an amount ascribed by the audit to non-chargeable activities. This rebate of course does not include any portion of the interest applied to the escrow account. I can at my own expense challenge the validity of the audit. This procedure is very cumbersome and probably cost more than the challenge would change the audit report.
Option B:
I can continue to fund all of the non-germane and political expenditures of my union. This option allows me to maintain the very important voice and vote in the affairs of the Local and International Union. More importantly, as a bonus for funding these activities, I have a voice and a vote in the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement. It should be pointed out here, that I will fund the collective bargaining process regardless of which option I choose. I only get a voice and a vote as a reward for funding the other non-germane expenses.
Option C:
Seek assistance from my government representatives and attempt to get the laws changed that hold my voice and vote hostage as a result of the Supreme Court Beck Decision of 1988. The bottom line is this, I continue to fund the non-germane expenditures so that I can receive the reward for voice and vote in the union business associated with the germane.
I am currently a participant for Option B, and I appear before this committee today to exercise Option C.
It is my understanding that Organized Labor will oppose this legislation. I find this to be an interesting position, because it will not outlaw expenditures, only require consent from each member. If Labor is convinced that the membership supports their non-germane spending, they should also be convinced that the consent to continue, and even an increase in this spending should be very easy to obtain. I have no pride in the 35 Million Dollar attack on members of Congress in the election of last fall. I was disgusted to watch the misleading television ads attacking decent members of Congress, and I know many of my co-workers feel the same. On the other hand, an active campaign has begun to garner support for changes to the Federal Aviation Regulations, a bill to equalize regulations between domestic and foreign Aviation Repair Stations, this is a political expenditure that myself, and my co-workers must spend whatever it takes to seek support, this is one issue I should not oppose expenditures and volunteer funds for. This is where I stop and think to myself . . . why does everything require political funding for passage? Or, why don't we just do the right thing for the voter anymore? However, these hearings are not about Federal Aviation
Regulation changes, Republican vs. Democrat, Pro-Union vs. Anti-Union, Right-to-Work Laws vs. Union Security Agreements. The issue is about allowing a union member to object to political expenditures and retain the right to vote on issues associated with the germane expenditures of the union that he will fund regardless of which option described above is exercised.
I feel privileged to sit before this committee today, as the debate over the campaign finance becomes the focus of our government. Very few Americans today believe that a single voter as myself without a huge bankroll of cash to fund the next campaign could ever reach this level of participation. I have already, and will continue to spread the word that indeed with persistence and knowledge of the issue, a constituent is still welcome on the hill.
I believe very strongly that the Paycheck Protection Act introduced by Senator Nickles is the answer to my woe as a union member. I can object to the collection by intimidation of my hard earned money for political views and agendas I oppose, yet continue to have involvement and support those affairs of my union that I have no opposition to. It is refreshing to see that my Senator, has the insight and courage to help the union members of this country by authoring `the Paycheck Protection Act' Senate Bill No. 9.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that Tom Perez on my staff be given floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
