• Comment (4)

Fight Over Union Rights Enters Super Bowl Huddle

Super Bowl ad part of $10 million campaign to change federal union organizing law

February 6, 2012 RSS Feed Print

One political organization refrained from keeping their political message on the sidelines during this year's Super Bowl.

In addition to Michigan Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra's controversial campaign ad, some football watchers also saw the fight over union rights elevated to the national stage Sunday. A TV ad aired during the game blasted unions for spending their dues on political candidates, and pressed for the passage of the Employee Rights Act, a bill which would scale back union power across the country.

[See the latest political cartoons.]

The ad only ran in the Washington, D.C. metro area, and is part of a $10 million campaign from the Center for Union Facts, an advocacy group which has blasted the major labor unions in the past, including one ad which compared union leadership to Kim Jong Il.

The ad campaign comes at a time when state-level campaigns to reform—or roll back, depending on who you ask—union rights are picking up full steam. Two weeks ago, Indiana became the first "right to work" Rust Belt state, allowing employees to opt out of union membership and avoid paying dues, even if their company is unionized. That fight was only the latest in several state skirmishes across the country over the organizing rights of workers, both within and outside of government. But so far, that fight has stayed limited on the national level, with most of the ideological fights focused the National Labor Relations Board.

[See pictures of the 2012 GOP candidates.]

While conservatives have long pushed for a national right-to-work law, the Employee Rights Act falls short of that goal. However, it would put significant restrictions on current labor activities, and would also require unions to re-certify with their members every three years. It would also require unions to receive "opt-in" permission from their members to use their dues for political campaigning, rather than the current "opt-out" method.

The bill was introduced by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch from Utah—a right-to-work state—but has mostly been gathering dust in a Senate controlled by Democrats. Even officials with the Center for Union Facts admit that there is no legislative push to correspond with their ad campaign.

"It's certainly an uphill battle," says Matthew Harakal, a spokesman for Hatch. Harakal said that the senator was looking to attach pieces of the bill to other legislation. If Republicans win big in November, supporters of the bill are expecting it to rise to the top of the national agenda.

aparker@usnews.com

Twitter: @AlexParkerDC

Tags:
unions,
football

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

There are horror stories in every organization, and unions are no different from corporations, hedge funds, executive boards and community groups (political or apolitical); but why all the hate for unions? Because they support Democrats?

You see, I find it hard to believe that the people behind this bill have the interest of Joe the Plumber or his associates, let alone the families these people may have. The CEO of every corporation certainly doesn't. So why doesn't congress or a group like the one behind this bill lobby to strip the CEO and his associates of the power to grant themselves unbelievable benefits that range to 400x's the average salary of one of their workers as well as unlimited medical benefits and golden parachutes to boot?

It's all about equality. But then again, unions are at least transparent when they take your money. Corporations just never give you a raise or they fire you if you're making too much that takes away from their boy's club at the top floor. Haha, come to think of it, none of that money even goes towards fighting for you and your rights as a worker.

takakupo of CA 2:06AM February 12, 2012

Marguarite, what you call for is already the case. No one is arguing for union representation of non-union employees.

Filby of IN 1:07AM February 09, 2012

If a worker does not want to pay union dues and still wants to work in a union shop ,then that worker should never have the protection of a union contract or benefits that union workers negotiated for,,,not even the grievance procedure,,,no union rep should ever represent a non union,non dues employee or a non union or non dues paying employee recieve anything that is in a union contract,,,,

Marguarite d. Kyer of IN 4:32PM February 08, 2012

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos