|
What began as a one-line role in a sitcom for an actress is now a major Supreme Court battle. The question of whether a union can mislead a worker into joining and paying full dues will be put to rest by the high court before the end of the year. Naomi Marquez's ordeal began four years ago when she auditioned for a minor role on the now-defunct Fox TV program, ''Medicine Ball.'' Upon getting the part, she was confronted by Screen Actors Guild officials who demanded she join the union and pay more than $500 -before she even stepped in front of a camera. When Marquez said she couldn't afford to join, her scene was shot with another actress. Marquez lost the job not because she lacked skills or because of a script change. She simply didn't pay tribute to the almighty union. SAG and other unions rationalize such extortion by writing collective-bargaining agreements into contracts. Such clauses demand that workers be union ''members'' to get or keep a job - even a one-day job. Rejecting this union practice, a unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals panel said, ''The only realistic explanation . . . is to mislead employees about their right not to join the union.'' In fact, no one may be forced legally to become a full, formal union member as a condition of employment. The Supreme Court ruled in Communication Workers of America vs. Beck and elsewhere that workers can only be forced to pay a reduced fee for proven collective-bargaining costs. But the National Labor Relations Board and union officials have kept most workers in the dark about their rights. A victory in Marquez would smash a major roadblock that Big Labor and the NLRB have placed in the way of Beck enforcement. Union officials would be forced to expunge all ''mandatory member'' clauses, which are currently contained in nearly 70% of private- sector bargaining agreements. A favorable ruling would void union contracts with these deceitful requirements and make them unenforceable until workers' Beck rights are clearly explained. Big Labor is well aware of the threat this case represents. Just last month, the Supreme Court stopped another common union end run to skirt Beck. In a 7-2 ruling, the high court held in Air Line Pilots Association vs. Miller that union officials can't block employees' access to federal courts in dues challenges. And without ''mandatory member'' clauses in their bargaining agreements, union bosses will lose their license to lie. Union leaders know that if all eligible employees learned of their Beck rights and only 25% of them exercised those rights, they would lose nearly $665 million in annual revenue. A loss of that scale would diminish the AFL-CIO's attempt to buy control of Congress in coming years. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Marquez is fighting for millions of workers also deceived by this union scheme. Despite a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of this deceitful practice - a ruling that directly conflicts with the decisions of two other circuits - supporters of this case were not discouraged by the loss. It's no secret that the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit is often out of touch with the law and the people. It was overturned 19 out of the 20 times the Supreme Court reviewed it last year. While some may be demoralized by the defeat of California's Proposition 226, there are other ways to protect a workers' paycheck. A victory for Naomi Marquez would also be a dream come true for millions of Americans. At last, they would be able to refrain from union activities without fear of losing their jobs. Reed Larson is president of the National Right to Work Foundation in Virginia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |