Thursday, April 16, 1998 | 10:02 a.m.
A political forum discussing the merits of the "Paycheck Protection Plan" being promoted by the Republican Party took on the trappings of a tag-team wrestling match Wednesday, with political columnist Jon Ralston acting more as a referee than a moderator.
The team favoring the GOP initiative, which claims to have the goal of preventing unions from taking money from a worker's check against his will and donating it to a political candidate the worker opposes, was vastly outnumbered by the team opposed to the proposal.
Union leaders and members packed the meeting room at UNLV's Moyer Student Union to hear comments from a five-member panel that included GOP gubernatorial candidate Aaron Russo and Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Charles Muth representing the conservative point of view and Assemblyman Dario Hererra, D-Las Vegas, Paul Brown of the Progressive Leadership Alliance, and AFL-CIO official Danny Thompson representing the more liberal position.
During the 90-minute debate, which turned into a shouting match on several occasions, union members tried relentlessly to pin Russo and Muth to the mat, arguing that the initiative has nothing to do with workers' rights but is a thinly veiled disguise to weaken union involvement in politics.
Russo finally agreed to withdraw his support of the initiative if after researching the issue further it can be proven that union members do not have to provide financial support to candidates against their will.
"I'm very much a constitutionalist," said the volatile candidate, who later expressed the belief that the majority rule practice in this country is a form of communism. "I won't believe anyone has the right to force someone to contribute to a candidate they don't want to contribute to.
"I believe in freedom of the individual before all else."
Muth was unwavering in his support of the initiative.
"This country was founded on individual rights, not group rights," he said.
Muth received the brunt of the verbal attacks from the audience during the forum, which was sponsored by Pi Sigma Alpha, UNLV's political honor society.
"Why are you (union leaders) so afraid to go to your members and ask for contributions?" Muth asked. "Why forcefully take it out of worker's paychecks?"
A machinist rose and began shouting at Muth that no one in the machinist's union is required to donate to a candidate, and in fact before a union member can have his employer withhold money from a check, he must request it.
The GOP activist is involved in the campaign to get the initiative on the ballot in November.
California will vote on a similar proposal in June.
Thompson, political activist director for the Nevada AFL-CIO, claimed many of those who actively support the proposal are deceiving people whom they get to sign their petition.
He called the initiative a hoax that is not about workers' rights or campaign reform but about "silencing working men and women."
Thompson noted that Nevada is a right-to-work state, which means an employee of a company does not have to belong to a union.
If he disagrees with the union, he can quit.
"Unions are democratic organizations," Thompson said. "Members vote on who their leaders are going to be. They go to meetings and express their views and vote for or against a person or issue."
He said 66 percent of union members must vote for a candidate before the union will support the person.
Several in the audience complained that the initiative was directed only at fund-raising and campaign spending by unions and said nothing about corporations.
Muth reiterated a common response to that argument.
"You're comparing apples and oranges," he said, noting that if a corporation contributes funds to a party or candidate the money comes from investors who voluntarily are investing their money in the company.
Many in the audience failed to see the distinction and noted that the reason corporations and such organizations as the National Rifle Association and chambers of commerce were not included in the initiative because they are more likely to contribute to Republican candidates.
Thomas pointed out that unions are private, non-profit organizations capable of making decisions about how to manage their internal affairs without interference from outside political organizations that have their own agendas.
Brown said Muth has never shown any interest in workers' rights, and in fact has insulted them in the past, saying "they should kiss the ground their employer walks on."
Herrera emphasized that freedom of choice is "preserved by the democratic process in labor organizations" and that money is not withheld from employees' checks against their will.
He noted that many Republicans, including Kenny Guinn, also a candidate for governor, are opposed to the issue.
Ralston asked Muth why his group felt compelled to change the way unions run their internal affairs.
"There is no uprising among workers," he said.
"That's not true," Muth responded. "That's where this came from. In 1996 Republican union members objected to the overwhelming support of Democratic candidates by their union."
And, he said, many union members are afraid to voice their support of the initiative for fear of reprisal.
Jerry Penn, with the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the 300,000 members of his union do not support such a proposal.
"All our political action is voluntary," he said. "We choose to give or not give."
Penn asked why Republicans are going after labor unions "when corporations are outspending us?"
One union member said the only way the union can have a voice is by uniting.
"My vote by itself is not going to make a large amount of difference," he said, "but because I am a member of a union I can have some influence."
Thompson called the initiative a ploy to gag unions.
"This would force us to go to members every year to get them to agree to something they have already agreed to," he said.
archive
