Effort Fails to Overturn Bush “Beck Poster” Executive Order

Nathan Paul Mehrens

The Supreme Court last week denied the petition from the United Auto Workers (UAW) union to review a U.S. Circuit Court decision in UAW-Labor Employment and Training Corporation v. Chao. The case stems from an Executive Order signed by President George W. Bush on February 17, 2001, just a couple weeks after taking office. The Order requires most federal contractors to post notice that employees cannot be forced to financially support political programs and expenses of their unions. The federal regulation implementing the Executive Order was proposed on October 1, 2001. While the federal regulatory process is not by nature speedy, this particular regulation suffered an almost three year delay caused by litigation.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is another marker in what has been over a decade long effort to prevent union members from being informed that they cannot be required to financially support unions’ political agendas. President George W. Bush was not the first President to sign an Order on this issue. The first President Bush started the regulatory process when he signed Executive Order 12800 on April 12, 1992. Upon taking office in January of 1993, President Clinton moved quickly to revoke this Order. It took a White House win by a Republican two terms later to revive the issue. While this particular issue is settled for the immediate future, look for a fast reversal if Kerry is elected President. History has shown that one of the first priorities for the past two newly-elected Presidents was to sign an Executive Order on this issue.

Ironically, in order to have legal standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, the UAW had to bring the case in its capacity as an employer. They argued that the Executive Order was a burden on businesses, a strange argument for any union to make. However, the supposed “burden” forced on businesses by posting a single sheet of paper is not the real concern. Rather, the concern is that the union will lose funding for its pet political agendas and projects if workers are informed that they don’t have to pay for these.

A seemingly simple concept, telling workers their rights, is objected to because of a fear that workers will exercise these rights. The drive to keep information secret flies in the face of the trend in placing disclaimers on everything from aspirin bottles to a mutual fund prospectus.

If an investment company is required to provide copious amounts of information to persons who want to voluntarily transact with the company, shouldn’t a union be required to provide at least as much information to those that are involuntarily transacting with the union? The simple fact of the matter is that if unions were forced to provide notice to workers in the same fashion that the corporate world is that one of two things would happen; either 1) unions would transform the way that they do business so that their expenditures only go towards activities that support workers’ rights and not for politics, or 2) few unions would ever win the right to represent workers because workers would vote the unions out.

The need for greater openness and transparency is apparent and forms the basis for the “Union Members Right-to-Know Act,” H.R. 992 currently pending before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill would require the union itself to inform union members of their rights on a periodic basis. Since unions have shown an extreme reluctance to voluntarily informing members of their rights, and because they have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent a regulation requiring businesses to inform union members of these rights, the time has come for action on this bill.

Last Thursday in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations in the U.S. House, several witnesses testified as to the great importance in protecting the right of union members to vote to either form a union or reject one. While the right to vote is very important this right is useless without a foundational understanding of the benefits and detriments of union membership. Unions are glad to hand out information on the benefits, but like a mutual fund company they should also be required to disclose the detriments and risks as well.


Nathan Paul Mehrens, Esq. is General Counsel for Stop Union Political Abuse, a grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to rolling back the unfair power of labor unions to force workers to pay for unions’ political agendas as a condition of employment.