American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

(AFSCME)

Radical right-wing conservatives these days seem to be intent on inventing a warped America, one in which up is down, in is out and fiction is fact.

Foremost among these radical inventors have been House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. These two and their loyal lieutenants have been piecing together failed idea after failed idea to produce some real monsters.

First there was the "Contract with America." Then there was the push to gut Medicare to give $270 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. Then they wanted to "revise" the fair Labor Standards Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Their latest monster, the so-called "paycheck protection," or as I prefer to call it, "paycheck deception," is directly targeted at labor unions and their ability to participate in the political process.

Before I go any further, I want to set the record straight on what exactly "paycheck deception" would do. While each piece of legislation and ballot initiative is different, they each share the common characteristic of barring unions from using members' dues on lobbying, political education (including distribution of voter guides) and even participating in the formulation of government policies which directly impact on our members' lives.

And if our union does want to do these things, then we would have to get the advance written approval of our members before spending one nickel.

And to add insult to injury, the people behind this movement are trying to make it sound like "paycheck deception" would only ban unions from giving money to candidates. As the law stands right now, members' dues cannot be used for political contributions. Instead, our members voluntarily contribute to our political action committee.

With this understood, we must ask ourselves "why are they targeting labor unions?

Like all inventors, Gingrich, Lott and company aren't too proud of their failures. But before 1996, the radical right didn't seem to pay much attention to the labor movement, maybe because we seemed to be half asleep. Two years ago, Gingrich was too busy violating the elastic ethics of the House of Representatives. Two years ago, Bob Dole was busy on the campaign trail trying to convince people he had original ideas that were of twentieth-century origin. And two years ago, Trent Lott was busy jockeying for position so that he could become Senate Majority Leader when Dole left.

And while they weren't paying attention to what labor had to say, the members of labor unions were.

On Election Day 1996, record numbers of union households went to the polls, about one quarter of all who voted, and supported pro-labor candidates. As a result, Newt and the GOP actually lost seats in the House of Representatives. And Trent Lott didn't get his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

We had not only gotten their attention, but we had also raised their ire. In the process of protecting our members (incidentally, that's why unions exist) organized labor spent $60 million in the 1996 campaign. It is important to note that in the same campaign, in 1996, corporations and wealthy contributors spent $667 million. That's an 11-to-1 advantage.

Apparently for Gingrich and Lott, 11-to-1 is not enough. Instead, their goal is to silence the voice of working people. In every great story throughout history, villains always have a sidekick. To stay true to this formula, Gingrich called on one of his old pals, Grover Norquist, to handle the details.

Norquist, whose resume includes political dirty tricks (remember the "Willie Horton" ad back in 1988) and lobbying for foreign governments, also runs an organization called "American for Tax Reform."

Norquist is stumping the country proclaiming that so-called "union bosses" are ruining American democracy. I'm one of those union leaders he likes to talk about. The fact is that unions are among the most democratic institutions in this country.

The members of AFSCME who elected me take our democracy very seriously. For Grover Norquist to question the labor movement's commitment to democracy is further proof that his ideas are bankrupt.

And when confronted with the fact that unions are among the most democratic organizations in our nations, Norquist quickly changes the subject.

Unlike Grover Norquist and his friends, I don't think that there's a single millionaire among AFSCME's 1.3 million members. Every one of them works for a living. They all know what a paycheck means: food on the table, shoes for the kids, gas for the car and a roof over their head. And a union will fight for them.

That's why union members pay dues. They know that politics is increasingly dominated by "old money," cyber-billionaires, corporation millionaires and wannabes. Workers need a voice if they are to avoid being steam-

rollered in the workplace, the community and the Congress. The union is their voice.

In America today, some 14 million men and women are union members in a workforce that number some 127 million. But in speaking for 14 million, unions also are addressing the concerns of all the rest.

If radical right-wing conservatives manage to silence the ability of labor unions to speak out against unfair wages, sweatshops, dangerous workplaces, contracting out, taxes that penalize wage earners and policies that deny equality on the basis of race or anything else, then who is left to speak out? And how long will they last in radical conservative America?