Unions and Companies Alike Need Free and Fair Political Speech

An article in U.S. News & World Report entitled "Business, as Usual: Is labor on the receiving end of the politics of punishment?" spotlighted election year political funding feuds between labor and management in the United States. Those feuds are real and so are many of the issues at their core. But there is another labor-management story, not about division and disagreement, but common interest and long-term working relationships. And it matters.

For starters: not every business dollar went to Republicans and not every union dollar went to Democrats in the last election. At a recent ARCC meeting in Washington DC, political professionals from business and labor shared election-year anecdotes. First, business contributions to Democratic candidates were estimated to exceed one third of all business giving last year (up from the previous election cycle), and were much higher in a number of races. Second, labor union members' contributions to Republican candidates were estimated to have increased some 400 percent overall from the previous election. So, while the parties preach discipline and loyalty, there is no "mind-lock" among American voters.

Union households make up about a quarter of the U.S. electorate, and union members vote at a higher rate than the population at large. Last year, about six out of 10 union members voted for Al Gore and about four out of 10 voted for George Bush. And while businesses cannot so closely understand their employees' voting preferences, the closeness of the national vote makes it obvious that many business professionals voted Democratic. Most U.S. voters continue to identify themselves as Democrats - yet the total national vote cast for Democratic and Republican candidates was amazingly close.

You don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican to understand that business and organized labor share common ground - including the desire for a strong domestic economy, an educated and productive workforce, good corporate management and profits, a healthy environment and sound communities. Obviously, agreement between these groups is less media-worthy than a good bash over political speech. Yet, labor-management initiatives - whether called coalitions, alliances or working groups - continue to form and work together. Many U.S. economic sectors can boast of such alliances. In each effort, the representatives involved understand that when business and labor reach agreement, politicians on both sides of the aisle must pay close attention.

The resilience of these joint efforts gets tested in election years. Campaigns tend to bring out zealots who take extreme positions. Even among the usually even-tempered, bitter feelings often accompany hotly contested campaigns. Visionary business and labor leaders understand that issue-based alliances are valuable beyond the current political season, however, and work to keep them intact through times of political strain.

The new international treaty addressing persistent organic pollutants ("POPs") provides a case in point. ARCC union and company representatives monitored the negotiations for two years, recognizing that they would affect U.S. jobs and investments regardless of which party controlled the White House or Congress. ARCC contacted the Administration and the State Department, explaining the interests of U.S. companies and workers. Administration representatives were invited to ARCC meetings to hear company and union mutual concerns. ARCC advocated environmental progress based on scientific information, coupled with economic opportunity for all nations.

The treaty, now known as the Stockholm Convention, addresses nine pesticides, PCBs, and the industrial by-products called dioxins and furans. The Convention bans or severely restricts the specific pesticides and PCBs with narrow exceptions (for example, DDT can still be used to kill malaria-bearing mosquitos). None of these materials have been made in the U.S. for years.

The problem of manmade dioxin and furan emissions required a different approach. These POPs are emitted globally by many beneficial industrial and incineration processes as unintended byproducts. "Eliminating" them would require shutting down major industries worldwide. Instead, the Convention stipulates that nations will create and implement "national action plans" using the best available technology to reduce emissions or eliminate them "where feasible." Essentially, this means that productive industries will be cleaned up, not shut down.

By adopting this U.S. supported model, the Convention will slash dioxin and furan emissions without causing major economic disruptions and job loss. The U.S. is on track to achieve by 2004 a 92 percent reduction of these emissions from 1987 levels - without sacrificing jobs, manufacturing plants and access to important products like plastics, paper, pharmaceuticals, metals, electronics and safe drinking water. The ARCC congratulates the Administration for signing the Convention and has sent a letter to all Senators urging its ratification.

Throughout U.S. history, the political pendulum has swung both ways. Those who make enemies while they enjoy their "day in the sun" usually find cause to regret any heavy-handedness when, inevitably, the pendulum swings back. In the case of the POPs negotiations, the U.S. interest was evident to both labor and management. So both political parties were approached and given a common message about what was important for America.

We think that - regardless of one's position on campaign finance reform - management and organized employees alike should have the right to make their voices heard in the political process. Each brings a unique and politically important viewpoint to the table. So each group should have its say, whether in agreement or disagreement. When the sides agree, the political power of each is multiplied. Despite election year rivalries and grudges, neither group should try to unilaterally gag the other with selective restrictions on political speech.