Seven of British Columbia’s biggest unions are currently in B.C.’s Supreme Court fighting a new law that restricts their ability to spend on advertising during election campaigns. Bill 42, passed earlier this year, limits spending by third-party groups to $3,000 per riding and $150,000 overall. For perspective, these unions allegedly spent $3 million on anti-Liberal advertising in the run up to the 2005 B.C. election.

While we typically have little in common with union leaders’ views on public policy, they are certainly right to be fighting Bill 42. Engaging in the political process, whether financially or through other means, is a cornerstone of our democratic process. Unions, businesses, associations and individuals should be free to spend as they wish.

The real crime is not that unions attempt to influence election outcomes through advertising, but rather that union leaders are able to use mandatory union dues to fight political battles their “members” often do not support. Rather than limiting union spending on election campaigns, the B.C. government should provide workers the right to choose whether or not to financially support their union’s political activities.

In British Columbia, as in all provinces, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In addition, workers covered by collective agreements have no choice but to remit full union dues.

This stands in stark contrast to the choice afforded to workers in other countries. In the U.S. for example, workers enjoy significantly more choice. U.S. workers cannot be forced to join a union and have the ability to opt-out of union dues that are not related to their representation (collective bargaining, arbitration proceedings, etc), such as political activities. Further, there are 22 U.S. states that have afforded workers even more choice, by allowing workers to opt-out of all union dues payments.

Research has shown that this striking difference in worker choice between Canada and the U.S. explains in part why unionization is so much higher north of the border – in 2007 unionization in Canada was 31.5% and 13.3% in the U.S.

But it gets worse. The lack of worker choice in British Columbia is exacerbated by the fact that unions are not required to publicly disclose detailed financial information. While B.C. unions are required to disclose some financial information to unionized workers upon request, the information is limited.

Most importantly, there is no requirement to disclose to their members even the most basic breakdown of financial information, such as money spent on activities directly related to representing workers versus other expenditures unrelated to representation such as political support and activism.

Again, this is in stark contrast to how workers in the U.S. are treated. In every U.S. state, all unions are required to submit detailed financial statements to the Federal Department of Labor (DOL). Large unions – those that spend over $250,000 – are required to provide information for 47 financial items and another 21 informational items. Perhaps the most important requirement – and striking difference from British Columbia – is that spending on collective representation must be reported separately from other spending not related to representation.

In addition, large unions in the U.S. must disclose every financial expenditure $5,000 or larger. Similar but less onerous requirements are imposed on medium sized unions ($10,000 to $250,000 expenditure) and small unions (less than $10,000 expenditure).

Another important aspect of union financial disclosure in U.S. states is the fact that union members and the public have free and equal access to all this information on the DOL website. This allows anonymous access in which workers’ decisions cannot be influenced by union representatives.

In B.C., any such request for information must be done formally, meaning any request is not anonymous. Without anonymity, there is a serious risk that workers’ confidentiality and ability to draw conclusions without intimidation from union leaders and co-workers will be compromised.

The unfortunate reality is that U.S. workers have a choice regarding union membership and full dues payment, and have anonymous access to detailed information on union finances; British Columbians don’t. At a minimum, B.C. workers should have the same level of financial disclosure accorded to their counter parts in the U.S.

Rather than limiting the ability of B.C. unions to engage in the democratic process by capping their spending, the provincial government should end the use of mandatory union dues to fight political battles without workers’ expressed support. It’s high time the provincial government ended unions’ free ride on workers.