There is a solid rebuttal of Merit’s rationale for these changes and this review by the AFL. The response by Merit fails to address the points raised by McGowan.
An important question raised by this review is why can a small employer group get a review done upon request, while a 24,000 name union petition for a review from 2007 remains ignored?
Among the changes proposed by Merit are legislative restrictions that would prohibit unions from using member dues for political activities without the prior consent of their members. The basis for this recommendation is unclear. Is this a rampant problem? Do political contributions by interest groups somehow harm the workings of democracy?
If there is any real reason for this recommendation, one might ask why Merit doesn’t lead by example? Insight into Government reports that Merit contractors may be the heaviest contributor to the progressive conservative leadership campaigns now underway.
Merit Contractors shows up as giving between $15,000 and $30,000 to Morton, between $10,000 and $19,999 to Mar, and between $10,000 and $30,000 to Redford.
Whatever the reasons for this seemingly “do as I say, not as I do” recommendation, perhaps this practice provides some insight into the greater responsiveness of the government to employers than to workers?
-- Bob Barnetson