Chicago 911 Operators Notch Another Janus Victory Over IBEW
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation attorneys stopped deceptive cycle that kept illegal dues flowing for months
Patricia Whittaker heard ridiculous excuses from IBEW union officials about how they couldn’t honor her Janus rights. But after teaming up with Foundation attorneys, she’s cut off dues to IBEW bosses.
CHICAGO, IL – Another 911 operator employed by the City of Chicago has successfully defended her First Amendment rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. Late last year, Operator Patricia Whittaker sought free Foundation legal aid after facing months of stonewalling from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21 union officials, who refused to stop taking dues from her paycheck against her will.
Whittaker fought these dues seizures by invoking her First Amendment rights under Janus. Foundation attorneys argued and won the Janus case before the Supreme Court in 2018. The Supreme Court agreed with Foundation attorneys and ruled that union officials could not force public sector employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and that union officials must obtain affirmative employee consent before deducting union dues from any public worker’s paycheck.
In October, following unfair labor practice filings by Foundation attorneys at the Illinois Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), IBEW union bosses abandoned their unconstitutional dues demands — and other outrageous behavior they had subjected Whittaker to.
IBEW Union Outrageously Claimed They Had No Power to Stop Dues Deductions
Whittaker faced much more than just illegal dues deductions during her ordeal. IBEW officials engaged in a deceptive cycle in which Whittaker was told to resolve the matter with her employer, while the employer directed her back to the union, resulting in continued dues deductions for over 10 months. In doing so, the charges maintained, union officials misrepresented the law by making it appear as if they were the “good guys” by remitting dues deducted by the City of Chicago through checks back to her and claimed that only the employer — not the union — had the power to end dues deductions.
This isn’t the first time IBEW 21 union officials have been caught imposing illegal dues practices on Chicago 911 employees. In June 2024, Rhonda Younkins also triumphed in her months-long legal battle to exercise her First Amendment right to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21. IBEW Local 21 union officials stopped their violation of Younkins’ Janus rights only after Foundation attorneys filed charges at PERB on Younkins’ behalf.
Independent-Minded Workers Continue to Defend Freedom with Janus
The Janus decision’s impact continues to grow. Immediately following the ruling, nearly a half a million public employees stopped paying union dues, with many others following in subsequent years as litigation backed by Foundation attorneys continues to defend their rights.
“The behavior of IBEW Local 21 union officials highlight just how crucial it is for public employees to be aware of, and assert, their Janus rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“While we at the Foundation are proud to help more workers protect their hard-earned money from funding union bosses and union agendas they don’t support, it is unacceptable that it takes aggressive legal action just to force union officials to respect workers’ constitutional freedoms.”
Third AT&T-BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges, Challenges Thousands in Illegal Strike Fines
Newest charge challenges union boss $5,300 strike fine demand, while other workers challenge CWA union officials’ restrictive dues collection tactics
Miami, FL (March 28, 2025) – Henry Gonzalez, an employee of AT&T-BellSouth in Miami, has just hit the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union in his workplace with federal charges – the third worker to do so in just a month. Gonzalez’s charges, which were filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, describe how CWA union officials are wrongfully targeting him with thousands of dollars in disciplinary fines for not participating in a strike.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law and investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices. Under federal labor law, union officials can mete out internal strike discipline only on employees who are formal members of the union. A worker who ends his union membership before exercising his right to continue working during a strike action cannot be punished by the union hierarchy. Gonzalez maintains that he resigned his union membership, yet union bosses still slammed him afterward with illegal fines in excess of $5,000.
In addition to preventing union bosses from imposing discipline on workers who have abstained from union membership, federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors protect workers’ right to freely maintain or end union membership.
Freedom to resign union membership is also protected at the state level in Florida by the state’s Right to Work protections, which forbid union officials from forcing private sector workers to join or pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. This is in contrast to forced-unionism states, in which union bosses can require all employees in a workplace, even those who are not union members or who are otherwise opposed to the union, to financially support some union activities.
Within the past month, Miami-based AT&T-BellSouth employees Sofia Hernaiz and Amanda Marc have also filed unfair labor practice charges against the CWA union. Hernaiz and Marc, who have also opted out of union membership, both maintain that union officials are enforcing confusing “window periods” that restrict to just a few days per year when workers can revoke their consent to union dues deductions. Marc’s charge maintains that window periods violate federal labor law because they force unwilling workers to subsidize unwanted unions. Hernaiz’s charge also reports unlawful post-strike discipline similar to Gonzales’.
“Principled, independent-minded workers at AT&T-BellSouth are increasingly deciding that they will not take CWA union officials’ arbitrary restrictions and coercive ‘discipline’ sitting down,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Big Labor union bosses and their cronies on the NLRB have for decades been trying to contort federal labor law to favor their own power and influence over workers’ freedom, especially during the Biden Administration. Foundation-backed workers in Florida and across the nation are fighting to reverse this trend.”
T-Mobile Arena Worker Files Federal Charges Against Culinary Union for Stonewalling Requests to Stop Dues Deductions
Arena foodservice employee is latest to charge Culinary Union officials with undermining workers’ rights under federal law
Las Vegas, NV (March 20, 2025) – Renee Guerrero, an employee of Levy Restaurants, a foodservice provider at Las Vegas’ T-Mobile Arena, has hit Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (a Unite Here affiliate) and her employer with federal charges for illegally deducting full union dues from her paycheck despite her objections to both union membership and dues payments.
Guerrero filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases.
Under federal labor law and Supreme Court precedents like NLRB v. General Motors, all private sector workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, though union officials oftentimes try to coerce union membership. Federal law also requires union officials to obtain written authorization from a worker before deducting union dues payments directly from their paycheck.
Further, because Nevada has Right to Work protections for its workers, Culinary Union officials can’t legally force Guerrero or her coworkers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In states that lack such protections union officials can require workers to pay at least some union dues just to keep their jobs. In all states, union officials must get the written authorization of workers before directly deducting forced dues and fees from a worker’s paycheck.
“I have a right under Nevada’s Right to Work law to stop all payments to Local 226, and yet rather than respect my rights they’re ignoring my requests and forcing me to pay. I don’t think Culinary Union bosses deserve my support, and their actions since I attempted to exercise my right to stop dues payments only confirms my decision,” stated Guerrero.
Challenge to Illegal Dues Seizures Follows Other Employee Cases Against Culinary Union
According to Guerrero’s charges against the union, she “submitted two written letters to the Union in which she resigned her union membership and revoked any dues check-off authorization she may have signed.” However, the charges state, union officials did not honor her membership resignation (if she had ever become a union member in the first place), and also refused to provide any documentation she may have signed in the past authorizing dues deductions.
In addition to her charge against the union, Guerrero has filed a separate charge against Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership for its role in facilitating the continued deductions.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have a long history of helping workers at Las Vegas casinos and other venues oppose coercive Culinary Union legal maneuvers, including earlier this month in a case for Las Vegas Convention Center worker Rebecca Swank. Swank, an employee of Sodexo, filed similar federal charges against the union and her employer on the grounds they illegally seized full union dues from her paycheck despite her explicit resignation from membership and revocation of dues authorization.
“Between federal law, and Nevada’s popular Right to Work law workers like Renee Guerrero have a clear right to opt out of all union financial support and stop any union dues deductions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, Culinary Union officials have a troubling track record of violating the legal rights of the very workers they claim to represent.
“We are proud to assist Renee in ensuring her legal rights are enforced, and are available to provide free legal assistance to any Nevada workers who want to exercise their right to stop union dues payments,” added Mix.
Second AT&T BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Worker Money
Employee challenges coercive union tactic of restricting when workers can cut off union financial support
Miami, FL (March 17, 2025) – Amanda Marc, an employee of AT&T BellSouth Communications, has filed federal charges against the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union and its local affiliates, maintaining that CWA union officials are imposing illegal restrictions on her and her coworkers’ right to opt out of union dues payments. Marc filed her charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices and administering votes to install or remove unions in workplaces. Marc’s charges challenge the CWA union’s use of “window period” restrictions to limit to just ten days per year the time in which workers can demand that dues deductions cease from their paychecks. Window periods are widely used by union officials as a way to keep money flowing from dissenting workers towards the union’s agenda, and Marc’s charges seek a ruling that this practice is unlawful under federal labor law.
Marc’s charges contend that while federal labor law permits dues deduction authorization documents to be irrevocable for one year after employees initially sign them, any further window periods or other restrictions on workers’ legally-protected right to cut off dues after that period has elapsed violate the National Labor Relations Act:
“It is unlawful to have any window period for revocations after the first year of the payroll deduction authorization form. [Federal labor law] does not contain any reference to ‘window periods’…The unions have no statutory license to create tricky and arbitrary ‘window periods’ to force unwilling employees to keep paying dues.”
Because Marc and her colleagues work in the Right to Work state of Florida, CWA union bosses are forbidden from forcing workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs, though CWA union officials are ostensibly trying to cabin the exercise of this freedom with their window period scheme. In states that lack Right to Work protections, in contrast, union officials can force employees to pay fees to the union or be terminated, meaning even perfect compliance with a union boss’s arbitrary window period restriction would not completely free a worker from union payments.
AT&T Worker Joins Colleague in Revealing Blatantly Illegal CWA Dues Deduction Practices
Marc’s charges state that she and many of her coworkers resigned their union memberships in August 2024, which was around when CWA union officials ordered AT&T BellSouth workers out on a strike. Despite Marc’s requests to end union membership and stop financial support for the union, the charges read, CWA agents never responded to either demand, and never even informed Marc of the window period dates in which they would consider her requests valid.
In addition to challenging the use of window periods as a whole, Marc’s charges point out several other unlawful aspects of CWA bosses’ union dues collection scheme, including a requirement that dues revocation requests be made “by individual letters sent by certified mail only.” CWA union bosses also failed to inform employees that, by law, they have an opportunity to opt out of union dues deductions on the anniversary date of when they signed the dues checkoff and aren’t just restricted to the arbitrary window period imposed by the union.
Marc’s filing comes just days after Foundation attorneys submitted federal charges against CWA union bosses on behalf of another AT&T BellSouth worker, Sofia Hernaiz. Hernaiz declares in her charges that CWA union officials tried to subject her to internal discipline for not participating in the August 2024 strike, even though she had resigned her union membership beforehand and by law can’t be subject to such proceedings. Similar to Marc, Hernaiz also details that CWA union officials did not acknowledge her attempt to cut off dues deductions to the union, nor informed her of what the union’s window period restrictions were.
“Ms. Marc, in standing up for her and her coworkers’ freedom to stop subsidizing unwanted CWA union officials, is also mounting an unprecedented challenge to the ‘window period’ gambit. This scheme has been manipulated by union officials across the country to yank financial support out of unwilling workers for far too long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forthcoming NLRB Trump appointees should use cases like this to rule that such practices that serve only to enrich union boss hierarchies are unlawful.
“It is time to reorient the Board’s mission toward defending the individual right of every American worker to associate or dissociate with a union as he or she pleases,” added Mix. “For too long, NLRB officials have rigged federal law to enhance union boss power at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the very workers the Act purports to protect.”
Las Vegas Convention Center Worker Slams Culinary Union and Sodexo with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Dues From Wages
Employee maintains that both union and employer ignored requests to refrain from union membership and dues payments
Las Vegas, NV (March 12, 2025) – Rebecca Swank, an employee of foodservice provider Sodexo who works primarily at the Las Vegas Convention Center, has hit Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (a Unite Here affiliate) and her employer with federal charges for seizing full union dues from her paycheck despite her objections to both union membership and dues payments.
Swank filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. Swank’s charges also state that Sodexo officials forced her to get a job referral from the Culinary Union’s hiring hall in person immediately upon being hired.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases. Under federal labor law and Supreme Court precedents like NLRB v. General Motors, all private sector workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, though union officials sometimes try to coerce union membership anyway, including by subjecting employees to intimidation during hiring hall encounters. Federal law also requires union officials to receive written authorization from a worker before deducting union dues payments directly from their paycheck.
Further, because Nevada has Right to Work protections for its workers, Culinary Union officials can’t legally force Swank or her coworkers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In states that lack such protections, in contrast, union officials can require workers to pay at least some union dues just to keep their jobs, though must still seek the written authorization of workers before collecting those forced fees by direct deduction.
“Culinary Union officials have been very abrasive in our workplace and have been ineffective in standing up for our interests,” commented Swank. “But now they’re doing something full-on illegal by stopping me from exercising my right under Nevada’s Right to Work law to stop financially supporting them. That’s wrong, and I hope the NLRB gets to the bottom of this.”
Challenge to Illegal Dues Seizures Follows Other Employee Cases Against Culinary Union
According to Swank’s charges against the union, she “submitted two written letters to the Union in which she resigned her union membership and revoked any dues check-off authorization she may have signed.” However, the charges state, union officials did not honor her membership resignation (if she had ever become a union member in the first place), and also refused to provide any documentation she may have signed in the past authorizing dues deductions.
“Finally, the Union has accepted dues deducted from [Swank’s] paycheck without her written authorization and despite her written demand that it cease to do so and to refund her,” Swank’s charges against the union conclude. Swank also filed a charge against Sodexo management for its role in keeping dues flowing from her paycheck to the union.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have a long history of helping workers at Las Vegas casinos and other venues oppose coercive Culinary Union legal maneuvers, including in 2021 when Foundation attorneys defended Red Rock Casino workers’ majority vote against Culinary Union control from a district court judge’s order imposing the union on the workers anyway. Foundation attorneys also defended Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios and his coworkers from a similar situation 2022, when a regional NLRB official blocked him and his fellow technicians from exercising their right to vote themselves out of a Culinary Union work unit. The regional NLRB official cited specious reasons for why the vote couldn’t occur, including allegations of employer malfeasance that didn’t even relate to Barrios and his colleagues.
“Culinary Union bosses have a track record of ignoring and trampling basic employee rights, simply to gain more power over the workers that they claim to ‘represent.’ Unfortunately, it’s unsurprising that independent-minded workers seek to exercise their Right to Work freedom to stop all financial support for this union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Culinary Union officials’ refusal to respect the exercise of basic rights is clearly at odds with both state and federal law, and our attorneys will defend Ms. Swank’s freedom of choice.”
NY Starbucks Baristas File Amicus Brief Opposing Reinstatement of Biden-Appointed NLRB Member Removed by President Trump
Starbucks employees have pending federal lawsuit challenging NLRB structure as unconstitutional, argue they could be harmed if member’s removal is blocked
Washington, DC (March 11, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief at the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals for two upstate New York Starbucks baristas in a federal case that could determine the constitutionality of the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The case, Wilcox v. Trump, concerns whether President Trump properly exercised his executive authority when he removed the Biden-appointed former chair of the NLRB, Gwynne Wilcox. Trump Administration lawyers argue, as baristas Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have in their own pending lawsuit at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, the federal law authorizing the NLRB) violates the Constitution because it prevents the president from removing board members.
Cortes and Karam now join the Administration’s legal team in asking the D.C. Circuit Court to stay a lower court’s ruling that Wilcox be reinstated. Their brief notes that they, and others, could be directly harmed if Wilcox participates in an NLRB decision without being properly accountable to the President.
Cortes and Karam work at two separate Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, NY area. They both submitted petitions on behalf of their coworkers in 2023 with sufficient support to prompt the NLRB to hold votes to “decertify,” or remove, the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from each of their stores. However, NLRB officials indefinitely delayed those union decertification elections on the basis of unproven charges leveled at the Starbucks Corporation by SBWU union officials. This led Cortes and Karam to file their own federal lawsuit – the first in the nation challenging the agency’s structure as unconstitutional as a whole.
The same issue regarding the NLRB’s constitutionality was fast-tracked in federal courts following President Trump’s firing of Biden-appointed NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, which she challenged as a violation of the NLRA’s board member removal protections. Trump Administration lawyers countered with arguments parallel to those in Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit, contending that NLRB members’ removal protections permit them to exercise substantial executive authority while being immune to presidential removal for the duration of their terms, something forbidden by U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen.
NLRB’s Hyper-Partisan Nature and Unique Powers Make Removal Protections Inappropriate
Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership place it outside the Supreme Court’s concept of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate. It also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the amicus brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings—Gwynne Wilcox—to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam’s amicus brief points out what many workers who have litigated cases before the NLRB have learned the hard way – that the NLRB is a hyper-partisan agency often beholden to the interests of union bosses, yet masquerades as an impartial arbiter of workers’ rights,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is likely to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam speak for many independent-minded workers around the country by urging the D.C. Circuit Court to bar Gwynne Wilcox from participating in Board decisions until this is fully sorted out.”
Cincinnati-Area Kroger Employee Wins Federal Case Against UFCW, Grocer for Illegal Union Dues Deductions
Kroger and union must reimburse unlawfully seized dues as worker transfers to store in Right to Work Kentucky to block any future forced dues
Fairfield, OH (March 4, 2025 ) – Kroger Grocery employee James Carroll has prevailed in his federal case against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 75 union and corporate grocery conglomerate Kroger. The resolution comes after charges were filed against UFCW for threatening Carroll with termination for refusing to sign an illegal union dues deduction form and against Kroger for unlawfully deducting union dues from his paycheck.
To avoid prosecution, Kroger and UFCW agreed to a settlement that requires them to reimburse Carroll for unlawfully seized dues and post a public notice informing employees of their rights. Carroll received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Carroll’s charges at Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Cincinnati explain that the form UFCW union bosses forced him to sign is an illegal “dual purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions. Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application. Additionally, Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB recognize the right of workers to refrain from formal union membership.
In contrast to neighboring Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Ohio lacks a state Right to Work law. This means UFCW union officials to have the power to force Carroll and his coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping a job, even if they are nonmembers. However, even without Right to Work, union officials must obtain employees’ consent before instructing an employer to deduct union dues directly from a worker’s paycheck, and forced-fee amounts cannot include money that goes toward a union’s political activity, as established in the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
In addition to securing a victory in his case, Carroll took the additional step of transferring to a Kroger store in Right to Work Kentucky to avoid any future union threats demanding payment. Under Right to Work, all payments to the union are strictly voluntary, meaning Carroll cannot be forced to fund the very UFCW officials who violated his rights.
On Illegal Dues Practices, Kroger and UFCW Are Repeat Offenders
This isn’t the first time Foundation attorneys have aided Kroger employees facing illegal dual-purpose membership forms pushed by UFCW union bosses. In February 2023, Houston, TX-area Kroger worker Jessica Haefner filed federal charges against the UFCW for presenting her with such a dual-purpose form, and for altering her writing on the form to show she consented to union dues deductions when she was actually trying to exercise her right under Texas’ Right to Work law to abstain from dues payment.
In 2024, Foundation attorneys also assisted a Portland-area grocery store employee Reegin Schaffer, who filed and won federal unfair labor practice charges against a UFCW union there. In that case, union officials ignored her requests to resign union membership during a union strike and then unlawfully retaliated against her by seeking to fine her for exercising her right to rebuff union boss strike orders and go to work.
“We are pleased with this legal victory for Mr. Carroll, and that he is now completely free of union bosses’ forced-dues demands because he works in Right to Work Kentucky,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Of course most workers subjected to union bosses’ ‘pay-up-or-be-fired’ threats don’t have the option of commuting to a location in a Right to Work state.
“That’s why, despite the good resolution, though this case shows why workers everywhere need Right to Work protections,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to 10 Roads Express Drivers Subject to Teamsters Strike
Notice reminds workers of major USPS contractor of right to resign union membership and go back to work; comes after company and union butt heads over nationwide bargaining
Washington, DC (February 28, 2025) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for 10 Roads Express drivers subject to Teamsters union bosses’ recent strike order against the company. News reports indicate that the order affects hundreds of drivers across the country, and that 10 Roads Express is one of the largest private contractors for the U.S. Postal Service.
The legal notice informs these workers of rights, albeit limited, that union officials often do not want them to know. First and foremost, drivers have the right to resign their union memberships and keep working to support their families.
Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that could be imposed by union officials.
“The situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other union discipline for continuing to report to work.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ right to resign union membership and their right to revoke their union dues check-offs, with links to sample letters that can be sent to exercise both rights. The notice also gives workers information on how to begin a petition for a “decertification election,” in which employees request a workplace election to remove the union.
The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full notice can be found at: https://www.nrtw.org/10roadsexpress/.
The Foundation has provided legal aid several times recently to truck drivers, warehouse workers, and other employees who oppose Teamsters union officials’ agendas. At the end of 2024, hundreds of Foundation-backed workers across Northern Ohio voted in favor of removing Teamsters union officials from power at their workplaces. That followed efforts to similarly boot out Teamsters bosses from trucking employees in Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey.
Strike May Be Lead-Up to Creation of National, Inescapable Bargaining Unit Where Workers Can’t Vote Away Teamsters Control
“Teamsters union officials’ propaganda surrounding this strike hides the fact that many workers may simply want to continue working to support themselves and their families, something that they have an absolute right to do no matter what Teamsters bosses may say,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Teamsters officials are also unlikely to acknowledge the fact that they are demanding that 10 Roads Express management bargain with them on a national level and not in individual workplaces, which may very well be a lead-up to the Teamsters thrusting 10 Roads Express drivers into a huge national unit designed to lock workers into Teamsters ranks in perpetuity.
“Such a gambit would also stop 10 Roads Express drivers in a single workplace from asking the federal labor board to hold a vote amongst their colleagues to remove the Teamsters from that one facility, as the work unit would encompass hundreds if not thousands of drivers from across the country who have likely never met each other,” added Mix. “Workers who are interested in continuing to do their jobs and avoid such legal maneuvering by Teamsters bosses in the future should read the Foundation’s legal notice and quickly seek Foundation legal aid if they encounter any obstacles to exercising their rights.”
