In the wake of National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) move to kill the only protection workers have against card check forced unionism, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing yesterday about the recent onslaught of the NLRB's pro-forced unionism rulings as former-Chairwoman Wilma Liebman's term expired late last month.

Testifying at the hearing was Barbara Ivey, who works at a Portland, Oregon-based IT unit at Kaiser Permanente.

Ivey and 60 of her coworkers were subjected to a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) card check forced unionization campaign (via a neutrality agreement).

Many of Ivey's coworkers reported that they were misled or pressured by SEIU organizers into signing union cards, and didn't even know what they meant.

After the SEIU succeeded in gaining enough cards to claim monopoly bargaining privileges over the workers, the workers were told that if they didn't like it, they could file with the NLRB for a secret-ballot decertification election (per Foundation-won precedent in Dana) to overrule the card check campaign and remove the unwanted union.

After leaning about her rights with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys, Ivey collected the necessary amount of signatures on a petition for a secret-ballot election.  But then, on August 26, 2011, the Obama NLRB overruled the Dana precedent in Lamons Gasket and the election was summarily cancelled.

Now, the employees in the Kaiser IT department are stuck with the SEIU for anywhere from one to four years before they will even have a chance to force a secret-ballot vote (and getting a decertification vote is a major uphill battle for employees who will have campaign against an entrenched union with full-time paid professional organizers).

Yesterday, Ms. Ivey shared with Congress her experiences with the unfairness of card check unionization and the one-sidedness of the Obama NLRB. You can read Barbara Ivey's testimony by clicking here (pdf).

You can watch the video of the hearing here.

Worker Advocate Urges House Chairmen to Investigate Questionable Pro-Union Rule Change

National Mediation Board’s new rules allow airline and railway workers to be unionized without majority support

Washington, DC (January 10, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation, which provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, is urging Congress to investigate a recent rule change at the National Mediation Board (NMB) that dramatically increases the power of union officials to organize workers in the airline and railway industries. Foundation President Mark Mix submitted letters to Representatives John Kline, John Mica, and Darrell Issa on Wednesday, encouraging them to open an immediate investigation into the NMB’s new election procedures.

Last year, the Board hastily implemented new union certification procedures over the objections of NMB Chair Elizabeth Dougherty. Foundation attorneys currently represent five Delta employees who are challenging the NMB’s rule change in federal court.

The two NMB members who voted to approve the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA). Both unions were a major part of an AFL-CIO-led coalition that prompted the NMB to discard its previous election procedures, which had remained in force for 75 years under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

Click here to read more. 

Right to Work President Mark Mix sat down with nationally-syndicated radio host Lars Larson yesterday to discuss the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill, a Big Labor power grab that is poised to pass during the "lame duck" congressional session. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:

As always, you can also listen to the Foundation's podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.  

As we recounted earlier this month, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are fighting a blatant political payback scheme initiated by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to hand over all home-based child-care providers who provide services to state-subsidized low-income families over to government union bosses.

Last week, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, and Carrie Schlaud, the courageous lead plaintiff of the providers' class-action lawsuit against Granholm and the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions appeared on the Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends to discuss the case:

To view more videos regarding the lawsuit, including Mark Mix's appearance on the Fox Business Network's Willis Report and Michigan child-care provider Peggy Mashke's appearance on the Fox Business Network's Varney & Company, check out the Foundation's Youtube channel here.

Today, House Republican leader John Boehner called on President Barack Obama to veto any controversial legislation that passes during the post-midterm election lame-duck Congressional session. One of those controversial bills is the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

As Right to Work Foundation legal director Ray J. LaJeunesse details in the Spring 2010 issue of the Texas Review of Law & Politics journal, this draconian bill's three primary provisions contain many injustices toward American workers and job providers.

Regarding the bill's provision to strip workers of their rights to a secret ballot election and opening them up to intimidating "home visits":

...the absence of a formal election process works an obvious unfairness, facilitates intimidation and deception of workers, and runs contrary to the American tradition of secret ballots and the freedom to vote in privacy. The United States Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue, recognizing that “secret elections are generally the most satisfactory—indeed the preferred—method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.”

There also is a serious question whether EFCA will unconstitutionally deny employers and employees their free speech rights... Because there would be no open campaign leading up to a secret-ballot election, EFCA would eliminate open debate, thus curtailing the speech rights of employers and individual employees opposed to the union.

As for the unconstitutational, government-mandated binding arbitration provision:

Mandatory governmentally-imposed binding interest arbitration... runs afoul of various provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, in requiring governmentally-imposed arbitrators to dictate contract terms, EFCA would unconstitutionally take the property of employers and give that property to their employees (as wages, for example) for a non-public use, in violation of the takings clause...

And finally, regarding the lopsided nature of the penalties imposed on job providers:

These drastic new penalties for unfair labor practices that apply to employers but not to unions raise concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and may violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

These one-sided changes in the NLRA’s remedial scheme would adversely affect employees as well as employers. With the Damoclean sword of punitive remedies looming, employers faced with union organizing campaigns will be more likely to gag themselves to avoid unfair labor practice charges by unions, thus depriving employees of the “information opposing unionization,” which they have an implicit “right to receive” under NLRA section 7, and which is necessary to make an informed and free choice about whether to support unionization or not.

As LaJeunesse clearly explains, the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill certainly "presents serious legal and policy issues" indeed.

The full article is published in the Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 14, No. 2.

True to form, compulsory unionism advocates are exploiting a serious situation to try to force more workers into union monopoly control. In this case, union bosses have long set their sights on forcing America's airport screeners into union ranks. From the Wall Street Journal:

The notion that unionized airport baggage screeners in Detroit could have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a plane in Amsterdam or Lagos doesn't make much sense. But sure enough, some in Congress are using the thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack to argue that a new leader for the Transportation Security Administration could have saved the day.

Rahm Emanuel's famous declaration that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste seems to have become a way of Washington life.

That's the meaning of the political and media beatdown now being visited on Republican Senator Jim DeMint for the high crime of putting a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers to head TSA, which runs the 50,000 airport screeners. Mr. DeMint objects because Mr. Southers has refused to say whether he would reverse current policy and back collective bargaining for baggage and passenger screeners, which the Obama Administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill support.

...Mr. DeMint's objection is rooted in a substantive concern that union practices and work rules will compromise security. TSA uses a performance pay system that tries to reward ability and effort, with the goal of recruiting and retaining the best employees. Unions prefer seniority-based pay that puts a premium on time served rather than performance.

TSA also needs to be able to change its procedures or move personnel to high-risk locations on short notice. Agency managers now have the ability to do that, but under union work rules they might need to get the permission of union leaders, who won't want to upset the rank-and-file.

In other words, Congressman Thompson has it exactly backwards. If the goal is to have a "nimble, responsive" TSA, a non-union work force makes more sense.

The Journal correctly points out that union boss work rules can hamper TSA's efforts to keep our skies safe. But also, union bosses often put the expansion of their forced unionism empire before the safety of the public and even the very employees they claim to represent.

But it doesn't stop at airport screeners, Big Labor is actively pushing to subject America's first responders to union monopoly control as well. 

A heated battle is raging in Congress between major shipping companies United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and FedEx Corporation and the rights of literally tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of employees hang in the balance.

You see, UPS is regulated under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and is heavily unionized, as 240,000 of its total 425,000 employees are required to accept union bosses' monopoly bargaining "representation."  Meanwhile, FedEx is under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) -- which also gives union bosses monopoly bargaining privileges, but only if an absolute majority of workers in a given bargaining unit vote to accept union bosses as their monopoly bargaining agent -- and so only 4,700 of 290,000 FedEx employees have been unionized. 

So now UPS is backing legislation in Congress that would switch FedEx employees to the jurisdiction of the NLRA, making it easier for union bosses to corral FedEx's employees into union ranks and force them to pay union dues just to keep their jobs.

ReasonTV has just released a video -- parodying UPS's famous "Whiteboard" commercials -- detailing the UPS/FedEx dispute:

Unfortunately, FedEx employees' workplace freedoms are not only in jeopardy by Congressional action, but also by federal bureaucratic fiat.

Big Labor is pushing for the National Mediation Board (NMB) -- a government agency charged under the RLA with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries -- to make dramatic changes to its enforcement of the RLA, greasing the skids for union organizers to force tens of thousands of non-union railway and airline industry workers into union membership.

Big labor partisans from over 30 unions, led by AFL-CIO, are pushing to change the threshold union organizers need to impose unions on workers in the railway and airline industries to just a majority of workers actually voting in a union organizing election to make that decision for the whole group.

What seems like a small procedural change is in reality a major game changer, as it makes it exceedingly difficult for independent-minded workers to resist Big Labor’s well-funded, professional organizing machine, particularly since these campaigns must be run across an entire, often-nationwide bargaining unit.  Also, independent-minded FedEx employees would either have to take affirmative action to oppose union "representation" or otherwise potentially allow far less than a majority of their colleagues impose an unwanted union on them.

Unfortunately, regardless of how individual workers lose their rights -- through actions of Congress or through executive branch machinations -- Big Labor and Big Government are likely to be the only winners in the UPS-FedEx war.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has just published an eye-opening fact sheet revealing the dangers of Big Labor's latest push to use the U.S. Congress to impose union monopoly bargaining and forced dues on public safety workers in cash-strapped states and localities.

Never satisfied with the special privileges already granted to them by their bought-and-paid-for lackeys at all levels of government, union bosses are pushing alarming new federal legislative proposals that increase their stranglehold on otherwise independent-minded workers, such as the draconian Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining bill (H.R. 413).  States have rejected similar legislation dozens of time in recent year.  (In fact, Big Labor-backed Democrat Governor Bill Ritter in Colorado vetoed such a bill at the request of cash-strapped mayors).

The Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining bill would allow public safety union bosses to seize monopoly bargaining privileges over public safety employees who otherwise have chosen to refrain from being represented by or  financially supporting a union. Union officials would gain new powers in 28 states to become  "exclusive bargaining agents" of all public safety employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving the employees of the right to make their own individual employment contracts.

According to NILRR:

The only policies acceptable under this measure are those that empower union bosses to bargain on behalf of police and firefighters who have refused to join the union and want nothing to do with it, as well as those who have voluntarily joined.

...H.R. 413 would rewrite the public-sector labor laws of the vast majority of the 50 states to make them more pro-forced unionism.

In states that don’t currently authorize public-safety monopoly bargaining, H.R. 413 would impose it, denying localities the option to refuse to grant a single union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join. And in most states that already authorize union monopoly bargaining, H.R. 413 would widen its scope.

To view NILRR's fact sheet, click here.

At the annual Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism (CEAFU) conference in Washington, D.C., Right to Work Legislative Director Greg Mourad discussed the state of the card check debate in Congress. Here's the video:

The National Right to Work Committee's Greg Mourad sits down with WCHS radio hosts Michael Agnello and Rick Johnson to discuss card check's legislative prospects. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below: