As reported on the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, Development Counselors International (DCI) recently asked corporate executives and representatives which states they thought were the best to locate for business. As the Examiner notes, America's job providers overwhelmingly favored states with Right to Work laws.

Of course this should come to no surprise. The results of DCI's survey largely mirrors that of CNBC 2010 "Best for Business" list, in which states with Right to Work protections for its workers were ranked seven of the top 10 and 10 of the top 15.

But despite the economic benefits business enjoy from Right to Work, the real beneficiaries are America's independent-minded workers. As the National Institute of Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has found time and again, workers and their families benefit immensely from Right to Work protections: from higher incomes and purchasing power to an increased likelihood of sending their children to college and having private, employment-based health insurance.

And most important of all, workers in Right to Work states get to exercise their fundamental freedom of association -- a quintessential American value supported by 80 percent of Americans and even 80 percent of union members.

Ohio Teachers File Class-Action to Halt Compulsory Union Dues for Political Activism

Union bosses illegally force Ohio’s teachers to pay for electioneering

Columbus, Ohio (August 5, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union "fees" taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union's regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law.

Read the entire release here.

Worker Advocate Asks Federal Labor Board to Uphold Precedent Disallowing Forced Unionization of Grad Students

Foundation files brief supporting university teaching assistants' First Amendment freedom of association

Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.

Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.

Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.

In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers' arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work.

Read the entire release here.

Manny Lopez from the Detroit News comments on the United Autoworker (UAW) union hierarchy's "new" strategy of organizing workers, (i.e. using even more intimidation and harassment to force additional workers into their dues-paying ranks):

Bob King, the new president of the UAW was stumping for democracy yesterday, and you'd think that it would be hard to corrupt such a thing.

But he did. See, democracy to the unions means do it our way, or no way.

King said the UAW will try a new tactic to organize foreign automakers. The membership-declining union is going to draft a set of principles that will bar companies from using derogatory, untruthful or threatening statements to dissuade workers from organizing (as if that was a one-way street).

"Any company that does not agree to the UAW principles is essentially declaring war on freedom of speech and assembly," he said.

Ta-da, the "shame campaign" (my interpretation, not his).

Those that don't sign on will be labeled as being against the First Amendment.

But as Lopez correctly points out, UAW union hypocrites seem the least bit interested in protecting Michigan workers' rights to also not be forced to associate with something they want no part of:

In fact, the UAW's push for freedom could be a good thing if it were universally open to such a thing. How about the UAW abide by its own new interest in openness and allow its members in Michigan and other forced unionism states to also have the freedom to decide whether they want to be in the union?

I'll buy into the UAW's campaign for the First Amendment and the freedom of speech and assembly when it gives its workers in every state that same opportunity.

How about it Mr. King? Let's make Michigan a right-to-work state. Or is the freedom to choose limited to certain circumstances?

And not only would Right to Work protections be great for workers' rights, it would also be good for their wallets.  Now that's a "new" strategy Michigan's families could support.

As reported in today's Washington Examiner, the National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix sent a letter to the U.S. Senate opposing Elena Kagan's confirmation as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for misrepresenting her views regarding the use of forced union dues for union boss political activity.

From the Examiner:

(Mark Mix argues) Kagan should not be confirmed because when she was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, about a 1996 email she wrote while serving in the Clinton administration, she falsely claimed she was merely repeating the chief executive's views, not her own.

In his letter to the senators, Mix quoted Kagan's email in which she said:

"It is unfortunately true that almost any meaningful campaign finance reform proposal raises constitutional issues. This is a result of the Supreme Court's view - which I believe to be mistaken in many cases - that money is speech and that attempts to limit the influence of money on our political system therefore raises First Amendment problems."

Kagan could not have simply been echoing somebody else's view in that email, Mix argued, because a memo later in 1996 from her and other White House staff members to then-White House chief of staff Leon Panetta "incorporated Ms. Kagan's argument that the First Amendment does not protect the right to spend money for political activities. In short, in 1996 Ms. Kagan both suggested and endorsed that crabbed view of the First Amendment."

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has repeatedly fought to protect workers who are forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment to also support union boss political activities with which they disagree before the U.S. Supreme Court and various other courts across the country.

Mark Mix's letter also noted that Kagen expressed opposition to the Foundation's Supreme Court victory in Communications Workers v. Beck in which the Court affirmed the right of private-sector workers to exercise the same freedom from coerced support of union boss politics under the National Labor Relations Act:

(Ms. Kagan) recommended that President Clinton oppose any legislation protecting the right of workers not to be forced to subsidize union politics, despite the First Amendment’s guarantee of that basic worker freedom of speech and association.

...

Ms. Kagan emailed… her recommendation that (the Administration)… “state strong opposition to Beck legislation, no matter what it is attached to.”

Ms. Kagan… disagreed with the well-established legal principle that underlies the long line of Supreme Court decisions recognizing the constitutional right of workers not to be compelled to subsidize union political activities as a condition of employment… (putting) her far outside the judicial mainstream and (demonstrating) a disdain for the rights of independent-minded American workers.

To read Mark Mix's letter, click here.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently ran the following letter to the editor by Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason in response to an editorial regarding the Foundation's recent victory in federal court over attempts by union partisans to silence the Foundation's legal aid program using Utah's campaign finance regulations:

A newspaper should understand that the First Amendment isn't merely a "loophole," as implied by The Tribune editorial "Repairs needed: Campaign financing laws should be tougher" (Sept. 11) about the National Right to Work Foundation's federal court victory that struck down as unconstitutional key parts of Utah's campaign finance law.

After the foundation received from Utah teachers reports of coercion and illegal use of school property during a union-run petition drive, it ran radio and TV ads informing teachers of their rights and offering free legal aid. Union activists were upset that we would dare to help teacher victims, and they used state campaign finance laws to retaliate. Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert blundered in trying to force our charitable organization to hand over contributor names and other information, even though we never engaged in any kind of electioneering. Herbert's ham-handed actions led to the deserving demise of Utah's broad and vague speech regulations.

The editorial noted that legislators must now go back to the drawing board. This time, they ought to read the First Amendment before putting pen to paper.

Stefan Gleason
Vice President
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
Springfield, Va.

The U.S. District Court has pinned back the ears of the Utah political class, particularly Lieutenant Governor Herbert -- slapping down key provisions of their unconstitutional campaign finance regulations. The law was exploited by political opponents to muzzle -- even criminalize -- certain speech.

When teachers in Utah began complaining to National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in early 2007 that union activists were swarming school property and pressuring them to sign petitions to overturn a school reform measure, the Foundation took quick action by running television and radio ads offering free legal aid.

That did not sit well with union activists who complained to the state's speech regulators. The Lieutenant Governor and staff sent threatening letters to the Foundation demanding contributor information and other private information.

In response, the Foundation -- with the invaluable help of the Madison Center for Free Speech -- filed a lawsuit to challenge parts of Utah's speech regulation laws as unconstitutional violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

In a summary judgment ruling issued late yesterday, Federal Judge Dee Benson agreed with the National Right to Work Foundation. Responding to the ruling, Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason issued the following statement:

Utah's political authorities, especially Lieutenant Governor Herbert, went way overboard, and their unconstitutional law was deservedly smacked down by the U.S. District Court.

Our organization received numerous reports from employees about coercion and other illegal actions during a union petition drive in 2007. What we do is provide free legal aid and information. That's all we do -- it's the Foundation's mission, whether the union militants engaged in the coercion like it or not.

Just because a teacher union activist doesn't like our public service legal-aid advertisements and files a complaint does not justify the state's politicians coming in and harassing us with unconstitutional regulation.

The Utah law at issue is one of the most unconstitutionally overbroad and overvague of all campaign finance laws in the nation. The Judge recognized this and, not surprisingly, ruled in our favor.

Politicians can't just come in and harass charities with draconian regulations that chill their voluntary, non-express-advocacy speech.

In a press release about the case James Bopp of the James Madison Center for Free Speech said:

This case was a perfect example of government overreaching into the very heart of the First Amendment... the Foundation was engaging in the very activities it always has, offering free legal aid to workers affected by coercive union activities, and because they happened to coincide with a ballot measure election, the state claimed that they were regulable.

This is a decisive victory for the First Amendment. Speech surrounding ballot measures is no less protected than speech about candidates, and regulation of political speech must be limited to express advocacy and organizations cannot be forced to register and report as a political committee unless they have the passage or defeat of a ballot measure as their major purpose.

The James Madison Center release can be downloaded here.

Pennsylvania Turnpike employees should watch the Teamsters union-Turnpike Commission talks closely as another union-ordered statewide strike looms.

Why" Past experience shows that Teamster union bosses tried to block Turnpike employees from exercising their constitutional rights to refrain from formal union membership and cut off compulsory dues unrelated to monopoly bargaining.

In recent months, the National Right to Work Foundation helped 28 Pennsylvania Turnpike employees file separate federal civil rights lawsuits against Teamsters union locals 77 and 250, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and two Turnpike Commission officers for illegally seizing union dues from the employees’ paychecks.

The breakthrough came for the Turnpike employees when a federal judge ruled that Local 77’s union policy prohibiting employees from resigning from membership (so-called "maintenance of membership" clauses) likely violates First Amendment.

The federal judge enjoined the Teamsters union locals and the PTC from seizing the forced dues from the employees’ paychecks. But most importantly, the judge found that union officials’ actions demonstrated a “real or immediate danger to their First Amendment rights.”

Union officials commonly use the "maintenance of membership" clauses to trap workers in union ranks. And you can bet that as Teamsters union officials sit at the table with PTC officials, they’ll be pushing for this clause to stay so that union bosses can thwart any employee effort to reclaim forced dues.