Writing in The Charleston Post & Courier, National Right to Work President Mark Mix explains the broader issues at stake in the NLRB's complaint against Boeing:

So why is the National Labor Relations Board so incensed about Boeing's decision to open a new production line in South Carolina? And why is the IAM so eager to keep Boeing in Washington State?

The answer is simple. South Carolina protects workers' freedom of choice.

The state's longstanding Right to Work law ensures that while workers have the right to join a union, they cannot be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to get or keep a job. Washington State, on the other hand, allows union officials to extract dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment.

Click here to read the whole thing. You can keep up with the latest developments in the case on the Foundation's Boeing page.  

National Right to Work President Mark Mix was interviewed on two Fox Business programs about the Right to Work Foundation's efforts to help Charleston Boeing employees protect their jobs:

Meanwhile, a local Charleston news station interviewed Dennis Murray, one of the Boeing employees who, with the help of Foundation attorneys, is taking action against the NLRB and union lawyers' attempt to put Murray and his co-workers out of a job:

On Tuesday, with the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a group of Boeing employees moved to intervene to stop the NLRB from shutting down Boeing's Charleston Dreamliner plant. The Foundation's announcement made headlines nationwide, including television coverage across South Carolina:

Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced it was providing free legal aid to three South Carolina Boeing Employees, who are moving to intervene in a case brought by the Obama National Labor Relations Board and IAM union bosses that would to shut down production at Boeing's Charleston Dreamliner facility.

A copy of the Foundation's motion to intervene includes statements from the three Boeing employees, who explain their negative experiences with IAM union officials and their reasons for speaking out against the NLRB's attempt to move production of the Boeing Dreamliner back to (non-Right to Work) Washington State.

Dennis Murray, one of the intervenors, describes his history with the IAM before Vought, his old employer, was acquired by Boeing:

"When I went to work at Vought in 2008, the IAM had been voted in as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative, but they were just negotiating a first contract. In November 2008, an IAM representative called an emergency meeting but only told twelve of the 200 union members in the unit about the meeting. A total of thirteen employees attended the meeting and those few in attendance ratified the IAM's contract by a vote for 12-1. Many of the provisions of the new IAM contract were worse than what Vought employees already had without a contract. For example, employees lost medical, dental, and short term disability. The Vought employees were then extremely unhappy with the IAM's actions. This unhappiness was exacerbated by subsequent layoffs that lasted from three weeks to five months."

Like many other Charleston-based Boeing employees, Murray is concerned that he'll lose his job if the NLRB forces Boeing to move back to Washington:

"It seems clear that many Charleston-based employees and I would lose our jobs with Boeing in South Carolina if the General Counsel's proposed remedy is adopted. The current unemployment rate here is high and jobs are scarce. If I lose my job, my family will be devastated . . ."

Cynthia Ramaker, another Boeing employee, also encountered the IAM's backroom dealings before Boeing acquired Vought:

"In general there was not much communication between the IAM and the employees."
"Of the 200 union members in the unit only 13 attended the contract ratification meeting. Those few in attendance ratified the IAM's contract by vote of 12-1. Many of the provisions of the new IAM contract were worse than what Vought employees already had without a contract . . . Employees lost medical, dental, and short term disability. Additionally, dues were set to increase, although this requirement was later reduced due to the strong backlash in the unit."

Ramaker, a former IAM union official, also opposes the NLRB's efforts to shut down Dreamliner production:

"I am not surprised by the Unfair Labor Practice filed by the IAM in Seattle/Everett against Boeing. They are violating my right to work with a choice. Isn't that what being an American is all about?"

Like Murray, she worries about the consequences of shutting down the Boeing facility: 

"I understand that the NLRB General Counsel's remedy in this case will force Boeing to discontinue the final assembly and delivery work in Charleston, and transfer it to Seattle. This remedy is grossly unfair and would devastate our community and thousands of families."

The third intervenor, Meredith Going, Sr., is also concerned about his own job prospects if Boeing is forced to shut down production:

"The current unemployment rate here is high and jobs are scarce. Many people I know would like to work at Boeing if they could. I am 65 years old, and was unemployed for over a year before I got this job with Boeing. Before coming to Boeing, I was laid off from my previous job in the automobile finance business. If I lose my job with Boeing, I'd have to go back on unemployment . . . I am sure that any unemployment I would receive would run out quickly, and at my age getting a good job with good wages and benefits like what I have here with Boeing is extremely difficult."

The statements from these employees give you an idea of what's at stake here. If the NLRB and the IAM successfully force Boeing to shut down the Dreamliner production line, South Carolina stands to lose over 1,000 existing jobs and thousands more once the plant is in full production.

The NLRB's unprecedented move would be devastating to these employees and to their entire community, which is why they've stepped forward to defend their rights and their jobs.

Regular readers are already up to speed on the Obama National Labor Relations Board's attempt to punish Boeing for opening a new production line in Right to Work South Carolina - and the National Right to Work Foundation's efforts to help Boeing employees. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore explain why the NLRB's actions are so pernicious:

The Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint last month against Boeing to block production of the company's 787 Dreamliner at a new assembly plant in South Carolina—a "right to-work" state with a law against compulsory union membership. If the NLRB has its way, Dreamliner assembly will return to Washington, a union-shop state, along with more than 1,000 jobs.

The NLRB's action, which Boeing will challenge at a hearing next month, is a big deal. It's the first time a federal agency has intervened to tell an American company where it can and cannot operate a plant within the U.S. It lays the foundation of a regulatory wall with one express purpose: to prevent the direct competition of right-to-work states with union-shop states. Why, as South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley recently asked on these pages, should Washington have any more right to these jobs than South Carolina?

The National Right to Work Foundation is offering free legal assistance to South Carolina workers affected by this complaint. If you work at Boeing's Charleston Dreamliner plant, we strongly encourage you to contact us today.

Workers Assert Constitutionally-Protected Rights After Union Officials Demand Personal Information

Right to Work Foundation assists Sacramento healthcare providers coerced into union forced dues ranks

Sacramento, CA (December 20, 2010) – A Sutter Roseville Medical Center healthcare professional has filed federal labor charges against a local union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Massen filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in San Francisco.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who elects to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, she cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers – West union officials refuse to provide the Center’s nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires. SEIU United Healthcare union officials also require the workers to annually object, a tactic designed to force workers into paying full union dues. Foundation attorneys defeated the annual objection requirement of another union before the NLRB earlier this year.

Additionally, this union requires employees who choose not to join the union to provide their social security numbers to refrain from supporting the union officials’ non-bargaining expenses, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

Read the entire release here.

Employees File Federal Class Action Suit to Halt Abusive Mandatory Union Dues Scheme

Right to Work Foundation helps employees challenge national union’s illegal “annual objection” policy

Aberdeen, MD (September 21, 2009) – Today, two employees filed a class action federal suit challenging the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union’s nationwide policy requiring employees to object year after year to paying union dues they cannot be lawfully forced to pay.

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Jacobs Technology Incorporated employees Rick Gorham and Robert Negosta are challenging the IAM union officials’ scheme intended to thwart non-union members’ legal rights to refrain from paying union dues for union electioneering and other non-bargaining activities. Foundation attorneys filed the complaint in Maryland’s U.S. District Court on behalf of the two employees and all of Jacobs Technology’s other similarly-situated employees.

In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that union officials can lawfully compel nonmembers to pay union dues as a job condition, but not the part of dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. However, these limited rights have been difficult to enforce, as union officials often concoct illegal schemes such as these “annual objection” policies to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights.

(Continue reading this news release...)

Recently, Foundation attorneys notified employees represented by the Machinists union (IAM) and Washington Education Association union (WEA) nonmembers of their opportunity to reclaim a portion of their forced union dues from supporting the union officials' politics as determined by law and Foundation-won court precedent.

Employees Represented by IAM

In the National Right to Work Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union", it states that:

If you are a nonmember of the IAM paying dues to keep your job, you are entitled to claim a reduction in your 2009 IAM dues of approximately 25%. For 2009, the IAM admits that 30.54% of International union dues, 16.77% of district lodge dues and 20.61% of local lodge dues are spent on political, ideological and other non-representational activities for which no employee can be required to pay. According to the "Notice" published in the Fall 2008 issue of the "IAM Journal," you can claim this reduction by sending a letter postmarked during the month of November 2008.

With November ending in less than a week and a half, now is the time to act if you have not already done so to get your 25% reduction in your 2009 IAM dues. For more information and specific instructions on how to claim your rebate, read the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union (IAM)".

Nonmembers of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association (Washington teachers)

In the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers" it states that:

As a nonmember of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association, you should have received your 2008/09 "Hudson" package from the WEA. Please use this suggested letter that you can fill out and mail to get your 2008/09 rebate check of around $200. You must individually complete and send in your objection/challenge/rebate request letter. Your letter must be postmarked on or before December 8, 2008!

Again, time is running out. December 8th is less than two-and-a-half weeks away and if you do not send in your letter on or before December 8th, you will probably not receive your rebate. For more specific instructions on how to claim your rebate of approximately $200, please refer to the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers".

As always, the Foundation will continue to help employees across the country fight the evils of compulsory unionism. If you are a teacher interested in your legal rights, please refer to the Abood and Hudson decisions on our Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents webpage. If you are a private sector employee, you can learn more about your legal rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck decision on the same page.

A few Right to Work-related updates from over the weekend:

1.) Does the AFL-CIO owe $14 million in back taxes? Perhaps an IRS audit will reveal other problems with the AFL-CIO's overtly partisan and massive campaign expenditures. The author overstates the good that comes from oversight of union finances by the Office of Labor Management Standards, but he does point out the amusing fact that Democrats are in favor of "smaller government" in this one instance:

One of the branches of the Department of Labor that provides a real services to all Americans is the Office of Labor-Management Standards. These are the guys who make sure that labor unions are being transparent about their finances. Or they try, when the Democrats don't cut their budget. But, for now, you get to see how unions spend their money.

If you're interested in reading more about the Foundation's ongoing efforts to ensure greater union financial disclosure, subscribe to the latest issue of Foundation Action. The July/August newsletter features a story on the DOL's latest half-hearted attempt to promote financial transparency -- any why a crippling "confidential information" loophole would render DOL's whole exercise as useless.

2.) More good stuff from the Washington Examiner. John Barnes has a informative post entitled "Why public sector labor unions are a bad idea." Here's the money quote:

This is how the cycle works: state workers are forced to join a union, even if they don't want to -- the unions collect mandatory dues from state worker paychecks -- the unions use that money to support campaigns for the very elected officials with whom they bargain for contracts -- not surprisingly, the unions tend to get favorable contracts that usually result in higher membership dues that in turn provide the unions with more money to fund "friendly" elected officials. Add a growing state workforce, repeat cycle, and stir. What's the basic ingredient here? Your tax dollars.

For those of you who missed it, Freedom@Work spotlighted Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire's incestuous relationship with union officials last week. The Seattle Times article detailing her connections to Big Labor is well-worth a read.

The International Association of Machinists (IAM) has a long and troubled relationship with true workplace representation.  In fact, the union bosses' authoritarian nature of governance more closely resembles communist North Korea.

Section B-2 of the IAM's "Official Circular No. 813 - Strike Sanctions and Benefits" (pdf) lays out the organization's procedures for accepting a renegotiated contract or rejecting a new offer from management and going on strike:

". . . a secret ballot vote by the membership present and voting must carry by a two-thirds (2/3) majority in order to declare a strike."

Section B-3 makes it perfectly clear that IAM officials can unilaterally "ratify" a collective bargaining agreement even if a majority of employees vote against the new contract. In other words, IAM representatives are empowered by their own regulations to ignore workers' preferences:

"In the event that a strike vote fails to carry by the required two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the collective bargaining agreement at issue will be accepted." [Emphasis in original]

Not exactly what you'd call fair -- vote no, but get yes. A recent NLRB administrative law judge ruling (pdf) involving a collective bargaining dispute in Indiana reveals that local IAM officials agreed to a renegotiated contract despite the fact that a majority of employees had already rejected management's new offer:

"The union put the agreement [the new contract] to a vote of employees and, following its established procedures, when less than a majority voted in favor of the contract, this triggered a strike vote requiring supermajority approval, and failing to garner approval for the strike, the contract was deemed accepted."

This situation lays bare the fraud of exclusive representation, also known as monopoly bargaining.  Unfortunately, workers have little voice when the union hierarchy is installed as the middleman... and often given other compulsory unionism privileges to boot.

With help from Foundation staff attorneys, several employees have come forward to challenge the IAM's monopoly bargaining privilege in the above-referenced workplace. These workers are interested in having a real workplace voice, not meaningless sham elections that can be ignored on a whim. Their appeal (pdf) to the NLRB General Counsel is pending further review, but we'll continue to post updates as the case progresses.