Fort Jackson Security Guard Takes Courageous Stand Against Repeated Union Boss Threats and Abuses

National Labor Relations Board agents investigate charges after Right to Work Foundation attorneys join worker’s efforts

Columbia, South Carolina (October 30, 2009) – A local employee of Wackenhut Services, Inc, a security service provider contracted with Fort Jackson, is fighting back against compulsory unionism after union officials illegally attempted to have him fired from his job for refusing to pay forced union dues.

In September 2008, Ronald I. Paul filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging Wackenhut and International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and its affiliated Local 339 union bosses after Wackenhut fired him in August 2008 for refraining from formal, dues paying union membership. The charges were eventually settled in December of 2008 and Paul continued his employment.

Starting in May 2009, in violation of the settlement, the employer and SPFPA union officials issued new threats against Paul’s job.

(Read the full press release)

Today, President Barack Obama's nomination of pro-compulsory unionism radical Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is scheduled to be taken up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

National Right to Work President Mark Mix warns in today's Washington Times of the grave dangers Becker's possible confirmation will pose to workers' rights:

When the union bosses have the NLRB in their fold, workers who try to exercise their legal rights to dismiss unwanted union monopoly bargaining agents - or even to stop their forced dues from being used to elect handpicked Big Labor candidates - are denied even the most basic protections.

That's why, especially considering Mr. Becker's record, it's not a stretch to believe that - should he be confirmed by the U.S. Senate - Mr. Becker wouldn't think twice about rubber-stamping even the most abusive forced unionism schemes cooked up by union militants.

In fact, as a former AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer, Mr. Becker is solely responsible for forcing tens of thousands of workers under union boss control.

In one case, reports from a Los Angeles SEIU local union revealed that almost 63,000 people rejected membership in the union in 2007, but thanks to Mr. Becker, were still forced to pay dues.

And Mr. Becker's own words explain why. He was even so bold as to say unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition ... their actions necessarily involve coercion."

With that kind of anything-goes attitude, it's no surprise Mr. Becker supports "home visits," in which union militants repeatedly harass workers at home until they sign union-authorization cards, and even advocates letting Mr. Obama's handpicked arbiters impose contracts on workers, without even allowing the workers to vote on their own contract.

In fact, Mr. Becker is so extreme he actually believes the only choice workers should have is which union they should be forced to join and pay dues to!

In Mr. Becker's view, if an independent worker refuses to pick, he and the rest of Big Labor's lackeys on the NLRB should be able to choose a union for that worker. This kind of Big Labor kowtowing is not only outrageous, but it's also dangerous.

To read all of Mark Mix's op-ed in the Washington Times click here.

Last month, a California Agricultural Relations Board Administrative Law Judge threw out the result of a 2007 E&J Gallo’s Sonoma County vineyards employees election to oust the United Farm Workers (UFW) union as their monopoly bargaining agent.

The 2007 decertification election was the second time in less than five years the E&J Gallo's workforce voted to remove the unwanted UFW union from their workplace.  The judge ruled that the company failed to provide an accurate list to the UFW union bosses in the lead up to the election.  Unfortunately, the clear will of the employees and a 30-vote margin was ignored due to the scorned union bosses' exploitation of an apparent clerical error on the part of the company.

However, the case isn’t over yet.  National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are helping lead petitioner Roberto Parra appeal the judge's erroneous decision.  Of course, the Foundation will keep you informed on any developments in this case and others on our website and on our Freedom@Work blog.

Federal Labor Board to Prosecute Tenet Healthcare for Scheme to Sweep Nurses into Unionization

Employees seek to throw out union after union bosses’ ugly campaign of harassment and coercion

Houston, Texas (April 3, 2009) — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prosecutors have filed a complaint this week against Tenet Healthcare Corporation after it entered into a backroom deal with union officials designed to force nurses into union ranks at multiple Houston-area hospitals.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Houston-area nurses, Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Hospital and Medical Center, filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that an “Election Procedures Arrangement” (EPA) Tenet and California Nurses Association (CNA) union officials secretly established violates employees’ rights.

The unfair labor practice charges also allege that Tenet officials provided CNA union operatives with unlawful organizing assistance in violation of federal statutes: In Tenet healthcare facilities, outside union organizers are given free reign to aggressively push for a union presence; but Tenet nurses who oppose unionization, on the other hand, are forbidden from using Tenet facilities to express their views.

(Continue reading this news release...)

Today the New York Times published a letter to the editor from union activist Wilma Liebman, who as a member of the National Labor Relations Board has testified before Congress on behalf of the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill) and complaining about individual rights. In the letter, Liebman writes:

Labor policy is indeed a long-neglected arena, ripe for the intervention of President-elect Barack Obama. What the editorial doesn’t mention is the opportunity to revitalize the National Labor Relations Board, which administers the main federal labor law.

During the Bush administration, nearly every policy choice made by a sharply divided board impeded collective bargaining, created obstacles to union representation or favored employer interests. Not surprisingly, the board has lost legitimacy.

But how can the board be legitimate when a member of the Board spends her free time bashing the very law she is supposed impartially to enforce while campaigning -- in Congress, in "academic" journals, in the letters section of the Times -- to rewrite it.

One wonders how an employee could expect Liebman (who previously worked as a union lawyer) to fairly apply the law in a case where union intimidation restrains an employee's free choice to not associate with a union. Surely in most other fora, judges would recuse themselves in such cases.  (In fact, it may be appropriate for legal counsel to seek Liebman's recusal if they believe her naked union activism has forfeited her objectivity.)

Member Liebman can parrot Big Labor talking points all she wants, but the fact remains that she routinely displays an ugly disdain for true employee free choice -- the right for each employee to decide on his or her own, without being intimidated by a union organizer, whether to join or pay dues to a union.

Wednesday's Daily Labor Report (subscription required) featured a self-serving article likely placed by the National Labor Relations Board's PR flacks in which the two remaining board members assert that the NLRB "might actually be functioning more efficiently" with three vacancies than with a full five-member panel. Hmmm. Perhaps Congress should take another look at the NLRB's excessive funding levels.

We at Freedom @ Work also take issue with a false claim by the Board contained in the article:

Applying current board precedent, regardless of whether either of the two members disagrees with it and thinks it should be overturned, "hasn't been difficult, because as usual we generally try to decide cases based on extant board law," [Chairman Peter] Schaumber said. The two members explained that they are following longstanding board policy not to make new law or set new rules without at least a three-member majority voting for the change.

Oops, Mr. Schaumber. Not so. Just a few weeks ago, the two-member Board issued a controversial ruling which changed the law and further encouraged union-stooge congressmen to engage in deception and union coercion. As a Foundation press release explained (emphasis mine):

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.

The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.

The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.

Either Schaumber was confused when deciding this Trump Plaza Hotel case, or he's being disingenuous to the press.

Last time we wrote about Wilma Liebman -- National Labor Relations Board Member and unabashed promoter of compulsory unionism -- she was trashing freedom of choice for employees during hearings before Congress.

This time the NLRB Member has taken her activism to a new forum to complain about what she considers an over emphasis on individual rights. In an article in the Journal of Labor and Society, Liebman concentrates her shrill rhetoric on what she sees, God forbid, as a shift in favor of an "individual rights regime."

The screed contains much whining about a series of NLRB decisions in which Liebman dissented from the majority, but ultimately only on the last page of her article are her true motivations clearly revealed:

[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could have troubling political and social consequences.Workers may view the employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What institution will speak for working people—indeed for the middle class—as effectively?

So there you have it. Liebman's real motivation is politics pure and simple. Liebman, one of only two members currently on the five-member Board, wants to promote forced unionism over individual rights as a means to a political end (in her case that end would seem to be socialist economic policies).

She believes our nation's labor laws should be further contorted to promote what she claims are employees' "common economic interests." Nevermind that a group of workers for a single employer -- let alone the entire "middle class" -- will never all have the same interests or values, making it impossible for any institution to speak for them all.

All this raises a fundamental issue in that Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents have affirmed the free speech right of employees to refrain from union politics. If, as Liebman asserts, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) collective bargaining scheme is about promoting politics -- or as she calls it "collective action... in the public sphere" -- then the entire NLRA is not compatible with the Constitutional free speech and freedom of association rights of workers (which would certainly explain her disdain for any emphasis on individual rights).

Unfortunately for employees hoping to have their individual rights protected, Liebman will be on the Board at least until 2011.

In a disturbing move that further underscores the Bush administration's mismanagement of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB General Counsel Ronald Meisburg has inexplicably added activist Democrat Dennis Walsh to his staff in recent days. Walsh is a militant union-boss partisan who had just vacated an expired recess appointment to the five member NLRB -- a recess appointment that he should never have received from President Bush in the first place. Rather than receiving a make-work job within the bureaucracy while he pines away for yet another Board seat, Walsh should instead return to private employment. As a voting member, Walsh had worked to undermine employee free choice and to empower union bosses to coerce workers into union ranks. It's outrageous that he would be rewarded with a new post at Bush's NLRB.

Right to Work attorneys this week won a ruling at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stating that union officials cannot force nonunion workers to object twice simply to receive basic information about how union affiliates spend their forced union dues.

However, as noted on Labor Day, the window of opportunity for the Bush NLRB to undo the damgage to employee freedom done by the agency during the Clinton years is closing quickly.