On Tuesday, National Right to Work staff attorneys argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of tens of thousands of California civil servants who were forced to contribute to an SEIU "Political Fight Back Fund" in 2005. The video below gives a overview of what's at stake in the case, including an interview with Foundation staff attorney Jim Young:

You can also read Right to Work President Mark Mix's op-ed on the case in The Washington Times. Here's the key quote:

Forcing civil servants to subsidize the political agenda of an organization to which they don’t belong should offend every American, regardless of political sympathies. Voluntary SEIU members may wish to financially support their organization’s political goals, but nonunion employees - many of whom disagree with the union’s agenda - are under no similar obligation. Freedom of association is a bedrock principle of American democracy, and no one should be compelled to support a group to which they don’t belong.

For more info, check out the Foundation's Knox webpage, which includes links to relevant legal documents, press releases, and media coverage. 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to release its ruling in the case by June.

Worker Advocate Blasts Obama Labor Board Rule Change

New rule would allow union bosses to ambush workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks

Washington, DC (December 22, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced new guidelines that give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees in representation elections which will be implemented on April 30, 2012.

The new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted are designed to dramatically shorten the time individual workers have to share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. The new rules were rushed out before former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer and Obama recess appointee Craig Becker's NLRB term expires, at which point the NLRB will drop to two members and no longer have a quorum necessary to take any action.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – the nation's leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – released the following statement in the wake of the NLRB's announcement:

"Christmas came early for Big Labor as the Obama Labor Board has once again given union bosses increased power to ambush workers into dues-paying union ranks.

Read the entire release here.

Healthcare Workers Win Settlement after SEIU Union Officials Demand Personal Information

Worker advocate assists healthcare workers coerced into forced dues union ranks

Sacramento, CA (November 30, 2011) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a Sutter Roseville Medical Center respiratory care practitioner has won a settlement against a statewide union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

Late last year, Mary Massen filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in San Francisco after Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers – West (SEIU-UHW) officials refused to allow her to exercise her rights.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who has exercised her right to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a 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.

Union officials failed to provide nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires and forced the workers to object annually, a tactic designed to coerce workers into paying full union dues. Additionally, SEIU-UHW union officials required employees to provide their social security numbers to refrain from paying union dues used for union boss political activities, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

Read the entire release here.

California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court

Court to review Ninth Circuit decision requiring California state employees to contribute to union political fund

Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials' political activism.

Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions' special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union's political fund.

Read the entire release here.

As previously reported on the Freedom@Work blog, union militants are certainly making headlines of late using violent tactics and vandalism to prove their point.

Stunningly, union thugs in Michigan may have taken this to the next level last week when John King, owner of King Electrical Services, was reportedly shot by a union goon spraying the word "scab" on the side of his car in the driveway.

Of course this should surprise no one familiar with the violent legacy of Big Labor, including that of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka. But for good measure, the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) opined today about union bosses' reliance on violence to get their way:

The attack on King is emblematic of the sad fact that the leading perpetrators of political violence today are U.S. labor unions.

They've grown more violent in their rhetoric as their political power grows and their appeal to workers diminishes.

According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a right-to-work think tank in Washington, there have been 4,400 incidents of union violence in the last 20 years.

The Teamsters are the leading perpetrators, with 454 incidents. But IBEW, which some suspect in the King incident, is in the top 10, having engaged in 125 incidents.

All told, there have been 11,600 incidents of union violence against workers, management and the public since 1975.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court actually ruled to grant union officials the special privilege to be exempt from federal prosecution for union violence. And shocking these numbers may seem, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research states that for reported incidences of union violence between 1975 and 2000, only three percent of those incidents have led to an arrest and conviction.

The numbers used by IBD also don't account for the fact that most incidents of union violence go unreported (a study of one strike found seven instances of violence for every on reported on in the media) meaning that the already staggering numbers the article cites are just the tip of the iceberg.

Union Member Seeks to Block Obama Labor Department’s Efforts to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules

Department guts disclosure rule that has exposed numerous corrupt union boss schemes, let rank-and-file members know how dues are spent

Washington, DC (May 23, 2011) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Maryland county government employee is asking a federal court to stop the Obama Administration from allowing union bosses to conceal lavish and corrupt union expenditures from workers.

Chris Mosquera, a member of a Municipal County Government Employee Local of the United Food and Commercial Worker (UFCW) union, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for rescinding a union boss disclosure rule which would make it less difficult for workers to hold union officials accountable.

Unions covered by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) with total annual receipts of $250,000 or more are currently required to submit annual financial statements to the U.S. Department of Labor. LM-2 forms are the public disclosure documents for these larger unions and are available online on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) website.

These forms have helped workers and citizen activists expose many unscrupulous union boss schemes, including lavish benefits to high-ranking union officials and loyalists, superfluous spending on union boss transportation (including private jets), and shady political spending (such as the Service Employees International Union bosses’ links to the disgraced political organization ACORN).

Read the entire release here.

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.

Local Union Bosses Face Federal Labor Charge for Illegally Taking Money from Workers’ Paychecks

Union officials’ illegal forced-dues scheme highlights need for Right to Work law

Detroit, MI (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Farmington Hills-based nursing home employee has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate.

In October 2009, Donna Smith, a Botsford Common Nursing Home custodian, refrained from formal, full-dues-paying union membership from the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.

Under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, the Court held that nonmember employees in states without Right to Work protections for its workers may still be forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment, but they do have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

Despite her being a nonmember, SEIU union officials continued to collect full union dues from Smith’s paycheck for 10 more months. In September 2010, Smith and SEIU union officials reached a settlement in which she received the difference of full union dues and the union fees that she is forced to pay for the union bosses’ so-called “representation.”

Read the entire release here.

Foundation President Mark Mix appeared on Fox Business's "Varney and Company" to discuss the SEIU's shady political fundraising practices:

For more on this issue, check out Mix's recent op-ed in The Washington Examiner:

Imagine the outcry if McDonalds executives demanded that franchise owners collect “voluntary” contributions totaling $25,000 for the company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) from employees at every restaurant.

What if the fast food titan’s headquarters followed up with a threat - pay us, or face a $37,500 fine? Do you think this heavy-handed scheme would raise a few eyebrows at the Federal Election Commission (FEC)?

Replace “McDonalds” with “SEIU” in that description and you’ve got a pretty good idea of Big Labor’s latest political fundraising strategy. To meet their ambitious fundraising targets, Service Employees International Union bosses are now threatening to fine any local affiliate that doesn’t meet its PAC contribution requirements.

The only problem with this racket is that FEC guidelines explicitly prohibit organizations from collecting PAC funds by threatening members with financial reprisals . . .

In the latest issue of the Federalist Society's Engage journal, National Right to Work Foundation attorney William Messenger discusses two lawsuits challenging schemes in Michigan and Illinois that force unionization on personal care providers and child care providers.

Two principal groups of individuals are currently being subjected to state-imposed representation. The first group is “Personal Care Providers,” who provide home personal care to disabled, chronically ill, or elderly individuals whose care is paid for by state self-directed home and community-based service (“HCBS”) programs established under Medicaid. This care generally includes assistance with daily living activities, such as dressing, grooming, and homemaking. Although the details of state HCBS programs vary, their core feature is that participants have discretion to hire, fire, and supervise their Personal Care Providers. The state subsidizes participants’ costs for hiring a Personal Care Provider and provides counseling to facilitate the process.

....

The second group is “Childcare Providers,” who provide home childcare (i.e., daycare) services to parents whose childcare expenses are subsidized by state programs established under the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Childcare Providers include independent contractors who operate daycare businesses from their homes, employees employed in parents’ homes, and relatives willing to watch their grandchildren or other related children in their homes. State programs generally permit participants to hire the private Childcare Provider of their choice, with the state’s role generally limited to paying some or all of their childcare costs.

As Messenger explains in the article, these forced unionism schemes infringe upon the First Amendment rights of compassionate care providers (including grandparents and babysitters) because they are being forced to support political speech and lobbying activities with no vital government interest.

In Michigan, 40,000 child care providers are now forced to pay union dues to joint venture of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions, and the scheme in Illinois forces approximately 20,000 personal care providers to pay fees to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These schemes funnel millions of dollars into union coffers at the expense of the care recipients.

Hopefully, the federal courts will correct the gross injustice done to these tens of thousands of care providers, but these lawsuits have much wider implications. At least 15 other states have similar schemes, and union bosses are on the move to impose their representation on care providers nationwide.

Moreover, if these schemes are upheld, Messenger argues, "any individuals that receive monies from a government program, such as contractors with the government and recipients of Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other government entitlements" could soon find themselves subjected to compulsory union representation.

Read the full article here.