Home-Care Providers Take Case Challenging State Unionization Scheme to Federal Appeals Court

Right to Work Foundation assists home-based personal care providers pushed into union ranks against their will

Chicago, IL (December 13, 2010) – A group of home-based personal care providers have filed a federal appeal against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their agreement to force Illinois’s home-based personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the personal care providers filed their appeal with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge ruled against them.

The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 home-based personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities as “public employees” and susceptible to unwanted union boss political “representation.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to force their monopoly control over the workers, even having out-of-state union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics. Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his closely-contested primary campaign earlier this year.

Read the entire release here.

Earlier this year, Gerry McEntee, president of the powerful AFSCME union, explained to The Hill newspaper that his union's futile $87.5 million political spending blitz in the 2010 Congressional midterm elections was intended to protect unpopular incumbent Democrats in Washington, D.C.

Yesterday, Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, was published in Investor's Business Daily exposing how union members actually overwhelmingly oppose their union bosses' political spending and agenda. From Investor's:

Top union officials spent an estimated one billion dollars of union dues in an attempt to re-elect incumbent Democrat politicians back into Congress during the 2010 midterm election cycle. But just how do the rank-and-file workers feel about that?

Despite the claims by union heads based in Washington, D.C., when it comes to the critical political and policy questions of our day, union officials do not espouse the beliefs of the rank-and-file members that they claim to represent...

The poll, conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz, found that 60% of union members oppose their union bosses' record political spending in the midterm elections, viewing it a complete waste for union bosses to use union dues and treasuries to protect unpopular incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.

The Luntz/National Right to Work poll (pdf) also found:

• A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30% want her to remain Speaker;
• In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59% of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so;
• Half of union members view President Obama and the Democratic Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37% view it as a success;
• Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures;
• Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy, and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.

But what should scare union bosses the most is that 80% of union members also support the Right to Work principle that would strip union officials of their government-granted special privileges to force workers into paying union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Perhaps next time union bosses should pause before spending massive amounts of workers' money to push an agenda that the workers disagree with.

Regular Freedom@Work readers may recall that National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are duking it out in federal court against government union lawyers over a blatant political payback scheme initiated by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.  In order to thank union bosses for their political support, Granholm handed all home-based child-care providers who provide services to state-subsidized low-income families over to the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions.

Granholm, following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced-union organizing, directed state officials to grease the skids for union organizers to railroad the child-care providers under union boss control.

A courageous group of child-care workers asked National Right to Work for assistance, as some of them didn't even know they were being forced into union dues-paying ranks until it was too late, and they want nothing to do with the union.  This courageous group of workers filed a federal class-action lawsuit to challenge Granholm's scheme as a violation of their Constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and their right to freely petition government for redress of grievances because, in effect, Governor Granholm is picking the lobbyists of Michigan’s child-care providers.

In mid-July, Foundation attorneys appeared in federal court in Grand Rapids and convinced the judge to proceed with the child-care workers’ case — despite state and union lawyers’ multiple attempts to have the case dismissed.  Wednesday, the Grand Rapids Press called on the federal judge to strike down the forced unionism scheme. As the Grand Rapids Press explains:

Covert unionization violates basic constitutional rights of freedom of association. The formation of the union for Michigan child care providers four years ago was downright sneaky and unfair. A lawsuit in federal court, brought by some affected child care providers, objects to their being shoe-horned into unions — and forced to pay dues — against their will. In that suit, and in one brought in state courts, the child care providers have legitimate grievances. They should prevail.

The forced-unionization travesty occurred primarily because Michigan Democrats wanted to help the UAW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) pad their membership rolls.

In 2006, the UAW and AFSCME partnered to form a union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan. The union represents and draws dues from people who care for children from low-income families. The new union members belong either to the UAW or AFSCME, depending on the part of the state in which they live.

Whatever attempts were made to inform child care providers of the pending unionization must have been feeble at best. Only 15 percent of the state’s 40,000 dues-paying providers took part in the vote-by-mail certification election that formed the union. Fully 92 percent of those voting said yes to the union. But they hardly constitute a valid majority of all the now-dues-paying members. Hopefully, the federal lawsuit will uncover how this election was allowed to occur.

The low-income clients provided a rationale — though not a legitimate one — for the forced unionization. The argument is that because providers take public money in state subsidies for those clients, they are therefore public employees. Union dues are taken directly from the state subsidies, money that should go toward child care. The UAW and AFSCME receive 1.15 percent of the subsidies, amounting to more than $1 million a year.

To suggest that government grants make providers public employees is an epic stretch. The child care workers are employed by the parents who hire them. At best, they contract with the government for child care services for low-income clients.

...The suit in federal court, filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, challenges the unionization as a violation of the workers’ constitutional right to free association.

That is the crucial point.

Indeed. And UAW and AFSCME union bosses are funneling millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced unionism politicians (such as Governor Granholm), and now those same politicians are forcing Michigan's home-care providers to pay to the tune of $3.7 million into union boss coffers. If Foundation litigators are successful in federal court, the outcome can have a far reaching, national impact in rolling back Big Labor’s state-by-state push of forcing susceptible, unsuspecting home-care providers under union control.

FEC Fails to Investigate Teachers’ Complaint of NEA Union Money Laundering Scheme

Employee rights advocate weighs federal lawsuit

Washington, DC (January 5, 2010) – Apparently without conducting a field investigation, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed a complaint against one of the most politically active unions in America after evidence surfaced that union officials deposited illegally laundered dues money into its political action committee (PAC).

Citing in part lack of sufficient funding to enforce the law, the FEC junked a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and two Alabama teachers who discovered a union scheme to divert convention reimbursements into the National Education Association (NEA) union’s PAC.

When attending the NEA’s 2004 national convention, Daphne Middle School science department chair Claire Waites was deceived into supporting the NEA’s PAC and was determined that it would not happen again. However, Waites and Assistant Principal Dr. Jeanne Fox, both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA unions, discovered the practice continues.

Click here to read the full release.

President Barack Obama's efforts to transition the Department of Labor into a giant, taxpayer-funded extension of Big Labor's organizing and political fund-raising machine just hit another milestone. President Barack Obama's January 30, 2009 executive order, aimed to help union bosses seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda, was just printed in the Federal Register -- making it official. 

In a nutshell, the EO tears down posted notices to employees of federal contractors which explain they can actually refrain from paying forced union dues spent for union electioneering and the like.

Obama's directive intends to ensure millions of workers do not learn of their rights and revokes former-President Bush's February 2001 executive order which required federal contractors to post notices in the workplace simply informing employees of their right to refrain from formal, full-dues-paying union membership and pay only the documented cost of collective bargaining.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys won these rights in their precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court victory in Communication Workers v. Beck (1988).  

Regular Freedom@Work readers may remember Obama's edict was one of the first in a long line of political paybacks to Big Labor for their use of over a billion forced-dues dollars in 2008 to elected him and his pro-compulsory unionism allies in Congress.  View some other Obama paybacks to Big Labor, including his picks on who controls the Department of Labor and the NLRB, rolling back union disclosure guidelines and reducing union boss accountability, and using taxpayer dollars to fund their forced dues operations and bail out union boss pension funds.

When Nashua, New Hampshire postal worker Philip Wakeman paid dues to the National Post Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers' International Union, he had no idea that union bosses would illegally launder his money into their political coffers.

In July 2006, Mr. Wakeman gave a check to the NPMHU union for the full amount of his annual union dues. On the "Memo" line at the bottom of the check, he wrote "Union Dues."  A union official later acknowledged receipt of the dues and everything seemed fine – that is – until he received a bizarre phone call.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger informed Wakeman that she found his information on the internet and suggested he do a "Google" internet search of his name. The search results were astounding:  Mr. Wakeman found his name disclosed as making a contribution in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues to the NPMHU Political Action Committee (PAC) – all without his knowledge.

Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union's PAC.  Wakeman contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Foundation attorneys filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. 

It is illegal for union officials to fund union PACs using "dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization."  NPMHU union bosses are also accused of violating federal election law by making a political campaign contribution in another person's name and failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.

To read the Foundation's media release regarding the FEC complaint, click here.

To read the FEC complaint, click here.

Big Labor apologist Mark Weisbrot had a piece defending the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act in Tuesday's Chicago Sun-Times. Money quote (emphasis mine):

This law would probably change Americans' lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security. The political influence of millions of new union members would also bring us closer to such basic reforms as universal health care. It's all long overdue.

Of course, millions of new forced dues paying union members would only increase union bosses' influence, not the workers' influence -- nearly half of whom do not support Big Labor's political agenda.

Meanwhile, American who agrees with Big Labor's political agenda can already choose to financially (or otherwise) support union-backed candidates and causes. But union bosses, you see, know better than the average worker. The average worker isn't giving enough support to the Far Left politicians prefered by union officials on his own. So union bosses want to use dues money, seized from workers' paychecks, to finance their own political activism.

Worse, an increase in Card Check forced unionism will open the doors for rampant intimidation of workers by union goons -- so much of the increased dues money going to these politics will be from workers who were pressured into union ranks through card check.

Employees should indeed have a free choice -- to determine their own representation and to decide for themselves if they want to join a union or fund its political activism.

Foundation VP Stefan Gleason has an op-ed up over at Human Events on union political activism in the wake of the Supreme Court's favorable Chamber v. Brown decision. Money quote:

Although the court ruled in favor of employer free speech and employee free choice, workers remain vulnerable to an onslaught of intimidation brought on by card-check organizing drives. In one article about the ruling, an AFL-CIO union lawyer snickered that the outcome would only encourage union bosses to pour more money into passing the erroneously titled “Employee Free Choice Act.” That bill passed the House this year, but a filibuster has stalled it in the Senate. Even if Big Labor and its allies in the Senate don’t get it through this year, you can be sure they’ll be back in ’09.

This legislative power grab—endorsed by union-label politicians and bankrolled by union political funds—is designed to allow union bosses to bypass government-supervised secret ballot elections in favor of card check, tilting the playing field in favor of union organizers.

Read the whole thing here.

Over the weekend, The Oregonian posted a genuinely disturbing piece on union political activism at the state and local level. According to the article, union officials poured massive amounts of money and resources into nearly every Oregon election this past May. The results were truly staggering (emphasis mine):

"Most candidates with union backing won . . . The net result was a monster victory for labor groups that helped solidify their role as one of the state's top power brokers.

Unions played key roles in statewide victories for secretary of state candidate Kate Brown attorney general candidate John Kroger and U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley. But they also got involved locally, helping Sam Adams win the Portland mayoral contest, Democrat Michael Dembrow win the House District 45 primary in Northeast Portland, and Dennis Doyle oust Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake.

The outcome left Republicans grumbling about the increasing influence of unions in state government. And it left little doubt that labor's agenda will get red-carpet treatment when the 2009 Legislature meets in January."

Unfortunately, Big Labor's success at the state and local level foreshadows what could be an even more impressive showing in national elections this November. As the most recent issue of Foundation Action (subscribe now - it's free!) explains, unions are going for " . . . the trifecta: the House, the Senate, and the White House," according to American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) head Gerald McEntee.

From a recent Wall Street Journal article, the scope of union political activism is truly astounding, even for an election year (emphasis mine):

"The AFL-CIO has approved a record political budget of $53 million to help fund 200,000 union workers on the street. Its affiliated national and international unions have pledged another $200 million. The National Education Association will throw $40 million to $50 million at races. The Service Employees International Union has marked off $100 million for politics, and intends to pay 2,000 union members the equivalent of their salaries to work on Democratic campaigns. Add in union money for federal or state political action committees, for 527s, and for local and state races, and some astute members of the business community – those who have seen this coming “tsunami” (as one puts it) – estimate union political spending may top $1 billion in 2008."

Big Labor's political priorities include an even more pliant NLRB and passage of the misleadingly-titled "Employee Free Choice Act," a piece of legislation that would allow union bosses to bypass secret ballot elections in favor of shady "card-check" organizing drives. If Oregon is a harbinger of Big Labor's coming political ascendancy, America and particularly lovers of freedom will be facing a dark period.

The New York Times has a devastating article up on the incestuous relationship between public sector union officials and the New York state legislature. The actual controversy is downright farcical: legislators relied on a public sector union accountant to determine the cost of proposed increases to the state's employee pension plan.

A reasonable observer might suggest that this arrangement represented a clear conflict of interest, but to New York state legislators it was just good book-keeping. According to the Times, the union actuary "reviewed" hundreds of bills for the state before being exposed by the paper's investigation. What's more, the Times reports that the actuary neglected to mention additional legislative costs of up $500 million in his original reports.

The Times' description of the actuary's "methodology" is particularly mind-boggling (emphasis mine):

" . . . in an arrangement that had not been publicly disclosed, Mr. Schwartz [the union actuary] was being paid by labor unions. He acknowledged in an interview that he skewed his work to favor the [union's interests], calling his job “a step above voodoo.”

As a result, legislative leaders said they would no longer rely on Mr. Schwartz’s work, and a disciplinary board affiliated with the American Academy of Actuaries has begun a review of Mr. Schwartz’s conduct.

The Legislature relied almost exclusively on Mr. Schwartz — a consultant to District Council 37, the umbrella group of municipal unions as well as to unions representing firefighters, teachers, detectives and correction officers — to determine the cost of pension bills involving New York City employees."

Fortunately, Empire State legislators swung into action to reasssure the Times that they were monitoring the situation all along. I'm sure New York taxpayers are greatly reassured by their representatives' scrupulous accounting procedures:

"Despite legislative leaders’ assertions that they undertake independent financial analyses of the pension bills, neither the Senate nor the Assembly could provide any records to bolster that claim."

Unfortunately, this sort of lax book-keeping is par for the course when it comes to union pension funds which are often managed for the benefit of union bosses, rather than the pensioners. The incident also highlights the dangerous potential for union political activism in the legislative sphere.

When things get too cozy, there really are no breaks on political corruption. In another instance, Schwartz analyzed a Big Labor supported bill and basically lied to the legislature -- saying it would result in no additional costs to taxpayers.

"Mr. Schwartz conceded in an interview last month that he knew the bill would actually have a significant cost, explaining, “I got a little bit carried away in my formulation.”

He added that he made his projections look “as cheap as possible” to favor his clients."