Worker Asks Federal Appeals Court to Overturn Backroom Deal Between Union and Company Officials

Union organizers obtained workers’ personal information as part of a quid pro quo with the company to force employees under union control

Hollywood, FL (February 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee is taking his case against local union officials and his employer to a federal appeals court.

In 2008, Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming officials entered into an agreement in which union officials agreed to spend over one hundred thousand dollars in workers’ forced union dues on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility.

In return, Mardi Gras officials promised they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit against Unite Here in 2008, arguing that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because the company made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.

Read the entire release here.

In an expose published last week in the New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse profiles several UNITE HERE union organizers who claim that union bosses demanded they reveal intimate details of their personal lives -- including whether or not they have even been sexually abused -- and then collected this sensitive information and shared it with other union staff and organizers in a disturbing process known as "pink-sheeting."

The union organizers' accounts of what they claim is a widespread problem within UNITE HERE are simply horrifying and speak for themselves:

“It’s extremely cultlike and extremely manipulative,” said Amelia Frank-Vitale, a Yale graduate and former hotel union organizer who said these practices drove her to see a therapist.

...

“This information is extremely personal,” said Matthew Edwards, an organizer who had disclosed that he was from a broken home and was overweight when young. “It is catalogued and shared throughout the whole organizing department.”

...

“I wanted to change conditions at my workplace,” Maria said. “I was ready to fight for respect for workers. But this entire thing felt like a total lack of respect. I quit the union because I felt this was psychological abuse.”

The full article has many more accounts, and it's a must-read for those concerned with the lack of accountability within the union hierarchy.   The union organizers claim that their supervisors relied on "pink-sheeting" to ensure the organizers remained loyal to the union bosses and never questioned their authority or instructions. However one feels about unions in general, everyone should agree that these tactics are an affront to basic human decency and should have no place in the workplace.

The comments section contains several replies from Times readers claiming to be current or former  union staffers or organizers backing up the veracity of the accounts in the article.  One commenter claims to have heard the real goal of pink-sheeting "is to expunge the staffer of middle-class values."  It's understandable to question the accounts of anonymous commenters, but these current and former organizers deserve to be heard for coming out against these outrageous union boss practices.

Of course, while ignored by the notoriously pro-forced unionism Times, the article raises more fundamental questions, including:

• If this is how union bosses treat organizers, how can union bosses be trusted to "represent" rank-and-file workers who vocalize opposition to unionization?

• And perhaps most timely: With such horrific tactics continuing to come to light, why are so many politicians still intent on handing union bosses even more special privileges?

The Las Vegas Sun reports that internal disputes and struggles for power within some of the nation's top union monopolies have played a role in Big Labor's inability to force the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill through Congress.

This is largely untrue.  While internal union disputes may be playing a small role, the real story is that the National Right to Work Committee has led mobilized grassroots America to lobby against this toxic union boss power grab.  Of course, this bill would eliminate the secret ballot in union certification elections and empower federal bureaucrats to write and impose contracts on small businesses and workers.

But the current power struggle among UNITE HERE union chiefs is incredibly revealing:

Exhibit A: Unite Here General President Bruce Raynor resigned last week from the apparel and hotel workers union after six months of legal and verbal jousting with co-president John Wilhelm over union resources and the direction of Unite Here.

He said he decided to quit after Wilhelm’s allies, accompanied by nearly a dozen security guards, broke into his New York union office and stole personal files related to mediation sessions aimed at reconciling the two leaders’ differences. Raynor likened the incident to something one would see on the HBO mob series “The Sopranos.”

A bit of a thug himself, Raynor would know.  Sadly, union violence and intimidation is nothing new and it is usually committed against independent-minded American workers.  The Card Check Forced Unionism Bill would only increase union harassment of American workers.

Indeed, even comparing union operations to "The Sopranos" is common.  And it's no laughing matter, as we show in this Right to Work video report about an indictment of twelve Operating Engineers Local 17 union officials.

This week, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida challenging the quid pro quo between Mardi Gras Gaming and UNITE HERE Local 355 union bosses:

Boca Raton, Florida (November 6, 2008) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, an employee at a Mardi Gras Gaming facility has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent UNITE HERE Local 355 union officials from obtaining illegal assistance in pressuring workers to unionize – including possession of workers’ personal addresses and other private information.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that union officials violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) by entering into an agreement with Mardi Gras Gaming that allows the union access to information about nonunion employees, use of the employer’s property for organizing, and control over the employer’s communications with workers. The LMRA expressly forbids employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions.

The LMRA’s prohibition on transfers of things of value from employers to unions is intended to prevent deals that induce union officials to place their own interests or the interests of employers above the workers themselves.

Read the rest of the Foundation's press release here.

If "UNITE-HERE" union officials have their way, employees of Donald Trump's new Windy City hotel may soon be hearing "you're fired" if they refuse to pay union dues. According to Crain's Chicago Business:

The Trump International Hotel & Tower offers both a high-profile target and an opportunity to bring 300 or more employees into the union fold. UNITE HERE wants Trump to approve a so-called neutrality agreement, which would permit organizers to try to persuade workers to sign cards supporting union representation.

So called "neutrality agreements"are anything but- they often require employers to assist union officials in organizing employees. Under such pacts, employers must often grant union organizers sweeping access to employees, hold "captive audience" meetings, and even hand out employees' personal information.

Notice too as you read the article, as is common in many similar situations, that union officials are targeting the hotel's employees rather than vice versa. Makes sense, since without a Right to Work law, union officials can force employees in Illinois to pay dues. Looks like it's all about the forced-dues cash.