National Worker Advocate Issues Labor Day Statement:

Leading union watchdog groups issue warning on organized labor’s looming power grabs

Springfield, VA (August 28, 2008) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, made the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday.

“On Labor Day, many Americans will get a much deserved day off. But as we celebrate the free-enterprise system and the value of hard work, union officials are mounting an unprecedented, billion-dollar campaign effort to grab more forced unionism power. Their goal is to elect a President and a filibuster-proof Senate that will give them even more tools to force workers to join or pay dues to a union.

“Throughout the United States, more than 12 million American workers are already compelled to pay dues or fees to unions as a condition of employment. And millions more workers are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they would rather negotiate with their employer themselves on their own merits. Today, union bosses are going all out to obtain even more special privileges to help bolster their forced-dues-paying ranks.

“Organized labor is intent on passage of several sweeping bills – including the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill, which would make workers even more vulnerable to union intimidation during union organizing drives, and the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Act, which would force hundreds of thousands of America’s first responders into union collectives by federal fiat. The National Right to Work Committee is mobilizing its 2.2 million members to combat these and other bills intended to corral even more workers into forced unionism.

“Meanwhile, many workers feel they have little choice but to pay for organized labor’s billion-dollar 2008 election campaign, and many workers are unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide seeking to get their money back. In fact, in October Foundation attorneys will argue their fourteenth case accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court – a case which defends the right of workers to refuse to pay for union activism using their mandatory union dues.

“This Labor Day, we commend those courageous American workers who are standing up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms of conscience, speech, and association. And we work toward the day when no American is forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

An audio clip of President Mix's statement is available here.

New Milestone: Two Million American Teachers Now Corralled Into Unions, 1.3 Million Forced to Pay Dues

Legal aid foundation and non-union professional teacher group launch campaign to inform educators about their rights and professional alternatives to militant unionism

Washington, DC (August 19, 2008) – As the total number of America’s teachers corralled into union collectives crosses the two million mark, a national legal aid foundation and professional educator group have joined forces in a public information campaign to educate teachers laboring under compulsory unionism about their legal rights and options.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Association of American Educators’ joint program will also inform teachers of professional associations that provide services to teachers who do not want to associate with the increasingly militant and political teacher unions. Many teachers object to the political agenda of teacher union bosses, while others object to knee-jerk union obstruction of school reforms that could increase the quality of education for students.

The public information campaign comes as a new study reveals the number of teachers forced under union “representation” has reached alarming heights. According to a National Institute for Labor Relations Research study released this month, 2.0 million teachers nationwide are now compelled to accept union monopoly control, meaning it is illegal for schools to bargain with individual teachers over employment terms or compensate them based on individual merit.

The study conservatively estimates that the two national teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), now collect $1.3 billion dollars annually from 1.3 million teachers and thousands of other school employees in the 27 states and the District
of Columbia that endorse (or do not prohibit) the firing of school employees for refusal to pay NEA or AFT union dues
or fees.

With a combined total of roughly $2 billion in dues flowing into union coffers every year from states with and without right to work protections for teachers, NEA and AFT union chiefs are largely able to control education policy, elect hundreds of politicians, and lobby against education reforms, including proposals to pay high performing educators more through a merit pay system – or hard-to-hire math and science teachers. Teacher union officials’ $2 billion dollar war chest, derived mostly from forced union dues, also makes them a major political force to obtain more special union privileges. The NEA, for example, has announced it will spend $50 million on elections this fall, not including state and local affiliates.

Experts from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Association of American Educators are available for comment on this timely issue, as teachers and students are returning for another school year. To schedule an interview please contact:

Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation at (703) 321-8510 or pts@nrtw.org. And Heather Reams, Association of American Educators at (703) 739-2100 or heather@aaeteachers.org.

UPS Drivers Sue Teamsters for Forcing Nonmembers to Subsidize Organizing Activities and Union Strike Fund

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys defend employees from compulsory unionism in parallel federal lawsuits

Louisville, Kentucky, and Dayton, Ohio (August 19, 2008) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.”

At UPS facilities in Louisville and Dayton, Teamsters Local 89 and Local 957 had been certified as the respective monopoly bargaining agents. With Teamsters officials in place as “exclusive representatives,” nonmember employees lose the right to negotiate with their employer on their own merits, and a compulsory unionism clause in the contract compels them to pay tribute to the union as a condition of employment.

In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the Supreme Court allowed certain forced dues but established that objecting employees cannot be compelled to subsidize union activities unrelated to collective bargaining. One in a series of decisions in which the High Court ruled certain expenditures non-chargeable, Ellis v. Railway Clerks (1984) prohibits unions from charging and collecting fees from nonmembers for union organizing and member-only benefits.

Since March 2006, the union charged and collected from the nonmembers compulsory fees greater than 80 percent of the full dues and fees paid by union members. Union bosses failed to provide a required notice of Beck rights and disclosure detailing the basis of the fees until this year. The financial disclosure reveals that Teamsters’ compulsory fees include disallowed expenditures for the national union’s efforts to help organize nonunion employees in both the private and public sectors nationwide. The employees have also been forced to contribute to the “Strike and Defense Fund,” which bars benefits flowing to nonmembers.

Foundation attorneys are asking the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Kentucky and the Southern District of Ohio to enforce the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ellis and Beck. The District Courts should prohibit the union from collecting fees used for these non-bargaining activities and award damages for the nonmember employees including all such illegal fees collected plus interest.

“It’s bad enough that employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership are forced to pay fees to a union they do not want,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But Teamsters bosses are violating the law by compelling nonmembers to fund strikes and organizing activities which seek to corral even more workers into forced unionism.”

Employee Rights Group Seeks Federal Criminal Investigation into SEIU Union’s Political Fundraising

SEIU’s new rule forces local affiliates to raise PAC money or kick in workers’ forced union dues and pay penalties

Washington, DC (July 17, 2008) – The National Right to Work Foundation has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice open investigations into a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its recent convention.

After reviewing a new amendment to the SEIU constitution, Foundation staff attorneys have concluded that the union and its officers may be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets.

“SEIU bosses are making a mockery of federal law. It’s vital the Department of Justice and Department of Labor take action now before the damage is done,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Elections are a cornerstone of our democratic republic, and we need to do everything possible to ensure the results aren’t tainted by unlawful union activism that violates the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

Article XV, Section 18 of the union’s constitution now authorizes the SEIU’s national brass to fine local unions for failure to meet its annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligations. SEIU COPE is the union’s federal PAC, and the FEC lists it as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006.

However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.

The new amendment also appears to allow local affiliates to use nonmember employees’ mandatory dues payments to cover PAC contributions and the SEIU’s fines. While imposition of financial penalties for failure to make political contributions is illegal regardless of how those fines are spent, the use of funds derived from nonmembers’ fees for political purposes also violates those employees’ constitutional rights.

Union officials have devoted enormous sums of money to influence the upcoming fall elections. Because the SEIU’s political contributions are so significant, Foundation attorneys believe that this amendment has the potential to irreparably compromise the integrity of the electoral process. By coercing local affiliates and nonmember employees into contributing to the SEIU’s massive general election fund, union officials threaten to disenfranchise voters with a firestorm of illegally funded political activism.

In the letter to Attorney General Mukasey, Mix writes for the Foundation: “Not only are large numbers of employees (forced to fill SEIU coffers) harmed by this crime, but, given the close vote in recent national elections, the illegal SEIU activity effectively disenfranchises voters who follow the law… To protect the rights of workers forced to pay compulsory dues and fees, and the integrity of the November elections, I trust you will act upon this information…”

### 

Download the letters to the DOL and DOJ (pdf)

Federal Government to Prosecute Hollywood Union Bosses for Unfair Labor Practices

Film crew union officials illegally refuse to disclose expenditures of politically-active affiliates

Los Angeles, California (July 2, 2008) – Federal labor prosecutors in Los Angeles have issued a class-action complaint against union officials for failing to provide Paramount Classics film crew members with proper financial disclosure of their forced union dues.

In July 2006, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Jasionowski filed an unfair labor practice charge on behalf of similarly situated employees with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Script Supervisors/Continuity & Allied Production Specialists Guild, Local 871. The NLRB Regional Director has agreed with Jasionowski’s charges and will prosecute the case before an administrative law judge in Los Angeles.

Though not a union member, Jasionowski is forced to pay union fees as a condition of her employment. However, she exercised her limited right to object to the collection of forced dues spent for any purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance administration. In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988) decision, the United States Supreme Court held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may withhold the portion of union fees which funds activities like union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

Under legal precedents won by Foundation attorneys, all non-union members must be provided with a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor. Additionally, a nonmember may challenge the amount of the fee imposed by union officials.

In late May 2006, Jasionowski notified Local 871 – an affiliate of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IASTE) – that she objected to the payment of forced fees for non-bargaining activities. Union officials, however, failed to provide an adequate breakdown of the union’s expenditures, particularly payments to IASTE and other union affiliates that are also involved in political and other non-bargaining activity.

“Perhaps more than in any other profession, union officials in the entertainment business seem to think they are above the law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mary Jasionowski – or any other employee – should not be forced to support the political agenda of a union she never wanted to ‘represent’ her in the first place.”

Union Bosses Forced to Drop Threats against Employee Exercising Right to Resign from Union Membership

Federal court suit forces Alaska union officials to drop demands that state employee be fired

Anchorage, Alaska (June 20, 2008) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an Alaska state employee has reached a favorable settlement with union officials and state administrators who threatened his termination after he asserted his right to resign from union membership. When Robert Hunsick informed officials from Alaska State Employees Association, Local 52 (ASEA) of his decision to resign from the union, union brass improperly demanded that he continue to pay full union dues or be fired.

Hunsick filed suit in United States District Court on May 19, causing ASEA lawyers to scramble to avoid a costly and embarrassing court battle with Foundation attorneys. ASEA union officials were unlawfully seizing and spending a portion of his forced dues for political and ideological purposes.

In the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously established due process safeguards to ensure that employees are not compelled to subsidize union activities beyond what union officials can prove is spent on collective bargaining. Hunsick resigned his formal union membership and asked ASEA officials to provide him a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor. Hudson also requires that union officials provide the employee who chooses to refrain from union membership an opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee.

But ASEA union boss Jim Duncan told Hunsick that he could only resign his formal union membership in a union-designated 30-day window every June. Eventually, ASEA officials accepted Hunsick’s resignation, but union officials then still failed to provide him with a proper breakdown of union dues to prove that the amount they demanded was not paying for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics, lobbying or member-only activities.

When Hunsick insisted on such a breakdown, as guaranteed under Hudson, union officials persisted in demanding that he pay up or be fired, a demand they only dropped as part of the settlement. Under the other terms of the settlement, the ASEA agreed to refund Hunsick all fees deducted from his wages, plus interest, from his initial resignation in December and waived its claim for any such fees not paid.

Alaska is one of 28 states without Right to Work protections that ensure employees are not forced to pay any union dues as a condition of employment. Hunsick’s struggle against ASEA demonstrates the chasm between Alaska’s compulsory unionism laws and its tradition of rugged individualism.

“This settlement is a small victory for employee freedom,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But as long as state laws compel workers like Robert Hunsick to support unions against their will, true freedom remains lost in the wilderness.”

NLRB To Prosecute CWA Union Local for Illegal ‘Annual Objection’ Policy Designed to Force Workers to Pay Full Dues

CWA officials used bureaucratic requirements to hamstring workers’ rights

Cleveland, Ohio (June 4, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an official complaint against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4309 union officials in response to charges filed by the National Right to Work Foundation on behalf of an AT&T employee.

CWA Local 4309 union officials are accused of committing unfair labor practices by requiring nonunion employees to annually object to mandatory dues payments unrelated to collective bargaining. An NLRB administrative law judge will rule on the federal complaint.

Under the Foundation-won precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees can be required to pay union dues germane to collective bargaining. But employees who object to paying full union dues have the right to withhold funds attributable to other union activities such as politics, lobbying, or member-only activities. Employees are also entitled to an audited financial breakdown of all union expenditures.

CWA Local 4309 union bosses required nonmember employees to annually object to making full dues payments within a short window period, despite the fact that these employees had already signaled their unwillingness to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining by refusing to join the union. Federal labor prosecutors agreed that the annual objection requirement represents an unnecessary burden that frequently results in nonunion workers paying more than they owe.

The case is one of many in which National Right to Work attorneys have helped employees challenge union policies that require workers to annually object to paying for nonrepresentational activities. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, workers have successfully challenged both the International Association of Machinists’ (IAM) and the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) annual objection policies.

“Union bosses exploit these illegal annual objection requirements to seize even more compulsory union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates the injustices workers face every day under forced unionism.”

Federal Agency to Prosecute Union for Repeatedly Threatening Valparaiso Worker’s Job

Union officials unlawfully inflate worker’s compulsory dues

Valparaiso, IN (April 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 for threatening to get a worker fired for refusing union membership. The agency issued the complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges filed by the employee with help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Minteq International, Inc. employee Joel Tibbetts originally filed federal charges against the IUOE Local 150 on October 1, 2007. Aside from threatening Tibbetts’ job, union officials are also accused of failing to notify him of his rights to refrain from full union membership, to provide him with an audit of the union’s financial expenditures, and allow him to withhold forced dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

Tibbetts, a steel mill worker at Minteq, turned to the National Right to Work Foundation for help after union officials repeatedly threatened to have him fired for refusing to join the IUOE. When Tibbetts finally agreed to join the union under protest out of fear of losing his livelihood, union officials refused his application and told him that he would actually have to pay even more in compulsory dues than his co-workers who were union members.

IUOE officials unlawfully told Tibbetts that union members’ fees are calculated on an individual basis, whereas nonmember’s fees are based on so-called “representation” costs, which somehow made the forced dues demanded of him higher than dues paid by formal union members.

“IUOE union officials have repeatedly run roughshod over the rights of workers in Indiana,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Until the Hoosier State passes a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, employees statewide will continue to face this thuggishness.”

However, under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, union officials cannot require formal union membership or the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining as a condition of employment. The decision also requires union officials to provide verified financial disclosure of union expenditures, a provision that allows employees to refuse to pay for activities unrelated to workplace representation. Retaliation or discrimination against employees for exercising these rights is also illegal.

The NLRB has scheduled a June 17, 2008 hearing to prosecute the union at the NLRB Regional Office 25 in Indianapolis.

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Idaho’s Ban on Payroll Deductions for Union Electioneering

High Court may secure right of states to prohibit at all governmental levels the practice of union payroll deductions for union electioneering

Washington, DC (March 31, 2008) – Today the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case of Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, thus agreeing to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that limited the applicability of an Idaho state law banning payroll deductions for union Political Action Committees (PACs).

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Sutherland Institute, and Utah Taxpayers Association filed a joint amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal filed by the Attorney General for the State of Idaho.

The lower U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling argued that the payroll deduction ban should only apply to union payroll deductions at the state government level, and that local government bodies were independent political entities outside of the reach the state law.

But the joint amici brief pointed out that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit wrongly forces Idaho taxpayers to subsidize union political activities by offering valuable payroll deduction services to union officials.

Even more alarmingly, union lawyers could try to use the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning to launch fresh new attacks on state Right to Work laws as applied to local government bodies. The joint amici brief emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that unions have no constitutional right to collect union dues from non-union members, much less use payroll deduction privileges to do so.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, National Right to Work Vice President Stefan Gleason made the following remarks:

“We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to revisit the activist ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just like state governments, local governments should not act as bagmen for union political funds.

“Stripping union officials of their payroll deduction privileges is good public policy. In fact, the State of Idaho should have gone much further than it did – by banning outright the use of public facilities to collect any union funds whatsoever.”

28,000 Employees Win Right to Reclaim $3 Million in Illegally Seized “Special Assessment” Spent to Oppose Ballot Initiatives

Federal court rules union’s “special assessment” violated First Amendment

Download the decision here.

Sacramento, California (March 31, 2008) – A federal judge has ordered California State Employees Association (CSEA) union officials to offer rebates to up to 28,000 state employees who are not union members. Imposing a “special assessment” in addition to mandatory dues, union officials seized an additional 25% of forced union dues to wage their campaign against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s modest reform measures on the 2005 ballot.

The ruling stems from a class-action civil rights complaint, filed by nine state government employees (union members and nonmembers) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The complaint sought a ruling that would require union officials to give employees due process, including proper financial disclosure, a formal notice that they may reclaim the special assessment spent for electioneering, and rebates, plus interest, to all who request them.

CSEA union officials had imposed on government employees a so-called “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund” for a broad range of political activities. Union officials openly admitted that the “Fund will not be used for regular costs of the union,” but for political advertising, direct mail, and get-out-the-vote activities.

By levying this mid-year “special assessment,” CSEA officials illegally jacked up and spent employees’ mandatory payments by between 25-36% without even allowing those employees who were not union members to opt out of paying for such activities. Union officials raised over $12 million through the special assessment and spent many millions more using regular dues. Approximately $3 million of this was taken from nonmembers.

Morrison C. England Jr., a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of California, noted that “a contrary decision from the one reached today would allow unions to run roughshod over dissenting nonmembers...”
CSEA union officials must now provide the nonunion state employees with a financial disclosure, notice that they may object to the use of these forced union dues for political activities, and refunds to all who object in response to the new disclosure.

“Although this is an encouraging victory for these employees, this ruling underscores the gross injustice of forced unionism that exists in California,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Only a Right to Work law banning forced union dues altogether will give Golden State employees meaningful protection from similar abuses of their constitutional rights.”

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the High Court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified of how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political activities. However, CSEA union officials did not give public employees any opportunity to object to the special assessment.