Jill Long Thompson, the Democratic nominee for governor of Indiana, is campaigning on the promise that her first action as chief executive of the state would be to impose union monopoly bargaing on Indiana state employees (and ultimately compel them to fund unions against their will, I presume). Her reasoning could even be viewed as sacriligious by some:

"I think (collective bargaining) is a God-given right," she said.

For the record, union monopoly bargaining is not even a constitutional right, but rather just a controversial statutory privilege granted by certain legislatures. Meanwhile, many sincere employees of faith have successfully raised their religious objections to union affiliation, based on their reading of Scripture (or teachings of other religious faiths).

Thompson's comments are likely to be deeply offensive to individuals who believe God disapproves of laws that strip employees of their individual freedom to contract and that force workers to affiliate with radical ideological groups.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have secured the right of employees of faith to trigger federal civil rights laws to secure a reprieve from all requirements to pay dues to unions thought immoral. Religious objectors to compulsory unionism can learn more about their rights here.

High Court Urged to Disallow Expansion of Union Monopoly Power to Undercut Workers’ Rights

National Right to Work Foundation files amicus brief in pending Supreme Court case that examines whether union bosses may waive employees’ statutory rights

Washington, DC (July 15, 2008) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed arguments with the United States Supreme Court seeking a reaffirmation of a lower court ruling that disallowed deals between union officials and employers to undercut employees’ statutory rights.

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 14 Penn Plaza LLC and Temco Service Industries, Inc. v. Steven Pyett, Thomas O’Connell, and Michael Phillips, a case which could have far-reaching implications for employees laboring under union monopoly bargaining contracts.

Pyett, O’Connell, and Phillips sued in federal District Court alleging that their employer had illegally discriminated against them on the basis of age, in violation of federal, New York state, and New York City civil rights statutes. The defendants argued unsuccessfully that the employees, as union members, had waived their right to a judicial forum for their statutory discrimination claims and sought to compel them into arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement. Citing a line of case law dating back to 1974, the District Court ruled that union-negotiated waivers of statutory rights in collective bargaining agreements are unenforceable, and thus the employees retained the right to a judicial forum. The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on appeal.

In its brief, the Foundation explains that the regime of union monopoly bargaining – under which a union is installed as the exclusive representative of all employees in negotiations with their employer, even those who don’t want the union’s “representation” – cannot be construed to even further trump individual rights. For an individual’s right to a judicial forum to be waived in an employment contract, it must be done voluntarily. In a collective bargaining agreement, however, workers do not necessarily consent to waive their judicial forum rights, even if the contract claims that they do. For example, union officials may negotiate the arbitration clause with the employer, but they are not required to put the contract to a vote or disclose all its terms.

Even if the union membership votes to approve the contract and arbitration clause, members who chose not to vote or voted against ratification cannot be said to have voluntarily waived their rights. Furthermore, employees who started working for the employer after the contract was ratified never voted for it. Most important, employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership almost never are allowed to vote on labor contracts.

“We hope the Court will not permit further expansion of monopoly bargaining privileges given to union officials,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case also concerns Big Labor’s national organizing strategy. Union officials want the ability to offer employers immunity from litigation over employees’ statutory rights if an employer will just recognize the union.”

###

The Foundation's amicus brief can be downloaded here.

Considering the record electioneering by Big Labor in 2008, it should be no surprise that union bosses were well-represented at this week's convention. NEA President Reg Weaver was one of the many union officials awarded for his union's political expenditures with a prime speaking slot.

Larry Sand, a teacher for 27 years and former NEA member, sent Weaver an e-mail after listening to a gross misrepresentation of reality in Weaver's DNC speech:

In the first paragraph you say, "I am here today on behalf of 3.2 million NEA members to tell you why we support Barack Obama for President of the United States." Wait a minute. It sounds as if all 3.2 million members of the NEA are supporting Obama. Then in the last sentence, you leave no doubt. "That, my friends, is why the 3.2 million members of the National Education Association are organized, energized and mobilized to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America." This last statement is an outrage.

You have been quoted on more than one occasion that "the NEA is one-third Republican," which means that there are over one million Republican NEA members. It is audacity of the highest order to state unequivocally that these people will be "organized, energized and mobilized" to vote for a Democrat. I have been a classroom teacher for over 27 years and for many of those an NEA member, before resigning from the "Association" several years ago. I would strongly urge you to issue an apology to those Republicans still in the NEA and the American public in general for what really is a ludicrous statement.

If Weaver ever gets around to apologizing, he shouldn't only do so to the million-plus members who are Republicans since as many more are independents. Not to mention the countless Democrats who aren't in lockstep with the radical agenda of Weaver and the NEA's top brass -- many who may not even be supporters of Reg Weaver's presidential pick. And remember, these teachers are forced to finance the NEA's political activism.

As it happens, Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, has an op-ed on the problems of teacher union monopoly power in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Also check out this column in the Providence Journal from Gary Beckner, executive director of the Association of American Educators, a nonprofit professional teachers association that is entirely voluntary.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union is objecting to a plan by Detroit city officials to turn over an abandoned nursery to Greening of Detroit, a nonprofit group. What's the problem, exactly?

Using privately raised funds and volunteers, the group would restore the nursery and use it to provide mature trees to neighborhoods. Greening already plants 2,000 trees a year throughout the city.

But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees obtained an injunction from Wayne County Circuit Court against the deal, saying it violates the collective bargaining agreement. The union says the bargaining agreement applies to any deals to turn over control of city operations to a third party -- meaning city workers must staff the nursery.

...

Terrence King, director of the city's General Services Department, called the union's position baffling. Not only would no city workers be displaced, but there should be more work for city forestry workers once the trees are grown, he said.

Baffling is an understatement. But if these volunteers were paying forced union dues like Detroit city employees must do, we doubt the union bosses would be objecting.

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.

Score another win for Big Labor at the expense of employee freedom. Yesterday in New York, Governor David Paterson signed a law making union dues mandatory for public employees who choose to refrain from union membership.

In the past, the law authorizing union bosses to force public employees to pay up as a requirement of keeping their job would expire every two years. The union boss spin is almost unbelievable:

[Union bosses] said on Wednesday that making the law permanent guaranteed that unions would have the money to adequately represent members and nonmembers alike, which they were required to do under a state law known as the Taylor Law. “In public employment, they have the right not to belong, but I still must represent them,” said Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “If under the law we’re obligated to represent every employee, then it’s only fair that every employee pays something toward the cost of being represented.”

Iannuzzi's language is fairly typical among union officials (they frequently use the term "fair share" to describe the dues they seize from nonmembers to pay for unwanted "representation"). But painting union bosses as hapless victims of the very special privileges they got enacted is absolutley absurd. Exclusive representation -- monopoly bargaining -- is a statutory power given to unions precisely because union bosses lobbied for it.

I'd love to call Iannuzzi's bluff -- will he and other union bosses actually consent to lifting federal and state laws which give unions the special privilege of monopoly bargaining? If they had a beef with the Taylor Law, why not just petition the state to repeal the offensive portions? No, instead, the union despots demanded even more privileges -- the power to line their pockets and entrench compuslory unionism.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the state Senate -- after years of refusing to make forced dues for nonmembers permanent -- gave in to Big Labor's demands:

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill last month. Similar bills had passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly before, only to fail in the Senate. But with Republicans in a pitched battle to preserve their thin majority in the Senate, the party seemed unwilling to block a priority of organized labor. It passed the Senate last month by a 62-to-0 vote. The Assembly approved it 140 to 5.

Clearly, New York State Senate Republicans have abandoned principle for politics. But the leftist union bosses are always ungrateful -- if they get a chance to replace any of these Republican appeasers with a union-backed Democrat, they'll do it without hesitation.

Foundation attorneys have filed an unprecedented lawsuit in North Carolina state court on behalf of 16 AT&T employees against local union bosses who illegally released their confidential personal information (including their social security numbers) as retaliation for exercising their right to refrain from union membership. Two of the workers explain their battle in the latest Right to Work video report...

For more background information on the case, the Foundation's press release is available online here. The Burlington Times-News' coverage of the lawsuit is available online here.

Be sure to subscribe to the Foundation's YouTube Channel for more Right to Work video reports.

Erin McKee, top boss of the Charleston Labor Council, has written a mind-numbingly ignorant (or intentionally misleading) response to an op-ed which outlines the mass rewriting of federal labor law Big Labor is hoping for after the 2008 election. Several of Boss McKee's assertions are just downright factually incorrect.

Lie #1:

Mr. Factor points out that [Big] labor's agenda is to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed, which is true. If a majority of employees have signed cards saying they want a union, it doesn't end there. They would then be allowed to have a fair election process and not be lied to, harassed and fired.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, the text of the misnamed EFCA reveals that once union organizers present the signed cards of even the smallest majority of workers in a unit, the National Labor Relations Board "shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative." In other words, card check does effectively eliminate the secret ballot from union certification drives. The less-abusive current election process would be replaced by one-on-one harassment from union goons.

Lie #2:

In a right to work state such as South Carolina, the union is forced to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. This means that everyone benefits, not just those who choose to pay the union dues for the benefits they receive. (If you think this is fair, let's try running our government this way and see what happens.)

Right to Work laws merely ensure that workers cannot be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union. Unfortunately, even non members are forced to accept the union's so-called representation, even when it works against them. It's illegal for workers to bargain with their employer on their own merits.

Further, federal law doesn't require that unions represent non-members, they seek and obtain monopoly bargaining status. Plus, as I have previously explained, if union bosses were serious about eliminating the so-called "free rider" problem, they would oppose federal and state monopoly bargaining statutes. They don't. They want them.

Lie #3:

Mr. Factor also seems to have a problem with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. He states that public-safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept a union's representation. Do local governments have the manpower to negotiate a bargaining agreement with each employee individually, or would it be more effective if management worked with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package?

Yes, they do actually. Municipalities all over the country do it. (For a good summary of the more-aptly titled Police & Fire Monopoly Bargaining Act, check out this month's Labor Watch article by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.)

Boss McKee's language in this passage is particularly revealing of Big Labor's patronizing attitude toward workers. Instead of each employee negotiating with the employer, union cheifs like McKee claim to want "management [to work] with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package." But what exactly is the difference? How is that not what is occurring when individual employees have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the employer? Why should a majority of the employee's co-workers get to pick the employee's representation? Even criminal defendants get to pick their own representation!