Oral arguments in Locke v. Karass, the Foundation's latest Supreme Court case, occur on Monday, October 6. Just in time, the October issue of Labor Watch features a cover story on the case by Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation:

The U.S. Supreme Court has so far refused to recognize that all compulsory union dues, no matter how they are spent, violate workers’ First Amendment rights and that no compelling state interest exists to justify subverting these rights. However, the Court has concluded that forced union dues for certain union expenditures violates nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that union officials cannot compel nonmembers to support union lobbying, political activities and other forms of ideological expression.

On behalf of Daniel Locke and 19 other current and former Maine state employees, NRTW Foundation attorneys will argue this month that because litigation is also inherently expressive, unions cannot compel nonmembers to pay for it. Moreover, because litigation regarding a union’s affiliates in another state does not affect the union’s own collective bargaining process, there should be a bright line drawn to ensure that no extra-unit litigation is ever subsidized by objecting nonmembers.

Union lawyers insist workers must pay for litigation activities that unions undertake outside their own bargaining unit using a pooling arrangement that union bosses analogize to insurance. If union bosses get their way, unions will be permitted to seize dues from members and nonmembers alike – even from employees who never wanted a union’s “representation” – and pool them together in a giant slush fund to subsidize Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

Read the full article online (PDF only).

Supreme Court Case May Provide More Employee Protections Against Forced Union Dues

High Court will determine whether union officials may charge nonmembers for lawsuits unrelated to bargaining unit

Washington, DC (October 3, 2008) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court case Locke v. Karass scheduled for argument on Monday, October 6.

“In previous cases argued by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the Supreme Court has thus far ruled that union officials may force employees to pay union dues or be fired from their jobs. But they may not legally charge nonmembers for any activities beyond what union bosses can prove is spent on collective bargaining and contract administration.

“In their unquenchable thirst for more forced union dues, union bosses have developed a number of creative ways to stick nonmembers with the bill for union activism.

“The Supreme Court in Locke will directly address the question of whether non-union employees can be forced to pay for costly union lawsuits that do not concern their own place of employment. The answer should be ‘no’ based on existing Supreme Court precedent. Litigation is expressive activity, and forcing unwilling individuals to fund it violates their First Amendment rights. And lawsuits are often used to grease the rails for union organizing and ultimately more forced dues.

“Millions of workers laboring under forced unionism in America may be affected by the Court’s decision. While we are optimistic the Court will rule in our favor, the real remedy for the misuse of compulsory union dues is the elimination of Big Labor’s government-enabled special privileges that cause the problem in the first place. No worker should be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

Foundation attorneys filed the Locke case for Daniel Locke and 19 other Maine State employees in 2005 after the state legislature and governor repaid campaign debts by imposing a forced union dues requirement on the state government workforce. The employees’ lawsuit successfully forced Maine State Employee Association union officials to abandon their efforts to force nonmembers to subsidize their nationwide organizing efforts and reduce their forced dues demands of nonmembers, but the employees lost on the litigation funding question at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

You wouldn't know it from watching any of the debates, but the potential for Big Labor to ram "card check" down American workers' throats is very real and very immediate.  Accordingly, the Foundation is bracing itself for a new wave of employee requests for legal aid. Mickey Kaus, a lefty blogger reveals the rapid timeline:

Obama's Fast Labor Payoff: kf hears from a trustworthy non-Republican source (with access to actual insider information) that the Dems are getting set to pass "card check" legislation fast next year, right out of the box, assuming Obama wins and the Democrats get their expected big Senate majority. The legislation--which would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections, allowing union organizers to gather signed cards person-to-person--is cheap, in budgetary terms. And it's very, very important to organized labor.

More here.

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.

SEIU Union Hit with FEC Complaint for Illegal Political Fundraising Scheme

National union imposes PAC fundraising quota on union affiliates and workers, fines those that do not comply

Washington, DC (October 23, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

The union and its officers appear to 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. On June 3, delegates to the SEIU convention approved Constitutional Amendment #317 in time to take effect for this year’s federal elections.

The policy imposes on each SEIU local an “annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligation.” SEIU COPE is the SEIU’s federal PAC. If a local fails to meet this requirement, the SEIU imposes heavy fines. However, federal election law forbids unions from “utilizing money…secured by…financial reprisals… or the threat of … financial reprisal” to fund a PAC.

Union officials have injected enormous sums of money this election season into electing favored candidates. The FEC lists SEIU COPE as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006, and SEIU union bosses expect the new requirement to funnel at least $9 million into SEIU COPE.

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.

Last year, the FEC levied record fines – though still quite minimal compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars at issue in the case – against Americans Coming Together, an SEIU-backed “527” group following a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Foundation.

“The SEIU cannot be trusted with its government-backed forced-dues privilege, and its scheme will corrupt the election process,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason. “The FEC must act quickly.”

The Foundation joined with Karen Glass, a school district employee in Wisconsin who is forced to pay dues to SEIU Local 150 and its national affiliate, and Regent University School of Law student Michael Casaretto, who has extensively researched the SEIU scheme.

This summer, we told you about one of the nation's largest unions imposing a fundraising quota on locals and workers in an illegal scheme to fund its political action committee. Here's the latest:

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

The union and its officers appear to 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. On June 3, delegates to the SEIU convention approved Constitutional Amendment #317 in time to take effect for this year’s federal elections.

The policy imposes on each SEIU local an “annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligation.” SEIU COPE is the SEIU’s federal PAC. If a local fails to meet this requirement, the SEIU imposes heavy fines. However, federal election law forbids unions from “utilizing money…secured by…financial reprisals… or the threat of … financial reprisal” to fund a PAC.

Read the full press release here.

Worker Seeks Injunction to Prevent Unwanted Union from Acquiring Confidential Personal Information

Union sought quid pro quo from company to unionize its employees

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.

The Mardi Gras Gaming facility is not yet unionized, but in August of 2004, management entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Local 355. In return for a union guarantee not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility, Mardi Gras Gaming agreed to hand over employees’ personal contact information – including home addresses – to union organizers, grant union officials access to Mardi Gras facilities for the purpose of organizing, and to refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether its employees actually want to unionize. This quid pro quo arrangement is of substantial monetary value to Local 355, as it would dramatically reduce the cost of successfully unionizing workers at the Mardi Gras facility.

Such so-called “neutrality agreements” between companies and unions give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization. Armed with employees’ home addresses and access to company facilities, union officials frequently harass workers on and off the job until they agree to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization. In other Foundation-assisted cases, employees have testified to and documented the pressure, bribery, and outright fraud union organizers use to obtain signed authorization cards.

“UNITE HERE bosses made a secret deal to force Mardi Gras workers into the union whether they like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We intend to shut down this major violation of federal law and employee freedom.”

Just two days before the election, the Washington Post's Tim Craig unearthed some last-minute, secretive union politicking:

The Virginia Democratic Party failed to properly disclose a $200,000 donation it received in early September from a labor union, party officials admitted today.

In Virginia, there are no limits on how much an individual or organization can give to a political candidate or party, but all donations of $10,000 or more have to be reported to the State Board of Elections within three business days. The information is then uploaded on the State Board of Elections' website so the public can keep track of who is funding political committees and candidates.

On Sept. 4, the Laborers' Political League Education Fund gave the state party $200,000, which at the time was the largest contribution the state party had received in at least a decade, excluding transfers from candidates or other Democratic committees. But the state party never reported it until Oct. 15, when it filed its quarterly campaign finance report.

More here.