This month's issue of the Capital Research Center's Labor Watch newsletter features a cover story on Big Labor's attempts to force public safety officers nationwide into monopoly union collectives. The article details many unjust aspects of federal monopoly bargaining power grab, not the least of which is that it trumps state laws while stripping employees of their right to negotiate their own terms of employment or be rewarded for their individual merits.

While the National Right to Work Committee continues to lead the fight against the bill's passage, Foundation attorneys are preparing for a legal challenge if it becomes law. We have previously reported on this overall situation here.

One passage in the Labor Watch piece is particularly noteworthy:

Congressional Quarterly Today reported on May 30 that Sen. Reid still “intends to call up” H.R.980 for a Senate floor vote prior to this fall’s elections. Whether he actually does this may depend on what action is taken by Senate Republicans who oppose the legislation. If they hold firm, Reid will not be able to secure a final floor vote before the November elections without first allowing several right-to-work amendments to be considered and voted on. The most important of these amendments is sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). It would repeal all provisions in federal labor law that authorize the firing of employees for refusing to pay dues or “agency” fees to an unwanted union.

A Battle For Forced Dues

[Harry] Reid knows that if a right-to-work amendment like DeMint’s comes up for a vote, union officials will oppose it with all their might, and they will order their Senate supporters to oppose it as well. This will, in turn, demonstrate clearly that Big Labor’s battle for [mandated monopoly bargaining for Public Safety employees] is largely a battle for forced union dues. [emphasis added.]

Far Left stalwart and former Democratic nominee for President George McGovern comes out swinging in the pages of the Wall Street Journal against Big Labor's demand for mandating coercive card check in union organizing drives:

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.

Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

[Emphasis added]

Good for McGovern for acknowledging a few basic truths about the abuses of card check that Big Labor apologists continue to deny.

McGovern points out, correctly, that card check runs "counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement."  Of course, so does forced unionism generally.  Samuel Gompers founded the AFL on the principles of volunteerism (as opposed to today's compulsory system).

It's important to note that, while the current process may be less abusive than mandated card check, majority rule by secret ballot (in the labor law context) is controversial and unjust in and of itself.  No worker should be stripped of his legal right to represent himself in private employment matters and be forced into a monopoly union collective by a vote of even the majority of his peers.

Nurses Attack Backroom Deal Between Tenet and CNA To Force Texas Nurses Into Union Ranks

Right to Work attorneys hit union and hospital chain with federal unfair labor practice charges for statewide scheme to bypass employee protections

Houston, Texas (August 12, 2008) – Two registered nurses at Houston-based Tenet Healthcare medical centers have filed federal charges against the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and Tenet, after union officials and Tenet entered into agreements designed to force nurses into CNA union ranks.

Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks location, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Medical Center, filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 16 in Fort Worth, Texas with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The charges focus on a so-called “Election Procedures Agreement” (EPA) between Tenet officials and CNA union bosses designed to assist the CNA in corralling nurses into the union. The agreement affects Tenet locations across Texas. So far CNA organizers have obtained union monopoly bargaining power at Cypress Fairbanks, and they have campaigns underway at other Houston-area hospitals, including Park Plaza.

The nurses’ charges list multiple violations of employee rights, all designed to make it more difficult for nurses to resist unionization by the power hungry California union officials. The charges detail how the agreement signed by Tenet and CNA officials subverts the NLRB’s role in supervising union certification elections and bypasses employee protections. While eliminating NLRB oversight of election conduct, the agreement calls for the NLRB to merely count ballots and “certify” the union.

The unfair labor practice charges also detail unlawful organizing assistance given by Tenet to CNA organizers in violation of federal statutes and a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Under the agreement, Tenet managers are gagged from responding to employee questions about unionization, and nurses who oppose the union have been forbidden from using any Tenet facilities to express their views. Yet pro-CNA nurses and non-employee union organizers are given broad access to Tenet facilities.

“California union militants, with the assistance of complicit Tenet officials, are attempting to sweep nurses across the state of Texas into union ranks, like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “What isn’t yet clear is exactly what Tenet received in exchange for helping union officials gain access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in union dues. If similar agreements elsewhere are any indication, CNA may have sold out the employees’ interests to become Tenet’s favored union.”

The charges, which will now be investigated by NLRB officials, also state that the EPA scheme amounts to illegal pre-recognition bargaining, with union officials negotiating substantive terms of employment for nurses before they have the legal authority to represent a single employee.

--

Case Documents:

NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Charges

Tenet-CNA "Election Procedures Agreement" 

Union boss hypocrisy is nothing new, but this recent case, filed by two nurses in Houston, Texas against the CNA union and Tenet Healthcare shows just how blatant that hypocrisy can be.

When the SEIU bosses got themselves a sweetheart deal to organize nurses from the top down with Catholic Healthcare Partners in Ohio, CNA/NNOC denounced the deal as an illegitimate sell out of workers’ rights to a free and fair election, and workers’ rights to choose or reject unionization with full information, and without coercion or discrimination:

Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the nurses association, condemned this [SEIU] agreement. She called it “a rigged scam” in which the service employees union would bargain only half-heartedly if it won the vote.

“This was a top-down deal between an employer and a hand-picked union,” Ms. DeMoro said. “There was a gag order on everyone, and as a result this was a banana republic election.”

CNA/NNOC even went so far as to create anti-SEIU websites accusing that union of selling out workers while cutting secret sweetheart deals with management, in exchange for assistance organizing new workers from the top down.

This is the game that union bosses play nowadays: they increasingly fail in organizing workers the old fashioned way, since workers increasingly aren't buying what the union bosses are selling. So, the union bosses try to organize companies, not workers, in what is known as “top down” organizing.

But all of this moaning and whining about SEIU’s secret “neutrality” deals has not stopped the CNA/NNOC brass from cutting their own secret sweetheart deals with companies. CNA/NNOC’s latest deal is a secret “neutrality” agreement with Tenet Healthcare, a nationwide hospital chain.

Under the agreement, Tenet is gagged from saying anything about the union, nurses' personal information is handed to the union without their consent, and union agents get wide access to campaign inside the hospital facilities while anti-CNA nurses are barred from effectively providing an opposing view in their own workplaces. Perhaps worst of all, the NLRB is cut out from overseeing the process, which results in Potemkin Village “consent elections” in which the NLRB does nothing other than tally up “yes” votes and “no” votes and provide a veneer of legitimacy.

Sounds like a sweetheart deal to us: nurses handed over to the union with no real campaign about the effects of unionization, and no effective federal agency to oversee the process!

In fact, CNA chief DeMoro's description of a "rigged scam," a "top-down deal between an employer and a hand-picked union," and a "banana republic election" is a strikingly apt description of DeMoro's own CNA union's secret deal with Tenet.

Shameless...

In what has become an annual (or rather semi-annual) tradition, the increasingly discredited American Bar Association (ABA) is once again pointedly excluding the viewpoints of individual employees who don't want a union in their workplace.

The intellectually dishonest organization is holding its second annual Labor and Employment Law Continuing Legal Education Conference in Denver this September. The cover of the event brochure (pdf) trumpets a panel titled "Hot Topic: Neutrality Agreements, Card Checks, and Voluntary Recognition After Dana."

The core case at issue, Dana/Metaldyne, was brought and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, and most of the law in this area is the result of Foundation litigation. Yet, the roster of attorneys on the panel again consists entirely of union, company, and government lawyers.

Foundation VP Stefan Gleason wrote the following about the anti-individual worker bias of the ABA back in February, the last time Foundation attorneys were excluded from speaking about its many cases, and the criticism therein is only reinforced by this latest episode:

ABA political hacks have pointedly refused to allow the perspective of employees who may, God forbid, not want a union to dominate their workplace. Once again, a hot topic at the conference was the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's cases defending employees whose rights are abused during card check organizing drives.

And yet again, the ABA meeting planners refused to allow the perspective of workers or their Right to Work attorneys to be heard -- instead selecting speakers representing Big Labor and a small faction of squishy, union-boss-friendly management lawyers. (Of course, the views of the speakers were rejected by the NLRB in its recent Dana/Metaldyne ruling, and the views of Foundation attorneys were embraced. Just a technicality, I guess.)

The ABA's intellectual dishonesty continues to be an embarrassment to America's legal profession.

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.

The Las Vegas Sun recently published the story of Anishya Sanders, a hard-working single mother exploited by Big Labor to push for the Card Check Forced Unionism bill (aka the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act”).

Union bosses flew her to Capitol Hill to testify in support of the union power grab and let her live the limosine lifestyle of a union boss for a precious few days. Anishya lived it up at suave hotels, private meetings with members of Congress, and celebratory wining and dining on surf-and-turf and merlot at tony DC hot spots.

Things were really turning around for Anishya. She thought she'd finally made it, and she was even promised a good job by the local union boss. However, after returning home things didn't pan out that way. Eventually, the local union official told the mother of five “your 15 minutes are over” and hung up. She is now homeless and unemployed and concludes that if Big Labor had just left her alone, she would still have a job.

So much for the little guy (or woman, as the case may be)... Once Anishya could no longer help union officials with their latest compulsory unionism power grab, the union bosses kicked her to the curb.

Read the whole sordid tale here.

Last week, the New York Times reported that Manhattan Federal District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. ordered a one-year continuation of governmental oversight of the New York City carpenters’ union, citing recent bribery convictions of several local bosses, extensive off-the-books work, and an incident where union militants beat up a worker outside a Catholic school until he was unconscious (because he had the gall to challenge the insiders in a union election).

The union has spent the last 14 years under government supervision after signing a consent decree in a civil racketeering case alleging organized crime figures were favored for high-pay but no-show jobs. Regardless, union officials felt it necessary to argue in court that they do not need supervision. Their thugs all but erased any chance of that when they assaulted a dissident candidate.

Judge Haight agreed with the United States attorney’s argument that supervision would end when the union’s corruption had been eradicated. However, as blogger Warner Todd Huston noted, “The judge did mention that the union had done better since it originally went into government oversight, but that it is way too early to claim that the Mob influence and corruption is excised from the union.”

Indeed, the only reliable way to end this union corruption would be to end compulsory unionism.