Full Foundation Action September/October 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Professors Launch Landmark SCOTUS Bid to End Forced Union Association
- Chicago 911 Operator Successfully Defends Janus Rights Against IBEW
- Post-Right to Work Repeal, MI Workers Vote to Cancel Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
- Mark Mix in The Center Square: Escaping the UAW “Roach Motel”
- Foundation Exposes Union Boss Coercion & Discrimination Before Congress
- Flight Attendant Defends Win Against Union, Southwest, for Illegal Firing
Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employee Wins Dispute with UFCW Union Local 555 Over Illegal Union Threats
UFCW union bosses backed down after facing federal charges for threatening workers who wouldn’t join union strike
PORTLAND, OR (November 25, 2024) – Reegin Schaffer, a Portland-area Fred Meyer employee, has prevailed in her dispute with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. Schaffer filed charges against the union alleging that union officials broke federal law by ignoring her requests to resign union membership during a union strike and by unlawfully retaliating against her by seeking to fine her for exercising her right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work. Schaffer is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Foundation attorneys’ actions forced UFCW Local 555 to quickly drop its internal disciplinary proceedings against her. These proceedings, which could have resulted in punitive fines, were initiated after Schaffer resigned her union membership and returned to work.
Charges: UFCW Union Bosses Made Illegal Fine Threats
Schaffer and co-worker Coyesca Vasquez filed charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States.
As detailed in the charges, on August 30, 2024 the employees exercised their right to resign union membership and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, and October 14 2024, respectively, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez and Schaffer that the union had started internal proceedings against them and that their presence would soon be required at a union “trial,” which is the first step towards imposing fines.
If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline like the kind UFCW union officials attempted to impose. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.
Once UFCW union officials dropped their attempt to fine Schaffer, Foundation staff attorneys asked the NLRB to end the case. Meanwhile, Coyesca Vasquez’s charge remains pending with the agency, which is investigating UFCW officials’ actions against Vasquez.
UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers
Workers have faced similar unlawful fines, during past UFCW–instigated strikes. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Sooper’s grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.
The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance, Foundation staff attorneys filed multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.
“That Reegin Schaffer ultimately prevailed and forced UFCW bosses to drop their illegal threats does not erase the troubling pattern of behavior by UFCW union officials, who have repeatedly sought to undermine workers’ protected legal rights through retaliatory fines,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Employees should not have to file federal charges just to have their rights respected, and we look forward to continuing to assist Coyesca Vasquez in her case against UFCW union bosses’ ugly retaliation tactics.”
Starbucks Barista Asks Labor Board to Overturn Regional Official’s Decision to Continue Blocking Vote to Remove Union
With original case cited as grounds for blocking vote settled, worker pushes for decertification election to oust SBWU
Oklahoma City, OK (November 20, 2024) – Starbucks employee Amy Smith has filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., asking the agency to review a regional NLRB order tossing her petition seeking an election to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from her Oklahoma City store. Amy Smith, who works at the Nichols Hills Starbucks location, is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Smith’s appeal challenges the regional NLRB’s refusal to reinstate her decertification petition, which it is still stonewalling despite the resolution of SBWU union officials’ charges against Starbucks that were ostensibly the justification for blocking the workers’ petition for a vote to remove the union. Smith argues that the decision is inconsistent not only with the Board’s past reasons for holding up the petition, but also with workers’ right under federal labor law to promptly have an election to remove a union they do not want.
Starbucks Employee Challenges Labor Board’s Unreasonable Stalling
In October 2023, Smith filed a petition asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election so she could vote to remove SBWU from her workplace. Her petition had enough of her coworkers’ signatures to meet the 30% threshold necessary to trigger a decertification vote. However, at SBWU union officials’ request, the NLRB dismissed the petitions “subject to reinstatement” until the unfair labor practice case Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-305952) was resolved. That case has now been settled, and the NLRB closed the case.
Last month, Smith had asked the NLRB Regional Directors in Region 14 (covering Oklahoma City) to reinstate her petition so the NLRB can promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ monopoly power at her store. However, instead of reinstating Smith’s petition, regional NLRB officials instead came up with a different unfair labor practice case against Starbucks to scuttle the election again, without even giving Smith a hearing to defend her petition.
“This standard has proved not only to contradict the plain text of [federal labor law], but has failed to appropriately account for the Board’s statutory mandate to conduct an election,” the Request for Review says.
Growing Momentum for Decertification
Oklahoma is a Right to Work state, meaning union payments must be voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of employment. However, under federal law, SBWU officials’ monopoly bargaining powers still allow them to impose a union contract on all employees at the store, even those who are not union members and who oppose SBWU’s so-called “representation.” A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that extraordinary monopoly bargaining power.
The growing movement among Starbucks partners to eject unwanted union officials from their stores is part of a larger trend, with an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years. Already, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted Starbucks employees in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the SBWU union. However, union officials have so far manipulated federal labor law to block any decertification votes from being held.
“Employees like Amy Smith should have the fundamental right to decide who represents them in the workplace, free from unnecessary delays and bureaucratic roadblocks,” commented Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB’s refusal to allow a timely vote is a clear disregard for the principles of employee free choice. We are committed to defending workers’ rights to hold unions accountable and ensuring that workers’ voices are heard.”
Ascension St. Agnes Hospital Nurses Demand Vote to Remove NNOC/NNU Union Officials
Requested vote would take place in unit of roughly 600 nurses; similar efforts also taking place in New York and New Jersey
Baltimore, MD (November 18, 2024) – Nurses at Ascension St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore are demanding a federal labor board hold a vote to remove National Nurses United (NNU) union officials from their workplace. St. Agnes Nurse Jennifer Delaney submitted a union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on November 15 on behalf of hundreds of her colleagues. Delaney filed the petition with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Delaney’s decertification petition contains employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
According to the petition, Delaney and her coworkers request a vote among all “full-time, regular part-time, and per diem registered nurses” located at Ascension St. Agnes Hospital’s acute care facility in Baltimore. This unit contains approximately 600 nurses.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNU union officials can enforce contracts that require Delaney and her fellow nurses to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues power and their ability to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts on every employee in a workplace, even those who oppose the union’s presence.
“This union proved itself to be a divisive force as soon as it began campaigning at our hospital,” commented Delaney. “Many of the nurses opposed its agenda from the very beginning, and a year since it gained power it is still making things difficult for both us and our patients. We are confident that a majority of our coworkers will vote to restore the independence we once had in our workplace.”
Employees in Healthcare and Other Industries Seek to Exit Unions
The St. Agnes Hospital nurses aren’t the only healthcare employees seeking to rid themselves of union monopoly control. In the New York City metro area and Long Island, Foundation staff attorneys are currently assisting nurses at Clara Maass Medical Center and a variety of healthcare workers in the Sun River Health, Inc. system to obtain union decertification elections. If these union removal efforts are successful, over 800 employees will be free from United Healthcare Workers East (1199SEIU) union officials’ forced “association” bargaining powers.
Across all industries, workers are increasingly seeking votes to remove union bosses of whom they disapprove. Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
“Across the country, healthcare workers seem to be discovering that having union bosses in their workplace doesn’t necessarily help them take better care of their patients. We’ve seen many situations where healthcare industry unions needlessly promote union boss priorities ahead of what is best for rank-and-file nurses, or even attempt to force health care providers to abandon their patients during union-instigated strikes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, union officials often choose to disenfranchise the same workers they claim to ‘represent’ when workers try to exercise their right to vote out a union, a problem made worse by recent Big Labor-backed NLRB rulemaking.
“Regardless, we’ll continue to defend the right of Ms. Delaney, the nurses at St. Agnes Ascension Hospital, and many other healthcare workers across the country to decertify unions they don’t want,” Mix added.
Flight Attendant Defends Win Against Union, Southwest, for Illegal Firing
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union and airline seek to overturn District Court ruling & verdict targeting discriminatory union firing
Despite going head-to-head with the well-funded legal teams of Southwest Airlines and the TWU union, Charlene Carter and her Foundation legal team led by staff attorney Matt Gilliam (right) have fought — and won — crucial victories in her case.
NEW ORLEANS, LA – In 2017, Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter filed her lawsuit against the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and Southwest Airlines for their respective roles in her termination after she spoke out against the TWU’s political activities.
Now, seven years later, despite winning a multimillion dollar jury verdict and a ruling ordering that she get her job back after the company’s and union’s efforts to fire her, Carter’s battle remains ongoing. Recently, Foundation staff attorneys were at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments to defend her District Court victory against appeals by TWU and Southwest.
“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Yet rather than comply with the jury’s decision and a District Court order, Southwest and TWU union bosses have decided to attempt to defend their blatant retaliation against a vocal union critic.”
Foundation Attorney: Evidence Shows Carter Was Fired Over Religious Exercise
During oral arguments at the Fifth Circuit, which took place before a three-judge panel this June, Foundation staff attorney Matt Gilliam rebutted specious union claims that there was no direct evidence that Carter’s religious beliefs played any role in the decision to fire her.
Gilliam told the panel that a Southwest agent “specifically admitted that he considered Carter’s religious beliefs in his termination decision” and reminded the judges that, under Title VII, an employee’s religious beliefs “can’t be any factor” in making such a decision.
“Southwest just admitted to this court that they fired her because of conduct. Well, what was the conduct? It was religious conduct,” said Gilliam.
Carter’s Story Reveals Pro-Union Boss Bias of Federal Labor Law
Carter resigned from union membership in 2013 but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. The Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal law that governs labor relations in the airline and railroad industries, permits firing employees who refuse to pay union fees and preempts the protections that state Right to Work laws provide.
However, the RLA does protect employees’ rights to resign from union membership. It also has free speech protections that cover the right to speak out against a union and its leadership and to advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter learned that then-TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone and other Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the Women’s March in Washington, DC, which was sponsored by Planned Parenthood, an activist group she deeply opposed.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, sent private Facebook messages to Stone challenging the union’s support for ideological positions that were contrary to Carter’s beliefs and expressing support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message emphasizing her commitment to a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After a meeting at which Southwest officials confronted Carter about private Facebook messages protesting the union’s positions, the company fired Carter. In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit challenging the firing as a clear violation of her rights under two federal laws. She maintained that she lost her job because of her religious beliefs and her criticism of union officials’ spending employees’ dues and fees on ideological causes.
Ultimately, after a six-day July 2022 trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Carter and her Foundation staff attorneys. During the trial, Foundation attorneys unearthed and introduced bombshell email communications showing TWU union militants advocated for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents.
“We are proud to defend Ms. Carter throughout this prolonged legal case to vindicate her rights,” stated Messenger. “However, her case should prompt policymakers to pare back union bosses’ coercive, government-granted powers over workers. Even if Charlene attains total victory in her case, the RLA will still force her and airline employees across the country to pay money to union officials as a condition of keeping their jobs, which is why policy change is needed.”
Long Island Healthcare Employee Charges Union Officials With Illicit Attempt to Prevent Workers from Voting Union Out
Brief: 1199SEIU officials engaged in backchannel communications with federal labor board to block vote; same union is facing ouster effort by NJ workers as well
Long Island, NY (November 13, 2024) – Laura Gallo, a Senior Patient Representative at Sun River Health, Inc., has successfully reversed an attempt by United Healthcare Workers East (an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union) officials to snuff out a petition in which she and her coworkers are requesting an election to remove the union from Long Island workplaces. Gallo, who submitted the union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on her own in August, is now receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Gallo and her coworkers are seeking a vote that, if successful, will end the 1199SEIU union’s control over nearly 230 Sun River Health workers across Long Island, including nutritionists, nurses, call center employees, and others.
Despite Gallo’s decertification petition containing enough employee signatures to satisfy instructions provided by an NLRB agent, an NLRB Regional Director dismissed her petition in October without giving her an opportunity to address what were alleged deficiencies with her filing. The dismissal also contradicted an NLRB agent’s earlier declaration that the decertification petition was valid.
After Gallo enlisted the help of Foundation attorneys, they quickly filed a brief challenging NLRB Region 29’s dismissal of the petition, which additionally pointed out that the dismissal may have occurred as the result of illicit backchannel communications between NLRB Region 29 and 1199SEIU officials.
Now, following the Foundation’s filing, NLRB Region 29 has agreed to reconsider the petition.
Gallo and her coworkers are based in New York, which lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees. As a result, union bosses can legally enforce contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and union financial support are the free choice of each individual worker.
A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues power and their ability to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts on every employee in a workplace, including those who oppose the union’s presence.
Brief: Federal Labor Board Officials Unilaterally Blocked Workers’ Petition Based on Secret Union Filing
Gallo’s brief argues that NLRB Region 29 “cannot unilaterally dismiss” Gallo’s petition because doing so would “strip Petitioner and her fellow workers of their [rights under federal labor law] to seek a representation election once they have raised a question of representation and the relevant Regional Office has approved [the petition’s signatures].”
The brief further asserts that NLRB Region 29 dismissed the petition based on documents that 1199SEIU officials covertly filed in clear violation of the NLRB’s notice requirements. “Here, the Region approved the [petition’s signatures] on August 9, 2024, and allowed the petition to proceed to a hearing all while conducting a clandestine investigation at the request of the Union without any opportunity to challenge [the regional NLRB’s determination],” says the brief. Whether rejection of the petition took place at the behest of the union or not, the brief explains, there was no legal basis for such action.
Clara Maass Medical Center Employees in NJ Also Seek to Remove 1199SEIU
The 1199SEIU union is currently facing opposition from other New York City-area healthcare workers. Foundation-backed registered nurses at Clara Maass Medical Center in Belleville Township, NJ, recently filed a union decertification petition seeking a removal vote against the same union. Despite having the requisite number of signatures to prompt a vote, the NLRB is preventing the nurses from voting due to unproven allegations of misconduct that 1199SEIU union officials are leveling at hospital management. Recent rulemaking by the Biden-Harris NLRB permits such allegations, also known as “blocking charges,” to stymie worker-requested decertification elections.
“Officials of 1199SEIU clearly value power far above the will and rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Gallo stepped up on behalf of her coworkers at Sun River Health and filed a petition in which many of them expressed a desire to vote the union out. But 1199SEIU officials conducted shady proceedings behind her back to scuttle her petition and maintain their control over the workplace, likely thinking Gallo didn’t have the formal legal knowledge to fight back.
“While Foundation attorneys have scored a victory against 1199SEIU’s shameful attempt to strip Ms. Gallo and her coworkers of their right to vote on whether the union deserves to stay in their workplace, they’re unfortunately not the only employees that 1199SEIU is attempting to disenfranchise,” Mix added. “Healthcare workers in the New York City metro area and beyond should reach out to the Foundation for free legal aid in obtaining a vote to remove unwanted union officials – especially in the wake of Biden-Harris Administration rulemaking that makes it much easier for union officials to block worker-requested votes.”
Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employees Slam UFCW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike
UFCW union bosses begin dropping fines against workers, but union faces investigation on federal charges
PORTLAND, OR (November 7, 2024) – Two employees of a Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. The charges state that union officials broke federal law by ignoring their requests to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the workers by seeking to fine them for exercising their right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work.
The employees, Coyesca Vasquez and Reegin Schaffer, filed their charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States.
As detailed in the charges, on August 30, 2024, each of the employees exercised their right to resign union membership, and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez, and on October 14, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Reegin Schaffer, that the union had started internal proceedings against them and their presence would soon be required at a union “trial,” which is the first step towards imposing fines.
If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline, like the kind UFCW union officials are attempting to impose on Vasquez and Schaffer. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.
UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers
During past UFCW–instigated strikes, workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union courts. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Sooper’s grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.
The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance Foundation staff attorneys won multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.
“UFCW union officials are again displaying their penchant for using strikes to consolidate power, by threatening rank-and-file workers who exercise their Right to Work during a UFCW strike,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers have a clear legal right to resign from union membership and return to work without facing illegal fines or disciplinary actions.”
College Park MOM’s Organic Employees Demand Vote to Remove UFCW Local 400 Union Officials
Earlier this year DC-area Union Kitchen workers voted 24-1 to remove Local 400, but union lawyers continue fighting to block certification & overturn result
Washington, DC (November 7, 2024) – Employees from MOM’s Organic Market’s College Park, MD, location are petitioning a federal labor board for an election to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union officials from power at the store. MOM’s employee Maria Sanya Dobbins, who is leading the effort, submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at the beginning of the month with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Dobbins’ decertification petition contains employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
According to Dobbins’ petition, the workers’ requested vote should take place among “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time MOM’s team members” at the grocery store’s College Park branch.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can legally enforce contracts that require Dobbins and her coworkers at MOM’s to pay union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues power and their ability to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts on every employee in a workplace, even those who voted against the union’s presence or otherwise oppose it.
“I have been working for MOM’s for 19 years,” commented Dobbins. “We have an understanding management team that has always been there for us and our families. We do not need a union to come and take money out of our paycheck when we have the best management team.”
DC-Area Union Kitchen Employees Also Seek to Boot UFCW Local 400 Union Officials
This isn’t the first time that DC-area grocery employees have banded together to remove UFCW Local 400 union officials. In January, workers from five locations of regional grocery concept Union Kitchen voted 24-1 to kick out UFCW Local 400, following employee Ashley Silva’s submission of a majority-backed decertification petition.
That effort began amid aggressive union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which sometimes escalated to the point that police intervention was needed. Despite that overwhelming ouster vote, UFCW union officials have so far successfully blocked the vote from being certified as they seek to cling to power by overturning the workers’ near unanimous vote to remove Local 400.
Biden-Harris NLRB Making It Harder for Workers to Oust Unwanted Unions
Dobbins and her coworkers may face similar stonewalling from UFCW bosses in their case, and unfortunately may face headwinds from the NLRB as well. Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, Biden-Harris NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Now, under rules that took effect in late September, union officials have a nearly unlimited ability to manipulate unproven allegations against an employer (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union. The new rules also end the ability of workers to hold decertification elections as a way to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check.” Card check is an unsecure, abuse-prone process that bypasses the protections of a traditional secret-ballot election.
“UFCW Local 400 officials have a track record of stifling the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ and the Biden-Harris NLRB’s cynical policy shifts have unfortunately given them more ways to do that,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While such cases show why workers need more freedom to have secret ballot votes to eliminate union officials that they disapprove of, they also demonstrate the importance of Right to Work protections – workers who find themselves under the control of a union they oppose should never be forced to pay for that ‘representation.’”
Foundation Exposes Union Boss Coercion & Discrimination Before Congress
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
U.S. House relies on Foundation for insight on ‘card check’ and forced-dues-for-politics
“The Law Has Failed Me”: This was MIT Ph.D. student Will Sussman’s response when asked by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) whether current federal labor law protects union dissenters. Sussman recommended nationwide Right to Work protections.
WASHINGTON, DC – Within the past few months, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and recipients of free Foundation legal aid have appeared multiple times before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, revealing the anti-freedom tactics union bosses use to sweep workers under their power and prop up their radical political agenda.
In May, U.S. House members called Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger as an expert witness in a hearing named “Big Labor Lies: Exposing Union Tactics to undermine Free and Fair Elections.” The hearing was designed to probe how current federal labor policies are letting union bosses deprive American workers of even the basic protection of a secret ballot election when union organizers target their workplace for monopoly unionization.
In July, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ph.D. student Will Sussman, who received free Foundation legal aid in filing federal anti-discrimination charges against union bosses on his campus, appeared before the U.S. House to recount his battle against MIT Graduate Student Union (GSUUE) officials. GSU union bosses demanded Sussman, who is Jewish, fund union activities despite his repeated and forceful objections to the union’s anti-Israel pursuits.
The July hearing, called “Confronting Union Antisemitism: Protecting Workers from Big Labor Abuses,” also featured testimony from veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who is providing free legal representation to Sussman and other MIT graduate students challenging forced-dues demands from GSU.
“Whether it’s union officials seizing power in a workplace without giving employees a chance to vote, or using graduate students’ money to fuel radical protests and other unrest on college campuses, these outrageous activities all have one thing in common — union boss privileges heavily ingrained in federal labor law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “No organization in the country has been more active than the Foundation in countering these coercive practices on behalf of rank-and-file workers.
“As the Biden Administration ramps up its attacks on worker freedom, we are honored and gratified that U.S. representatives look to Foundation attorneys and Foundation-backed workers for perspectives on how to defend worker freedom.”
Foundation Legal Director: ‘Card Check’ Permits Union Boss Tyranny
At its hearing in May, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce listened to William Messenger testify regarding union bosses’ two favorite tactics for gaining power: “card check” drives and censorship of speech critical of the union.
Card check is a process that lets union bosses gain power in a workplace without giving employees a chance to vote in secret on whether they want a union. Union officials can gang up on workers and even harass them to obtain signatures on union authorization cards, which are later counted as “votes” for the union. This process opens workers to intimidation and threats, something not found with secret balloting.
Union Censorship Exposed by Foundation
As if that weren’t bad enough, Messenger testified how the Biden-Harris NLRB “operates the most repressive regime of government censorship in the nation” by censoring employees’ ability to hear basic truthful information from employers that union officials don’t want workers to hear.
“Just imagine if the ruling party of a third-world nation decided to use such a process instead of having secret-ballot elections for political office,” Messenger testified. “Instead of having elections, the ruling party would go around to people’s homes and workplaces and collect ‘votes’ for the party. Instead of free speech, only the ruling party would be allowed to campaign.
“I submit this process is nothing like a democratic process,” Messenger declared. “Yet the Biden NLRB is . . . mandating card check with its Cemex decision, under which it’s now an unfair labor practice . . . for an employer to refuse to recognize a union based on cards.”
At the July hearing, Will Sussman detailed the harrowing story of how GSU union bosses continued demanding dues payments from him and other Jewish MIT graduate students even after they had informed the union of their religious objections and requested religious accommodations due to their beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to accommodate those that have religious objections to subsidizing union activities; in practice this usually entails letting the employee pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity.
MIT Grad Student Recounts Union Discrimination, Calls for Right to Work
But Sussman explained that the union blew off this legal duty, and legal action by the Foundation’s attorneys was needed: “The union denied my request, telling me in a letter that ‘no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union’ . . . In other words, UE thinks it understands my faith better than I do.
“This Congress should pass the National Right to Work Act, so that unions have to earn their dues and think twice before discriminating against minorities,” Sussman added.
