Worker Advocate Hits Labor Board for Hypocritical Enforcement of Federal Preemption
Washington, DC – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, sent a letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) protesting the agency’s decision to threaten lawsuits against state ballot amendments aimed at prohibiting ‘card check’ organizing drives but not threaten suits against state laws that aid unions.
The letter, signed by Foundation Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse, points out that this latest move reveals a troubling pattern of forced unionism favoritism at the NLRB, which is charged with overseeing private sector labor and employment law throughout the country.
LaJeunesse notes that in numerous other cases where federal statutes preempt state law, the current NLRB has failed to act if asserting federal prerogatives would mean undermining union officials’ special privileges.
For example, Foundation attorneys currently represent Carol Jean Badertscher, a nurse who was threatened with fines and jail time under California’s draconian ‘anti-strikebreaker’ law for crossing a union picket line. Although the NLRB’s then General Counsel acknowledged that the California law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, the Board declined to declare the anti-strikebreaker law preempted or order notice to California workers about their rights to continue working during a strike.
However, the Board recently threatened four high-profile lawsuits against Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah for enacting laws designed to prohibit recognition of unions without an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.
Those threats highlight a pattern of forced unionism favoritism that further tars the Board’s reputation for evenhandedness. The most notable example of this trend was the recess appointment of Craig Becker, a former SEIU lawyer, to serve on the Board. Despite the involvement of his former employer in several pending cases, Becker has refused to recuse himself and is now poised to issue rulings that could shape American labor law for decades.
“The Board’s selective interest in asserting federal prerogatives is just the latest example of this Administration’s obvious forced unionism bias,” said Foundation Legal Information Director Patrick Semmens. “The Obama NLRB rushed to intervene when it meant stopping state attempts to limit coercive card check organizing drives. But in cases where federal preemption would mean striking down state laws that push more workers into unions’ forced dues-paying ranks, the Board is conspicuously silent.”
Wall Street Journal: As More States Consider Right to Work, Will GOP Cave to Big Labor?
In an editorial yesterday, the Wall Street Journal made both the moral and economic case for states to end forced unionism by passing Right to Work laws:
Contrary to much union rhetoric, right-to-work laws don’t ban or bust unions. They simply grant individual workers the right to join or not to join, even once a workplace is organized by a union. Workers who decline to join the union can’t be forced to have dues taken out of their paycheck and thus used to finance union political campaigns. Most right-to-work states are in the South and West, and only Oklahoma has adopted this freedom to choose in the last 20 years.
Right-to-work states outperform forced-union states in almost every measurable category of worker well-being. A new study in the Cato Journal by economist Richard Vedder finds that from 2000 to 2008 some 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union to right-to-work states.
The study also found that from 1977 through 2007 there was "a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth." Right-to-work states experienced a 23% faster rise in per capita income over that period. The two regions that have lost the most jobs in recent years, the once-industrial Northeast and Midwest, are mostly forced-union states.
These arguments demonstrate why poll after poll shows that 80 percent of Americans — even rank-and-file union members — support the Right to Work principle. Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal warns, politicians who claim they agree could instead appease the union bosses:
[Indiana Governor Mitch] Daniels adds that the lack of a right-to-work law "does hold us back economically. There is no doubt about it." He estimates that when competing with Southern states for businesses, "a very large number—perhaps as many as a quarter—of the deals we don’t get a shot at are for just this reason."
This damage has motivated Indiana Republicans, who now control both legislature chambers, to announce that they want to pass a right-to-work law. Unions immediately went to Defcon 1, Democrats are up in arms, and Republicans could yet buckle under this union pressure. Even Mr. Daniels, who has stood up to union opposition in the past, seems hesitant. He told the Indianapolis Star that right to work "may be worth a look," but he added it "is not on my agenda." He’s worried that the issue so antagonizes unions that it could derail the rest of his legislative agenda.
We hope Republicans don’t flinch. Right-to-work laws make states more economically competitive, but the bigger issue is about individual rights. Workers should have the right to join a union but also the right not to. Indiana and other states with new Republican majorities have a rare opportunity to pass a major reform that will reduce union power, help to attract new jobs, and liberate workers from union coercion.
Read the rest of the editorial here (subscription required).
Worker Asks Federal Appeals Court to Overturn Backroom Deal Between Union and Company Officials
Worker Asks Federal Appeals Court to Overturn Backroom Deal Between Union and Company Officials
Union organizers obtained workers’ personal information as part of a quid pro quo with the company to force employees under union control
Hollywood, FL (February 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee is taking his case against local union officials and his employer to a federal appeals court.
In 2008, Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming officials entered into an agreement in which union officials agreed to spend over one hundred thousand dollars in workers’ forced union dues on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility.
In return, Mardi Gras officials promised they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.
With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit against Unite Here in 2008, arguing that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because the company made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.
Worker Asks Federal Appeals Court to Overturn Backroom Deal Between Union and Company Officials
Hollywood, FL (February 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee is taking his case against local union officials and his employer to a federal appeals court.
In 2008, Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming officials entered into an agreement in which union officials agreed to spend over one hundred thousand dollars in workers’ forced union dues on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility.
In return, Mardi Gras officials promised they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.
With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit against Unite Here in 2008, arguing that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because the company made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.
Federal law aimed at preventing union operatives from agreeing to undermine workers’ rights in exchange for concessions from management explicitly prohibits employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions.
The suit also alleges that union bosses’ willingness to spend over a hundred thousand dollars to lobby on behalf of Mardi Gras Gaming demonstrates just how valuable the agreement is to union officials.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld Mulhall’s standing to vindicate his rights in federal court. Now he asks the appellate court to judge his case on the merits and reverse a lower court’s illogical ruling that management’s concessions are not “things of value.”
“So-called ‘neutrality agreements’ between companies and unions like the one agreed upon by Unite Here operatives and Mardi Gras Gaming give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers should never be cajoled or harassed into union ranks.”
Study: Right to Work Law Would Have Significantly Helped Indiana Workers, Families During Past Four Decades
As Indiana’s state legislators discuss the merits of passing Right to Work protections for Hoosier workers, a group of scholars released a study last week confirming (pdf) workers and their families in Right to Work states benefit from workplace freedom in a very tangible way. From a press release announcing their findings:
Improving the per-capita income of Indiana workers and creating more job opportunities for Hoosiers would be among the major benefits of Indiana becoming the 23rd state to pass a right-to-work (RTW) law, according to research released today by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. In addition, statewide voter polling results show Hoosiers favoring adoption of RTW by a 3-to-1 margin.
Dr. Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, and his colleagues report in the study (Right-to-Work and Indiana’s Economic Future) that if Indiana had adopted RTW in 1977, per-capita income would have been $2,925 higher — or $11,700 higher for a family of four – by 2008. Looking forward (projecting the same growth rate in the next 10 years after adjusting for inflation), passage of a RTW law in 2011 would raise per capita income by $968 — or $3,872 for a family of four — by 2021.
The scholars conclude that a Right to Work law would benefit workers with greater job growth and real personal income. These results mirror the thorough research conducted by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), which has found that families benefit from Right to Work laws with more job availability and higher expendable income. No wonder workers and their families are seeking greater workplace freedom, leaving forced unionism states in droves.
Union Bosses, School District Face Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Union Dues Scheme
Union Bosses, School District Face Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Union Dues Scheme
School employees challenge unconstitutional union dues confiscation
Cincinnati, OH (January 21, 2011) – A group of Cincinnati Public Schools employees today filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the city school district for illegally confiscating union dues from their paychecks in violation of their constitutional rights.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the employees with free legal aid, filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The school district carpentry shop employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the Greater Cincinnati Building & Construction Trades Council union (GCBCTC) and its affiliates, ask the federal court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson.
Union Bosses, School District Face Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Union Dues Scheme
Cincinnati, OH (January 21, 2011) – A group of Cincinnati Public Schools employees today filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the city school district for illegally confiscating union dues from their paychecks in violation of their constitutional rights.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the employees with free legal aid, filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The school district carpentry shop employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the Greater Cincinnati Building & Construction Trades Council union (GCBCTC) and its affiliates, ask the federal court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson.
In Hudson, the Court, while still allowing the forced payment of certain union fees as a condition of employment, established procedural safeguards to ensure public employees are not compelled to subsidize union activities beyond what union officials can prove is spent on bargaining and contract administration. Union expenditures such as organizing and political activism cannot be legally charged to nonmember public-sector workers.
The Court also ruled union officials must provide public workers with an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures.
GCBCTC union officials are compelling the employees to pay union fees to keep their jobs while refusing to provide the financial breakdown Hudson requires.
The employees are suing to obtain refunds of the amount of forced union dues payments illegally taken from their paychecks and to halt union bosses from further union fee collections until they comply with the workers’ constitutional and civil rights to refrain from full-union-dues payments upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
“GCBCTC union bosses are using state law to take these workers’ civil and constitutional rights to the woodshed” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “Ohio desperately needs a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary to prevent these types of forced unionism abuses from occurring.”
“Only then will independent-minded employees have the solid foundation they need to take a stand for their rights.”
New Right to Work Podcast: Mark Mix on Greg Budell’s Happy Hour
Right to Work President Mark Mix updates Greg Budell of Montgomery, Alabama’s News Talk 107.9 on several pressing issues related to the Right to Work movement, including the possibility of the Foundation’s landmark Dana decision being overturned by Obama’s NLRB. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:
As always, you can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.
Worker Advocate Urges Labor Board to Affirm Right to Object to Subsidizing Union Politics in Languishing Cases
Worker Advocate Urges Labor Board to Affirm Right to Object to Subsidizing Union Politics in Languishing Cases
Numerous cases before NLRB lay dormant as workers suffer from union policies designed to discourage objections to paying full union dues
Washington, DC (January 13, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation is urging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to promptly resolve four cases almost identical to one decided last year by the Board as independent-minded workers wait for a resolution.
The Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate on behalf of workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – scored a legal victory in August 2010 for workers who were subjected to a burdensome machinist union boss policy requiring employees to annually renew their objection to supporting union politics and other non-bargaining expenses or be converted back to paying full union dues.
The NLRB in Washington, DC determined that the machinist union’s annual objection requirement for workers who choose to refrain from union membership is illegal under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent upheld in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988).Under Beck, nonmember employees in states without Right to Work laws cannot be compelled to pay for union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.
In a letter penned by Foundation Vice President & Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse to the NLRB, the Foundation asks that the Board apply their August 2010 decision to four virtually identical cases still pending before the Board.
Worker Advocate Urges Labor Board to Affirm Right to Object to Subsidizing Union Politics in Languishing Cases
Washington, DC (January 13, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation is urging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to promptly resolve four cases almost identical to one decided last year by the Board as independent-minded workers wait for a resolution.
The Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate on behalf of workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – scored a legal victory in August 2010 for workers who were subjected to a burdensome machinist union boss policy requiring employees to annually renew their objection to supporting union politics and other non-bargaining expenses or be converted back to paying full union dues.
The NLRB in Washington, DC determined that the machinist union’s annual objection requirement for workers who choose to refrain from union membership is illegal under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent upheld in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988). Under Beck, nonmember employees in states without Right to Work laws cannot be compelled to pay for union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.
In a letter penned by Foundation Vice President & Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse to the NLRB, the Foundation asks that the Board apply their August 2010 decision to four virtually identical cases still pending before the Board.
In the pending cases individual employees, represented by Foundation staff attorneys, are challenging annual objection policies of the United Steelworker (USW), United Autoworker (UAW), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Communications Workers of America (CWA) unions. The case involving the UAW union has been languishing in the NLRB bureaucracy for eight years.
Additionally, NLRB Regional Directors are withholding action on other similar cases awaiting the national Board’s actions.
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Given that the NLRB decided the key legal issues last summer, their refusal to swiftly apply the precedent to other unions is shameful.”
“While the Board delays, independent-minded workers across the country continue to be abused by burdensome requirements and restrictions from union hierarchies they want nothing to do with.”
