Federal Labor Board Hits Nurses Union Hierarchy with Complaint for Keeping Workers in Dark
Warwick, RI (July 8, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Boston issued a formal complaint indicating that local union officials have kept nurses in the dark about the amount of compulsory union dues.
The NLRB’s regional director investigated unfair labor practices charges filed by a Kent Hospital nurse with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. The regional director found merit to the charges that United Nurses & Allied Professionals (UNAP) union officials failed to meet federal financial disclosure requirements and will now prosecute the union before an administrative law judge.
In September 2009, Jeanette Geary and other nurses informed UNAP union officials that they were exercising their right to refrain from formal union membership and to the payment of any fees for non-bargaining activities including politics and member-only events.
Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, employees can only be forced to pay union dues related to workplace bargaining as a condition of employment. Additionally, union officials are obligated to provide employees with an independently verified breakdown of union expenditures to determine how much objecting employees must pay.
UNAP union officials, however, have failed to provide Geary and other nonmember nurses with adequate disclosure as required by law. According to the complaint, union bosses have failed to provide any evidence of an independent audit “beyond a mere assertion.” Moreover, union officials have not provided any breakdown of expenditures from a “Defense Fund” despite claiming they include chargeable expenses.
“Unfortunately, union boss financial chicanery is all too common and many workers are kept in the dark about their rights,” explained Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Ocean State should enact a Right to Work law to protect the freedom of association of independent-minded workers.”
Right to Work Committee: Kagan Opposes First Amendment Right to Refrain from Supporting Union Boss Politics
As reported in today’s Washington Examiner, the National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix sent a letter to the U.S. Senate opposing Elena Kagan’s confirmation as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for misrepresenting her views regarding the use of forced union dues for union boss political activity.
From the Examiner:
(Mark Mix argues) Kagan should not be confirmed because when she was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, about a 1996 email she wrote while serving in the Clinton administration, she falsely claimed she was merely repeating the chief executive’s views, not her own.
In his letter to the senators, Mix quoted Kagan’s email in which she said:
"It is unfortunately true that almost any meaningful campaign finance reform proposal raises constitutional issues. This is a result of the Supreme Court’s view – which I believe to be mistaken in many cases – that money is speech and that attempts to limit the influence of money on our political system therefore raises First Amendment problems."
Kagan could not have simply been echoing somebody else’s view in that email, Mix argued, because a memo later in 1996 from her and other White House staff members to then-White House chief of staff Leon Panetta "incorporated Ms. Kagan’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect the right to spend money for political activities. In short, in 1996 Ms. Kagan both suggested and endorsed that crabbed view of the First Amendment."
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has repeatedly fought to protect workers who are forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment to also support union boss political activities with which they disagree before the U.S. Supreme Court and various other courts across the country.
Mark Mix’s letter also noted that Kagen expressed opposition to the Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in Communications Workers v. Beck in which the Court affirmed the right of private-sector workers to exercise the same freedom from coerced support of union boss politics under the National Labor Relations Act:
(Ms. Kagan) recommended that President Clinton oppose any legislation protecting the right of workers not to be forced to subsidize union politics, despite the First Amendment’s guarantee of that basic worker freedom of speech and association.
…
Ms. Kagan emailed… her recommendation that (the Administration)… “state strong opposition to Beck legislation, no matter what it is attached to.”
Ms. Kagan… disagreed with the well-established legal principle that underlies the long line of Supreme Court decisions recognizing the constitutional right of workers not to be compelled to subsidize union political activities as a condition of employment… (putting) her far outside the judicial mainstream and (demonstrating) a disdain for the rights of independent-minded American workers.
To read Mark Mix’s letter, click here.
National Labor Relations Board Inspector General to Investigate Board Member for Possible Conflicts of Interest
Washington, DC (July 1, 2010) – Prompted by a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA.) and other members of the House Oversight Committee, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General has announced he will investigate NLRB recess appointee Craig Becker’s involvement in St. Barnabas v. SEIU Local 1957. The investigation bolsters several motions for recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, who contend that Becker’s evident conflicts of interest should have disqualified him from ruling on their cases.
Right to Work attorneys filed 13 recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the Board during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s general counsel, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation attorneys and developed legal strategies for SEIU affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.
Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers or the SEIU and its state and local affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has rejected the recusal motions in all but one case pending before the NLRB.
In one notable case, Becker refused to recuse himself from union lawyers’ attempt to overturn the NLRB’s landmark Dana decision, which created a 45 day window period for employees to vote out union officials if they acquired their monopoly bargaining privileges through a card check organizing drive. Becker denies having pre-judged the case despite a career of advocating for card check union organizing.
After Rep. Issa raised the issue in a recent letter, the NLRB’s Inspector General announced he will investigate Becker’s involvement in the pending St. Barnabas case. Becker claims that he has abided by all relevant provisions of the federal code and a signed ethics pledge he submitted to the Obama Administration. That pledge states he will not participate in any cases involving his former employer for two years following his appointment to the NLRB.
“We’ve provided free legal aid to thousands of workers who have clashed with the Service Employees International Union, Craig Becker’s former employer,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Becker’s evident conflicts of interest – not to mention his avowed hostility toward the Foundation’s legal aid program – should be reason enough for recusal in several NLRB cases.”
“That the Inspector General of this decidedly pro-forced unionism Administration is launching an inquiry demonstrates the extent of Becker’s ethical problems,” continued Mix. “Throughout his career, Becker has revealed himself as an avid supporter of Big Labor’s special privileges. The IG should expand the scope of the investigation to the numerous other cases in which Becker’s background as an SEIU lawyer makes him unable to judge objectively.”
Legal Foundation Offers Free Assistance to Nurses Who Won’t Abandon Their Patients during Looming Strike
Minneapolis, MN (July 1, 2010) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable organization that assists employees nationwide, is renewing its offer of free legal assistance to any Minneapolis nurses who do not wish to participate in another union-instigated strike.
The Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union has again decided to strike against 14 hospitals in the Twin Cities area on July 6. However, recent media reports suggest that many nurses do not wish to participate in the impending strike.
Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, responded to the union’s strike threat by issuing the following statement:
“Many Minneapolis nurses may wish to work during the strike to ensure that their patients receive medical attention. Nurses who want to continue working must be made aware of their workplace rights, including the right to resign from union membership and the right to refrain from participating in a union-instigated strike. A more detailed description of every nurse’s legal rights can be found on the Foundation’s website at https://www.nrtw.org/a/a_7_p.htm
“Foundation attorneys are prepared to advise Twin Cities nurses about their workplace rights. We are also prepared to provide free legal assistance to any nurses who are subjected to union harassment or retaliation for working during this or any subsequent strike initiated by MNA officials. You can call the Foundation toll free at 800-336-3600 or request free legal assistance via email at [email protected].
“The National Right to Work Foundation is committed to helping nurses who wish to continue working rather than participate in a union-instigated strike,” continued LaJeunesse. “Nurses must assert their legal rights to ensure they aren’t subjected to draconian internal union discipline for choosing to remain on the job, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist them.”
Under Supreme Court precedent and federal law:
• Workers have the right to resign from union membership at any time.
• Workers have the right to go to work even if the union is on strike. If a worker chooses to work during a strike, he or she must first resign from union membership to avoid union disciplinary action such as fines.
• After a union’s monopoly bargaining agreement with their employer expires, workers have the right to sign a decertification petition for a secret ballot election to eject union officials from their workplace.
Wasteful Union Boss Rules Provide Sneak Peak at the Police/Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill
Via Big Government, here’s a damning video explaining the wasteful contract created by New York/New Jersey Police Union officials, which mandates that officers collect overtime pay even after they’ve been suspended for misconduct:
Of course, the Police/Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill threatens to spread this and other wasteful union boss instituted work rules to states and counties who have no desire to hamstring their public safety employees with union monopoly bargaining. If Big Labor gets their way on Capitol Hill, this video is a frightening portent of things to come.
The Obama Administration’s Ethics Blind Spot for Big Labor
The Obama Administration hasn’t been shy about paying back the union bosses, but it has been shy about answering basic questions about its collusion with Big Labor.
So while Monday’s report in Politico shouldn’t shock anyone, it is telling:
President Barack Obama’s political director failed to disclose that he was slated to receive a nearly $40,000 payout from a large labor union while he was working in the White House.
Patrick Gaspard, who served as the political director for the Service Employees International Union local 1199, received $37,071.46 in “carried over leave and vacation” from the union in 2009, but he did not disclose the agreement to receive the payment on his financial disclosure forms filed with the White House.
…
Gaspard spent nine years at 1199 SEIU, a major labor union in New York. Gaspard also worked for Obama’s campaign, and later worked for the transition team, where he earned $11,500, according to the financial disclosure form he filed this year. He was pulling a salary from SEIU until Jan. 16, 2009, shortly before Obama was inaugurated.
From political director of an affiliate of the SEIU to political director of President Obama. Where did one job stop and the other begin?
Legal Aid Foundation Submits Brief Opposing Union Boss Monopoly Bargaining Power over TSA Employees
Washington, DC (June 28, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted an amicus curiae brief urging the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to oppose two petitions that could force Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees into union ranks. If granted, the petitions would allow monopoly bargaining privileges for union officials seeking to organize TSA employees.
In late May, a FLRA Regional Director ruled that American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Treasury Employees (NTE) union operatives could not organize TSA workers, but union lawyers appealed the decision to the FLRA proper. According to Foundation attorneys, the unions’ arguments would leave workers vulnerable to aggressive union organizers and possibly compromise national security.
The Foundation’s brief argues that the FLRA has no authority to dictate the TSA’s labor relations, noting that the Administrator of the TSA has jurisdiction over TSA employees and previously refused to grant union organizers monopoly bargaining privileges.
Foundation attorneys also argue that subjecting TSA workers to union monopoly bargaining could compromise national security by risking union-instigated strikes and undermining security procedures with time-consuming union work rules. The TSA’s ability to tailor its response to rapidly-emerging threats could suffer if administrative flexibility is hamstrung by bloated union bureaucracies.
Moreover, the Foundation’s brief notes that extending monopoly bargaining privileges to union organizers constitutes a serious breach of TSA employees’ rights. Under monopoly bargaining, if union organizers acquire or coerce support from a bare majority of TSA employees, they can then dictate terms and conditions of employment to all workers in a given bargaining unit, including those who oppose unionization.
“Despite obvious risks to both national security and workers’ rights, Big Labor is intent on forcibly organizing TSA employees,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope the FLRA will have the sense to reject this attempt to further extend Big Labor’s monopoly bargaining privileges.”
July/August 2010 Foundation Action Now Available Online
The July/August 2010 issue of Foundation Action is now available for download as a PDF. This is the Foundation’s official bimonthly publication that provides an excellent overview of hard-hitting legal actions being taken by Foundation attorneys every day to combat forced unionism.
This issue’s top story details Delta Air Lines 
employees’ legal challenge to Obama Administration appointees’ scheme to push railway and airline workers into forced union ranks.
Also in this issue:
- Union Bosses Illegally Threaten Workers with Termination
- Avoid Stock Market Uncertainty with a Charitable Gift Annuity
- Workers Take Stand Against Teamster Union Boss Intimidation
- The Detroit News: Michigan Will Benefit with Workplace Choice
In addition to to reading Foundation Action online, you can sign up to receive a free subscription by mail here.
National Review on the Police/Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill: “This bill is bad policy and bad politics”
Here’s a must-read editorial from National Review on Big Labor’s Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill:
Lacking the evolutionary finesse that keeps most parasites from killing their host organisms, the American labor movement has driven the private firms that once employed its members offshore or into bankruptcy. Consequently, the only growth market remaining for the union movement is government: More union members today are employed by government than by the private sector. The union bosses, being neither blind nor stupid, see the advantages of sitting on both sides of the negotiating table, and their influence on politics has been predictably baleful. Unfortunately for those who would curtail their influence, they enjoy a steady stream of cash, expropriated from the paychecks of their members, and a ready supply of foot soldiers available for get-out-the-vote and rent-a-mob duties.
That’s a problem for conservatives. One of the more dynamic Republican leaders in the country, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, is battening down his political hatches for the hurricane of union abuse headed his way in response to his sober efforts to get his state’s finances in order. It is going to be ugly, with the unions employing the same tactics they used to derail the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger. So why in the name of Barry Goldwater would a single Republican, much less a half-dozen senators, support extending the influence of the people who made New Jersey New Jersey? The Senate Republicans supporting the bill include not only the usual practitioners of Me-Tooism — the Maine ladies, Lisa Murkowski — but also Scott Brown of Massachusetts and New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg. (What, no Lindsey Graham?) It would be cheaper and better for the country if these Republicans would just go ahead and make a direct donation to the Democratic National Committee, an act to which supporting this bill is equivalent. If Sen. Mike Johanns really wants to turn Lincoln, Neb., into Trenton on the Prairie, let him confine his efforts to his own state and leave the other 49 to go their own way.
Click here to read the whole thing. For more editorials opposing this terrible piece of legislation, check out our earlier blog post on the groundswell of public opposition to expanding Big Labor’s control over public safety employees.
NEWS RELEASE: Legal Aid Foundation Files Comments Opposing NLRB “Electronic Voting” Scheme for Union Organizing Drives
‘Card Check-lite’ proposal would undermine the integrity of workplace elections and push more employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks
Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.
In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely . . .
