Delta Employees File Motion to Join Legal Challenge to Controversial Transportation Unionization Rule
Washington, DC (May 20, 2010) – Acting for three flight attendants and two customer service representatives at Delta Air Lines, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn a dramatic rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.
Airline employers have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency tasked with administration of labor relations within the railroad and airline industries, attacking its controversial rule change that overturns 75 years of precedent. The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over workers if the union “wins” an election, no matter how few eligible workers actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.
Foundation attorneys argue that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in the class or craft.
The five Delta workers and similarly situated employees in the railway and airline industries could soon find themselves forced into fees-paying ranks against their will. There are ongoing unionization efforts at Delta by the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions.
Unlike private sector workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, nonmember employees in the railway and airline industries are not protected by the Right to Work laws in Georgia, where Delta is headquartered, and 21 other states. Furthermore, the rule change is especially troubling given the complicated bureaucratic hoops these workers must jump through to remove an unwanted union.
Foundation attorneys also argue that the NMB members who approved the rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, should have recused themselves because of their prejudgment of the regulations. Hoglander and Puchala are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the NMB to discard its longstanding policy.
“This is a shameless payoff from the Obama Administration and two former union officials to their Big Labor associates,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “If these regulations are upheld, transportation unions will become roach motels – a tiny minority of workers will be able to install the union, but it will be virtually impossible for a majority of employees to remove the unwanted union.”
Virginia Workers Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold Decertification of Unwanted Union
Washington, DC (May 19, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Virginia workers have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The petition asks the court to review a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating a union decertification in Boykins, Virginia.
Shirley Mae Lewis and Henry Vaughan are both employed at a Narricot plant in Boykins. In August 2007, they initiated an effort to eject the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2316 union from their workplace. Although 64% of employees in the bargaining unit signed a petition against union officials, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) invalidated the decertification on the grounds that Lewis and Vaughan received “unlawful assistance” from their employer.
Narricot management merely gave Lewis and Vaughan factual information about the number of signatures they would have to collect to decertify the union and the proper wording to use in union decertification petitions. Company officials also indicated that signed petitions would have to be presented to management before they could withdraw recognition from the Carpenter union. Narricot did not actively encourage Lewis or Vaughan to organize against the union.
Although federal labor law permits employers to provide information to workers so long as they avoid inducements or threats of reprisal, the NLRB ruled that the information the company passed on to Lewis and Vaughan exceeded so-called “ministerial assistance.” The NLRB’s decision was later upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Foundation attorneys argue that employees should be permitted to receive accurate information about how to exercise their workplace rights. Without the information they received, Lewis and Vaughan might not have been able to get rid of the unwanted union.
“Despite overwhelming employee opposition to the Carpenter union, Narricot employees are still saddled with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t be punished for seeking information from their employer when attempting to eject an unwanted union, and employers shouldn’t be gagged from giving employees truthful information about their basic rights.”
Mark Mix: Facade of GM/UAW union boss fiscal responsibility to cost taxpayers even more
Today, National Right to Work President Mark Mix was published in the Investor’s Business Daily exposing how General Motors (GM) and United Autoworker (UAW) union bosses colluded to use taxpayer dollars to "pay back" the taxpayers for the government bail out it received last year:
…GM leaders and the UAW officials who colluded with them to extract $43 billion out of taxpayers in exchange for arguably worthless stock are now patting themselves on the back for paying back on April 21 the balance of a $6.7 billion loan they took out from taxpayers as part of the 2009 bankruptcy package.
In a weekly radio address to the nation late last month, President Obama suggested that the fact that taxpayers have now recouped 14% of the taxes he diverted into GM coffers on their behalf vindicates his decision to bail out GM and the UAW brass.
But ordinary Americans, with whom the GM and Chrysler bailouts have become overwhelmingly unpopular over the past year, are unlikely to agree. Especially not if they learn that GM was able to "pay back" the loan only because it had not yet spent all of the other $43 billion in taxpayer money it raked in last year.
But, as Mix further notes, the mirage that GM and UAW officials are being fiscally responsible with the taxpayer’s money is just part of their plan to ask for even more money from the government:
…[T]he apparent motive of Obama-selected GM CEO Ed Whitacre and UAW officials in repaying the $6.7 billion now is to pave the way for the company to secure a new $10 billion loan from taxpayers at an interest rate of just 5%, two points lower than the previous rate, to pay for the retooling of its plants to meet the government’s new, stricter fuel-economy standards.
If the GM/UAW "zombie" corporation obtains the new $10 billion government loan, it will end up even more deeply in hock to taxpayers than before, after having gotten good PR and kudos from the president for having paid off its original loan "in full."
Fortunately, the American people are not as easily bamboozled as President Obama and his cohorts in the GM and UAW union hierarchies seem to think they are.
Mix concludes that "the president’s fork-tongued reassurances that all is going well with the bailouts are likely to make Americans angrier and angrier as time goes on" because his special deals and political paybacks to his Big Labor buddies are more than American families can bear, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.
Group Home Workers Force SEIU Bosses into Forced Union Dues Refund
Group Home Workers Force SEIU Bosses into Forced Union Dues Refund
Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to challenge illegal union membership “opt-out” policy
Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.
The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).
In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.
Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.
Group Home Workers Force SEIU Bosses into Forced Union Dues Refund
Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.
The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).
In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.
Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.
Meanwhile, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina are scheduled to challenge the SEIU District 1199 union hierarchy’s “annual objection” policy before an NLRB administrative law judge in June. The SEIU District 1199 “annual objection” policy is clearly designed to force workers into making full union dues payments against their will.
Five NLRB administrative law judges around the country have held such union fee schemes unlawful.
“These six courageous workers have taken a stand for the rights of all ResCare employees in the Mountain State,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “Foundation attorneys will continue to pursue overturning the SEIU union bosses’ illegal membership policy, but West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary in order to end these kinds of compulsory unionism abuses.”
New Right to Work Video: Inside the Minds of Teacher Union Operatives
At Freedom@Work, we’ve spent plenty of time documenting the many problems of public sector forced unionism, including the fiscal abyss it is plunging state and local governments into. But even reports of an impending budget crisis don’t have quite the same impact as a video of teacher union militants demanding more tax dollars:
As George Will notes in his latest Newsweek column, eventually, the bills come due. California’s looming budget crisis is largely the result of public sector union bosses, whose profligate spending risks pushing the entire state into bankruptcy:
California’s parlous condition owes much to burdensome health-care and pension promises negotiated with public employees’ unions, promises that are suffocating the state’s economic growth.
. . .
They [public sector unions] are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself for ever-larger portions of wealth extracted by the taxing power from the private sector.
Unfortunately, this trend threatens to spread other states. For the first time ever, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that public sector unionization outstrips private sector unionization, as Big Labor increasingly turns to government to bolster its forced-dues-paying ranks. The financial consequences of this development could be dire (emphasis mine):
Fred Siegel, a visiting professor of history at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute . . . said, “There were enormous political ramifications” to the fact that public-sector workers are now the majority in organized labor.
“At the same time the country is being squeezed, public-sector unions are a rising political force in the Democratic Party,” he said. “They depend on extra money for the public sector,and that puts the Democrats in a difficult position. In four big states — New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California — the public-sector unions have largely been untouched by the economic downturn. In those states, you have an impending clash between the public-sector unions and the public at large.”
As union operatives become more entrenched at every level of government their immense special privileges allow them to corral more money for extortionate dues payments. As a result, taxes go up and public services become more expensive, leaving over-burdened taxpayers to foot the bill.
The latest Big Labor scheme to accelerate this trend is the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which which would leave state and local public safety employees at the mercy of Big Labor organizing drives. Once Big Labor bosses are firmly in control of public safety organizations, they’ll be able to use their influence over firefighters and police departments to further entrench their monopoly bargaining powers.
Health Care Bill Handouts to Big Labor Have Already Begun… Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You
Last week, Joseph Rago noted in the Wall Street Journal the latest union boss payoff by the Obama Administration (emphasis added):
White House payoffs to big labor are by now routine, though rarely are they this transparent: This week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rolled out a new program that, scrubbed down, amounts to a slush fund for union health plans.
When Democrats realized that ObamaCare’s approval numbers were sagging, they loaded the bill up with "early deliverables"—programs that would go into effect immediately, rather than the five or more years of delay used to hide the bill’s true costs. One of those early deliverables was $5 billion in subsidies to early retirees aged 55 to 64 who incur annual health costs over $15,000.
Ms. Sebelius did her best to dress this reinsurance program up in a public-interest blanket, but many of the 3.3 million eligible retirees are ex-union workers who extracted generous benefits from some of America’s most hardpressed industries. Businesses that doled out these unaffordable promises will be delighted with the federal handout, taxpayers less so. And also eligible are retired state and local public employees, as well as certain health-care trusts like one recently set up by the United Auto Workers, which has an estimated 30 cents in cash for every dollar of expected claims.
National Right to Work president Mark Mix called ObamaCare a "a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization" in the Journal last September. Among other hidden payoffs to Big Labor, Mix noted the discretionary authority given to Sebelius and a provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans.
This latest scheme is unsurprising. And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
SEIU Bosses Threaten to Have Workers Fired for Refusing to Sign Union Cards
Pittsfield, IL (May 7, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four Pittsfield-based Help at Home employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for threatening workers with termination if they refused to sign union authorization cards.
The cards, which the employer counted as “votes” in favor of unionization, were then used to force employees to accept SEIU officials as their exclusive bargaining agents at the Pittsfield Help at Home office.
Tina Evans and three of her Help at Home coworkers allege that employees were unlawfully compelled to attend a mass meeting with union organizers during work hours. Independent-minded workers who opposed unionization were also threatened with layoffs if they did not sign union authorization cards. Despite lacking the un-coerced support of a majority of employees, SEIU bosses have now made the payment of union dues a condition of employment for workers at the Pittsfield Help at Home office.
The union involved in this organizing scheme – SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana – is a chronic offender. Officials from the same union are facing Foundation-assisted charges in Danville, Illinois for illegally forcing other nonunion Help at Home employees to pay full union dues. The union was also named in a Foundation lawsuit on behalf of Illinois home care providers, who allege that union officials collaborated with Governor Pat Quinn to force them into the SEIU’s dues-paying ranks.
The Foundation’s charges seek immediate injunctive relief for Help at Home employees forced to pay SEIU dues. The charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.
“Given the union’s history of workplace abuses, I can’t say we’re surprised by this latest scheme,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s unconscionable that union operatives would use threats to foist themselves on unwilling workers.”
“These tactics also highlight the dangers of pending ‘card check’ legislation, which would effectively mandate the coercive card check organizing system,” continued Semmens. “Without the privacy of the ballot booth during unionization elections, workers are regularly subjected to intimidation and harassment at the hands of aggressive union organizers.”
Right to Work Submits Brief Opposing California Project Labor Agreements
National Right to Work staff attorneys have filed a formal amicus curiae brief supporting an appeal in US District Court that challenges a California project labor agreement (PLA) that gives construction union officials new tools to coerce employees and employers who look to bid and perform state-funded construction projects.
Arguing that a PLA between the Rancho Santiago Community College District and a union illegally discriminated against construction workers who exercise their right to refrain from union membership, Foundation attorneys are defending the interests of the vast majority of construction employees in California who have opted against unionization.
Rancho Santiago and the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (CTC) union entered into the PLA in 2004, which effectively precluded nonunion apprentices and contractors from working on over 50 construction projects funded by the public agency worth over $300 million. The Foundation-supported appeal challenges this and similar policies to open up the bidding process to all construction workers and contractors.
When Questioned, Public Sector Union Bosses Respond With Threats
With the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill looming on the horizon, here’s a portent of things to come from the Cal Watchdog blog:
North Bay firefighters launched a boycott of a Napa Valley winery this weekend after its owner criticized their wages and benefits in a letter published in the St. Helena Star. But more than a boycott was launched, as the winery owner has received veiled threats online from some public safety employees, potentially refusing to fight a fire at his home or winery, or save him from choking in a restaurant.
A concerned winery owner has the temerity to point out that public sector union bosses have bankrupted California. In return, he’s threatened by union operatives who say they’ll refuse to fight a fire at his home or place of business. The union militants’ reaction is all the more thuggish in light of the original letter to the editor, which is about as mild as political criticism gets, putting the blame squarely on the politicians:
Napa Valley winery owner Dario Sattui of V. Sattui Winery wrote a letter to the Editor of the St. Helena Star, venting about the benefits and pensions that firefighters receive. In his April 9 letter, Sattui wrote, “I thought I was doing well in the wine business. Had I had any real brains I would have become a firefighter. What a racket they have. While I respect the work they do and the inherent dangers, they are greatly overpaid, work only two days a week (a third of which they sleep) and get to retire at 50 years old at 90 percent of their pay after working 30 years. I don’t blame the firefighters. Good for them for getting as much as they can. The blame goes to the politicians and the government administrators. What do they care? It isn’t their money.”
The skyrocketing costs of public services are an inevitable consequence of public sector unionization, which relentlessly expands government and drives up taxes. Union operatives’ threat to ignore a fire at the winery owner’s home also highlights the dangers of the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which would leave state and local public safety employees at the mercy of Big Labor organizing drives. Once Big Labor bosses are firmly in control of public safety organizations, they’ll have no qualms about leveraging their influence over firefighters and police departments to threaten anyone who dares to question their monopoly bargaining powers.
