Foundation Submits Comments Opposing Rollback of Labor Department Union Disclosure Guidelines
The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted formal comments opposing proposed rule changes that would dramatically undermine union transparency at the Obama Department of Labor (DoL). The full comments can be found here, but the long and short of it is that the Obama DoL is proposing two major changes to union disclosure under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959:
1) The first change would exempt "intermediate bodies" from LMRDA union disclosure requirements. "Intermediate bodies" are basically state and local subsidiaries of national unions, which means that Big Labor bosses could funnel forced-dues dollars to regional affiliates to avoid DoL transparency requirements if the proposed rule changes go through. Allowing union operatives to hide questionable expenditures through local and state subsidiaries clearly hampers the ability of workers to learn how their mandatory union dues are being spent.
2) The second change, which the Foundation also opposes, would no longer require Big Labor to file T-1 disclosure forms. These forms disclose financial information about Big Labor trusts – strike funds, political front groups, and other organizations unions control through board appointments, financial ccontributions, or contributions through a collective bargaining agreement. This means that Big Labor-funded organizations like American Rights at Work, a political front group that Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis served on before her appointment, would no longer be subject to basic disclosure guidelines.
Big Labor’s influence at the Obama DoL has already been extensively documented, so we can’t say we’re surprised by this development. Although transparency is a poor substitute for freeing employees from the burden of compulsory unionism, if workers continue to be forced to pay union dues, Big Labor should at the very least have to explain where the money is going. That’s why the Foundation opposes these rule changes, as well as any other attempt to undermine union transparency at the Obama DoL.
Labor Board Announces Prosecution of SEIU Union Bosses for Illegal Union Membership Opt-Out Policy
Labor Board Announces Prosecution of SEIU Union Bosses for Illegal Union Membership Opt-Out Policy
Illegal union procedure forces nursing home workers to pay full union dues
Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.
The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.
The full press release is available here.
Labor Board Announces Prosecution of SEIU Union Bosses for Illegal Union Membership Opt-Out Policy
Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.
The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.
The NLRB’s complaint challenges the SEIU District 1199 annual objection policy, but other meritorious charges remain pending, and the NLRB has indicated that further complaints will be issued unless the union hierarchy settles.
“The SEIU District 1199 union officials’ illegal behavior shows they’re just after forced union dues revenue,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “This blatant disregard for the rights of the workers SEIU bosses claim to represent shows why West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary.”
Right to Work’s Audio Primer on Craig Becker’s Forced Unionism Agenda
Today, Craig Becker – Associate General Counsel for the AFL-CIO and radical SEIU – officially took his seat on the National Labor Relations Board. For a rundown of Craig Becker’s controversial recess appointment to the NLRB, listen to these two recent radio interviews featuring National Right to Work President Mark Mix.
First, Mark Mix sat down with nationally-syndicated radio host Lars Larson for a short primer on Becker’s forced unionism agenda. Click here to listen or use the emebedded player below:
Second, here’s a longer interview with Mix from the Jason Lewis Show on Becker’s radical views. 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.
Statement on Supreme Court’s Failure to Take Up Reed Case: Ending Forced Unionism is the Best Way to Protect Employees of Faith
Today, the Supreme Court announced its decision not to hear Jeffrey Reed v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, a case brought by Foundation attorneys that challenged a discriminatory United Auto Workers (UAW) forced unionism policy.
In response to the Court’s failure to take up the case, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement:
"It’s deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court will not address a discriminatory UAW policy that forces employees who object to union activities on religious grounds to pay more union dues than secular objectors or union members. The Right to Work Foundation will continue to work towards safeguarding the rights of all employees of faith to get or keep a job without compromising their deeply-held religious convictions.
"While we will continue to press this issue in the courts, the only sure way to end this type of injustice once and for all is by ending forced unionism and stripping union officials of their special powers to impose monopoly bargaining and forced dues on any employee."
Becker’s Bias: A Look at Obama Recess Appointee’s Animosity Toward National Right to Work and the Rights of Individual Employees
Last week, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed recusal motions asking Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), to remove himself from any pending cases involving Foundation attorneys based on his personal bias and malice toward the organization, as revealed by his published writings about the Foundation. Let’s take a closer look.
In a 2005 article in the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Becker described the Foundation as "an organization that purports to represent employees…."
Only the most rabid and unthinking forced unionism militant can’t see indisputable evidence that Foundation attorneys only provide free legal aid to workers. As the Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway notes in a column about Becker’s bias,
Unions try and portray the organization as a shill for big business, but the fact is that National Right to Work is the only organization providing free legal aid to workers with grievances against their union, and is otherwise responsible for doing a lot to keep unions in check.
Currently, Foundation attorneys are assisting thousands of employees in over 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation’s legal aid program is designed to enforce employees’ existing legal rights against forced unionism abuses and to win new legal precedents expanding these rights and protections. Here’s a sample:
- Last month, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges on behalf of Nestor Mendez, a former Vons grocery store worker who was wrongfully fired on December 14, 2009 at the request of local UFCW union officials. Mendez seeks financial compensation for lost wages and reinstatement of his position.
- In 2001, with help from Foundation attorneys, Rod Carter received a monetary settlement from Teamsters Local 769 for its direct involvement in a bloody attack on Carter during a nationwide strike against UPS.
- Foundation attorneys are at the forefront in protecting religious objectors’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In one case, a Ohio Education Association union official told a 21-year veteran teacher to "change religions" if she wanted a religious accommodation.
- Last year Foundation attorneys helped secure a settlement for five Phoenix-based employees who filed a federal lawsuit against their employer and IBEW Local 1269 union officials for a corrupt scheme to divert sales commissions from the employees to union officials. Some of the methods used to increase the union agents’ compensation included giving union agents “double commissions” for sales made by other workers.
Why else but malice would Craig Becker write that the National Right to Work Foundation “purports to represent employees”? Foundation attorneys do not just claim to provide free legal aid to workers. They do it on a daily basis.
The undercurrent of Craig Becker’s agenda is that individual employees are irrelevant in the workplace and should be afforded no recourse against the union operatives who violate their rights. The Right to Work principle makes no judgment on whether workers should join or support a union for whatever reason. That is a decision best left up to the individual. The Right to Work principle is therefore not "anti-union" but anti-compulsory unionism and pro-freedom of choice. Freedom of association is a basic right, but today’s unions operate via forced association.
It’s worth noting that the Foundation is entirely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, and job providers — unlike unions, which rely on using the power of the state to seize money straight out of unwilling workers’ paychecks. In fact, Foundation supporters come from all walks of life, sections of the country, and social backgrounds. The vast majority of Foundation contributors — tens of thousands of concerned citizens — give $100 or less each year.
There’s nothing remotely "fringe" about our principle, and that’s why 22 states have adopted Right to Work laws and nearly 80% of the American people agree that no worker should ever be forced to associate with a union to get or keep a job.
If you do want to find fringe views on labor law, look no further than Craig Becker himself. "At first blush it might seem fair to give workers the choice to remain unrepresented," Becker wrote in a 1998 New Labor Forum article. Sorry, Member Becker: it’s always fair to give workers a choice no matter how many ways you look at it.
FEC Confirms Postal Union Improperly Diverted Worker’s Dues to Union Political Action Committee
FEC Confirms Postal Union Improperly Diverted Worker’s Dues to Union Political Action Committee
Despite finding, FEC dismisses complaint citing NPMHU officials’ claim that diversion of union dues was so-called “technical error”
Washington, DC (April 5, 2010) – The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).
In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.
In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.
The full press release is available here.
FEC Confirms Postal Union Improperly Diverted Worker’s Dues to Union Political Action Committee
Washington, DC (April 5, 2010) – The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).
In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.
In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.
It is illegal for union officials to fund union PACs using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.” NPMHU union bosses were also accused of violating federal election law by making a political campaign contribution in another person’s name and soliciting political contributions under false pretenses while failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.
Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union’s PAC, but then redirected the portion of funds not intended for union political activities back to membership expenses after the 2006 midterm elections, blaming it on a “technical error” and prompting the FEC to dismiss the charges.
“Unfortunately, the FEC failed to investigate whether this instance of political money laundering was part of a larger scheme afoot,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Even if the union officials’ dubious claims that it was a mistake are to be believed, in effect Mr. Wakeman was forced to give an interest-free loan to the union to use his dues for politics.”
“We will work to ensure that the FEC’s lack of action in this case does not embolden union bosses to concoct similar schemes to funnel union dues for politics as long as they ‘fix’ it later,” Semmens said.
Denver Post: Becker’s Recess Appointment “Troubling,” “Makes Little Sense”
Today, the Denver Post questioned President Obama’s recess appointment of radical SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, noting how Becker’s biases against workers’ rights:
From the Denver Post:
We question Becker’s ability to be an arbiter enforcing fairness in union elections…Becker served as counsel to both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO. It was [SEIU] president Andy Stern who visited the Obama White House 38 times (at last count), and his union spent a reported $66 million to help the president win election.
The Post continues:
He not only supports so-called “card check,” the Employee Free Choice Act that which would effectively eliminate secret ballots and strip away worker privacy when forming a union, he also advocates for the elimination of the “no union” option from workers’ ballots. And he thinks employers should have no “role in union organizing campaigns and in union representation elections.”
How can Americans expect Becker will exhibit impartiality?
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, for instance, already has asked Becker to recuse himself from 12 cases because “his prior writings demonstrate a bias against the group.”
Read the whole Denver Post editorial here.
Right to Work on Glenn Beck: Big Labor’s Unfunded Pension Plans Are Bankrupting America
Yesterday, National Right to Work President Mark Mix appeared on the Glenn Beck Show to explain the looming fiscal threat of government sector unions’ under-funded pension plans:
