Editorial Boards: Obama’s Discriminatory Union-Only Construction Policy Hurts Workers, Job Providers, and Taxpayers
On Tuesday, the Obama Administration implemented a new policy — initiated by an early executive order signed by President Obama — encouraging federal agencies to adopt so-called "project labor agreements" (PLAs) on large-scale federal construction projects.
Some of the typical conditions demanded by unions in PLAs include monopoly bargaining, forced dues and fees for all “represented” workers, exclusive union hiring halls, and inflexible union work rules which strictly separate job functions into exclusive union jurisdictions based on craft.
The Wall Street Journal strongly criticized the new policy, which effectively discriminates against the 85 percent of all construction workers who are not under union monopoly control. Moreover,
It’s also a rotten deal for taxpayers. White House economist Jared Bernstein blogged that these agreements "significantly enhance the economy and efficiency of Federal Construction projects." In fact, the carve-outs put an end to open, competitive federal bidding, which means higher project costs. They also mean taxpayers must finance the benefits and work rules of union members.
…
Boston’s Big Dig, Seattle’s Safeco field, Los Angeles’s Eastside Reservoir project, the San Francisco airport, Detroit’s Comerica Park—all were built under PLAs marked by embarrassing cost overruns. We’d list more, but newsprint is expensive.
The White House went out of its way to note that the Supreme Court has upheld such agreements in the past, suggesting it has a guilty conscience. In fact, the High Court has never ruled on the legality of these agreements under federal competitive bidding laws. Industry groups are now threatening legal action to defend the rights of workers who will be denied employment for the crime of not sporting Obama-Biden bumper stickers. It’s a fight worth having.
The Washington Examiner likewise denounced the discriminatory policy, noting the National Right to Work Foundation’s objections:
"The Obama administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize," said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation."Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: To impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top down."
Another factor helps explain Obama’s willingness to sign an executive order that will put millions more tax dollars in union coffers. Mix points out that unions under PLAs typically exact agreements that include requiring contractors to make payments to union pension funds. This is an increasingly urgent issue, as the Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway has recently detailed in these pages. According to Labor Department filings, the average union pension has only enough money on hand to cover 62 percent of the benefits it has promised to union members. Pension plans with 80 percent funding are considered "endangered" by federal auditors, while those with less than 65 percent funding are put on the "critical" list. With this latest executive order, it’s clear that Obama intends to give unions on the critical list a massive dose of federal tax dollars to cure what ails them.
New Obama Administration Contracting Policy “Nothing More Than Payback” to Big Labor
New Obama Administration Contracting Policy "Nothing More Than Payback" to Big Labor
So-called "project labor agreements" discriminate against the 85 percent of construction workers who have opted against unionization
Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.
“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.
“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”
New Obama Administration Contracting Policy “Nothing More Than Payback” to Big Labor
Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.
“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.
“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”
The National Right to Work Foundation filed formal comments with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council last summer opposing the proposed rule. The Foundation argued that the directive is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, and that imposing discriminatory PLAs on federal contractors violates workers’ rights, passes along higher costs to taxpayers, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.
Some of the typical conditions demanded by unions in PLAs include monopoly bargaining, forced dues and fees for all “represented” workers, exclusive union hiring halls, and inflexible union work rules which strictly separate job functions into exclusive union jurisdictions based on craft.
One other particularly egregious feature of many PLAs requires contractors to make contributions to union pension plans. Nonunion employees will receive no retirement benefits for their work on a project because union pension plans have vesting periods that last longer than most projects. Nonmembers thus end up subsidizing the pensions of longtime union members.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor, only 15 percent of construction workers in the United States are unionized.
Florida Employment Commission Files Complaint Against Scofflaw Teacher Union Bosses
Here’s an update on the case of Sean Beightol, a veteran Miami chemistry teacher denied access to private counsel at a school disciplinary hearing.
Although union members are allowed to consult with advisers from the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) union during similar proceedings, school administrators prevented Beightol from bringing an adviser from his voluntary teacher association to the meeting, a clear-cut case of workplace discrimination against nonunion teachers.
Foundation attorneys responded by filing charges on Beightol’s behalf with the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission, which issued an official complaint last week against the union and the local Miami-Dade school district. The complaints against the union and the school district can be found here and here; the Employee Relations Commission will now investigate the matter to determine school and union officials’ culpability.
To paraphrase our press release on the charges, the discriminatory work rule Beightol challenged is nothing more than a tool to discourage teachers from leaving the union and enrolling in a voluntary teachers association.
A victory for Beightol would end this discriminatory practice and stop union officials from undermining Florida’s popular Right to Work law.
Right to Work on the Radio: Why Michigan Would Benefit from Right to Work
Right to Work President Mark Mix appeared on The Frank Beckmann Show in Detroit yesterday to discuss the Foundation’s legal program and why Michigan would benefit from a Right to Work law. 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.
Teamster Bosses Required to Refund Illegally-Seized Dues, Post Notice Informing Workers of their Rights
Jackson, MI (April 8, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four local workers have agreed to a settlement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 164 union after union officials obstructed their attempts to opt-out of certain union dues.
Michael Vetrovec, Robert Harris, Ken Low, and Larry Kunk are employed by Perfection Associates L.L.C. in Jackson, Michigan. All four workers objected to Teamster membership and attempted to opt-out of paying full union dues last summer.
Because Michigan lacks a Right to Work law, employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck guarantees the right of workers to opt-out of forced dues intended for purposes other than workplace bargaining, such as lobbying, political activism, and members-only activities.
Despite this precedent, Teamsters officials initially refused to stop collecting dues earmarked for non-bargaining activities from Vetrovec, Harris, Low and Kunk. Union officials also failed to provide all four workers with an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures, which is required by law to ensure that employees are not forced to pay for objectionable activities.
With the help of Foundation attorneys, the workers filed federal unfair labor practice charges last October with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Instead of contesting the charges, Teamsters officials recently agreed to a settlement that refunds dues collected for non-bargaining activities from all four employees since July 2009. The union also agreed to post public notices informing employees of their rights to resign from union membership and opt-out of dues unrelated to workplace bargaining.
“We’re pleased to hear that Teamsters bosses will refund money seized from four independent-minded workers who have no interest in subsidizing political and members-only union activities, but this type of abuse will continue as long as employees can be forced to pay union dues just to keep a job,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to really protect workers is for Michigan to adopt a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”
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.
