Union Operatives Step Up Attacks on Job Providers, Lick Chops at Possible Landslide Election
Here at Freedom@Work, we’ve been covering Big Labor’s vicious corporate smear campaigns for quite some time. With the likelihood of pro-compulsory unionism politicians being swept into office and Big Labor’s power on the rise, it looks like union organizers have redoubled their efforts to impose card-check certification drives across the country.
First, we have the case of Aramark Food Services, headquartered in Philadelphia. As mentioned earlier, Aramark has been targeted by the SEIU for refusing to cooperate with the union bosses’ efforts to forcibly organize company employees. Now comes this latest update from Chicago’s Daily Herald (emphasis mine):
"It’s very typical of SEIU to … put pressure on the employer by … pointing out the various problems with the employer’s labor relations or management practices," said Bob Bruno, a labor relations researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago…
Hade said the union is pursuing agreements that would allow suburban service workers to unionize without holding an election.
"It’s a fair process," [service union spokeswoman] Hade said. "They don’t face intimidation from anyone."
A fair process? Note how the article euphemistically alludes to card-check elections as "agreements that would allow suburban service workers to unionize without holding an election." That’s an interesting way to characterize a process that subjects workers to coercive public pressure from both management and union organizers. Hade would do well to check out the Foundation’s video on card-check harassment and intimidation.
But not surprisingly, this is happening all over the place. In Oregon, United Farm Workers operatives are pressuring Beef Northwest to organize its workers. The locale may change, but Big Labor’s tactics stay the same (emphasis mine):
Now, the United Farm Workers’ efforts to organize the state’s largest cattle feedlot has turned ugly, as the two sides clash over one central question: whether or not the company’s 80 employees even want union representation.
Union organizers say Beef Northwest workers don’t get regular salary raises, affordable health insurance or respect. They want a card check process, in which workers sign union cards and a third party oversees the vote. In the card check process, at least 50 percent of workers need to agree to union representation.
Beef Northwest owners say their workers are among the highest paid in the industry and that the majority of their workers appear happy. They want the vote taken by secret ballot, in which workers vote anonymously without union involvement.
Oregon’s experience foreshadows Big Labor’s coming political ascendancy. Union operatives are in the process of securing the allegiance of state and local governments across the country. With a big national election coming up, Forbes has the story on union organizers’ goals for the next election cycle:
Teamsters spokesman Galen Munroe says, "It’s pretty much accepted that Americans want change after the Bush Administration," adding that the Employee Free Choice Act, designed to make it easier for workers to choose a union, would help strengthen the middle class. The measure didn’t make it out of the Senate last year, but Obama has vowed to revive it if elected.
We’re not sure what the coercive "Employee Free Choice Act" has to do with middle class prosperity given it would increase union monopoly control, but it certainly doesn’t do anything for employee freedom.
Right to Work Attorneys Intervene to Stop NLRB General Counsel from Blocking Union’s Ejection from Narricot Industries
Norfolk, Virginia (June 6, 2008) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, employees at fabric manufacturer Narricot Industries have filed a motion to defend their decision to throw the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Union Local 2316 out of their workplace. After workers overwhelmingly supported decertification, union officials moved to block the employees’ wishes.
Prior to filing a decertification petition, only one quarter of employees in the collective bargaining unit were dues-paying members of the unpopular union, the majority having exercised their rights under Virginia’s Right to Work law to opt out of union dues. And 64 percent of employees signed a petition to remove the union as their collective bargaining agent.
In an effort to undo the employees’ decision, Carpenters union lawyers filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under federal labor law, Carpenters union officials would have to prove that any unfair labor practices committed by the employer incited employees to support decertification. Because employee discontent with union representation predates union officials’ accusations against Narricot, the Carpenters union’s attempt to nullify the decertification petition is unlikely to succeed.
Unfortunately, the NLRB General Counsel moved for a court order that forces employees back into the union for as long as the union’s charge is under consideration. If such an injunction is granted, the Carpenters union will regain its monopoly control of workplace representation until the Board rules upon the validity of the unfair labor practice charges, regardless of the employees’ desires to be free of union representation.
To stop workers from being forced back into union ranks, employees represented by Foundation attorneys filed a motion to participate in the injunction hearing. Foundation attorneys contend that employees freely chose to leave the union, and that it would be unfair to force them back into the union against their will.
“It is abundantly clear that the company’s actions had nothing to do with widespread employee dissatisfaction with the union,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should respect workers’ clear desire to remove the union.”
DC Examiner: Unions Should Stop Tithing Nonmembers With ‘Fees’
Today’s DC Examiner has an editorial about the Foundation’s upcoming US Supreme Court case, Daniel Locke v. Karass.
Here’s an excerpt from the editorial:
Locke is one of 20 Maine state employees who found that their compulsory agency fees to the Maine State Employees Association were being used to fund union lawsuits and bargaining in other states via a funding pool administered by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Locke and his like-minded colleagues objected to having to pay the fees because they knew the SEIU aggressively pushes a political agenda outside of Maine, including political campaigning, lobbying government at all levels, litigation against employers, media advocacy and other non-bargaining activities. Every dollar taken from Locke to pay for union litigation outside Maine freed up a dollar to be spent on SEIU’s political agenda.
Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? After all, Thomas Jefferson said it was “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” And just last year, the court ruled that public employee unions must first get permission from individual members before using their dues for political activities. Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees.”
But things are never so simple in the nation’s capital. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has submitted a brief in the case in which he argues that public employee unions can indeed use agency fees to pay their share of a litigation pool.
But, he says, doing so must further the government’s interest in keeping the peace in the workplace. He also says the union must give reasonable assurance that the pool doesn’t indirectly aid non-litigation activities.
In other words, as long as there is peace in the workplace and wink-winks from the union, President Bush’s solicitor general will be happy. And this president is anti-union?
Read the whole thing here.
The Shape of Things to Come?
Over the weekend, The Oregonian posted a genuinely disturbing piece on union political activism at the state and local level. According to the article, union officials poured massive amounts of money and resources into nearly every Oregon election this past May. The results were truly staggering (emphasis mine):
"Most candidates with union backing won . . . The net result was a monster victory for labor groups that helped solidify their role as one of the state’s top power brokers.
Unions played key roles in statewide victories for secretary of state candidate Kate Brown attorney general candidate John Kroger and U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley. But they also got involved locally, helping Sam Adams win the Portland mayoral contest, Democrat Michael Dembrow win the House District 45 primary in Northeast Portland, and Dennis Doyle oust Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake.
The outcome left Republicans grumbling about the increasing influence of unions in state government. And it left little doubt that labor’s agenda will get red-carpet treatment when the 2009 Legislature meets in January."
Unfortunately, Big Labor’s success at the state and local level foreshadows what could be an even more impressive showing in national elections this November. As the most recent issue of Foundation Action (subscribe now – it’s free!) explains, unions are going for " . . . the trifecta: the House, the Senate, and the White House," according to American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) head Gerald McEntee.
From a recent Wall Street Journal article, the scope of union political activism is truly astounding, even for an election year (emphasis mine):
"The AFL-CIO has approved a record political budget of $53 million to help fund 200,000 union workers on the street. Its affiliated national and international unions have pledged another $200 million. The National Education Association will throw $40 million to $50 million at races. The Service Employees International Union has marked off $100 million for politics, and intends to pay 2,000 union members the equivalent of their salaries to work on Democratic campaigns. Add in union money for federal or state political action committees, for 527s, and for local and state races, and some astute members of the business community – those who have seen this coming “tsunami” (as one puts it) – estimate union political spending may top $1 billion in 2008."
Big Labor’s political priorities include an even more pliant NLRB and passage of the misleadingly-titled "Employee Free Choice Act," a piece of legislation that would allow union bosses to bypass secret ballot elections in favor of shady "card-check" organizing drives. If Oregon is a harbinger of Big Labor’s coming political ascendancy, America and particularly lovers of freedom will be facing a dark period.
Union Accountant’s Financial Analyses for New York Legislature Were ” A Step Above Voodoo . . .”
The New York Times has a devastating article up on the incestuous relationship between public sector union officials and the New York state legislature. The actual controversy is downright farcical: legislators relied on a public sector union accountant to determine the cost of proposed increases to the state’s employee pension plan.
A reasonable observer might suggest that this arrangement represented a clear conflict of interest, but to New York state legislators it was just good book-keeping. According to the Times, the union actuary "reviewed" hundreds of bills for the state before being exposed by the paper’s investigation. What’s more, the Times reports that the actuary neglected to mention additional legislative costs of up $500 million in his original reports.
The Times’ description of the actuary’s "methodology" is particularly mind-boggling (emphasis mine):
" . . . in an arrangement that had not been publicly disclosed, Mr. Schwartz [the union actuary] was being paid by labor unions. He acknowledged in an interview that he skewed his work to favor the [union’s interests], calling his job “a step above voodoo.”
As a result, legislative leaders said they would no longer rely on Mr. Schwartz’s work, and a disciplinary board affiliated with the American Academy of Actuaries has begun a review of Mr. Schwartz’s conduct.
The Legislature relied almost exclusively on Mr. Schwartz — a consultant to District Council 37, the umbrella group of municipal unions as well as to unions representing firefighters, teachers, detectives and correction officers — to determine the cost of pension bills involving New York City employees."
Fortunately, Empire State legislators swung into action to reasssure the Times that they were monitoring the situation all along. I’m sure New York taxpayers are greatly reassured by their representatives’ scrupulous accounting procedures:
"Despite legislative leaders’ assertions that they undertake independent financial analyses of the pension bills, neither the Senate nor the Assembly could provide any records to bolster that claim."
Unfortunately, this sort of lax book-keeping is par for the course when it comes to union pension funds which are often managed for the benefit of union bosses, rather than the pensioners. The incident also highlights the dangerous potential for union political activism in the legislative sphere.
When things get too cozy, there really are no breaks on political corruption. In another instance, Schwartz analyzed a Big Labor supported bill and basically lied to the legislature — saying it would result in no additional costs to taxpayers.
"Mr. Schwartz conceded in an interview last month that he knew the bill would actually have a significant cost, explaining, “I got a little bit carried away in my formulation.”
He added that he made his projections look “as cheap as possible” to favor his clients."
NLRB To Prosecute CWA Union Local for Illegal ‘Annual Objection’ Policy Designed to Force Workers to Pay Full Dues
Cleveland, Ohio (June 4, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an official complaint against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4309 union officials in response to charges filed by the National Right to Work Foundation on behalf of an AT&T employee.
CWA Local 4309 union officials are accused of committing unfair labor practices by requiring nonunion employees to annually object to mandatory dues payments unrelated to collective bargaining. An NLRB administrative law judge will rule on the federal complaint.
Under the Foundation-won precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees can be required to pay union dues germane to collective bargaining. But employees who object to paying full union dues have the right to withhold funds attributable to other union activities such as politics, lobbying, or member-only activities. Employees are also entitled to an audited financial breakdown of all union expenditures.
CWA Local 4309 union bosses required nonmember employees to annually object to making full dues payments within a short window period, despite the fact that these employees had already signaled their unwillingness to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining by refusing to join the union. Federal labor prosecutors agreed that the annual objection requirement represents an unnecessary burden that frequently results in nonunion workers paying more than they owe.
The case is one of many in which National Right to Work attorneys have helped employees challenge union policies that require workers to annually object to paying for nonrepresentational activities. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, workers have successfully challenged both the International Association of Machinists’ (IAM) and the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) annual objection policies.
“Union bosses exploit these illegal annual objection requirements to seize even more compulsory union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates the injustices workers face every day under forced unionism.”
Bush Labor Board Authorizes Congressmen to Issue Union “Certifications” Intended to Deceive Employees
Atlantic City, NJ (June 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.
The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.
The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.
In addition to filing a brief supporting Trump Plaza’s request that the Board set aside the election, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed unfair labor practice charges and a House Ethics Committee complaint.
The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charge, which has been held in abeyance pending the appeal regarding certification, points out that Congressman Andrews led an extraordinary public event (which was televised and disseminated by other media) and aided UAW union officials in interfering with the free exercise of employee rights in choosing whether to unionize. “Acting under the false imprimatur of NLRB authority,” Andrews counted union authorization cards that were not necessarily intended by employees to be considered formal votes, and he signed and announced a “Certification of Majority Status” for unionization.
Andrews’s participation, given his position as Chairman of House of Representative’s subcommittee that oversees labor issues, made the union’s televised public announcement of its “certification” particularly problematic. Given his prominent role in the creation of federal labor policy, employees could think that the union had already been formally installed, or that the union’s election was a forgone conclusion. As the Foundation’s brief in the case pointed out, Andrew’s actions likely had the effects of suppressing turnout for the election, and inducing employees to vote for a “pre-certified” union, thus disenfranchising employees and destroying the “laboratory conditions” under which NLRB elections are required to take place.
“The Bush Labor Board has just opened the floodgates. Workers will be faced with union officials’ aggressive use of Members of Congress during coercive union organizing campaigns,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.
###
A copy of the NLRB’s decision can be downloaded here.
The Foundation’s amicus brief to the board can be downloaded here.
Quick Hits — June 1, 2008
A few Right to Work-related updates from over the weekend:
1.) A recent survey shows broad, bipartisan support for maintaining secret ballot elections in the workplace. Although the erroneously-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" has gained legislative momentum, 82% of all Democrat voters, 77% of all Republicans, and 79% of Independents oppose replacing secret ballot elections with coercive "card-check" organizing drives.
2.) Both the SEIU and the United Steelworkers unions are considering overseas expansion in concert with unions in Australia, Great Britain, and elsewhere. International efforts at unionization may exacerbate existing tensions within the SEIU over inadequate local representation.
3.) Implictly rebutting the claims advanced by union officials in a recent Detroit News op-ed, community and business leaders in Michigan are speaking out in favor of greater worker freedom. Here are a few choice excerpts (emphasis mine):
Michigan as a whole is at a critical crossroads. West Michigan wants a voice of its own," Jeanne Engelhart, president of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, told me in a recent interview . . .
. . . Engelhart doesn’t trash the Mackinac conference; she has attended in past years and found it useful. But she does suggest that west Michiganders might be more willing than Detroiters to push hard for government spending cuts and discuss controversial topics like right-to-work legislation, which would ban compulsory labor union membership."
. . . Dick Haworth, chairman of Holland-based Haworth Inc., believes a serious discussion of right-to-work status for Michigan is worth pursuing. "The union environment," he said, "does not allow you to adapt quickly, or at all, to the world we live in."
It’s not just about wages and benefits; it’s more about flexibility, Haworth said. "In a lot of cases, we’re not using world-class methods and processes. We need to be better students of what world-class is."
Union Operatives Take Aim at Minnesota’s Attorney General
Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has been targeted by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) officials for making personnel decisions which union bosses say is retaliation for the union’s attempts to organize her staff. One columnist gave her the label of "union buster" in a recent article for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Since AFSCME’s Minnesota Chapter endorsed Swanson during the 2006 election for her pro-union-boss positions, this particular turn of events is rich with irony.
There are notable parallels between union "corporate campaigns" and the AFSCME’s ongoing PR assault against the Attorney General. Union operatives frequently rely on ugly public slurs to force companies into tacitly accepting coercive membership drives, and these well-honed tactics are being increasingly deployed against public officials.
According to Swanson, union bosses threatened to "place negative stories about her in the press and on Internet blogs if she didn’t support a union for the attorneys."
Other employees say they’ve suffered intimidation and harassment at the hands of union militants for refusing to support the AFSCME’s membership drive.
It’s sad, but this is what union organizing has become. Help union bosses “recruit” new forced dues paying members… or else.
Michigan Union Boss Makes Fact-Free Case Against Ending Forced-Dues Gravy Train
The Detroit News has just published a remarkably fact-free op-ed on the economics of the Right to Work issue. Given the author makes his living from Big Labor’s forced dues gravy train (he’s a treasurer with the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters & Millwrights) which is partly responsible for Michigan’s ongoing economic nightmare, it’s no wonder he would be alarmed by the talk of cancelling union bosses’ compulsory union dues privileges in Michigan.
The author starts out with this mind-boggling passage:
"Undeniably, having Michigan become a "right-to-work" state would be bad for workers, helping dismantle freely negotiated wage standards and benefits, as well as worker protections, in many industries. In right-to-work states, nonunion members can opt out of paying union dues, even though they receive all the guarantees and protections of the existing union contract under which they work." [Emphasis added]
Freely negotiated wage standards? Really? Is that what they are calling the system of mandatory bargain-or-be-prosecuted federal labor policy? Warehousing employees into collective bargaining units doesn’t result in "free" anything, and to suggest otherwise is Orwellian double-talk.
The article continues:
"The reality is that "right-to-work" is not just a union issue. Our modern Michigan economy is in many ways "indivisible." For example, the strength and quality of our outstanding Michigan health care sector relies on the earned health care benefits of workers across many employment sectors, union or nonunion, skilled trade or service worker, blue collar or white.
Similarly, pension funds (whether defined benefit programs negotiated by labor unions in both the public and private sectors, 401(k) and similar plans provided by private employers or individual retirement accounts) are invested directly in our community, while their management supports the financial services sector of our Michigan economy."
Union officials’ corrupt history of pension fund management should immediately give Michiganders pause. And the union record on health insurance is hardly better. Take the Michigan Education Association, for example. The Association’s health insurance plan forces Michigan taxpayers to subsidize a bloated, uncompetitive payment scheme whose shady accounting procedures have been linked to union political activism.
The article concludes by citing some bogus report issued by Jeff Vincent, research director of the Indiana University Division of Labor Studies’ Institute for the Study of Labor in Society.
Vincent’s study conveniently ignores Right to Work states’ comparative advantages in both higher real earnings and lower average costs of living. In other words, workers’ paychecks go a lot further in economically dynamic Right to Work states because the goods they purchase are significantly cheaper.
At this juncture, it’s worth noting that the moral case for Right to Work principles is entirely separate from the issue of material prosperity. Here at Freedom@Work, we believe that employees everywhere have an inalienable right to choose whether or not to associate with a union, regardless of anyone’s feelings or the perceived economic benefits of collective bargaining. But it’s also nice to know that study after study has validated the significant economic, job-creating advantages of Right to Work policies.
