The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom
The following article by National Right to Work Legel Defense Foundation President Mark Mix appeared in the June/July issue of Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College sent each month to 1.9 million subscribers. The article is adapted from a lecture given at Hillsdale College in January 2011.
The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom
BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
…except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.
Boeing’s Interest, and Ours
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:
There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?
Public Sector Unionism
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Right to Work Attorneys Demand Workers’ Voices Be Heard on Obama NLRB Rule Change
Last week, President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposed new guidelines which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees, and make union organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible.
The new rules, which are designed to allow union organizers to browbeat workers into union ranks and keep independent workers from opposing unionization, make it easier for union organizers to launch stealth campaigns in which they have access to the personal information of workers and harass them (including by making "home visits") into signing "union authorization cards."
Meanwhile, the vast majority of workers and the employer may have no idea what is happening.
Then, after union organizers collect those "authorization cards" from just 30 percent of employees in the workplace, workers would be ambushed with an union organizing election in just days — denying independent-minded employees any time to share truthful, non-coercive information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization.
Well-funded professional union organizers regularly push for unionization behind the scenes for months (or even years) as part of their drive for more forced union dues, and under the new rules, workers wishing to remain free from union boss control would only have days to counter what could be years of union-boss propaganda being used at their workplace — and even at their coworkers’ homes.
Further, even if union bosses don’t think they can win the quickie election, under the new rules they would be able to request the election in order to force the employer to hand over a list of every employee with their home address, phone number, email and shift information. Armed with this information union organizers could then withdraw the election petition and continue pursuing their coercive card check campaign.
In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has requested to address the NLRB at its public hearing next month on the proposed rule changes. If allowed, Foundation staff attorneys will argue at the hearing that the ambush elections Big Labor is pushing for would prevent independent-minded workers their right to resist forced unionization of their workplace and that the rule requiring job providers to hand over the employees’ personal information to union bosses is a violation of their privacy and places them in danger of harassment at the hands of aggressive union organizers.
You can read the Foundation’s request to appear at the NLRB’s public meeting on behalf of independent-minded workers here (pdf).
Right to Work Fights for California Nurse’s Rights at the Ninth Circuit
Right to Work staff attorneys are helping Carol Jean Badertscher, a California nurse, fight back against California’s draconian “strikebreaker” law, which authorizes fines and even jail time for employees who repeatedly refuse to walk off the job during a union boss-ordered strike. Last Friday, the case came before a panel of three judges at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Audio of the oral argument is available online here. Below, Foundation attorney Bill DuRoss, who represented Badertscher in the argument, explains the ins and outs of the case to a group of Right to Work supporters who attended the Ninth Circuit’s hearing:
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Demolishes Union Lawyer’s Misleading Screed Against Right to Work State Workers
Kyle Wingfield of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution absolutely demolishes a misleading Wall Street Journal op-ed in favor of the NLRB’s efforts to shut down Boeing’s South Carolina Dreamliner facilities. First, Wingfield addresses the claim that choosing Charleston as a production site hurts Boeing’s Seattle-based employees:
The word “move” is key, because pro-labor people like Geoghegan have depicted Boeing’s decision to open a production line for its 787 Dreamliner jet in North Charleston, S.C., as a loss to workers in Seattle. In fact, this is a new production line; the existing production line will remain in place.
I’m sure the workers in Seattle — or, more precisely, the union leaders whom their union dues pay — would have liked for the new jobs to be in Seattle (in addition to the 2,000 jobs Boeing has added there despite its alleged hostility to unions there, but I digress). Geoghegan, however, is trying to suggest workers in Seattle are losing something they never had. That’s never true.
Wingfield also points out that Boeing’s Charleston employees have more disposable income than their Seattle counterparts after adjusting for cost-of-living, an advantage that can be partly attributed to South Carolina’s popular Right to Work law, which makes union dues and membership strictly voluntary.
Wingfield concludes, "If this is the best argument union allies can make in the Boeing case,
it’s no wonder private-sector labor unions are such dying dinosaurs."
Right to Work in the Charleston Post & Courier: “NLRB Aims to Maximize Union Dues”
Writing in The Charleston Post & Courier, National Right to Work President Mark Mix explains the broader issues at stake in the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing:
So why is the National Labor Relations Board so incensed about Boeing’s decision to open a new production line in South Carolina? And why is the IAM so eager to keep Boeing in Washington State?
The answer is simple. South Carolina protects workers’ freedom of choice.
The state’s longstanding Right to Work law ensures that while workers have the right to join a union, they cannot be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to get or keep a job. Washington State, on the other hand, allows union officials to extract dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment.
Click here to read the whole thing. You can keep up with the latest developments in the case on the Foundation’s Boeing page.
South Carolina Workers Speak Out Against the NLRB’s Attempt to Shut Down Boeing’s Charleston Dreamliner Plant
Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced it was providing free legal aid to three South Carolina Boeing Employees, who are moving to intervene in a case brought by the Obama National Labor Relations Board and IAM union bosses that would to shut down production at Boeing’s Charleston Dreamliner facility.
A copy of the Foundation’s motion to intervene includes statements from the three Boeing employees, who explain their negative experiences with IAM union officials and their reasons for speaking out against the NLRB’s attempt to move production of the Boeing Dreamliner back to (non-Right to Work) Washington State.
Dennis Murray, one of the intervenors, describes his history with the IAM before Vought, his old employer, was acquired by Boeing:
"When I went to work at Vought in 2008, the IAM had been voted in as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative, but they were just negotiating a first contract. In November 2008, an IAM representative called an emergency meeting but only told twelve of the 200 union members in the unit about the meeting. A total of thirteen employees attended the meeting and those few in attendance ratified the IAM’s contract by a vote for 12-1. Many of the provisions of the new IAM contract were worse than what Vought employees already had without a contract. For example, employees lost medical, dental, and short term disability. The Vought employees were then extremely unhappy with the IAM’s actions. This unhappiness was exacerbated by subsequent layoffs that lasted from three weeks to five months."
Like many other Charleston-based Boeing employees, Murray is concerned that he’ll lose his job if the NLRB forces Boeing to move back to Washington:
"It seems clear that many Charleston-based employees and I would lose our jobs with Boeing in South Carolina if the General Counsel’s proposed remedy is adopted. The current unemployment rate here is high and jobs are scarce. If I lose my job, my family will be devastated . . ."
Cynthia Ramaker, another Boeing employee, also encountered the IAM’s backroom dealings before Boeing acquired Vought:
"In general there was not much communication between the IAM and the employees."
"Of the 200 union members in the unit only 13 attended the contract ratification meeting. Those few in attendance ratified the IAM’s contract by vote of 12-1. Many of the provisions of the new IAM contract were worse than what Vought employees already had without a contract . . . Employees lost medical, dental, and short term disability. Additionally, dues were set to increase, although this requirement was later reduced due to the strong backlash in the unit."
Ramaker, a former IAM union official, also opposes the NLRB’s efforts to shut down Dreamliner production:
"I am not surprised by the Unfair Labor Practice filed by the IAM in Seattle/Everett against Boeing. They are violating my right to work with a choice. Isn’t that what being an American is all about?"
Like Murray, she worries about the consequences of shutting down the Boeing facility:
"I understand that the NLRB General Counsel’s remedy in this case will force Boeing to discontinue the final assembly and delivery work in Charleston, and transfer it to Seattle. This remedy is grossly unfair and would devastate our community and thousands of families."
The third intervenor, Meredith Going, Sr., is also concerned about his own job prospects if Boeing is forced to shut down production:
"The current unemployment rate here is high and jobs are scarce. Many people I know would like to work at Boeing if they could. I am 65 years old, and was unemployed for over a year before I got this job with Boeing. Before coming to Boeing, I was laid off from my previous job in the automobile finance business. If I lose my job with Boeing, I’d have to go back on unemployment . . . I am sure that any unemployment I would receive would run out quickly, and at my age getting a good job with good wages and benefits like what I have here with Boeing is extremely difficult."
The statements from these employees give you an idea of what’s at stake here. If the NLRB and the IAM successfully force Boeing to shut down the Dreamliner production line, South Carolina stands to lose over 1,000 existing jobs and thousands more once the plant is in full production.
The NLRB’s unprecedented move would be devastating to these employees and to their entire community, which is why they’ve stepped forward to defend their rights and their jobs.
Big Labor-Backed Congressman Rush Holt Tries to Block Union Decertification Election
On Capitol Hill, New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt is a prominent Big Labor enabler: He’s cosponsored the notorious "card check" forced unionism bill, taken tens of thousands of dollars from union bosses who use their forced-dues powers to funnel money into politics, and generally opposed expanding workplace freedom at every turn. His latest stunt? A heavy-handed attempt to block a decertification election that would have thrown an unwanted union out of a New Jersey workplace.
Recently, Holt wrote a letter (pdf) urging the NLRB to block a decertification election that would have removed Teamster bosses from the Durham School Bus offices in Middletown, New Jersey. Holt claims that the company’s unfair labor practices tainted the election, but even if his assertion were true, workers attempting to eject unwelcome union bosses shouldn’t be punished for management’s mistakes. Moreover, Big Labor operatives frequently resort to frivolous legal challenges to prevent employees from getting rid of unions.
Although the election was held as scheduled and Teamster officials ultimately held on to their forced-dues privileges, Holt’s letter demonstrates Big Labor’s staggering political influence. Union bosses will stop at nothing to push more workers into their forced-dues paying ranks. Getting a sitting Congressman to intervene in what was supposed to be an even-handed union decertification election is just the latest example of their political pull. After all, they’ve done it before, and they’ll surely do it again.
Video: National Right to Work Criticizes Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis for Gutting Union Transparency Requirements
National Right to Work President Mark Mix appeared on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" to discuss Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis’s efforts to undermine union transparency. Check out the video below:
Union Member Seeks to Block Obama Labor Department’s Efforts to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules
Union Member Seeks to Block Obama Labor Department’s Efforts to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules
Department guts disclosure rule that has exposed numerous corrupt union boss schemes, let rank-and-file members know how dues are spent
Washington, DC (May 23, 2011) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Maryland county government employee is asking a federal court to stop the Obama Administration from allowing union bosses to conceal lavish and corrupt union expenditures from workers.
Chris Mosquera, a member of a Municipal County Government Employee Local of the United Food and Commercial Worker (UFCW) union, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for rescinding a union boss disclosure rule which would make it less difficult for workers to hold union officials accountable.
Unions covered by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) with total annual receipts of $250,000 or more are currently required to submit annual financial statements to the U.S. Department of Labor. LM-2 forms are the public disclosure documents for these larger unions and are available online on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) website.
These forms have helped workers and citizen activists expose many unscrupulous union boss schemes, including lavish benefits to high-ranking union officials and loyalists, superfluous spending on union boss transportation (including private jets), and shady political spending (such as the Service Employees International Union bosses’ links to the disgraced political organization ACORN).
Foundation Fights Back Against Obama Labor Board’s Assault on Right to Work
South Carolina newspaper and television outlets have highlighted the National Right to Work Foundation’s efforts to challenge the National Labor Relations Board’s scheme to undermine laws that protect worker freedom.
The Acting General Counself of the NLRB filed a complaint last month against Boeing for creating over 1000 new jobs in South Carolina, where International Association of Machinists union bosses can’t force workers to pay dues or "fees" as a condition of employment.
The Foundation is offering free legal aid to current or potential Boeing employees affected by this power grab. Also this week, the Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NLRB.
Charleston’s The Post and Courier interviewed Foundation president Mark Mix earlier this week:
"They’re really saying that private companies can’t make a business decision," he said Monday.
His Springfield, Va.-based foundation’s legal team is looking to persuade as many local Boeing workers as it can to provide affidavits and justify its request for an official place at the litigation table. The group has already heard from at least two unidentified employees who have expressed an interest in participating, he said.
WSCS Live 5 News also covered the Foundation’s offer:
The Foundation relies on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please click here.
