Chicago, IL (December 13, 2010) – A group of home-based personal care providers have filed a federal appeal against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their agreement to force Illinois’s home-based personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the personal care providers filed their appeal with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge ruled against them.

The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 home-based personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities as “public employees” and susceptible to unwanted union boss political “representation.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to force their monopoly control over the workers, even having out-of-state union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics. Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his closely-contested primary campaign earlier this year.

Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers were designated as state workers for the purpose of granting union bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them. Quinn’s executive order expanded Blagojevich’s to cover the additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the first executive order.

In a mail-in vote, the providers soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to further forced unionization efforts.

Pam Harris and several other home-care providers filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers, challenging the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Quinn is picking the lobbyists of Illinois’s personal care providers, all in exchange for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”

Union Bosses Forced to Drop $200,000 Lawsuit against Unemployed Carpenter

Union officials failed to find work for carpenter, then retaliated against him for working to support his family without paying tribute to union bosses

Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.

After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.

A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Read the entire release here.

Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.

After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.

A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

CRCC union bosses dropped the lawsuit after attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation took up the case for Crenshaw providing free legal representation.

“It is unconscionable for union bosses to attempt to drive unemployed workers into the poorhouse in vicious retaliation for providing for their families,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Confiscatory fines and kangaroo courts are just some of the disturbing, yet increasingly-used tactics of union boss intimidation that are all too common in states like Illinois where there is no Right to Work law on the books.”

Pasco Tyson Plant Workers Force Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unwanted Union from Workplace

Union bosses conspired to block employee vote after cutting backroom deal

Wallula, WA (November 16, 2010) – After receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Wallula-based Tyson Foods Inc. employees prevailed in a protracted legal battle to have a secret ballot vote to remove a local union from their workplace.

Last year, Tyson (NYSE: TSN) recognized the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1439 union as the employees’ monopoly bargaining agent after a controversial “card check” union organizing campaign. Union officials then gave employees only 24 hours to vote on whether or not to ratify the union’s contract with the company. They also required employees to sign union dues deduction authorizations in order to vote – discouraging many employees from voting. Only 61 of the facility’s 1,177 employees actually voted.

In response, a group of independent-minded employees attempted to file a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine the fate of their bargaining status. Tyson company officials reprimanded the employees and confiscated the employees’ petition. Another group of employees then successfully filed a second petition with the NLRB to obtain a vote.

Read the entire release here.

Wallula, WA (November 16, 2010) – After receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Wallula-based Tyson Foods Inc. employees prevailed in a protracted legal battle to have a secret ballot vote to remove a local union from their workplace.

Last year, Tyson (NYSE: TSN) recognized the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1439 union as the employees’ monopoly bargaining agent after a controversial “card check” union organizing campaign. Union officials then gave employees only 24 hours to vote on whether or not to ratify the union’s contract with the company. They also required employees to sign union dues deduction authorizations in order to vote – discouraging many employees from voting. Only 61 of the facility’s 1,177 employees actually voted.

In response, a group of independent-minded employees attempted to file a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine the fate of their bargaining status. Tyson company officials reprimanded the employees and confiscated the employees’ petition. Another group of employees then successfully filed a second petition with the NLRB to obtain a vote.

The workers relied on the Board’s 2007 Dana Corporation decision in which Foundation attorneys won new rights for employees intended to counteract the intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during union organizing campaigns, most often as a result of “card check.”

Dana allows workers to demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer notifies employees that it has recognized a monopoly bargaining agent without a secret ballot vote. This check gives workers some ability to stop union organizers from gaining monopoly control over a workplace.

UFCW union lawyers challenged the employees’ petition, arguing that the union’s new contract with the company barred an employee election to remove the union. However, the NLRB Regional Director in Seattle ruled last week that the employer and union officials failed to post notices as required by Dana informing the employees of their right to a secret ballot election. He therefore upheld the validity of the employees’ petition for a secret ballot vote.

The Regional Director also rejected the union’s argument that, because Dana is being challenged by union lawyers in five other cases across the country, its precedent should not be followed. The very Foundation attorneys who originally won the landmark Dana case are providing free legal aid to employees seeking to protect their Dana rights in two of those cases before the NLRB.

“The NLRB should allow employees the right to defend themselves from union organizing abuses including collusion between union and company officials and aggressive ‘card check’ campaigns,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “A secret ballot election gives workers at least a fighting chance to prevent union bosses from springing their unwanted ‘representation’ on unsuspecting or vulnerable workers.”

Security Union Officials Hit With Federal Labor Board Charges for Forcing Employees into Union

Stealth union organizing campaign springs union boss control over employees without even a vote

Flint, MI (November 9, 2010) – A group of eight Securitas Security Services employees filed federal charges against a local union and their employer earlier this week for illegally forcing union monopoly representation and mandatory union fees on the employees without a showing of majority support for the union.

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the employees – who are employed by Securitas in Grand Blanc – recently learned that their employer has recognized the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union hierarchy as their monopoly bargaining agent. The employees were unaware of any union organizing campaign occurring in their workplace and a vote never took place.

Federal labor law requires that union officials must show majority support within a workplace before company officials can recognize the union.

The employees were forced to sign union dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – and are currently paying dues to the union in order to keep their jobs.

Read the entire release here.

Flint, MI (November 9, 2010) – A group of eight Securitas Security Services employees filed federal charges against a local union and their employer earlier this week for illegally forcing union monopoly representation and mandatory union fees on the employees without a showing of majority support for the union.

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the employees – who are employed by Securitas in Grand Blanc – recently learned that their employer has recognized the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union hierarchy as their monopoly bargaining agent. The employees were unaware of any union organizing campaign occurring in their workplace and a vote never took place.

Federal labor law requires that union officials must show majority support within a workplace before company officials can recognize the union.

The employees were forced to sign union dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – and are currently paying dues to the union in order to keep their jobs.

The NLRB regional office in Detroit will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union and company.

“Michigan desperately needs a Right to Work law to prevent union organizing abuses such as this woeful act of collusion between union and company officials,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Folks trying to make a living should not be conscripted and forced to pay tribute to a union in order to get or keep a job.”

Honolulu, HI (November 8, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Hawaii Hilton Village Hotel employee has filed another round of federal unfair labor practice charges against UNITE HERE Local 5 union officials for attempting to have him fired for resigning from the union, refusing to pay dues for union politics, and informing his coworkers of their workplace rights.

Grant Suzuki has repeatedly clashed with union officials, filing successful unfair labor practice charges in 2008 to force UNITE HERE operatives to return illegally-seized union dues. Suzuki has since been targeted for harassment for informing his coworkers of their rights to opt-out of union dues, resign from union membership, and work during a union-instigated strike.

Because Hawaii lacks a Right to Work law, union officials can require nonmember employees to pay certain dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers may not be charged for activities unrelated to union monopoly bargaining, including dues collected for union political activism and members-only activities. In 2009, UNITE HERE officials agreed to a settlement with Suzuki that refunded all dues collected for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining and required the union to post public notices informing hotel employees of their rights.

Instead of amending their workplace practices, however, union officials harassed Suzuki and attempted to have him fired from Hilton Village.

Suzuki’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“Grant Suzuki had the temerity to stand up for his rights at work and union officials responded by trying to get him fired,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “If union officials can get away with intimidation, other employees will be discouraged from standing up for their workplace rights, which is why it’s vital the NLRB act immediately to punish UNITE HERE operatives for their thuggish behavior.”

Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed briefs today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), urging the federal labor board to uphold a landmark 2007 decision which gave new protections to workers swept into union ranks through the abusive card check organizing process.

In Dana Corporation, Foundation attorneys won new employee rights intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during card check organizing campaigns. The Dana decision granted employees the ability to file a decertification petition for a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer gives notice that it recognized a union as monopoly bargaining agent by card check.

At the request of union lawyers seeking to deny workers access to a secret ballot vote, the NLRB ruled in August to revisit Dana over the strenuous objections of dissenting members Peter Schaumber, whose term has since expired, and Brian Hayes.

In Lamons Gasket, now before the NLRB, Foundation attorneys are providing free legal aid to Mike Lopez, a worker who filed a decertification petition with the support of at least 30 percent of his fellow employees challenging the card check recognition of the United Steelworkers (USW) union as their monopoly bargaining agent. The decertification election occurred in August, but the ballots have been impounded pending the review of Dana.

Foundation attorneys filed a merit brief for Lopez and an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation. The latter cites the Foundation’s unparalleled experience representing employees victimized by coercive card check organizing drives. The two briefs argue that Dana elections are working as intended, providing workers the ability to remove an unwanted union from their workplaces.

Foundation attorneys have also renewed their request that Member Craig Becker recuse himself from the case because he co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case.

"Although no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union to get or keep a job, the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees," explained Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

In addition to the Lamons Gasket briefs, Foundation attorneys also filed a brief in UGL-UNICCO Service Company, a case in which the NLRB is reconsidering the "successorship doctrine," which determines what opportunities workers have to remove a union after a company is sold or merged. In the brief filed today, Foundation staff attorneys argue that union monopoly bargaining privileges should not automatically be extended in such cases, and employees should be free to decertify a union when there are such drastic changes in their relationship with their employer.

Poll: Union Members Overwhelmingly Oppose Union Boss Political Spending on 2010 Midterm Elections

Despite DC union officials’ agenda, union membership think stimulus plan and healthcare bills were failures, and oppose keeping Pelosi as Speaker

Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – A nationwide poll of 760 union members from both the private and government sector conducted last week demonstrates a staggering disconnect between union members and the national union officials who claim to represent them. The scientific survey was conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz.

The poll asked various questions regarding their union leadership and the 2010 midterm elections. The poll found that 60 percent of union members oppose their union bosses’ political spending in the 2010 midterm elections, viewing it a wasteful use of union dues and treasuries to protect incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.

Despite Big Labor’s 2010 political spending blitz – led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses’ $87.5 million “incumbent protection program” – nearly 60 percent believe that a mostly even balance of power between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill is best for America and the same number would rather that money be spent working with employers to create new and better jobs. A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30 percent want her to remain Speaker.

In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59 percent of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so.

Half of union members view President Obama and the Democrat Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37 percent view it as a success. Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures. Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy; and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.

Read the entire release here.

View the complete poll results here.