Right to Work Foundation Urges Department of Labor Not to Trash Union Disclosure Rules

Obama Administration seems primed to make it easier for union bosses to hide lucrative perks from rank-and-file workers

Washington, DC (March 9, 2009) – Prompted by a Rahm Emanuel directive on Inauguration Day, the U.S. Department of Labor seems ready to discard new union disclosure rules developed over two years by the previous administration.

In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has submitted comments urging the Department to maintain or strengthen rules aimed at curbing union boss corruption.

In late January, the Department of Labor announced that it was considering changes to recently revised LM-2 disclosure guidelines, which require unions to list the specific compensation – financial or otherwise – of individual union officers and to name all parties involved in any union-related transactions. Unions routinely spend millions of dollars on staff compensation, purchases unrelated to collective bargaining, and lavish perks for top union officials. The disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that dues-paying workers have some idea what they’re paying for . . .

—

Click here to read the entire release. The Foundation submitted comments opposing any rescission of existing disclosure regulations, which are available here (.pdf). 

Washington, DC (March 9, 2009) – Prompted by a Rahm Emanuel directive on Inauguration Day, the U.S. Department of Labor seems ready to discard new union disclosure rules developed over two years by the previous administration.

In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has submitted comments urging the Department to maintain or strengthen rules aimed at curbing union boss corruption.

In late January, the Department of Labor announced that it was considering changes to recently revised LM-2 disclosure guidelines, which require unions to list the specific compensation – financial or otherwise – of individual union officers and to name all parties involved in any union-related transactions. Unions routinely spend millions of dollars on staff compensation, purchases unrelated to collective bargaining, and lavish perks for top union officials. The disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that dues-paying workers have some idea what they’re paying for.

Although Right to Work litigators have previously criticized LM-2 guidelines for not going far enough (the regulations still allow union officials to obscure questionable expenditures through a glaring secrecy loophole), the Foundation recognizes that some financial disclosure is better than none.

As Right to Work President Mark Mix noted in the Foundation’s formal comments, union members and workers forced to pay union dues have the right to know where their money is going:

“Does the Secretary believe that hardworking Americans would be better off if embezzlement and self-enrichment is made easier for men such as these? Isn’t it better to err on the side of a little more disclosure, than to allow crooks another place on the LM-2 to hide millions of hard-earned dollars?”

Moreover, the Department of Labor only solicited outside comments on the LM-2 revisions for an extremely short 30 day period. The Department also refused the Foundation’s request to extend the window for public comments from workers, unions, and other concerned organizations.

“The Administration is threatening to scrap two years of public comment, deliberation, and carefully crafted disclosure guidelines simply because Big Labor wants them to,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Such an action would betray Obama’s promise to increase transparency and only serves union bosses, not workers.”

Truck Drivers and Dockworkers Fight Back Against Teamster Union Intimidation

Employees seek to throw out union after union bosses’ ugly campaign of harassment and coercion

Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) — Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.

With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.

On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company. Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.

Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.

(Continue reading this news release…)

Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) – Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.

With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.

On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company.  Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.

Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.

“It’s particularly despicable to intimidate workers if they refuse to abandon their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “All workers should be free to support their families, free from harassment by union bosses.”

The Oak Harbor Freight employees work at terminal sites in Auburn, Washington; Burlington (Mt. Vernon), Washington; Olympia, Washington; Pasco, Washington; Spokane, Washington; Wenatchee, Washington; Medford, Oregon; Salem, Oregon; and Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction

More effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) — The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

(Continue reading this news release…)

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

“But there was a much more effective way to address this problem. The Idaho legislature should simply have banned all union payroll deductions, not just those for narrowly defined political activities,” continued Gleason. “Unfortunately, the definition of politics covered by such laws is so narrow that union bosses are essentially able to continue business as usual.”

The majority opinion also relied on the unanimous Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory. In Davenport, Foundation attorneys represented a group of nonunion Washington State teachers.

The three dissenting Justices in Ysursa were troubled by the appearance that the Idaho law targeted only union political speech rather than having a broader objective. Legal experts agree that laws which ban payroll deduction across the board – rather than just monies for certain political speech – would therefore be less vulnerable to legal attack and would better serve the public policy purposes underpinning such laws.

Mechanicsburg, PA (February 19, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters Local 776 for initiating a coercive organizing drive to unionize a local UPS Freight facility.

The charges allege that Teamsters organizers never actually acquired majority support from workplace employees before receiving monopoly bargaining privileges from UPS Freight. The charges follow a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) denying workers a secret ballot election to determine whether Teamsters officials would represent UPS Freight employees.

In April of 2008, the Association of Parcel Workers of America (APWA) union attempted to unionize the Mechanicsburg UPS Freight facility. Union organizers collected enough signed “authorization cards” from workers to trigger a government-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether a majority wished to be represented by the APWA. In the ensuing election, a majority of workers voted against the APWA.

After workers rejected the APWA union, Teamsters officials attempted to unionize the facility through a “card check” organizing drive. Teamsters operatives presented UPS Freight with what they claimed were signed authorization cards from a majority of workers, demanding the company recognize the union as monopoly bargaining agent. Disaffected workers immediately sought a union decertification election, but NLRB officials ruled that only one election could take place per year.

Under the Foundation-won NLRB Dana/Metaldyne decision, employees have the right to demand a secret ballot election immediately following unionization via card check organizing. The decision was intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment at the hands of aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during card check campaigns.

However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides that only one secret ballot election can take place in any given bargaining unit during a twelve-month period. Workers at the Mechanicsburg UPS Freight facility were therefore denied the opportunity to vote in a secret ballot election to determine unionization.

Despite this setback, one worker is challenging the validity of the Teamsters’ authorization cards with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation. The Foundation’s charges allege that many of the cards collected by Teamsters organizers are invalid, and that the Teamsters should not have monopoly bargaining privileges until they conclusively prove that a majority of workers support unionization.

“Workers shouldn’t have to battle for years just preserve their independence,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Card check organizing is inherently abusive, and we aim to prove that Teamsters bosses acquired monopoly bargaining privileges through fraudulent means.”

Morristown, NJ (February 9, 2009) – Responding to employee reports across America of union intimidation, a national organization announced today that it will provide free legal assistance to AT&T Mobility employees who are threatened with fines for exercising their right to go to their jobs during an imminent national strike.

Communication Workers of America (CWA) union officials may order 20,000 AT&T employees to abandon their jobs at any moment. Numerous employees across America have contacted National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for advice after being falsely informed that they have no right to resign from formal union membership and will face hefty fines as union members if they choose to do their jobs during the strike.

Foundation attorneys have already helped two New Jersey AT&T employees file unfair labor practice charges against the Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 1101 union for this misconduct.

Under the Supreme Court decision Pattern Makers v. NLRB, workers have an absolute right to resign from formal, full dues-paying membership at any time. Union officials’ attempts to block workers from resigning clearly violate this precedent. Union officials have no legal power to punish nonmember employees for honoring their commitments to their employer.

Union officials have told CWA union members in Washington, Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey that any attempt to resign from union membership is prohibited. In Ohio, CWA bosses responded to one worker’s inquiry by telling him that he was employed in a “forced union” state. Foundation attorneys anticipate filing additional unfair labor practice charges for these union-abused workers in the coming weeks.

Moreover, union officials informed workers that anyone who refuses to follow strike orders will be subject to exorbitant financial penalties. In previous Foundation cases, union strike fines have exceeded thousands of dollars per worker per day.

The charges filed by Foundation attorneys seek an immediate injunction from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to prevent CWA union bosses from stopping workers’ voluntary resignations. The charges also call for a rescission of any disciplinary action taken against workers attempting to resign, a repeal of the union’s illegal rules preventing workers from resigning union membership and a notice informing all employees of their legal right to resign from the union at any time.

“It’s particularly despicable to threaten workers with fines if they refuse to abandon their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “All workers should be free to support their families, free from ugly threats by union bosses.”

“The National Right to Work Foundation stands ready to defend the rights of any AT&T employee who is being illegally threatened or coerced by CWA union bosses,” added Gleason.

Philadelphia, PA (February 9, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a registered nurse at a Philadelphia-based Tenet Healthcare facility has filed federal charges against the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and Tenet Healthcare Corporation after union and company officials entered into a backroom deal designed to force unwilling nurses into union ranks.

The charges target a so-called “Election Procedures Agreement” (EPA) formulated by Tenet officials and CNA union bosses at Hahnemann University Hospital to bypass employees’ legal rights. So far, CNA organizers have successfully obtained monopoly bargaining privileges at a Houston-area healthcare facility under similarly controversial circumstances.

The charges list multiple violations of employee rights, all designed to make it more difficult for employees to resist the CNA’s professional union organizers.

Foundation attorneys have reason to believe that the agreement signed by Tenet and the CNA subverts the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) role in supervising unionization elections and bypasses key employee protections. Although the agreement calls for the NLRB to count ballots and “certify” the union, it circumvents all government oversight procedures during the actual election.

The unfair labor practice charges also allege that Tenet officials provided CNA operatives with unlawful organizing assistance in violation of federal statutes. Under the agreement, Tenet managers are gagged from responding to employee questions about the CNA, and nurses who oppose unionization are forbidden from using Tenet facilities to express their views. Outside union organizers, on the other hand, are given free reign to push for a union presence.

“California union militants, with the assistance of complicit Tenet officials, are attempting force unwilling nurses into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We’ve seen this scheme before, and it’s flat out illegal. What isn’t yet clear is exactly what Tenet received in exchange for helping union officials gain access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in union dues.”

The charges, which will now be investigated by NLRB officials, also allege that the EPA amounts to illegal pre-recognition bargaining, with union officials negotiating substantive terms of employment for nurses before they acquire the legal authority to represent them. Foundation attorneys filed similar charges against the CNA and Tenet for several Houston-area nurses in 2008.