Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s Employees Seek Vote to Remove SEIU-Backed Union Officials from Store
Trader Joe’s employee testified before U.S. House in May about underhanded union tactics and divisive organizing campaign
Hadley, MA (August 12, 2024) – Employees at the Hadley, MA, location of grocery chain Trader Joe’s have submitted a petition seeking a workplace election to remove the Trader Joe’s United union, an affiliate of the large Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Trader Joe’s employee Les Stratford submitted the petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 1 in Boston with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Stratford’s decertification petition contains employee signatures well over the 30% threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. If a majority of Stratford’s coworkers vote against the Trader Joe’s United union, it will lose its bargaining powers in the workplace.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SEIU union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require Trader Joe’s employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of their monopoly bargaining and forced-dues powers.
“Officials of this union have sowed division and smeared both our workplace and anyone who dissents from the union’s agenda pretty much from the time the campaign began to unionize the store,” commented Stratford. “This isn’t what I believe the majority of my coworkers want or deserve, and despite the union’s pushback on this effort, we will fight to ensure that our colleagues can exercise their right to vote on whether we want to be represented by this union.”
Employees Widely Report Deceptive and Divisive Tactics by Union Bosses
Trader Joe’s employees who back the union decertification effort have commented frequently on the controversial and deceptive tactics that SEIU-backed agents used to establish the union in the workplace. Michael Alcorn, a worker at the Hadley, MA, store, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May that union organizers tried to foist union control of the workplace through “card check” – a process that bypasses the NLRB’s secret ballot election system and lets union officials aggressively solicit “cards” that are later counted as votes for the union – and refused to meet or even talk with workers who were skeptical of the union’s agenda.
Alcorn reported to the Committee that the union’s campaign also included “inaccurate and incomplete press releases creating false narratives about our workplace, to promote [union officials’] own agenda and personal vendettas” and a general message that “if [employees] don’t vote for the union, they don’t care about their coworkers.” Stratford, the Trader Joe’s employee who filed the petition, described the situation similarly, saying that “immediately the workplace dynamic became a ‘two-side’ thing where if you weren’t going to put a [union] pin on…then you were not going to be acknowledged.”
Biden-Harris NLRB Just Finalized Rule Making It Harder for Workers to Eject Unwanted Unions
The Hadley Trader Joe’s workers’ efforts come as the Biden-Harris NLRB has announced a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose, including by letting union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference. While the Trader Joe’s employees’ petition will be unaffected by the rule change, the new policy will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future.
“The situation at the Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s store shows exactly why workers’ right to vote to remove a union they oppose must be protected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “During a union campaign, union officials often employ aggressive tactics and ‘us vs. them’ or hate-the-boss rhetoric that cause division and prioritize union bosses’ agenda over workers’ freedoms and individual choices. Workers deserve an opportunity to petition for a vote to oust a union that they feel has unfairly ascended to power or simply isn’t serving workers’ interests.”
Hundreds of AT&T Employees Across California and Texas Petition for Votes to Remove Union Installed Through Coercive “Card Check”
Union bosses bypassed secret ballot election with abuse-prone process, but hundreds of workers in each unit now back election to remove union
Texas & California (August 1, 2024) – Hundreds of In-Home Experts from AT&T Mobility locations across Texas and California have just signed onto petitions seeking elections to remove Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials from power over their workplaces.
Matthew Gonzales, an In-Home Expert for AT&T Mobility, filed a “union decertification petition” with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of his coworkers across 13 AT&T Mobility locations in Southern California. Samantha Cain, a Texas-based In-Home Expert, did the same for her colleagues across at least eight locations in Eastern and Southern Texas. Both Gonzales and Cain received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing the petitions.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering votes to certify and decertify unions. Gonzales and Cain each collected employee signatures on their respective petitions far exceeding the 30% threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. Both filed the decertification petitions in July in order to challenge so-called “card check” unionization campaigns that CWA union bosses foisted on their coworkers.
Under card check, union officials can bypass the secret ballot election process, which is the most secure and reliable way to determine if employees want to unionize. During a card check drive, union officials can make face-to-face demands of employees as they seek to collect union authorization cards from a majority of the workplace. This makes the process a breeding ground for coercive and intimidating tactics.
Because Texas has Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force private sector workers like Cain and her coworkers to join or pay money to a union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. That isn’t the case in California. The state’s lack of a Right to Work law lets union officials demand that workers pay union dues or fees just to stay employed. However, in both states, union officials in a unionized workplace enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, which allow them to contract and speak for every worker in the unit – even those that voted against the union or otherwise oppose its presence.
If the AT&T Mobility In-Home Experts win both decertification elections, well over 800 workers will be free from CWA union officials’ monopoly bargaining power. They will join over 100 In-Home Experts from across Tennessee, who successfully challenged a card check in a similar effort against CWA officials in March. In all three efforts, CWA union officials have tried to “merge” units of AT&T In-Home Experts into a larger unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would effectively trap workers in the union because petitioning for a decertification vote in such a large unit would be virtually impossible.
Biden-Harris NLRB Will Soon Block Workers from Challenging Dubious Union “Card Check” Drives
CWA union officials have already used their card check “victory” to claim monopoly bargaining power over both the California In-Home Experts and Texas In-Home Experts. However, Foundation-backed 2020 reforms to the NLRB’s election rules give both sets of workers an opportunity to challenge the CWA union’s ascent to power.
Collectively referred to as the “Election Protection Rule,” the reforms permit employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. The Election Protection Rule also prevents union officials from manipulating charges they file alleging employer misconduct to block workers from casting ballots in a decertification election, among other things.
Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris NLRB in Washington, DC, issued a final rule last Friday that will undo the Election Protection Rule and make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. While the rule change will not take effect in time to stop the AT&T Mobility employees from having the decertification votes they requested, it will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future.
“If Ms. Cain and Mr. Gonzales had filed their decertification petitions just a few weeks later, hundreds of AT&T Mobility workers across Texas and California would be summarily denied their right to vote out union officials who seized power over them in a hasty and coercive manner,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is yet another example of the Biden-Harris Administration’s effort to heap legal privileges on its union boss political allies, all at the expense of workers who just want to exercise their free choice when it comes to deciding who should speak for them in the workplace.
“American workers don’t deserve to be stripped of this freedom, and those who are prevented from voting out unwanted union bosses due to this cynical rule change should not hesitate to contact the Foundation to explore their legal options,” Mix added.
Grand Rapids GE Worker Slams UAW Union Officials with Federal Charges After Being Terminated for Refusing Membership
In months following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law, workers across the state are standing up to oppose union coercion
Grand Rapids, MI (July 30, 2024) – Richard Howard, an employee at General Electric (GE) Aviation Systems’ Grand Rapids facility, has slammed his employer and United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 330 union officials with two sets of federal charges. He maintains that union officials illegally instigated his termination after he refused to become a formal union member.
Howard’s charges come as Michigan workers increasingly seek to challenge union bosses’ legal powers in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. The repeal, which became effective this February, re-granted union officials the privilege to demand workers pay union dues or fees just to keep a job. So far this year, Foundation staff attorneys have already filed more than twice as many cases to defend Michigan workers’ rights than through all of 2023.
Howard filed his federal Unfair Labor Practice charges at Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Detroit with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Because Howard’s reasons for wanting to dissociate from the union stemmed from his Christian beliefs, something he had made clear when objecting to demands that he sign a union card, he also filed anti-discrimination charges against the UAW and GE with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Howard’s charges state that, after the Right to Work repeal became effective, both GE and UAW agents told Howard and his colleagues that “they had 60 days to become Union members, sign dues checkoffs, and pay full dues to the Union.” Howard knew that union membership couldn’t be compulsory even in a non-Right to Work environment, but many conversations he had with officials of the union and GE about other options proved fruitless.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections, and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law under cases like General Motors v. NLRB prevents union bosses from requiring workers to become formal union members. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers who refrain from union membership to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
For religious objectors to union activity, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to attempt to accommodate such workers. While Title VII accommodations take different forms from case to case, they generally eliminate any obligation the worker has to pay dues money directly to the union. One common accommodation is permitting a worker to pay an amount equivalent to dues or fees to a charity.
“I have repeatedly voiced my objections to the UAW and everything they stand for, including my religious objections to the union’s political activity. My rights may be limited due to the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law, but the union has acted like they don’t exist at all,” Howard said. “It is shameful that rather than respect my religious freedom and other workplace rights, the union instigated my firing.”
GE, UAW Wrongly Told Worker Membership Was Required
Howard’s charges describe how union and company officials stonewalled him when he asked about what options he had to opt out of the union: “Everyone he spoke to in both the Employer’s management and the Union told him that he was required to sign the union membership and dues deduction authorization card or he would be terminated and that he had no other options.” Even offers by Howard to pay a reduced amount of union dues as a nonmember (as per Beck) or pay money to a charity as a religious objector were rebuffed.
Finally, during an April meeting Howard had with GE and UAW agents, both parties threatened that he would be fired if he did not sign a union membership form and dues deduction authorization form within six days. Six days after the meeting, GE terminated Howard, and UAW union officials refused to file a grievance for him challenging the termination.
Worker Seeks Federal Injunction After Unlawful Union-Instigated Firing
Howard’s NLRB charges argue that the employer’s and union’s threats to fire him and the firing itself violated his right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to refrain from union activity. The charges also contend that UAW officials never informed him in writing of exactly what his obligations were before demanding his firing, a violation of the NLRB’s Philadelphia Sheraton Corp. precedent. The NLRB charges finally request that the NLRB seek a federal court order telling GE and UAW to immediately cease the illegal activity, something known as a “10(j) injunction”.
Howard’s EEOC charges state that both UAW and GE officials have failed to accommodate him or even consider his religious objection (as required by Title VII) and have ignored or shot down every attempt by him to seek an accommodation.
“The flurry of new cases that Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Michigan workers shows that, post-Right to Work repeal, union bosses aren’t stopping at re-imposing their forced-dues legal power on workers. They seem to view the repeal as a license to force workers to associate with them in any way possible,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As these recent cases demonstrate, Michigan workers deserve more freedom from union boss coercion – not less – and Michigan workers aren’t going to let their freedoms go without a fight.
“Workers may have any number of reasons for wanting to withhold their money from a union – religious reasons, financial reasons, or just because they believe union officials aren’t doing a good job,” Mix added. “That’s why the voluntarism of Right to Work is so important, and why every American worker deserves such protections.”
CUNY Professors Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union
NY law forces professors to be represented by hostile union bosses, but SCOTUS ruling could free public workers nationwide from unwanted union power
Washington, DC (July 22, 2024) – Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their federal civil rights lawsuit charging Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials with forcing them to accept the union’s so-called “representation” in violation of their First Amendment rights. The professors, five of whom are Jewish, oppose the PSC union’s public statements and other actions as being strongly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Fairness Center. The lawsuit challenges aspects of New York State’s “Taylor Law”, which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. This permits union bosses to speak and contract for public workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s objectionable beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ petition of certiorari points out that the High Court has recognized for decades how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, with the majority calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
The petition also counters lower courts’ mistaken assertions that the Supreme Court’s 1984 Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight decision disposes of the CUNY professors’ case. As the petition points out, Knight only dealt with public employees’ ability to participate in union meetings and not with the professors’ legal argument that being forced to accept the bargaining power and “representation” of union officials is a violation of First Amendment free association rights. With lower courts so frequently misinterpreting Knight, the petition argues the Supreme Court is needed to clarify the issue, and apply the proper First Amendment analysis to the New York laws’ forced-representation scheme.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be anti-Semitic? The answer plainly should be ‘no,’” the petition begins. “The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals, and especially religious dissenters, to disaffliate themselves from associations and speech they abhor.”
“Knight did not sanction a state forcing Jewish faculty members who are ardent Zionists to accept the representation of a union that supports policies they consider anti-Israel,” the petition continues. “The Court should grant this petition to clarify Knight and make clear that the First Amendment protects individuals’ right to dissociate themselves from advocacy groups that support policies contrary to their deeply held beliefs.”
Law Forces Jewish CUNY Professors to Associate with Anti-Israel PSC Union
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents, including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint. As their petition of certiorari notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since October 7.
SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Laws Imposing Union Power on Public Workers
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors. It also demands that the court declare unconstitutional Section 204 of New York’s Taylor Law to the extent that it compels the professors under union power.
Issues with union monopoly bargaining power in the academic sphere came into the national spotlight just this month, when the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on fighting antisemitism in unions. There, Will Sussman, a Ph.D. student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified about how the law forces him and other graduate students across the nation to associate with union bosses that perpetrate divisive protests and denigrate Israel. Sussman, who is Jewish, filed federal discrimination charges against the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE).
“New York’s legal scheme forces these CUNY professors to associate with union officials who insult their identity and create a work environment rife with bullying and harassment. It’s hard to think of a more obvious violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court has expressed concerns with monopoly bargaining for decades, and it’s high time that the justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to associate with political so-called ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
Nurses at Ascension Genesys Hospital Slam Teamsters Local 332 Officials with Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Demands
In months following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law, workers across the state are standing up to oppose forced dues
Flint, MI (July 19, 2024) – Two nurses at Ascension Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc Township, MI, have hit the Teamsters Local 332 union with federal unfair labor practice charges, maintaining that union bosses threatened to fire them and other nurses if they didn’t sign forms authorizing union officials to deduct dues straight out of their paychecks. The nurses, Madrina Wells and Lynette Doyle, filed their unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The charges from Wells and Doyle are the most recent in a flurry of Foundation-backed cases for Michigan workers who are seeking to challenge or escape union bosses’ coercive power in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. Since the repeal became effective this February, union bosses have had the legal power to require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections, and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring workers to authorize the direct deduction of union dues from their paychecks. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
NLRB agents will now investigate Wells’ and Doyle’s charges. According to both, Teamsters officials threatened them “and similarly situated employees with termination of their employment if they refused to complete and submit a dues check-off authorization by July 12th.”
“I already had issues with Teamsters bosses illegally demanding money from me when Right to Work was in force,” commented Mardrina Wells. “Back then, I at least knew that I was defending my right to pay nothing at all to Teamsters bosses I disapprove of. It’s ridiculous that they now have the power to force me to pay them, but I’ll defend what rights I do have.”
Post-Right to Work, Michigan Workers Battle New Union Boss Privileges
In a party-line 2023 vote, Michigan legislators repealed Right to Work at the behest of union special interests, ending workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve their dues money. The imposition of union bosses’ power to force employees to “pay up or be fired” came despite polling showing Michiganders, including those in union households, overwhelmingly opposed the elimination of workers’ Right to Work protections.
After the repeal became effective this February, workers from across the Great Lakes State sought help from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in escaping union bosses’ forced-dues demands. Foundation-backed workers from MV Transportation in Ypsilanti and Brown Motors in Petoskey just scored victories earlier this week, as NLRB officials certified their majority votes to strip Amalgamated Transit Union and Teamsters union officials respectively of their power to demand dues as a condition of employment. Such a vote, known as a “deauthorization election,” is triggered when 30% of employees in a work unit express support for one on a petition.
Foundation attorneys are also aiding Grand Rapids-based security guard James Reamsma and his coworkers posted at government buildings across Western Michigan with a deauthorization vote against United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union officials. Reamsma expressed that, in the wake of the Right to Work repeal, “UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired.”
“Michigan union bosses prioritize seizing dues over respecting workers’ individual rights, and have only been emboldened by the legislature’s partisan repeal of Right to Work,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But Michigan workers have been increasingly standing up to defend what rights they still have against union coercion, and it’s important that every worker learn those rights as union officials continue to exploit the new forced-unionism environment.”
Employees at Eight Philadelphia International Airport Restaurants May Soon Vote Out Unite Here Union Bosses
Federal labor board in Philadelphia rejected all union arguments for blocking employee-requested election; vote now scheduled for July 17
Philadelphia, PA (July 10, 2024) – After almost five months of litigation, Kale Mulugeta and her coworkers at various restaurants throughout Philadelphia International Airport will finally get a chance to vote on whether to remove Unite Here Local 274 union officials from power. Mulugeta, who is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, spearheaded the effort by filing a petition requesting such a vote – which is known as a “decertification election” – with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 4 in Philadelphia in February.
Mulugeta’s petition contained signatures from over 60% of her coworkers at New York Ice Cream, Inc., which operates two Dunkin Donuts locations, three Smashburger locations, two Jamba Juice locations, and one Bruegger’s Bagels location at Philadelphia International Airport. NLRB rules only require that 30% of a work unit express interest in having a union decertification election in order to trigger such an election.
After months of delay caused by union litigation, NLRB Region 4 announced in a June 27 Decision and Direction of Election that the election will occur on July 17 at Philadelphia International Airport.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Unite Here union officials are empowered by law to demand Mulugeta and her coworkers pay union dues just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary. If a majority of the New York Ice Cream employees vote on July 17 to remove the Unite Here union, they will be free from both the union’s bargaining power and forced-dues demands.
Union Bosses Tried to Portray Dues-Paying Employee as “Manager’s Agent” to Stop Vote
NLRB Region 4’s Decision and Direction of Election puts an end to nearly five months of litigation over Mulugeta’s petition. Unite Here union officials tried to argue that Mulugeta, who in addition to other restaurant duties often serves as a translator between managers and Amharic-speaking restaurant staff, was ineligible to submit the petition because she was an agent of the manager and not a rank-and-file employee. The union claimed she was ineligible despite the fact that she pays money to the union as a condition of staying employed.
The NLRB Region 4 Director rejected these union arguments, stating that “the record is devoid of any witness testimony from employees showing their perception of Mulugeta’s authority, or whether they believed that Mulugeta spoke for and on behalf of the Employer…”
“As such, Mulugeta’s role as a bilingual employee serving solely as the Employer’s interpreter is insufficient to elevate her status to that of an agent or apparent agent [of the employer],” the decision states.
The decision also threw out union contentions that Mulugeta and some of her other colleagues were “managerial employees” and thus outside the bargaining unit and ineligible to vote. “There is no evidence that Mulugeta [and her colleagues] attend any management meetings…or that they have any authority to formulate or effectuate high-level policy on behalf of the Employer,” the decision states.
Unite Here Local 274 Facing Second Removal Attempt by PHL Employees Since 2023
Mulugeta and her coworkers aren’t the only workers at Philadelphia International Airport that Foundation staff attorneys have aided recently in voting out Unite Here Local 274. In May 2023, employees at the airport’s location of Guava & Java voted to remove the union 32-9 after obtaining a vote with free Foundation legal aid.
“Ms. Mulugeta and her coworkers’ situation demonstrates the struggles that rank-and-file employees face when trying to exercise their right to free themselves from a union hierarchy that they don’t believe serves their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers face legal resistance from union lawyers themselves. But it also doesn’t help that the perennially pro-union boss Biden NLRB has been pushing policy after policy designed to aid union bosses in trapping workers under union ‘representation.’
“Ms. Mulugeta and her coworkers deserve this chance to finally exercise their rights, and Foundation staff attorneys are proud to help them,” Mix added.
U.S. House Committee Spotlights Need for Employee Protections Against Forced Funding of Extremist Unions
Jewish MIT graduate student forced to pay dues to anti-Israel GSU union will testify alongside National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney
Washington, DC (July 9, 2024) – Today, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ph.D. student Will Sussman, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation in filing federal anti-discrimination charges against union bosses on campus, is testifying before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Sussman is testifying alongside veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who is providing free legal representation to Sussman and other MIT graduate students challenging forced-dues demands from the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE, an affiliate of the United Electrical Workers union).
The hearing, being held by Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) in the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), was called to focus on how union bosses have used their government-granted powers to force Jewish and other employees to associate with and fund unions – even as union officials are propping up increasingly radical protests and other objectionable activities on college campuses and workplaces across the country.
Jewish MIT Graduate Student: BDS-Linked Union Refused to Grant Religious Accommodation
Sussman, who is Jewish, objects to the anti-Israel advocacy of the GSU union, including the union’s endorsement of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement. He and four other Jewish graduate students sent letters to GSU union officials earlier this year requesting religious accommodations to union dues payment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to accommodate those that have religious objections to subsidizing union activities; in practice this usually entails letting the student pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity. However, GSU union officials’ initial response was to brush aside students’ requests, claiming they didn’t understand their own faith and that their objections were actually political and not religious in nature.
“The union denied my request, telling me in a letter that ‘no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union,’ that one of UE’s founders was Jewish, and that opposition to BDS isn’t a position I hold for religious reasons. In other words, UE thinks it understands my faith better than I do,” Sussman’s testimony reads.
Sussman is one of six MIT graduate students that Foundation attorneys are representing in federal proceedings against the GSU union.
Biden NLRB Policy Lets Union Officials Seize Control Over Graduate Students
As Foundation attorney Glenn Taubman’s testimony describes, partisan rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have bypassed Congress and given union bosses the ability to seize control over graduate students: “The current travesty of herding graduate students into anti-semitic unions finds its source with the Obama-Biden National Labor Relations Boards, which have by fiat turned graduate students into graduate employees – subject to unionization under the NLRA and, of course, the payment of forced union dues as a condition of their academic careers,” Taubman’s testimony reads.
Giving unions such monopoly bargaining power not only permits union bosses to dictate the conditions of graduate students’ academic work, but also gives them the power to force students to pay dues in states that lack Right to Work laws (like Massachusetts).
Even worse, union bosses are able to conduct disruptive strikes that stunt academic progress and frequently have outrageous political elements that have no connection to academics: For example, the recent strike United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials engineered against the University of California system was designed to defend anti-Israel rioters who were suspended and pressure university administrators into divesting from companies supporting Israel.
“Mr. Sussman’s situation should provide to American legislators a harrowing example of the kind of harm workers experience when union bosses seize monopoly bargaining power and become the mouthpiece for an entire workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB under Biden and Obama has done even more damage by expanding this coercion into academia, where campus unions have fomented unprecedented division all while threatening dissenting students with the loss of their academic work if they don’t pay up to support radical union activities.”
“National Right to Work legislation would ensure that those trapped under unwanted union influence can protect their hard-earned money from flowing into union bosses’ pockets,” Mix added. “Ultimately, though, no individual should be forced under union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ against their will, no matter whether the source of their opposition is religious, political, or any other reason.”
DC-Area Transdev Driver Takes Case Regarding Union-Instigated Assault to Federal Appeals Court
Biden Labor Board claims ATU union did not violate law even after worker experienced slap and termination attempt from union officials
Washington, DC (July 1, 2024) – Thomas McLamb, a Hyattsville, Maryland-based driver for transportation company Transdev, is appealing his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case charging Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) officials with assaulting him to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. McLamb, whose case concerns retaliatory actions taken against him for being a union dissident, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
McLamb filed charges with the NLRB in November 2021 and January 2022 against ATU for the retaliatory behavior, which in addition to being slapped by an ATU union steward also included a union-instigated termination attempt. McLamb argues that engaging in legally-protected action opposing the union hierarchy – including petitioning for an NLRB-supervised vote to remove the union – made him a target of union officials and adherents.
NLRB Region 5 in Baltimore issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on May 11, 2021, stating that the slap and an attempt by an ATU shop steward to get McLamb fired both constituted violations of federal labor law. An NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision declaring that the firing attempt was illegal, but the Biden NLRB reversed, claiming that the union did not violate the law at all.
McLamb is now asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review and overturn the decision of the Biden NLRB.
ATU Union President Ordered Adherents to “Slap” Dissenters
In a statement filed in November 2021, McLamb said that the ATU Local 689 president, Raymond Jackson, told other union officers to “slap” employees who were opposing his agenda. McLamb later reported in a federal charge that he had been physically assaulted by ATU shop steward Tiyaka Boone. Both incidents occurred while McLamb was campaigning against the incumbent officers to serve on Local 689’s board.
McLamb reported in another federal charge that, shortly after this incident, ATU official Alma Williams requested that Transdev management fire him over his criticisms of the union steward that assaulted him.
Biden NLRB Decision Claims Physical Assault Was Personal
The Biden NLRB’s decision reversing the ALJ decision against the union claims that Boone’s assault on McLamb was motivated by “personal reasons” and not McLamb’s legally-protected opposition to the union’s chiefs. However, both McLamb’s Foundation attorneys and even the NLRB General Counsel showed the ALJ during trial a video of Jackson, the ATU president at the time, telling employees to slap other workers who spoke out against him.
The NLRB decision also defends Alma Williams’ asking the employer to fire McLamb, claiming that she was merely asking for Boone and McLamb to be disciplined “equally” for their conduct during and leading up to the assault.
“Workers should not have to face violence or retribution in exchange for criticizing or challenging union leadership, and the fact that Mr. McLamb has had to fight for years to defend his right to be free of such retaliation is outrageous,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We believe that this decision by the Biden NLRB is wrong, and is yet another example of how the current administration defends scofflaw union bosses that steamroll employee rights in pursuit of greater power.
“Even worse is the fact that McLamb works in the non-Right to Work state of Maryland, where union officials are legally empowered to require dues payments as a condition of keeping one’s job,” Mix added. “No worker should be forced to fund a union hierarchy they disapprove of, let alone one that is actively fighting the worker in court.”
