Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.
Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.
The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.
Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide. The Foundation is providing free legal aid in both the original Dana case and in the newly-decided Lamons Gasket case in which the Board overturned the Dana protections. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation made the following statement regarding the ruling:
"The Obama Labor Board’s ruling to kill the Dana Corp. precedent that allows workers a secret ballot vote to kick out a union that gained control of the workplace in an abusive ‘card check’ campaign adds to an already exhaustive list of paybacks from the Obama Administration to Big Labor.
"Big Labor and its allies have launched a full-scale assault on worker freedom and the Obama Administration is working tirelessly to appease them through bureaucratic means after they failed in Congress. The American people and their elected representatives in Congress oppose the Card Check Forced Unionism bill, but the Obama Labor Board seems determined to impose card check on American workers in every way it can.
"Taken with the NLRB’s other recent actions, the Obama Administration has made it easier for union operatives to steamroll over workers while making it next to impossible for independent-minded workers to stand up for their rights or decertify the union hierarchy.
"While the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees, no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union, or accept the union’s so-called representation, to get or keep a job."
News Release: Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism
Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism
National Right to Work Foundation President criticizes Labor Board’s decision to selectively publicize workers’ rights
Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.
Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:
"The NLRB’s new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.
"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama’s NLRB comes out with a new ‘posting rule’ to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop’ stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism."
Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism
Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.
Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:
"The NLRB’s new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.
"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama’s NLRB comes out with a new ‘posting rule’ to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop’ stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism.
"This unprecedented rule change fundamentally changes (and expands) the NLRB from a remedial role to an agency that is involved with every workplace in the country even if no allegations of violations have occurred.
"And as the long list of Big Labor paybacks on behalf of the Obama administration grows, workers are becoming increasingly susceptible to the whims of a biased and ideologically-charged Labor Board and its union boss beneficiaries.
"If the NLRB was really interested in protecting workers, they would inform workers of the dangers of coercive ‘card check’ drives and publicize their rights, under law, to remove an unwanted union instead of burdening job providers and independent-minded employees with new rules that undermine workplace freedom."
News Release: Tyson Foods Worker Slaps Union with Federal Charges for Threats and Intimidation
Tyson Foods Worker Slaps Union with Federal Charges for Threats and Intimidation
Wisconsin needs full Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses
Jefferson, Wisconsin (August 25, 2011) – A meat processing worker has filed federal charges against a local union and Tyson Foods, Inc. officials after union officials illegally threatened to retaliate against him for exercising his rights.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Tyson employee Gregory Langron of Janesville filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last week.
United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 538 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges over Tyson Foods employees in the Jefferson plant. Langron recently exercised his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.
However, because Wisconsin does not have a Right to Work law, most workers who refrain from formal union membership can still be forced to pay a part of union dues as a condition of employment, but cannot be compelled to pay the portion used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities.
UFCW Local 538 union officials recently threatened to prosecute Langron with internal union kangaroo court proceedings for allegedly initiating a petition to remove the union hierarchy from the workplace. Union officials also illegally told Langron that they would not represent him despite the fact that he is forced to pay union dues and accept UFCW union boss “representation” because Wisconsin lacks a Right to Work law for private sector workers.
Tyson Foods Worker Slaps Union with Federal Charges for Threats and Intimidation
Jefferson, Wisconsin (August 25, 2011) – A meat processing worker has filed federal charges against a local union and Tyson Foods, Inc. officials after union officials illegally threatened to retaliate against him for exercising his rights.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Tyson employee Gregory Langron of Janesville filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last week.
United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 538 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges over Tyson Foods employees in the Jefferson plant. Langron recently exercised his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.
However, because Wisconsin does not have a Right to Work law, most workers who refrain from formal union membership can still be forced to pay a part of union dues as a condition of employment, but cannot be compelled to pay the portion used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities.
UFCW Local 538 union officials recently threatened to prosecute Langron with internal union kangaroo court proceedings for allegedly initiating a petition to remove the union hierarchy from the workplace. Union officials also illegally told Langron that they would not represent him despite the fact that he is forced to pay union dues and accept UFCW union boss “representation” because Wisconsin lacks a Right to Work law for private sector workers.
Moreover, local Tyson Foods management faces charges after company supervisors ordered Langron to remove a sticker from his lunchbox representing his feelings about the abusive UFCW hierarchy.
“UFCW union officials are not only forcing workers to financially associate with their union, they are threatening independent-minded workers with kangaroo court sanctions for exercising their rights,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “Wisconsin desperately need a Right to Work law to protect all employees from the very union bosses that claim to care about workers’ rights but clearly don’t.”
Under the recently-enacted union reform bill backed by Governor Scott Walker most public employees now enjoy the Right to Work protections that make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, private sector employees in Wisconsin currently do not enjoy such protections, meaning union bosses can order a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues.
Polls consistently show that 8 in 10 Americans support the Right to Work principle, that no worker should be compelled to join a union or pay union dues to get or keep a job. Twenty-two states have already passed Right to Work protections for their workers.
Biting the Hand: Pro-Forced Unionism New York Times Slams Obama Labor Board Over Boeing
In the New York Times, columnist Joe Nocera writes how the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) unprecedented persecution against Boeing for locating additional production of its Dreamliner airplanes in South Carolina — in part because South Carolina is a Right to Work state — has changed the game for job providers:
It is a mind-boggling stretch to describe Boeing’s strategy as "retaliation." Companies have often moved to right-to-work states to avoid strikes; it is part of the calculus every big manufacturer makes. The South Carolina facility is a hedge against the possibility that Boeing’s union work force will shut down production of the Dreamliner. And it’s a perfectly legitimate hedge, at least under the rules that the business thought it was operating under.
That is what is so jarring about this case — and not just for Boeing. Without any warning, the rules have changed. Uncertainty has replaced certainty. Other companies have to start wondering what other rules could soon change. It becomes a reason to hold back on hiring.
When even the staunchly pro-forced unionism New York Times and its columnist most known for calling the Tea Party “terrorists” acknowledge the dangerous precedent President Barack Obama’s NLRB is creating, you know there is a problem.
It’s worth noting that the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union hierarchy actually enjoyed monopoly bargaining control of the South Carolina facility before the Boeing workers removed the union. If IAM union officials can retaliate against companies for locating work in a Right to Work state and against independent-minded employees for choosing to shake off union control, then the rules haven’t just changed for job providers, but also for America’s workforce.
Mark Mix Talks Right to Work on “The Willis Report”
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix recently appeared on "The Willis Report" on the Fox News Channel to talk about the economic benefits of Right to Work laws, the costs of government-sector forced unionism, and the Foundation’s legal aid to workers in South Carolina whose jobs are in jeopardy due to the Obama Labor Board’s outrageous complaint against Boeing.
Forced Unionism Policies Aimed at Discouraging Workers from Exercising Their Rights Overturned
Washington, DC (August 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) invalidated two unions’ policies that forced nonunion workers to annually renew their objection to funding union political activism within a narrow window period. The decisions result from unfair labor practice charges filed by employees against the United Steel Workers (USW) union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union. All of the employees were assisted by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Under the Foundation-won precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees can only be forced to pay union dues for activities related to workplace bargaining. Although workers cannot be compelled to subsidize unrelated activities – such as union political spending or members-only events – IBEW and USW union officials would not accept employees’ permanent objections and instead required nonunion workers to annually restate their opposition to subsidizing union politics.
In the case of the IBEW, union officials required nonunion employees to restate their objection to union political spending every November. USW officials designated a similar 30 day window period for nonunion employees to renew their opposition to subsidizing union political activities. Under both schemes, union officials could “flip” nonunion workers back to paying full dues if they didn’t jump through the unions’ administrative hoops during the designated window periods.
The Board’s decisions require both unions to get rid of their annual objection policies and notify all employees in their respective bargaining units they no longer have to renew their objection to union political spending.
“We’re happy to report that all nonunion employees subject to IBEW and USW union monopoly bargaining need only submit a single, permanent objection to get out of funding union politics,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, nonunion workers can still be forced to pay some union dues just to get or keep their jobs, something that can only be solved through state Right to Work laws.
In recent years, litigation spearheaded by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys has helped roll back similar annual objection policies at several major unions, including the International Association of Machinists and the Communication Workers of America.
Legacy of Big Labor Violence: A Growing Problem
As previously reported on the Freedom@Work blog, union militants are certainly making headlines of late using violent tactics and vandalism to prove their point.
Stunningly, union thugs in Michigan may have taken this to the next level last week when John King, owner of King Electrical Services, was reportedly shot by a union goon spraying the word "scab" on the side of his car in the driveway.
Of course this should surprise no one familiar with the violent legacy of Big Labor, including that of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka. But for good measure, the Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) opined today about union bosses’ reliance on violence to get their way:
The attack on King is emblematic of the sad fact that the leading perpetrators of political violence today are U.S. labor unions.
They’ve grown more violent in their rhetoric as their political power grows and their appeal to workers diminishes.
According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a right-to-work think tank in Washington, there have been 4,400 incidents of union violence in the last 20 years.
The Teamsters are the leading perpetrators, with 454 incidents. But IBEW, which some suspect in the King incident, is in the top 10, having engaged in 125 incidents.
All told, there have been 11,600 incidents of union violence against workers, management and the public since 1975.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court actually ruled to grant union officials the special privilege to be exempt from federal prosecution for union violence. And shocking these numbers may seem, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research states that for reported incidences of union violence between 1975 and 2000, only three percent of those incidents have led to an arrest and conviction.
The numbers used by IBD also don’t account for the fact that most incidents of union violence go unreported (a study of one strike found seven instances of violence for every on reported on in the media) meaning that the already staggering numbers the article cites are just the tip of the iceberg.
News Release: Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Pro-Union Boss Election Rule Change
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Pro-Union Boss Election Rule Change
New rule would allow union bosses ambush workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks
Washington, DC (August 18, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed new guidelines which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees.
In late June, the NLRB proposed new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted. The new rules dramatically shorten the time frame individual workers have to share truthful information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization.
Moreover, the rules require job providers to disclose the personal information of workers (including their home address, phone number, email address, and shift information), thus opening up dissenting or undecided employees to intimidation, harassment, or worse.
The new rules also create a loophole which allows union organizers to claim they have support of 30 percent of employees in the workplace, the minimum number required to initiate an election, despite a dispute regarding the size of the bargaining unit in question. Then, union organizers who fear that they do not have enough support to win an election could withdraw their request for an election and use the newly-gotten personal information in later attempts to unionize the employees.
