Right to Work Attorneys Demand Workers’ Voices Be Heard on Obama NLRB Rule Change
Last week, President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposed new guidelines which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees, and make union organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible.
The new rules, which are designed to allow union organizers to browbeat workers into union ranks and keep independent workers from opposing unionization, make it easier for union organizers to launch stealth campaigns in which they have access to the personal information of workers and harass them (including by making "home visits") into signing "union authorization cards."
Meanwhile, the vast majority of workers and the employer may have no idea what is happening.
Then, after union organizers collect those "authorization cards" from just 30 percent of employees in the workplace, workers would be ambushed with an union organizing election in just days — denying independent-minded employees any time to share truthful, non-coercive information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization.
Well-funded professional union organizers regularly push for unionization behind the scenes for months (or even years) as part of their drive for more forced union dues, and under the new rules, workers wishing to remain free from union boss control would only have days to counter what could be years of union-boss propaganda being used at their workplace — and even at their coworkers’ homes.
Further, even if union bosses don’t think they can win the quickie election, under the new rules they would be able to request the election in order to force the employer to hand over a list of every employee with their home address, phone number, email and shift information. Armed with this information union organizers could then withdraw the election petition and continue pursuing their coercive card check campaign.
In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has requested to address the NLRB at its public hearing next month on the proposed rule changes. If allowed, Foundation staff attorneys will argue at the hearing that the ambush elections Big Labor is pushing for would prevent independent-minded workers their right to resist forced unionization of their workplace and that the rule requiring job providers to hand over the employees’ personal information to union bosses is a violation of their privacy and places them in danger of harassment at the hands of aggressive union organizers.
You can read the Foundation’s request to appear at the NLRB’s public meeting on behalf of independent-minded workers here (pdf).
News Release: Teacher Files Brief in Wisconsin Government Unionism Reform Battle in Federal Court
Teacher Files Brief in Wisconsin Government Unionism Reform Battle in Federal Court
Public-sector union bosses file desperate lawsuit seeking to protect forced dues stranglehold over Wisconsin’s public workers and taxpayers
Madison, WI (June 29, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a Kenosha teacher affected by Wisconsin’s recent public-sector unionism reforms has filed an amicus curiae brief in federal court.
Kristi Lacroix, who has been a teacher for 13 years and is an English teacher at the LakeView Technology Academy in Pleasant Prairie, filed the brief Monday in favor of the reforms which sharply limited government union officials’ monopoly bargaining power over public workers and taxpayers.
Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Governor Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill, which protects the Right to Work for most government employees and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.
In response, union lawyers filed a new lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn the bill, claiming that Freedom of Association – the right of American citizens to voluntarily come together to express their opinions and petition the government – gives union bosses forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
Foundation staff attorneys have won at the United States Supreme Court numerous times on this very issue, winning precedents that support the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill.
Teacher Files Brief in Wisconsin Government Unionism Reform Battle in Federal Court
Madison, WI (June 29, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a Kenosha teacher affected by Wisconsin’s recent public-sector unionism reforms has filed an amicus curiae brief in federal court.
Kristi Lacroix, who has been a teacher for 13 years and is an English teacher at the LakeView Technology Academy in Pleasant Prairie, filed the brief Monday in favor of the reforms which sharply limited government union officials’ monopoly bargaining power over public workers and taxpayers.
Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Governor Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill, which protects the Right to Work for most government employees and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.
In response, union lawyers filed a new lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn the bill, claiming that Freedom of Association – the right of American citizens to voluntarily come together to express their opinions and petition the government – gives union bosses forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
Foundation staff attorneys have won at the United States Supreme Court numerous times on this very issue, winning precedents that support the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill. For example, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1976), Foundation attorneys successfully argued that compulsory union dues for union boss politics violate dissenting employees’ First Amendment rights.
More recently, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007) that, because union bosses have no constitutional right to collect fees from nonmembers, a state may require union officials to obtain consent before spending nonmember government employees’ forced fees on political activities. The court upheld that precedent in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (2009) when it ruled 6-3 that an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees was indeed constitutional.
In their legal brief, union officials admitted that under the reforms public-sector union bosses would lose at least a quarter of their forced-union-dues revenues. For example, Wisconsin teacher union bosses would not be able to force independent-minded teachers to pay $5.4 million in forced dues and $375,000 toward teacher union boss political activism, thus highlighting the need for a Right to Work law for Wisconsin’s workers – in both the public and private sectors.
“Despite mounting budget deficits and a public that demands accountability, Big Labor operatives have made their position clear: No concessions, no compromise, and no surrender,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “But union boss intransigence shouldn’t be allowed to derail the necessary reforms that free Wisconsin public-sector employees from being forced to pay union dues just to get or keep a job and strip union operatives of their ability to drive up the cost of government.”
“We intend to vigorously defend the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents that guarantee government employees cannot be fired for refusing to subsidize union boss politics and to withstand Big Labor’s all-out assault to restore its forced-dues privileges over Wisconsin’s public workers.”
Police Officer Sues City of Bridgeport for Illegally Confiscating Union Dues
Bridgeport, CT (June 28, 2011) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a local police officer has filed suit in United States District Court against two unions and the City of Bridgeport for illegally confiscating union dues from his paycheck.
Although the plaintiff, William Bailey, is not a union member, all Bridgeport police officers are subject to a bargaining agreement between the city and the Bridgeport Police Local 1159 and Council 15 AFSCME, AFL-CIO unions. After resigning his union membership in 2007, Bailey indicated that he wished to opt-out of dues unrelated to collective bargaining in 2011.
Because Connecticut has not passed a Right to Work law, state employees can be forced to pay part of union dues as a condition of employment. However, under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees must be notified how much of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining – such as members-only events and political activism – and given the opportunity to opt out of paying for those activities.
Despite this precedent, the agreement between the City of Bridgeport and Local 1159 and Council 15 allows union officials to deduct a “service charge” from nonunion employees equal to the dues paid by full union members. Since January 2011, Bridgeport has seized and union operatives have collected the equivalent of full union dues from Bailey’s paycheck over his objections. Moreover, Bailey has not been given the opportunity to challenge the amount collected or review the union’s finances. Union officials have never responded to Bailey’s requests to opt out of paying full union dues in the first place.
Bailey’s complaint seeks the return of all unlawfully seized dues, plus interest, from the unions and an injunction to prevent union officials from collecting any dues from Bailey until Local 1159 and Council 15 adopt a payment procedure that safeguards his constitutionally-protected right to opt out.
“Public officials and union operatives colluded to extract full union dues from a nonunion police officer who has no interest in subsidizing the union’s agenda,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Until Connecticut safeguards public employees’ rights by making union membership and dues payments completely voluntary, this type of abuse will continue unchecked.”
Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Ruling that Forces Nonunion Workers to Fund Union Political Activism
Washington, DC (June 27, 2011) – The United States Supreme Court today agreed to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that effectively forces nonunion California state employees to fund union political activism. The Ninth Circuit decision came in a class action lawsuit filed by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for eight California civil servants – including two former union members – against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union.
Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment must be notified of how much of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining – such as members-only events and political activism – and given an opportunity to opt out of paying for said activities. Despite this precedent, CSEA union officials issued a “special assessment” in 2005 to raise money from all state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. Nonunion employees were not given a chance to opt out.
In 2007, a federal district court ruled that the CSEA was required to provide a notice to nonunion employees about the assessment, allow them to opt-out of paying into the union political fund, provide a refund of monies spent on union boss politics, and pay interest from the dates of the deduction to nonmembers who chose to opt out. After CSEA union lawyers appealed the case, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed that decision in December 2010.
On March 10, 2011, Right to Work attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for the plaintiffs with the United States Supreme Court.
“We’re happy to report that the Supreme Court will review a decision that effectively forces nonunion state employees to subsidize objectionable union political activities,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Allowing the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to stand would further undermine state employees’ First Amendment rights and encourage union bosses to extract more forced dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment.”
Right to Work Fights for California Nurse’s Rights at the Ninth Circuit
Right to Work staff attorneys are helping Carol Jean Badertscher, a California nurse, fight back against California’s draconian “strikebreaker” law, which authorizes fines and even jail time for employees who repeatedly refuse to walk off the job during a union boss-ordered strike. Last Friday, the case came before a panel of three judges at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Audio of the oral argument is available online here. Below, Foundation attorney Bill DuRoss, who represented Badertscher in the argument, explains the ins and outs of the case to a group of Right to Work supporters who attended the Ninth Circuit’s hearing:
Worker Advocate Blasts Labor Board Ruling to Allow Charleston Workers Minimal Say in Boeing Case
Worker Advocate Blasts Labor Board Ruling to Allow Charleston Workers Minimal Say in Boeing Case
Big Labor watchdog slams ruling as insufficient; ploy to quietly sweep workers’ stories under the rug
Washington, D.C. (June 20, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. has ruled three Charleston-area Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) employees are allowed to intervene, albeit minimally, in the NLRB’s high-profile case against Boeing.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, North Charleston Boeing employees Dennis Murray, Cynthia Ramaker, and Meredith Going, Sr. filed a motion earlier this month to intervene in the NLRB’s unprecedented case targeting the company for locating production of some of its 787 Dreamliner airplanes in South Carolina, in part due to its popular Right to Work law.
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge in San Francisco denied the workers’ request and the workers were forced to file an emergency appeal with the national Board in Washington, D.C. The Board in D.C. has ruled that the employees can only file a brief in the case once the hearings, occurring in Seattle, Washington, are concluded.
Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, issued the following statement in the wake of the Board’s ruling:
“The Obama Labor Board is poised to set a dangerous precedent that would allow union bosses to dictate to job providers where to locate their jobs with the aim, of course, of avoiding states with Right to Work protections for their workers and forcing more workers into union-dues-paying ranks.
“The public outcry regarding the NLRB’s renegade, pro-forced-unionism actions – spearheaded by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon – thus far has forced the NLRB to try to save face, but the ruling still leaves much to be desired.
For more information, visit https://www.nrtw.org/boeing.
Worker Advocate Blasts Labor Board Ruling to Allow Charleston Workers Minimal Say in Boeing Case
Washington, DC (June 20, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. has ruled three Charleston-area Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) employees are allowed to intervene, albeit minimally, in the NLRB’s high-profile case against Boeing.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, North Charleston Boeing employees Dennis Murray, Cynthia Ramaker, and Meredith Going, Sr. filed a motion earlier this month to intervene in the NLRB’s unprecedented case targeting the company for locating production of some of its 787 Dreamliner airplanes in South Carolina, in part due to its popular Right to Work law.
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge in San Francisco denied the workers’ request and the workers were forced to file an emergency appeal with the national Board in Washington, D.C. The Board in D.C. has ruled that the employees can only file a brief in the case once the hearings, occurring in Seattle, Washington, are concluded.
Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, issued the following statement in the wake of the Board’s ruling:
“The Obama Labor Board is poised to set a dangerous precedent that would allow union bosses to dictate to job providers where to locate their jobs with the aim, of course, of avoiding states with Right to Work protections for their workers and forcing more workers into union-dues-paying ranks.
“The public outcry regarding the NLRB’s renegade, pro-forced-unionism actions – spearheaded by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon – thus far has forced the NLRB to try to save face, but the ruling still leaves much to be desired.
“The NLRB’s half measure is just a ploy to quietly sweep these workers’ stories under the rug while allowing the forced unionism advocates on the Board to try to appear they are not ignoring the workers in this case.
“The Board’s ruling is a further injustice to these workers, allowing only a minimal role in a case so vital to their job prospects and the Charleston community at large. Once again the Obama Labor Board is putting union boss priorities ahead of the rights and well-being of individual employees.
“Foundation staff attorneys plan to pursue all legal options to ensure that the rights of Charleston-area Boeing employees, and America’s independent-minded workers, are protected against the encroaching expansion of forced unionism.”
Late last week, Foundation attorneys also filed a federal unfair labor practice charge for Boeing employee Dennis Murray. This charge alleges that the union unlawfully retaliated against Charleston Boeing workers for removing the union from their facility. The NLRB regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina is investigating the charge.
For more information, visit https://www.nrtw.org/boeing.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Demolishes Union Lawyer’s Misleading Screed Against Right to Work State Workers
Kyle Wingfield of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution absolutely demolishes a misleading Wall Street Journal op-ed in favor of the NLRB’s efforts to shut down Boeing’s South Carolina Dreamliner facilities. First, Wingfield addresses the claim that choosing Charleston as a production site hurts Boeing’s Seattle-based employees:
The word “move” is key, because pro-labor people like Geoghegan have depicted Boeing’s decision to open a production line for its 787 Dreamliner jet in North Charleston, S.C., as a loss to workers in Seattle. In fact, this is a new production line; the existing production line will remain in place.
I’m sure the workers in Seattle — or, more precisely, the union leaders whom their union dues pay — would have liked for the new jobs to be in Seattle (in addition to the 2,000 jobs Boeing has added there despite its alleged hostility to unions there, but I digress). Geoghegan, however, is trying to suggest workers in Seattle are losing something they never had. That’s never true.
Wingfield also points out that Boeing’s Charleston employees have more disposable income than their Seattle counterparts after adjusting for cost-of-living, an advantage that can be partly attributed to South Carolina’s popular Right to Work law, which makes union dues and membership strictly voluntary.
Wingfield concludes, "If this is the best argument union allies can make in the Boeing case,
it’s no wonder private-sector labor unions are such dying dinosaurs."
Right to Work in the Charleston Post & Courier: “NLRB Aims to Maximize Union Dues”
Writing in The Charleston Post & Courier, National Right to Work President Mark Mix explains the broader issues at stake in the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing:
So why is the National Labor Relations Board so incensed about Boeing’s decision to open a new production line in South Carolina? And why is the IAM so eager to keep Boeing in Washington State?
The answer is simple. South Carolina protects workers’ freedom of choice.
The state’s longstanding Right to Work law ensures that while workers have the right to join a union, they cannot be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to get or keep a job. Washington State, on the other hand, allows union officials to extract dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment.
Click here to read the whole thing. You can keep up with the latest developments in the case on the Foundation’s Boeing page.
