Home-Care Providers Take Case Challenging State Unionization Scheme to Federal Appeals Court
Chicago, IL (December 13, 2010) – A group of home-based personal care providers have filed a federal appeal against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their agreement to force Illinois’s home-based personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the personal care providers filed their appeal with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge ruled against them.
The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 home-based personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities as “public employees” and susceptible to unwanted union boss political “representation.”
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to force their monopoly control over the workers, even having out-of-state union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics. Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his closely-contested primary campaign earlier this year.
Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers were designated as state workers for the purpose of granting union bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them. Quinn’s executive order expanded Blagojevich’s to cover the additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the first executive order.
In a mail-in vote, the providers soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to further forced unionization efforts.
Pam Harris and several other home-care providers filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers, challenging the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.
“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”
“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Quinn is picking the lobbyists of Illinois’s personal care providers, all in exchange for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”
Union Bosses Forced to Drop $200,000 Lawsuit against Unemployed Carpenter
Union Bosses Forced to Drop $200,000 Lawsuit against Unemployed Carpenter
Union officials failed to find work for carpenter, then retaliated against him for working to support his family without paying tribute to union bosses
Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.
After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.
A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Union Bosses Forced to Drop $200,000 Lawsuit against Unemployed Carpenter
Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.
After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.
A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
CRCC union bosses dropped the lawsuit after attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation took up the case for Crenshaw providing free legal representation.
“It is unconscionable for union bosses to attempt to drive unemployed workers into the poorhouse in vicious retaliation for providing for their families,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Confiscatory fines and kangaroo courts are just some of the disturbing, yet increasingly-used tactics of union boss intimidation that are all too common in states like Illinois where there is no Right to Work law on the books.”
Delta Flight Attendants Picket Posh Union Boss HQ for Freedom of Choice
For decades, Delta Air Lines flight attendants have repeatedly rebuked Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) union organizers’ efforts to take monopoly bargaining control over their workplaces.
Despite a recent intense union organizing campaign, AFA union officials have lost yet another union organizing election, but true to form, AFA union bosses refuse to leave this independent-minded group of employees alone due to their blind lust for more forced union dues dollars.
So yesterday, more than thirty flight attendants from across the country met outside the AFA union headquarters on their day off to send them a message: "Leave us alone!"
From one participating flight attendant:
Flight attendants [from] more than seven bases spent three hours in the wind and bitter cold. The bundled-up group marched in front of the Communications Workers of America building, the posh home of AFA… Each flight attendant carried homemade signs with messages, ranging from “Respect Our Choice,” to “No Means No” and “No Union, No Dues, No Problem.”
Hats (and beanies) off to this courageous group of independent-minded employees as they take a stand for their workplace rights.
Read more about how fed-up Delta flight attendants are taking the fight to AFA union bosses in the July/August 2010 edition (pdf) of National Right to Work’s newsletter, Foundation Action.
New Foundation Podcast: Right to Work President Mark Mix Warns of Lame Duck Big Labor Power Grabs
Right to Work President Mark Mix sat down with nationally-syndicated radio host Lars Larson yesterday to discuss the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill, a Big Labor power grab that is poised to pass during the "lame duck" congressional session. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:
As always, you can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.
Renegade Lame Duck Congress Votes on Police/Fire Union Bargaining Mandate
Today, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work was published in the Washington Times regarding today’s U.S. Senate vote on Senator Harry Reid’s Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill (S. 3991). Despite voters sending a clear message to Washington last month, it appears some pro-forced unionism senators didn’t quite get the message:
If Mr. Reid cared one whit for what ordinary Americans think, he would respond to such electoral drubbings for his fellow Big Labor Democrats and GOP fellow travelers by backing away from federally mandated union-boss control over public-safety officers. Instead, he announced over the weekend that he will file for cloture and force a vote on this draconian bill on Wednesday. Among those voting will be 14 defeated or retiring senators who won’t be back in January.
Federalizing union monopoly bargaining over public-safety employees would be ill-advised under any circumstances, but at a time when taxes are already poised to skyrocket and cities and towns across America are already struggling to get through the worst fiscal crisis in decades, Congress would have to be incredibly reckless to enact this harmful legislation.
By tipping the scales even further in favor of government employment growth over job growth, S. 3991 could damage the hopes of reviving America’s private-sector economy. Moreover, as former Service Employees International Union second-in-command Anna Burger boasted, a federal public-safety union mandate would "create a national collective," i.e. monopoly, "bargaining standard for all [state and local] public workers."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post came out with a hard-hitting editorial against the bill:
…the Senate is about to take up a measure that might compound the financial predicament of state and local governments. Pushed by Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would require all states to give police and fire unions "adequate" collective bargaining rights – as determined by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Unions could sue states deemed "inadequate" in federal court. Mr. Reid is trying to get this measure through the lame-duck Congress as a reward to the firefighters’ union, which backed his reelection campaign. But it also enjoys support from several key Republicans.
We share the sponsors’ high regard for first responders. But this measure would trample long-standing state autonomy in public-sector labor relations, to no obvious national purpose. Of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates in 2008, three did not require collective bargaining for police and one, Virginia, forbids it for all public employees.
The bill could disrupt the law in both Virginia and Maryland, the latter of which lets counties decide whether and how to bargain with employees. The predictable result would be higher costs for employee contracts or legal bills – or both – at precisely the moment when cash-strapped states and localities can least afford them.
It’s no wonder that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram declared today that "The Senate would do taxpayers a big favor by killing this bill."
Pasco Tyson Plant Workers Force Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unwanted Union from Workplace
Pasco Tyson Plant Workers Force Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unwanted Union from Workplace
Union bosses conspired to block employee vote after cutting backroom deal
Wallula, WA (November 16, 2010) – After receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Wallula-based Tyson Foods Inc. employees prevailed in a protracted legal battle to have a secret ballot vote to remove a local union from their workplace.
Last year, Tyson (NYSE: TSN) recognized the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1439 union as the employees’ monopoly bargaining agent after a controversial “card check” union organizing campaign. Union officials then gave employees only 24 hours to vote on whether or not to ratify the union’s contract with the company. They also required employees to sign union dues deduction authorizations in order to vote – discouraging many employees from voting. Only 61 of the facility’s 1,177 employees actually voted.
In response, a group of independent-minded employees attempted to file a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine the fate of their bargaining status. Tyson company officials reprimanded the employees and confiscated the employees’ petition. Another group of employees then successfully filed a second petition with the NLRB to obtain a vote.
Pasco Tyson Plant Workers Force Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unwanted Union from Workplace
Wallula, WA (November 16, 2010) – After receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Wallula-based Tyson Foods Inc. employees prevailed in a protracted legal battle to have a secret ballot vote to remove a local union from their workplace.
Last year, Tyson (NYSE: TSN) recognized the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1439 union as the employees’ monopoly bargaining agent after a controversial “card check” union organizing campaign. Union officials then gave employees only 24 hours to vote on whether or not to ratify the union’s contract with the company. They also required employees to sign union dues deduction authorizations in order to vote – discouraging many employees from voting. Only 61 of the facility’s 1,177 employees actually voted.
In response, a group of independent-minded employees attempted to file a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine the fate of their bargaining status. Tyson company officials reprimanded the employees and confiscated the employees’ petition. Another group of employees then successfully filed a second petition with the NLRB to obtain a vote.
The workers relied on the Board’s 2007 Dana Corporation decision in which Foundation attorneys won new rights for employees intended to counteract the intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during union organizing campaigns, most often as a result of “card check.”
Dana allows workers to demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer notifies employees that it has recognized a monopoly bargaining agent without a secret ballot vote. This check gives workers some ability to stop union organizers from gaining monopoly control over a workplace.
UFCW union lawyers challenged the employees’ petition, arguing that the union’s new contract with the company barred an employee election to remove the union. However, the NLRB Regional Director in Seattle ruled last week that the employer and union officials failed to post notices as required by Dana informing the employees of their right to a secret ballot election. He therefore upheld the validity of the employees’ petition for a secret ballot vote.
The Regional Director also rejected the union’s argument that, because Dana is being challenged by union lawyers in five other cases across the country, its precedent should not be followed. The very Foundation attorneys who originally won the landmark Dana case are providing free legal aid to employees seeking to protect their Dana rights in two of those cases before the NLRB.
“The NLRB should allow employees the right to defend themselves from union organizing abuses including collusion between union and company officials and aggressive ‘card check’ campaigns,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “A secret ballot election gives workers at least a fighting chance to prevent union bosses from springing their unwanted ‘representation’ on unsuspecting or vulnerable workers.”
New Study Shows Right to Work States Enjoy Higher Growth, More Purchasing Power for Workers
The primary goal of any Right to Work law is to safeguard employee rights by ensuring that no worker is forced to join or pay tribute to a union against his or her will. But it’s nice to know that Right to Work states also enjoy faster growth and higher real purchasing power than their forced unionism counterparts. Here’s an excerpt from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research’s latest fact sheet on the issue:
Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1999-2009)
Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5%Cost of Living-Adjusted Per Capita Disposable Personal Income (2009)
Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35,543
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33,389
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34,256
Click here for the rest of NILRR’s findings. For more on the economic benefits of Right to Work laws, check out these blog posts.
Right to Work Op-Ed: Spending Shows Union Bosses Out of Touch From Workers’ Interests
Earlier this year, Gerry McEntee, president of the powerful AFSCME union, explained to The Hill newspaper that his union’s futile $87.5 million political spending blitz in the 2010 Congressional midterm elections was intended to protect unpopular incumbent Democrats in Washington, D.C.
Yesterday, Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, was published in Investor’s Business Daily exposing how union members actually overwhelmingly oppose their union bosses’ political spending and agenda. From Investor’s:
Top union officials spent an estimated one billion dollars of union dues in an attempt to re-elect incumbent Democrat politicians back into Congress during the 2010 midterm election cycle. But just how do the rank-and-file workers feel about that?
Despite the claims by union heads based in Washington, D.C., when it comes to the critical political and policy questions of our day, union officials do not espouse the beliefs of the rank-and-file members that they claim to represent…
The poll, conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz, found that 60% of union members oppose their union bosses’ record political spending in the midterm elections, viewing it a complete waste for union bosses to use union dues and treasuries to protect unpopular incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.
The Luntz/National Right to Work poll (pdf) also found:
- A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30% want her to remain Speaker;
- In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59% of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so;
- Half of union members view President Obama and the Democratic Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37% view it as a success;
- Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures;
- Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy, and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.
But what should scare union bosses the most is that 80% of union members also support the Right to Work principle that would strip union officials of their government-granted special privileges to force workers into paying union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Perhaps next time union bosses should pause before spending massive amounts of workers’ money to push an agenda that the workers disagree with.
