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.
Security Union Officials Hit With Federal Labor Board Charges for Forcing Employees into Union
Security Union Officials Hit With Federal Labor Board Charges for Forcing Employees into Union
Stealth union organizing campaign springs union boss control over employees without even a vote
Flint, MI (November 9, 2010) – A group of eight Securitas Security Services employees filed federal charges against a local union and their employer earlier this week for illegally forcing union monopoly representation and mandatory union fees on the employees without a showing of majority support for the union.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the employees – who are employed by Securitas in Grand Blanc – recently learned that their employer has recognized the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union hierarchy as their monopoly bargaining agent. The employees were unaware of any union organizing campaign occurring in their workplace and a vote never took place.
Federal labor law requires that union officials must show majority support within a workplace before company officials can recognize the union.
The employees were forced to sign union dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – and are currently paying dues to the union in order to keep their jobs.
Security Union Officials Hit With Federal Labor Board Charges for Forcing Employees into Union
Flint, MI (November 9, 2010) – A group of eight Securitas Security Services employees filed federal charges against a local union and their employer earlier this week for illegally forcing union monopoly representation and mandatory union fees on the employees without a showing of majority support for the union.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the employees – who are employed by Securitas in Grand Blanc – recently learned that their employer has recognized the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union hierarchy as their monopoly bargaining agent. The employees were unaware of any union organizing campaign occurring in their workplace and a vote never took place.
Federal labor law requires that union officials must show majority support within a workplace before company officials can recognize the union.
The employees were forced to sign union dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – and are currently paying dues to the union in order to keep their jobs.
The NLRB regional office in Detroit will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union and company.
“Michigan desperately needs a Right to Work law to prevent union organizing abuses such as this woeful act of collusion between union and company officials,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Folks trying to make a living should not be conscripted and forced to pay tribute to a union in order to get or keep a job.”
Union Officials Attempt to Have Hotel Worker Fired for Exercising Workplace Rights
Honolulu, HI (November 8, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Hawaii Hilton Village Hotel employee has filed another round of federal unfair labor practice charges against UNITE HERE Local 5 union officials for attempting to have him fired for resigning from the union, refusing to pay dues for union politics, and informing his coworkers of their workplace rights.
Grant Suzuki has repeatedly clashed with union officials, filing successful unfair labor practice charges in 2008 to force UNITE HERE operatives to return illegally-seized union dues. Suzuki has since been targeted for harassment for informing his coworkers of their rights to opt-out of union dues, resign from union membership, and work during a union-instigated strike.
Because Hawaii lacks a Right to Work law, union officials can require nonmember employees to pay certain dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers may not be charged for activities unrelated to union monopoly bargaining, including dues collected for union political activism and members-only activities. In 2009, UNITE HERE officials agreed to a settlement with Suzuki that refunded all dues collected for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining and required the union to post public notices informing hotel employees of their rights.
Instead of amending their workplace practices, however, union officials harassed Suzuki and attempted to have him fired from Hilton Village.
Suzuki’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
“Grant Suzuki had the temerity to stand up for his rights at work and union officials responded by trying to get him fired,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “If union officials can get away with intimidation, other employees will be discouraged from standing up for their workplace rights, which is why it’s vital the NLRB act immediately to punish UNITE HERE operatives for their thuggish behavior.”
Workers Victimized by Coercive Card Check Campaigns Ask Federal Labor Board to Protect Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed briefs today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), urging the federal labor board to uphold a landmark 2007 decision which gave new protections to workers swept into union ranks through the abusive card check organizing process.
In Dana Corporation, Foundation attorneys won new employee rights intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during card check organizing campaigns. The Dana decision granted employees the ability to file a decertification petition for a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer gives notice that it recognized a union as monopoly bargaining agent by card check.
At the request of union lawyers seeking to deny workers access to a secret ballot vote, the NLRB ruled in August to revisit Dana over the strenuous objections of dissenting members Peter Schaumber, whose term has since expired, and Brian Hayes.
In Lamons Gasket, now before the NLRB, Foundation attorneys are providing free legal aid to Mike Lopez, a worker who filed a decertification petition with the support of at least 30 percent of his fellow employees challenging the card check recognition of the United Steelworkers (USW) union as their monopoly bargaining agent. The decertification election occurred in August, but the ballots have been impounded pending the review of Dana.
Foundation attorneys filed a merit brief for Lopez and an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation. The latter cites the Foundation’s unparalleled experience representing employees victimized by coercive card check organizing drives. The two briefs argue that Dana elections are working as intended, providing workers the ability to remove an unwanted union from their workplaces.
Foundation attorneys have also renewed their request that Member Craig Becker recuse himself from the case because he co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case.
"Although no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union to get or keep a job, the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees," explained Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.
In addition to the Lamons Gasket briefs, Foundation attorneys also filed a brief in UGL-UNICCO Service Company, a case in which the NLRB is reconsidering the "successorship doctrine," which determines what opportunities workers have to remove a union after a company is sold or merged. In the brief filed today, Foundation staff attorneys argue that union monopoly bargaining privileges should not automatically be extended in such cases, and employees should be free to decertify a union when there are such drastic changes in their relationship with their employer.
