Teamsters Union Bosses Renege on Legal Settlement, Illegally Force Nonunion Employee to Pay Excessive Dues
Butte, MT (February 5, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed a new round of unfair labor practice charges for Michael Weller, a union-abused employee of Hanson Trucking and Resin Haulers, Inc.
As detailed in the charges, Teamsters union officials hindered Weller from opting out of payments for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, failed to provide him with a federally-mandated disclosure of union expenditures, and threatened to get him fired for failing to pay the union’s onerous fees.
Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees cannot be forced to pay for union activities unrelated to workplace negotiation. Foundation attorneys originally filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Michael Weller after International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 2 union officials threatened him with termination for failing to pay union dues unrelated to collective bargaining. The NLRB announced it would prosecute, but Weller withdrew his unfair labor practice charges after Teamsters officials agreed to stop threatening him and to refund all illegally-seized forced dues.
Unfortunately, Teamsters officials promptly reneged on their agreement, failing to provide adequate disclosure of union financial expenditures and imposing an onerous annual opt-out requirement on any worker who attempts to withhold payments for activities unrelated to workplace negotiations. The union bosses’ extensive and often-contradictory opt-out processes – as well as their failure to provide an adequate breakdown of what workers’ dues are actually paying for – made it nearly impossible for Weller to refrain from paying for union activities outside the workplace, as is his right.
Moreover, Teamsters bosses again threatened Weller with termination if he refused to comply with their excessive financial demands. Under protest, Weller paid the contested fees to Local 2 to keep his job.
“Teamsters bosses are frequently repeat offenders, and this incident demonstrates a profound disrespect for the rule of law and employee rights,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to protect Montana’s workers is to ensure union membership and dues payments are completely voluntary through passage of a Right to Work law. Anything less leaves the door open to continued abuse of Montana’s employees.”
State Court Refuses to Enforce Georgia’s Popular Right to Work Law
Nonmember employees forced to pay fees to Longshoreman union bosses vow appeal to state supreme court
Atlanta, GA (February 4, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys announced they will appeal last week’s stunning ruling by the Court of Appeals of Georgia that despite Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law, a local union may force nonmembers to pay for the privilege to work.
Georgia is one of 22 states with Right to Work protections which ensure that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a union in order to get or keep a job. The state law unambiguously states that “[n]o individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.”
Nonetheless, the Georgia Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court ruling, held that the International Longshoreman Association Local 1414 union may legally force nonmembers to pay a referral fee to the union
on jobs obtained at a union hiring hall between June 2005 and September 2006. The controversial contract between the union and the Georgia Stevedores Association requires that all employees be hired through the union hiring hall. The union forces all nonmembers to pay referral fees as a condition of employment.
Click here to read the rest of the Foundation’s press release.
State Court Refuses to Enforce Georgia’s Popular Right to Work Law
Atlanta, GA (February 4, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys announced they will appeal last week’s stunning ruling by the Court of Appeals of Georgia that despite Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law, a local union may force nonmembers to pay for the privilege to work.
Georgia is one of 22 states with Right to Work protections which ensure that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a union in order to get or keep a job. The state law unambiguously states that “[n]o individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.”
Nonetheless, the Georgia Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court ruling, held that the International Longshoreman Association Local 1414 union may legally force nonmembers to pay a referral fee to the union on jobs obtained at a union hiring hall between June 2005 and September 2006. The controversial contract between the union and the Georgia Stevedores Association requires that all employees be hired through the union hiring hall. The union forces all nonmembers to pay referral fees as a condition of employment.
Attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation are providing free legal aid to eleven nonmember employees who perform longshoremen work at the port of Savannah. Local 1414 union bosses have demanded the employees turn over approximately $1.33 each per hour worked.
The ruling took a position that the Georgia Right to Work law does not apply to a hiring hall scenario, and federal labor law does not permit states to prohibit unions from forcing workers to pay monies to an exclusive union hiring hall. However, Foundation attorneys argue that the Right to Work law unambiguously prohibits any mandate on employees to pay a union for the privilege to work, and state Right to Work laws cannot be preempted by federal law in this regard.
“Despite the clarity of Georgia’s popular Right to Work law, this court has concluded that the Right to Work law does not mean what it says,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We are confident this ruling will be overturned.”
“This case shows you that even in Right to Work states, union tyrants will trick, lie, and steal their way into workers’ wallets,” continued Gleason.
Foundation attorneys are preparing a petition for certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Could Solis’ Relationship with Rabid Forced Unionism Group Derail Her DOL Nomination?
National Review’s Byron York has a few pointed questions for Hilda Solis (emphasis added):
Solis had a rough hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee when she declined to answer all sorts of seemingly noncontroversial questions about her positions on basic labor issues. (Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a frustrated account of the hearing, asking, "How can senators consent if they have no clue what policies they might be consenting to?") Now, some committee members want to know more about Solis’ relationship with a pro-labor group called American Rights at Work. On the group’s website, Solis is listed as a member of the board of directors, and she also served as Treasurer of the organization from 2004 to 2007. The question is whether Solis, who as a member of Congress is prohibited from lobbying Congress, fully disclosed her relationship with the group.
American Rights at Work is an important part of Big Labor’s push for the Employee Free Choice Act, known more accurately as card check.—
No one is accusing Solis of concealing her connection with the group; it was common knowledge in the labor world, and she listed it in the paperwork she submitted for her confirmation hearing. But she did not list it on the disclosure forms she was required to submit to the House of Representatives. It was an unpaid position, so there is no problem with income. But there are questions about whether Solis, as Treasurer, played a de facto role in the group’s lobbying activity; if you’re a member of Congress, you’re not supposed to simultaneously lobby Congress.
Solis may not have concealed her position at American Rights at Work (ARAW), but her dubious statements made on a Senate questionnaire and disclosure forms raise serious questions about her integrity.
ARAW is a 501(c)(4), which means that influencing legislation is the primary political activity it engages in. (On the group’s website, where Solis is still listed as a board member, appear a number of pro-Card Check television ads and an announcement of a $3 million ad buy.)
Given her fiduciary responsibilities as Treasurer of ARAW, it seems unlikely she wasn’t somehow involved with ARAW’s extensive lobbying efforts. But according to the Wall Street Journal, she responded to a written follow up question submitted by Senator Enzi by claiming "I have never participated in lobbying, or advised anyone on lobbying, either Congress or the Executive Branch on behalf of American Rights at Work."
As for ARAW itself, the organization is simply a Big Labor front group set up to promote the ugly agenda of forcing workers into union collectives. (Union bosses also set it up to "tangle" with National Right to Work and originally planned instead to name ARAW "National Rights at Work" before our trademark lawyers threatened them with a lawsuit.)
A quick search of union disclosure forms reveals ARAW received at least $411,000 for "political activities" from various union outfits in 2007 while she was treasurer of the organization. And this isn’t even counting over $700,000 in generic contributions from unions that the group received in 2007 — funds also likely to have been spent for lobbying while Solis was Treasurer.
It was bad enough when Solis flatly refused to answer a few basic questions about her stance on state Right to Work laws and coercive card check organizing, but now she appears disingenuous about her relationship with this union front group and naked promotion of forced unionism.
MEDIA SCOOPED: Massive “Stimulus” Funds Will Be Used to Blacklist America’s Non-Union Workers
On Friday, Freedom@Work scooped the national media in breaking the full story about President Obama’s executive order giveaway to Big Labor. For those of you who missed it, Obama handed the Department of Labor the new power to blacklist nonunion companies targeted by union operatives.
Under the new rules, any unfair labor practice charge leveled against a contractor — perhaps during a union organizing drive — could be used to bar the contractor from competing for taxpayer-funded federal work. Hilda Solis, Obama’s pro-forced unionism pick for Secretary of Labor, is sure to use this requirement to pressure companies into handing their employees over to forced unionism
Taken alone, this blacklist rule is outrageous, but the outrage is compounded by the fact that Obama and his pro-forced unionism allies in Congress are on the verge of passing a massive, pork-filled “stimulus” bill. The 900 billion dollar package promises a dramatic, across-the-board increase in federal outlays, and thanks to President Obama’s generosity, Big Labor is perfectly positioned to leverage those funds to tap into more sources of forced union dues from the 92 percent of American workers who have not chosen to unionize.
Now that union operatives at DOL have the power to blacklist a company from federal contracting simply by lodging a few spurious (even unadjudicated) charges, it’s pretty clear union bosses are in for a massive payday when the “stimulus” bill passes.
President Obama Sets Stage for Blacklisting of Non-Union Employees Wanting to Work on Federal Contracts
Today, President Barack Obama issued two deeply disturbing executive orders as his first big payback to Big Labor.
Flanked by union bosses at a White House ceremony, Obama said “Welcome back to the White House” and announced sweeping measures which give his Secretary of Labor the power to blackball non-union contractors targeted by union organizers.
With federal outlays rising dramatically as part of attempts to “stimulate” the economy, the number of firms with federal contracts are expected to increase dramatically in the coming months. Nearly 93 percent of America’s private-sector workforce has not chosen to unionize, so union officials hope to leverage these federal funds in a full court press to corral millions more workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks.
One of the Obama executive orders hands his Secretary of Labor virtually unchecked power to blacklist those firms which union officials complain are supposedly violating federal labor laws. The Secretary of Labor is expected to leverage DOL’s new powers against companies not agreeing to grease the rails for coercive union organizing drives or companies not ceding to uneconomic or abusive union-boss demands.
This new blacklisting power has enormous implications for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, to say nothing of individual employee rights.
The other federal executive order effectively bars contractors from sharing truthful, non-coercive information with their employees about the downsides of unionization.
Taken together, the two executive orders go well beyond actions by President Clinton to force employees of federal contractors into union collectives, and they could turn the U.S. Department of Labor into a giant, taxpayer-funded extension of the union organizing wing at AFL-CIO headquarters.
Meanwhile, Labor Secretary-designate Hilda Solis continues to stonewall important questions about freedom in the workplace.
For more about today’s executive orders, read the National Right to Work Foundation’s press release.
Obama Makes First Major Payback to Big Labor
Labor Secretary handed sweeping new enforcement powers, while workers remain in the dark about right to refrain from union membership
Washington, DC (January 30, 2009) – President Barack Obama issued two decrees today intended to corral millions more American workers into forced unionism.
“After spending more than a billion dollars in forced union dues to get Obama elected, the union bosses have received their first major payoff – two executive orders intended to grease the rails for coercive union organizing, set up the Secretary of Labor as federal labor law czar, and keep workers in the dark about their rights to refrain from union membership,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Obama’s two executive orders serve one basic goal: to seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda.”
Obama repealed Executive Order 13201 signed by President George W. Bush which had helped ensure that employees of federal contractors were informed of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck (1988). Won by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, Beck held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may not be compelled to pay any dues or fees earmarked for union politics, lobbying, and other non-bargaining activities.
Click here to read the rest of the Foundation’s press release.
Blacklisting Rule: Obama Makes First Major Payback to Big Labor
Washington, DC (January 30, 2009) – President Barack Obama issued two decrees today intended to corral millions more American workers into forced unionism while blacklisting non-union employees from working on taxpayer funded projects.
“After spending more than a billion dollars in forced union dues to get Obama elected, the union bosses have received their first major payoff – two executive orders intended to grease the rails for coercive union organizing, give the Secretary of Labor the power to blacklist union-targeted employers and employees, and keep workers in the dark about their rights to refrain from union membership,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Obama’s two executive orders serve one basic goal: to seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda.”
Obama repealed Executive Order 13201 signed by President George W. Bush which had helped ensure that employees of federal contractors were informed of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck (1988). Won by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, Beck held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may not be compelled to pay any dues or fees earmarked for union politics, lobbying, and other non-bargaining activities.
President Obama included the revocation of Beck rights notices in an executive order advertising, and essentially endorsing, the formation of unions under a theory (long discredited by academic research) that forcing employees into union collectives will somehow prevent “substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.”
The executive order also purports to give the Secretary of Labor the authority to determine what will be required by the notice, the authority to investigate violations, to hold hearings, and the power to punish violators of all federal labor laws mentioned in the notice. In effect, the Secretary of Labor would become an additional judge, jury, and executioner of federal labor laws with respect to federal contractors. Most importantly, the Secretary would determine whether a contractor would be fired by the federal government (apparently where the contractor has not even been found to have violated any laws by the law enforcement body of jurisdiction). Even President Bill Clinton stopped short of attempting to give the Secretary of Labor a "blacklisting" power, which is almost certainly unlawful.
Another new order effectively bars federal contractors from communicating truthful information about unionization to their employees.
“It’s disgusting to see this blatant payoff to Big Labor only two weeks into Obama’s term,” continued Mix. “Today, President Obama has sent an ominous message to the 93 percent of private sector workers in America who, for whatever reasons, have chosen not to unionize: You’re not welcome here.”
—
Senate Snag: Obama’s Labor Secretary Nominee Won’t Answer Basic Questions
The confirmation of radical unionist Hilda Solis, Democrat congresswoman from Los Angeles, to be Obama’s new Secretary of Labor has hit a snag.
While the Senate has approved other Cabinet nominees left and right — including a Treasury Secretary who has admitted to failing to pay income taxes — Solis has yet to make it out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The Pasadena Star-News has more:
At least one unidentified Republican senator is using a parliamentary procedure to holdup Solis’ confirmation, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, alleged from the Senate floor Thursday.
The anonymous hold — as the informal delay tactic is known — essentially prevents the full Senate from voting on Solis’ confirmation by threatening a filibuster. It could be lifted at any time.
The hold was placed on the nomination because of Solis’ support for legislation aimed at facilitating union organization and regarding pay-discrimination, and for non-responsive answers during her confirmation hearing, the Washington, DC-based Congress Daily reported Friday.
President Obama is asking the Senate — and the American people — to approve as Labor Secretary a Congresswoman who chose not to — or can’t — answer questions about worker freedom, secret ballots, or prevailing wage laws. As we recently wrote, Solis told the HELP Committee that she is "not qualified" to discuss Right to Work.
Solis has made a political career of carrying Big Labor’s water — first in the California legislature and more recently in the U.S. House of Representatives. She sports a 100 percent lifetime AFL-CIO rating. In fact, the union bosses hand-picked Solis in 2000 to challenge then-incumbent Congressman Marty Martinez (D-CA) because Martinez "only" voted with Big Labor 80 percent of the time.
Here is what she said at the recent U.S. Senate confirmation hearing in which Solis dodges questions on basic issues any Labor Secretary nominee should be able to address — issues like card check and Right to Work. Check out the video below:
Naked Advocate of Forced Unionism Named NLRB Chair
This week, President Obama named Wilma Liebman chair of the National Labor Relations Board, the quasi-judicial body which administers the National Labor Relations Act. A former union lawyer, Liebman has used her seat on the Board to do Big Labor’s bidding and trample upon employee freedom.
In a statement, Liebman said
I am honored by President Obama’s designation to serve as Chairman, and I look forward to continuing my service on the Board with my colleague, Peter Schaumber, and ultimately with a full complement of Board Members.
I wish to thank Member Schaumber for his own outstanding service as Chairman. His leadership and collegiality, coupled with the efforts of dedicated agency staff, have enabled the Board to operate productively this past year.
The Board’s work matters, just as it did when the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. Democracy in the workplace is still basic to a democratic society, and collective bargaining is still basic to a fair economy. The statute we administer is the foundation of America’s commitment to human rights recognized around the world.
Emphsis mine.
As for "the statute [the Board members] administer," Liebman appears to have forfeited her objectivity by urging Congress to amend that law by passing the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.ka. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). As we asked earlier this month, how can an employee trust Liebman to impartially administer the NLRA when she is also working to amend it to effectively eliminate the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives?
Moreover, Liebman’s so-called "committment to human rights" does not appear to include any conception of individual freedom. In fact, she has shown an ugly disdain for individual rights, writing in one "academic" journal:
[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could
have troubling political and social consequences.Workers may view the
employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to
grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action
at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work
encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a
functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues
are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and
direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as
effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of
democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union
movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in
our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What
institution will speak for working people—indeed for the middle
class—as effectively?
The truth is that Wilma Liebman thinks she knows more about what is in a worker’s best interest than the individual worker does. That’s why she feels is it good public policy to force as many workers into union collectives as possible. As far as she is concerned, individual free choice is irrelevant.
Foundation attorneys look forward to getting her Board’s rulings slammed down by the federal appellate courts.