Labor Day 2024: National Right to Work Emphasizes High Stakes for Worker Freedom
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2024:
On Labor Day, we celebrate the dedication and ingenuity of America’s working people. Their hard work is truly what keeps this nation prosperous and thriving, but union officials invariably attempt to hijack Labor Day to promote an agenda that undermines the rights and freedoms of our nation’s working men and women.
That’s especially true during this election year, when union officials are claiming that America’s workers are headed for disaster unless their handpicked candidates ascend to power and enact their radical policy agenda. But it’s plain to see that union bosses’ agenda prioritizes divisive politics and coercing workers far above what workers actually want – more freedom.
Big Labor is still pushing as its number-one legislative priority the radical “PRO-Act,” which will eliminate all state Right to Work protections and force millions more workers to pay union dues just to keep their jobs. Among the PRO-Act’s backers is Kamala Harris, who wants nationwide forced-dues despite admitting in a brief to the Supreme Court that union bosses use their power to undermine the economic interests of many workers.
This may be a winning strategy for collecting union boss-directed PAC contributions and endorsements, but stripping workers of the right to choose freely whether union membership and financial support is right for them is without a doubt anti-worker. This is especially true considering the vast majority of workers are not unionized and polls show most have “no interest at all” in becoming a union member.
Elected officials of all political stripes are right to want the votes of hardworking Americans, but the way to win those votes is not granting special interest union bosses the legal power to threaten workers to pay up or be fired. The real pro-worker position is Right to Work, which trusts workers with the choice, so each can join and pay dues to a union if they want but none can be required to join or pay against their will.
This Labor Day, let’s celebrate American employees by empowering each and every one with the freedom that Right to Work provides.
Mark’s statement comes as a newly released nationwide poll of registered voters finds overwhelming support for Right to Work (82%), including among voters of all party affiliations. The Rasmussen Media Group poll also found that 79 percent of union members back Right to Work and oppose forced union membership and dues. Click here to see the results.
Foundation-Backed Workers Push Back Against UAW Bosses’ Coercive Tactics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New Jersey ouster of UAW comes as union bosses wage aggressive nationwide campaign
Fain’s Bane: Michael Oliver and his Nissan parts distribution coworkers ousted UAW officials even after they’d tried to force a new contract on the workplace. UAW President Shawn Fain had no response after Oliver’s victory.
SOMERSET, NJ – United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses this April and May continued marching forward their multi-million-dollar campaign to get auto workers from traditionally nonunion plants under their control. They’ve met with only mixed success — most recently a union election at Mercedes-Benz’s large plant in Vance, Alabama, saw nearly 600 more workers vote against UAW control than for it.
Meanwhile, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys helped a large group of New Jersey employees oust the UAW after they’d seen the union’s agenda up close. Michael Oliver and his coworkers successfully exercised their right to vote UAW bosses out of a Nissan parts distribution plant in Somerset, New Jersey. Nearly 70% of the workers who participated in the “decertification vote” at the Nissan facility voted to send the Detroit-based union packing.
“UAW union officials were far more concerned with hoarding power in the workplace than communicating with or listening to workers,” Oliver told The Detroit News of his and his colleagues’ effort. “They kept us completely in the dark about contract negotiations, and treated anyone in the workplace who opposed their agenda or questioned their leadership with a huge amount of arrogance, contempt, and even intimidation.”
Oliver submitted a decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in early April, asking the federal agency to hold a vote at his workplace to remove the union. The petition contained signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. The vote took place on April 24.
Even in the midst of widespread worker opposition, UAW officials tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to manipulate NLRB processes in order to remain in power at the Nissan parts distribution plant. Shortly after Oliver submitted the decertification petition, UAW union officials announced that they had ratified a new union contract with Nissan management.
The NLRB’s dubious “contract bar” allows union bosses in many cases to quash decertification efforts for generally up to three years while a union contract is in effect. However, the contract bar didn’t stop Oliver and his coworkers’ requested election, because union officials weren’t able to reach a monopoly bargaining agreement with Nissan before Oliver filed his petition.
Shawn Fain Lost for Words After Nissan Workers Oust UAW Union
Oliver and his coworkers’ endeavor caught UAW President Shawn Fain off-guard. Fain told The Detroit News “I don’t have a response, because that kind of happened under the radar” and claimed that the company somehow played an illicit role in influencing the workers to kick out the union. However, there’s no evidence to support that claim, and UAW officials filed no objections to the election despite having ample time to do so.
Philly-Area Dometic Workers Fight Illegal UAW Strike Threats
Meanwhile, UAW chieftains at the Philadelphia-area plant of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic are facing new worker-filed federal charges for sending a mass text to employees illegally threatening their employment if they exercise their right to continue working during a strike.
These new charges come after several Dometic employees already hit the UAW with charges accusing the union of imposing unlawful disciplinary procedures on them simply because they resigned membership in the union.
Mario Coccie, the Dometic worker who filed the latest round of federal charges against the UAW with free Foundation legal aid, was also in the group of workers who initially charged the union with illegally penalizing workers who resign membership. “The information in this text reveals union officials’ real intentions, which is to hurt anyone willing to stand up for themselves,” commented Coccie. “What is happening in this case is completely unjust.”
“With UAW union bosses spending millions of dollars to expand their influence to nonunion facilities around the country, it’s important to remember that workers who have experienced UAW officials’ ‘representation’ often end up resenting it,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Nissan employees in New Jersey and Dometic workers in Pennsylvania are prime examples of this, and their situations demonstrate above all that workers must have more leeway in disaffiliating with or completely voting out union bosses whose agendas harm the workers.”
Dependable Highway Express Workers Successfully Oust Teamsters Union Officials
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
California workers claim victory in vote to remove Teamsters after union threat-mongering
Teamsters Trucked Out: John Cwiek didn’t give up the fight after Teamsters union officials tried to threaten him after he revealed info on union boss salaries. He rallied his coworkers, who sent the union packing.
ONTARIO, CA – In a victory for workplace freedom, employees at Los Angeles-based transportation company Dependable Highway Express have won their fight to remove Teamsters Local 63 union officials from their workplace. The campaign for removal was spearheaded by employee John Cwiek, who obtained support from a majority of his coworkers on a petition that sought a vote to remove the union. Cwiek received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation throughout his legal fight to remove the union he and his coworkers opposed.
Teamsters Walk Away
The initiative began when Mr. Cwiek filed a union decertification petition in March of this year, asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a secret ballot vote to strip Teamsters union officials of their monopoly bargaining power over Dependable Highway Express employees. Eventually, when it became clear the vote would be held, Teamsters officials conceded defeat and walked away from the bargaining unit rather than contest the decertification election.
Because Cwiek and his fellow employees work in non-Right to Work California, Teamsters officials were empowered to enforce contracts that forced employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. With the union gone, Dependable Highway Express workers are free from both the union’s forceddues demands and the unwanted monopoly bargaining power.
The decertification effort came after the Foundation assisted Cwiek in filing unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters union officials for retaliating against him because he revealed truthful but unfavorable information about union officials to his coworkers.
Union Bosses Threatened Worker for Revealing Union Boss Salaries
In January, Cwiek sent letters to his coworkers containing details about union boss salaries — information Cwiek pulled from the Teamsters union’s public filings with the U.S. Department of Labor. In retaliation for Cwiek sending the letters, a union official appeared at Cwiek’s workplace the next day, made accusations against him, and threatened that Cwiek wouldn’t be working at Dependable Highway Express by the next contract period.
“I am deeply troubled by the blatant retaliatory actions taken by officials at Teamsters Local 63 in response to expressing the views of myself and several other hard-working drivers at Dependable Highway Express,” Cwiek commented at the time. “We will not be deterred by their bullying tactics and the baseless accusations they levy against myself and others.”
“Mr. Cwiek’s battle and the struggles of other transportation workers across Southern California show exactly why Right to Work protections are so necessary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Workers obviously shouldn’t be forced to pay a union that engages in illegal activity, and ideally they should have full control over whether or not union officials get a cut of their paycheck.”
Long Beach Worker Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Structure of Biden Labor Board as Unconstitutional
New lawsuit challenges that National Labor Relations Board’s structure unconstitutionally shields both board members and judges from accountability
Washington, DC (August 22, 2024) – Nelson Medina, a Long Beach, CA-based employee of transportation company Savage Services, has just filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging the Board’s makeup as unconstitutional. Medina, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, argues that the composition of the NLRB violates separation of powers doctrines enshrined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution because it shields NLRB bureaucrats from being removed by the President.
Medina’s case now joins three other constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure from Foundation-backed rank-and-file workers, including the first ever such lawsuit which Foundation attorneys filed on behalf of Buffalo, NY-based Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam.
Medina’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which emphasized that the President should have direct authority to remove executive officials who exercise significant authority. Medina argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places unlawful limitations on the President’s power to oust NLRB officials even though they exercise significant executive authority.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, joins a similar suit at the same court from Medina’s colleague, Victor Avila. Both Avila’s and Medina’s lawsuits stem from unfair labor practice charges they each filed with Foundation aid against Teamsters union officials in their workplace, which dealt with illegal threats of violence against workers for not supporting the union and unlawful demands for dues payment, respectively. Both Avila and Medina argue they are entitled to have their cases heard by Board officials whose appointment complies with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Challenge to Constitutionality of Federal Labor Board Targets Board Members and Administrative Law Judges
Medina’s lawsuit is unique in that it contests the NLRB’s removal protections on both Board members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The suit argues that Board members exercise significant executive branch authority, yet are unconstitutionally protected from at-will presidential removal. ALJs, the suit argues, are subject to a removal process controlled by multiple layers of federal bureaucrats whom the President can’t remove at will, a structure prohibited by the Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB Supreme Court decision.
Board members are responsible for both creating NLRB policy and reviewing federal labor cases decided by regional NLRB offices, while ALJs conduct hearings in cases where the NLRB has chosen to prosecute a union or employer for violating the law.
Similar Lawsuits Crop Up Among Workers Nationwide
Beyond Savage Services, Foundation-backed Starbucks employees are also pursuing cases challenging the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB. These employees have attempted to hold decertification votes to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace, but NLRB officials blocked their cases based on unproven union allegations of employer meddling.
Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, recently filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their lawsuit. They are appealing a District Court judge’s ruling that they lacked standing to bring their challenge. The ruling didn’t address the core constitutional arguments their lawsuit raised. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, filed another similar lawsuit that is currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
“For too long, independent-minded employees who challenge union boss coercion that violates federal law have had to pursue their claims with unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Labor Relations Board should not be a union boss-friendly kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution, yet for too many workers, including those bringing these legal challenges, that is what the Labor Board has become.”
Jewish MIT Graduate Students Force Anti-Israel Union to Abandon Discriminatory Demands for Dues Payment
Settlement includes requirement that GSU union inform 3,000+ students of their right to refrain from paying for radical union political activities
Boston, MA (August 21, 2024) – Several Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have prevailed in their legal cases to cut off financial support to the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU), an affiliate of the United Electrical (UE) union. The students, all of whom received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, objected to GSU union officials’ anti-Israel activities, particularly their support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections that make union membership and financial support voluntary, union officials at unionized private colleges like MIT can force graduate students to financially support a union under threat of losing their academic positions and work. However, this power is subject to limitations under federal anti-discrimination law and some Supreme Court decisions.
Foundation staff attorneys litigated federal charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March for William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, each of which stated that the union had demanded full dues payments even after they had each stated their religious objection to funding the union and asked for an accommodation as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such accommodations vary, but often take the form of letting the objector divert the dues from the offensive union to a 501(c)(3) charity instead.
Shortly after those filings, Foundation staff attorneys also filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Katerina Boukin, who objected on political grounds to the GSU’s ideological activity and sought to exercise her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In Beck, the Court ruled that union officials cannot force those who opt out of formal union membership (like Boukin) to pay dues or fees for union expenses not directly related to collective bargaining, even in a non-Right to Work state. GSU bosses denied Boukin’s Beck request on the specious grounds that she had missed a short union-concocted “window period” in which such an objection would be accepted.
Settlement Blocks Union Bosses from Using Student Money to Support Extremism
The students have now won a favorable NLRB settlement, and a favorable outcome of the EEOC charges, that fully vindicate their rights. The students who voiced religious objections (Sussman, Fried, Gordon, Bechhofer, and Zhitomirsky) have obtained accommodations under which they will pay no money to the union and will instead pay money to charities of their choice, despite initial pushback from union bosses. The charities include American Friends of Magen David Adom and American Friends of Leket.
Foundation attorneys scored for Katerina Boukin a settlement that will require GSU bosses to inform the entire MIT graduate student body of their rights to invoke the Beck decision. GSU bosses must declare by email that they will not restrict the ability of those who resign their union memberships to cut off dues payments for political expenses and pay a reduced amount to the union. This email notice will go out to approximately 3,000 MIT students.
The Jewish students’ efforts to assert their rights put on display the radicalism of GSU union officials. The students who asserted religious objections to supporting the union initially received form letters as responses to their requests, which callously claimed that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union” and that no religious conflict existed because the founder of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish. Through the Foundation-backed litigation, the students’ religious objections to supporting GSU were accommodated.
MIT Students Expose GSU Misdeeds to Congress & Nation
Both Will Sussman and Katerina Boukin publicly commented on how the GSU union’s public image was synonymous with political extremism and had little to do with academics. Boukin stated that she was deeply offended by the union’s “opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution” and that “[t]he GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration, yet outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology.”
In July, Will Sussman appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce to reveal even more details about his and his colleagues’ distressing experience with the GSU union. As Sussman testified, after the October 7 attacks on Israel, GSU union representatives voiced support for Hamas’ bloody “rebellion” and the GSU Vice President was even arrested for her behavior at an anti-Israel protest. “She was banned from campus but remains on [dues-funded] paid ‘union leave,’” Sussman stated.
“The Foundation-backed MIT graduate students who fought these legal battles have earned well-deserved victories. But defending basic free association rights shouldn’t require such lengthy litigation, and meaningful reforms are necessary to ensure union support is truly voluntary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forcing GSU union officials to abandon their blatantly discriminatory dues practices is only the tip of the iceberg: Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, GSU still has the power to force the vast majority of MIT graduate students to subsidize some portion of their activities.
“Foundation attorneys are continuing to provide legal aid for all those who challenge the imposition of radical union agendas at places such as the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, and Johns Hopkins, and they are doing so for adherents of both Judaism and Christianity. But this ordeal at MIT should remind lawmakers that all Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason,” Mix added.
Employees at Petaluma, CA, and Dover, OH, Ford Dealerships Successfully Force Out Unwanted IAM Union Officials
Efforts in Ohio and California come as Biden-Harris NLRB tightens restrictions on workers voting out unions
Petaluma, CA & Dover, OH (August 20, 2024) – Employees at auto dealership Hansel Ford of Petaluma have successfully forced unwanted International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 1596 union officials out of their workplace. The victory comes after about 80% of Hansel Ford workers signed onto a petition seeking a vote to oust the union. Hansel Ford employee Gustavo Pena submitted the petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 20 in San Francisco with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Pena’s decertification petition contained well over the 30% threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. However, before the NLRB could schedule a union decertification vote among Pena and his coworkers, IAM union officials filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workplace.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, IAM union officials had the legal power to enforce contracts that required Pena and his colleagues to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Now that Pena and the other Hansel Ford workers have forced the IAM union out, they are free of both union officials’ power to contract and speak for all employees in the work unit (including the majority who opposed the union) and the union’s power to force them to pay dues to support their activities.
Technicians at Ford Dealership in Ohio Also Force Out IAM Union Bosses
Foundation staff attorneys also assisted technicians at Parkway Ford in Dover, OH, in requesting a decertification election to remove IAM Local 1363 union officials from their workplace. The worker who submitted this petition, Ryan Graham, also obtained signatures from a majority of his coworkers, well in excess of the 30% needed to prompt a vote.
Before NLRB Region 8 officials could schedule a vote at Graham’s workplace, however, IAM union bosses filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their monopoly bargaining power over the workplace. This may have been to avoid an embarrassing rejection by employees at the ballot box.
Ohio is also not a Right to Work state, meaning that IAM union officials had the power to compel Graham and his fellow technicians to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. While Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB and the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck prohibit union officials from forcing workers to formally join a union or pay for its non-bargaining-related activities (such as politics), many workers may prefer to decertify an unwanted union that does not respect those rights.
In nearby Michigan, Foundation-assisted mechanics from Brown Motors, a Ford dealership in Petoskey, recently voted in a “deauthorization election” to end Teamsters union officials’ forced-dues power over them. A “deauthorization election” is the only way outside of decertifying a union to end forced-dues demands in a non-Right to Work state and is petitioned for in a way similar to a decertification vote.
The new efforts come as decertification petition filings have gone up over 40 percent since 2020 (according to NLRB data) and worker interest in joining a union is at a historic low. Despite workers’ desire to get away from unions that don’t serve their interests, the Biden-Harris NLRB has just issued a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. One part of the new rule lets union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference.
“The employees from Ford dealerships in California and Ohio are just the latest examples of the many workers across the country who want to exercise their right to dissociate from union officials that they disapprove of,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That the Biden-Harris NLRB is paring back this right shows that the current administration is interested in giving its union boss political allies more power to siphon money from workers, as opposed to defending those workers’ individual rights.”
Genesys Nurse Hits Hospital, Teamsters Union with Additional Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions
New charges latest example of how union bosses are violating workers’ rights following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law
Flint, MI (August 20, 2024) – Madrina Wells, a nurse at Ascension Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc Township, MI, has filed additional federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 332 union and her employer for illegally deducting union dues out of her paycheck in violation of federal law. Madrina filed the two new unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Last month, Wells and her coworker filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 332 union, where they maintained that union bosses threatened to fire them and other nurses if they didn’t sign forms authorizing union officials to deduct dues straight out of their paychecks. The charges for Wells and her coworker Lynette Doyle, were also filed at the NLRB with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid. NLRB agents will now investigate Wells’ multiple charges in addition to the charge filed by Doyle.
The new charges from Wells are the most recent in a flurry of Foundation-backed cases for Michigan workers who are seeking to challenge or escape union bosses’ coercive power in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. Since the repeal became effective this February, union bosses have had the legal power to require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring workers to authorize the direct deduction of union dues from their paychecks. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
“I already had issues with Teamsters bosses’ illegally demanding money from me when Right to Work was in force,” commented Madrina Wells. “Back then, I at least knew that I was defending my right to pay nothing at all to Teamsters bosses I disapprove of. It’s ridiculous that rather than comply with my rights, Teamsters Local 332, now with the assistance of my employer, have violated Federal law once again by deducting dues from my paycheck without my consent.”
Without Right to Work, Michigan Workers Increasingly Having to Take Legal Action Against Union Boss Forced Dues Abuses
In a party-line 2023 vote, Michigan legislators repealed Right to Work at the behest of union special interests, ending workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve their dues money. The imposition of union bosses’ power to force employees to “pay up or be fired” came despite polling showing Michiganders, including those in union households, overwhelmingly opposed the elimination of workers’ Right to Work protections.
After the repeal became effective this February, workers from across the Great Lakes State sought help from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in escaping union bosses’ forced-dues demands. The total cases that our attorneys have filed for Michigan workers in 2024 is already more than double the 2023 number.
“Emboldened by the partisan repeal of Right to Work, Michigan union bosses are showing once again that their greed for forced dues is more important than the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Michigan workers are standing up to defend what rights they still have against union coercion, and the Foundation is proud to assist them.”
“Ultimately though, this flood of legal aid requests from Michigan workers challenging forced dues abuses shows why Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work, so that union financial support is fully voluntary once again,” added Mix.
California Farmworkers Fight Back Against Lie-Ridden Union ‘Card Check’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UFW bosses seized power under false pretenses, now stifle any dissent
Maria Gutierrez (left) and Claudia Chavez (right) are battling powerhungry UFW union bosses’ deceptive “card check” unionization drive, which has already stirred huge opposition among their coworkers.
BAKERSFIELD, CA – Most states don’t offer union bosses the legal privilege to force agricultural workers under their monopoly bargaining control. In such arrangements, all employees in a work unit must accept the “representation” of a union regardless of whether they support or voted for the union.
This isn’t the case in California, where the perennially pro-forced unionism legislature has granted union bosses the power to thrust farm employees under union control. Not only that, the state legislature recently handed union bosses the ability to gain power in an agricultural workplace via the so-called “card check” method. Card check bypasses workers’ right to vote in secret on the union and instead relies on union authorization cards collected by union officials, who often use misinformation, threats, or intimidation to obtain card signatures from workers, including in a current National Right to Work Foundation case.
CA Labor Board Blindly Accepts Suspect ‘Card Check’ Results
Card check has glaring flaws. Despite that, if a union submits cards collected from a majority of workers in a workplace, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) will immediately declare that union to be a monopoly bargaining agent — a status that can only be challenged after the fact.
Claudia Chavez and Maria Gutierrez are two Foundation-represented workers at Wonderful Nurseries’ grapevine nursey in Wasco, CA — the largest grapevine nursery in North America. They are now fighting for their and their coworkers’ rights in a situation that demonstrates the real-life problems that card check creates for worker freedom. In April, they submitted unfair labor practice charges stating that United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials “by artifice, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and/or coercion” got them and many of their coworkers to sign membership cards for the union, and the union falsely “represent[ed] itself as having obtained the support of a majority of the employees” afterward.
UFW Campaign Rife with Misrepresentation and Even Discrimination
“UFW union officials deceived us just so they could gain power in our workplace,” Chavez and Gutierrez commented. “Instead of just letting us vote in secret on whether we want a union, they went around lying and threatening to get cards and now are cracking down on anyone who speaks out against the union. We hope the ALRB listens to us and prosecutes the union for its illegal acts.”
Chavez and Gutierrez’s charges describe multiple lies — and even discriminatory behavior — that UFW union bosses used to get employees to sign authorization cards, including “representing that certain COVID19-related public benefits available to farmworkers required signatures on union membership cards . . . that union membership cards were not, in fact, union membership cards to be used in any UFW organizing efforts . . . presenting to strictly Spanishspeaking discriminatees union membership cards only in English . . . [and] presenting to illiterate discriminatees union membership cards and misrepresenting their content and/or significance.”
Workers Protest Illegal Union Actions Despite Crackdown on Dissent
UFW union officials’ malfeasance isn’t stopping, according to Chavez and Gutierrez’s charges. They contend that UFW bosses are illegally forbidding employees from taking back the fraudulently-obtained cards and are “engaging in a campaign of harassment, libel, slander, and intimidation against [employees who are] exercising their right of free speech and/or protest under [California labor law] to oppose UFW representation.” But it seems Wonderful Nurseries employees haven’t been deterred, as Wonderful Nurseries workers have engaged in multiple outdoor demonstrations against the union, chanting, “We don’t want a union, listen to our voices, don’t ignore us.”
As another part of the nursery workers’ battle against the UFW, Foundation attorneys represented 13 employees in a motion to intervene in Wonderful Nurseries’ separate case challenging the legitimacy of the card check drive, and now represent a total of 20 Wonderful Nurseries employees.
“UFW union officials have treated Wonderful Nurseries workers as pawns to be used in their pursuit of power, deceiving them with no regard for their rights and now engaging in retaliation against those who exercise their free speech rights against the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their situation above all shows the significant problems of the ‘card check’ process, in which workers are denied a chance to vote in secret on a union and are left exposed to a multitude of illegal union tactics.”
Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s Employees Seek Vote to Remove SEIU-Backed Union Officials from Store
Trader Joe’s employee testified before U.S. House in May about underhanded union tactics and divisive organizing campaign
Hadley, MA (August 12, 2024) – Employees at the Hadley, MA, location of grocery chain Trader Joe’s have submitted a petition seeking a workplace election to remove the Trader Joe’s United union, an affiliate of the large Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Trader Joe’s employee Les Stratford submitted the petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 1 in Boston with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Stratford’s decertification petition contains employee signatures well over the 30% threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. If a majority of Stratford’s coworkers vote against the Trader Joe’s United union, it will lose its bargaining powers in the workplace.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SEIU union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require Trader Joe’s employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of their monopoly bargaining and forced-dues powers.
“Officials of this union have sowed division and smeared both our workplace and anyone who dissents from the union’s agenda pretty much from the time the campaign began to unionize the store,” commented Stratford. “This isn’t what I believe the majority of my coworkers want or deserve, and despite the union’s pushback on this effort, we will fight to ensure that our colleagues can exercise their right to vote on whether we want to be represented by this union.”
Employees Widely Report Deceptive and Divisive Tactics by Union Bosses
Trader Joe’s employees who back the union decertification effort have commented frequently on the controversial and deceptive tactics that SEIU-backed agents used to establish the union in the workplace. Michael Alcorn, a worker at the Hadley, MA, store, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May that union organizers tried to foist union control of the workplace through “card check” – a process that bypasses the NLRB’s secret ballot election system and lets union officials aggressively solicit “cards” that are later counted as votes for the union – and refused to meet or even talk with workers who were skeptical of the union’s agenda.
Alcorn reported to the Committee that the union’s campaign also included “inaccurate and incomplete press releases creating false narratives about our workplace, to promote [union officials’] own agenda and personal vendettas” and a general message that “if [employees] don’t vote for the union, they don’t care about their coworkers.” Stratford, the Trader Joe’s employee who filed the petition, described the situation similarly, saying that “immediately the workplace dynamic became a ‘two-side’ thing where if you weren’t going to put a [union] pin on…then you were not going to be acknowledged.”
Biden-Harris NLRB Just Finalized Rule Making It Harder for Workers to Eject Unwanted Unions
The Hadley Trader Joe’s workers’ efforts come as the Biden-Harris NLRB has announced a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose, including by letting union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference. While the Trader Joe’s employees’ petition will be unaffected by the rule change, the new policy will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future.
“The situation at the Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s store shows exactly why workers’ right to vote to remove a union they oppose must be protected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “During a union campaign, union officials often employ aggressive tactics and ‘us vs. them’ or hate-the-boss rhetoric that cause division and prioritize union bosses’ agenda over workers’ freedoms and individual choices. Workers deserve an opportunity to petition for a vote to oust a union that they feel has unfairly ascended to power or simply isn’t serving workers’ interests.”
Hundreds of AT&T Employees Across California and Texas Petition for Votes to Remove Union Installed Through Coercive “Card Check”
Union bosses bypassed secret ballot election with abuse-prone process, but hundreds of workers in each unit now back election to remove union
Texas & California (August 1, 2024) – Hundreds of In-Home Experts from AT&T Mobility locations across Texas and California have just signed onto petitions seeking elections to remove Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials from power over their workplaces.
Matthew Gonzales, an In-Home Expert for AT&T Mobility, filed a “union decertification petition” with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of his coworkers across 13 AT&T Mobility locations in Southern California. Samantha Cain, a Texas-based In-Home Expert, did the same for her colleagues across at least eight locations in Eastern and Southern Texas. Both Gonzales and Cain received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing the petitions.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering votes to certify and decertify unions. Gonzales and Cain each collected employee signatures on their respective petitions far exceeding the 30% threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. Both filed the decertification petitions in July in order to challenge so-called “card check” unionization campaigns that CWA union bosses foisted on their coworkers.
Under card check, union officials can bypass the secret ballot election process, which is the most secure and reliable way to determine if employees want to unionize. During a card check drive, union officials can make face-to-face demands of employees as they seek to collect union authorization cards from a majority of the workplace. This makes the process a breeding ground for coercive and intimidating tactics.
Because Texas has Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force private sector workers like Cain and her coworkers to join or pay money to a union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. That isn’t the case in California. The state’s lack of a Right to Work law lets union officials demand that workers pay union dues or fees just to stay employed. However, in both states, union officials in a unionized workplace enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, which allow them to contract and speak for every worker in the unit – even those that voted against the union or otherwise oppose its presence.
If the AT&T Mobility In-Home Experts win both decertification elections, well over 800 workers will be free from CWA union officials’ monopoly bargaining power. They will join over 100 In-Home Experts from across Tennessee, who successfully challenged a card check in a similar effort against CWA officials in March. In all three efforts, CWA union officials have tried to “merge” units of AT&T In-Home Experts into a larger unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would effectively trap workers in the union because petitioning for a decertification vote in such a large unit would be virtually impossible.
Biden-Harris NLRB Will Soon Block Workers from Challenging Dubious Union “Card Check” Drives
CWA union officials have already used their card check “victory” to claim monopoly bargaining power over both the California In-Home Experts and Texas In-Home Experts. However, Foundation-backed 2020 reforms to the NLRB’s election rules give both sets of workers an opportunity to challenge the CWA union’s ascent to power.
Collectively referred to as the “Election Protection Rule,” the reforms permit employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. The Election Protection Rule also prevents union officials from manipulating charges they file alleging employer misconduct to block workers from casting ballots in a decertification election, among other things.
Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris NLRB in Washington, DC, issued a final rule last Friday that will undo the Election Protection Rule and make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. While the rule change will not take effect in time to stop the AT&T Mobility employees from having the decertification votes they requested, it will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future.
“If Ms. Cain and Mr. Gonzales had filed their decertification petitions just a few weeks later, hundreds of AT&T Mobility workers across Texas and California would be summarily denied their right to vote out union officials who seized power over them in a hasty and coercive manner,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is yet another example of the Biden-Harris Administration’s effort to heap legal privileges on its union boss political allies, all at the expense of workers who just want to exercise their free choice when it comes to deciding who should speak for them in the workplace.
“American workers don’t deserve to be stripped of this freedom, and those who are prevented from voting out unwanted union bosses due to this cynical rule change should not hesitate to contact the Foundation to explore their legal options,” Mix added.
