National Right to Work President Mark Mix appeared on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" to discuss Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis’s efforts to undermine union transparency. Check out the video below:

Union Member Seeks to Block Obama Labor Department’s Efforts to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules

Department guts disclosure rule that has exposed numerous corrupt union boss schemes, let rank-and-file members know how dues are spent

Washington, DC (May 23, 2011) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Maryland county government employee is asking a federal court to stop the Obama Administration from allowing union bosses to conceal lavish and corrupt union expenditures from workers.

Chris Mosquera, a member of a Municipal County Government Employee Local of the United Food and Commercial Worker (UFCW) union, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for rescinding a union boss disclosure rule which would make it less difficult for workers to hold union officials accountable.

Unions covered by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) with total annual receipts of $250,000 or more are currently required to submit annual financial statements to the U.S. Department of Labor. LM-2 forms are the public disclosure documents for these larger unions and are available online on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) website.

These forms have helped workers and citizen activists expose many unscrupulous union boss schemes, including lavish benefits to high-ranking union officials and loyalists, superfluous spending on union boss transportation (including private jets), and shady political spending (such as the Service Employees International Union bosses’ links to the disgraced political organization ACORN).

Read the entire release here.

South Carolina newspaper and television outlets have highlighted the National Right to Work Foundation’s efforts to challenge the National Labor Relations Board’s scheme to undermine laws that protect worker freedom.

The Acting General Counself of the NLRB filed a complaint last month against Boeing for creating over 1000 new jobs in South Carolina, where International Association of Machinists union bosses can’t force workers to pay dues or "fees" as a condition of employment.

The Foundation is offering free legal aid to current or potential Boeing employees affected by this power grab. Also this week, the Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NLRB.

Charleston’s The Post and Courier interviewed Foundation president Mark Mix earlier this week:

"They’re really saying that private companies can’t make a business decision," he said Monday.

His Springfield, Va.-based foundation’s legal team is looking to persuade as many local Boeing workers as it can to provide affidavits and justify its request for an official place at the litigation table. The group has already heard from at least two unidentified employees who have expressed an interest in participating, he said.

WSCS Live 5 News also covered the Foundation’s offer:

The Foundation relies on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please click here.

Union Forced Dues Threats against WRTV Anchor Highlight Need for Indiana Right to Work Law

Union hit with federal labor board charges for demanding TV anchor pay union dues despite lack of valid contract between her employer and the union

Indianapolis, IN (May 19, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, WRTV anchor Patricia Shepherd has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) union.

Shepherd’s charges allege that AFTRA officials demanded she pay dues despite the fact that she is not a union member and the union has not had a contract with her employer for the past two years.

Because Indiana lacks a Right to Work law, employees can be forced to pay union dues for the purposes of workplace bargaining just to get or keep a job. In recent months, Indiana legislators were considering a law to make union dues payments strictly voluntary, but Governor Mitch Daniels and House Speaker Brian Bosma, despite strong majorities on record in favor of a Right to Work bill in both chambers of the state legislature, ultimately killed the legislation.

Click here to read the whole thing . . . 

As we reported before, a group of Delta Air Lines employees — with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation — are appealing (pdf) a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to uphold a major rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

Last June, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge refused to impose an injunction halting the new unionization election procedures for workers in the shipping and transportation industries which were hastily instituted by the National Mediation Board (NMB).

The NMB — a government agency charged under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries — voted 2-1 to dictate a new system which stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over railway or airline industry workers if the union acquires support from just a bare majority of eligible workers in an election, no matter how few actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss "representation" on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

The two NMB members who approved the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions — two unions that have been pushing for the change — respectively.

Earlier this week, with help from Foundation staff attorneys, the flight attendants carried on their courageous fight and filed a joint appellant brief at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. To read their appeal, click here.

Regular readers are already up to speed on the Obama National Labor Relations Board’s attempt to punish Boeing for opening a new production line in Right to Work South Carolina – and the National Right to Work Foundation’s efforts to help Boeing employees. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore explain why the NLRB’s actions are so pernicious:

The Obama administration’s National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint last month against Boeing to block production of the company’s 787 Dreamliner at a new assembly plant in South Carolina—a "right to-work" state with a law against compulsory union membership. If the NLRB has its way, Dreamliner assembly will return to Washington, a union-shop state, along with more than 1,000 jobs.

The NLRB’s action, which Boeing will challenge at a hearing next month, is a big deal. It’s the first time a federal agency has intervened to tell an American company where it can and cannot operate a plant within the U.S. It lays the foundation of a regulatory wall with one express purpose: to prevent the direct competition of right-to-work states with union-shop states. Why, as South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley recently asked on these pages, should Washington have any more right to these jobs than South Carolina?

The National Right to Work Foundation is offering free legal assistance to South Carolina workers affected by this complaint. If you work at Boeing’s Charleston Dreamliner plant, we strongly encourage you to contact us today.

Writing in The Daily Caller, Right to Work President Mark Mix explains how Big Labor activism in Wisconsin has dramatized the issue of forced union dues:

. . . millions of Americans are now learning about the bitterness with which union-label politicians are defending their forced dues-funded campaign machines. And now citizens are beginning to understand more clearly than ever before why no union official, whether government or private-sector, should ever have been granted forced-dues privileges in the first place, and why it is absolutely necessary to revoke those privileges in order to clean up our political system.

Thanks to the 14 union-backed Senate Democrats’ attempt to flee the state to deny S.B. 11 proponents a quorum — and the resulting legal battle over the bill — the effort to restore the right to work for most Badger State public employees remains in limbo for now. But the outrageous antics of union-boss politicians like Mr. Hintz and Mr. Danou could prove to be very costly to Big Labor over the long run, and not just in Wisconsin.

Click here to read the whole thing. For more on the Wisconsin labor fight, check out Mix’s recent appearance on Fox News.
 

In 2009, The Wall Street Journal observed that workers are fleeing forced-unionism states for better job opportunities with their Right to Work neighbors. Now, a study of U.S. Census Bureau statistics from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research indicates that young workers – a demographic that drives economic growth – overwhelmingly favor Right to Work states to further their career prospects:

Twenty-two states currently have Right to Work laws on the books.3 Unless a state has a Right to Work law, federal law authorizes the imposition of forced union dues and fees on its private-sector employees.

In the 17 non-Western Right to Work states, the aggregate 25-34 year-old population increased from 12.965 million to 14.602 million, or 12.7%, over the past decade. Meanwhile, in the 20 non- Western forced-unionism states, the aggregate 25-34 year-old population fell from 16.807 million to 16.036 million, or 4.6%. Western Right to Work states’ total young-adult population grew by 47.0%, compared to Western non-Right to Work states’ 8.3% increase. Even excluding slow-growth California,Western forced-unionism states’ increase was barely more than half that of Western Right to Work states.

In the midst of a prolonged recession, the Institute’s findings also indicate that the success of Right to Work states provides a critical economic safety valve. By encouraging the creation of more jobs, Right to Work protections provide career opportunities for young employees that otherwise might not have existed.

The case for Right to Work has always rested on the importance of safeguarding individual workers’ rights, but the economic benefits of protecting worker freedom are also self-evident. It’s one more reason why states across the country are now considering Right to Work laws. 

With public attention being paid to state battles over union boss powers, Right to Work proposals have received plenty of attention from national publications. In The Washington Examiner, Right to Work President Mark Mix explains that states are turning to Right to Work laws to jump-start their troubled economies and safeguard workers’ rights:

The logic of state Right-to-Work laws is ironclad: Not only is safeguarding worker freedom the right thing to do,it also yields tremendous economic benefits. Recent studies from the Cato Institute and the National Institute for Labor Relations Research suggest that Right-to-Work states enjoy higher job growth and more cost-of-living-adjusted disposable income for workers than their forced-unionism counterparts.

They also seem to be weathering the recession better than old Midwestern industrial bastions like Michigan, Illinois and Indiana, states that lack protections for individual workers’ rights.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of state Right-to-Work laws was reported in a Wall Street Journal editorial last year. Citizens are voting with their feet, leaving forced-unionism states in droves for job opportunities with their Right-to-Work neighbors.

Elsewhere, Deroy Murdock lays out the case for a National Right to Work Act:

The NRTWA’s economic rationale is compelling:

? Among America’s 22 right-to-work states (including Florida, Georgia, and Texas), non-farm private-sector employment grew 3.7 percent from 1999 to 2009, while it shrank 2.8 percent among America’s 28 forced-unionism states (e.g. California, Illinois, and New York).

? During those ten years, real personal income rose 28.3 percent in right-to-work states and sank 14.7 percent in forced-unionism states.

? In 2009, cost-of-living-adjusted, per-capita, disposable personal income was $35,543 in right-to-work states versus $33,389 in forced-unionism states. Americans in right-to-work states enjoyed more freedom — and a $2,154 premium.

Notwithstanding that right-to-work states are comparatively prosperous engines of job growth, the case for right-to-work laws is not merely economic, but moral.

“Government has granted union officials the unprecedented power to force individual employees to pay up or be fired and to coerce workers into subsidizing union speech,” says the National Right to Work Committee’s Patrick Semmens. “This fundamental violation of individual liberty — an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of association — finally would end with passage of the NRTWA.”

If you’re looking for a straightforward introduction to the economic and moral case for Right to Work laws, both pieces are a good place to start.