A heated battle is raging in Congress between major shipping companies United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and FedEx Corporation and the rights of literally tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of employees hang in the balance.

You see, UPS is regulated under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and is heavily unionized, as 240,000 of its total 425,000 employees are required to accept union bosses’ monopoly bargaining "representation."  Meanwhile, FedEx is under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) — which also gives union bosses monopoly bargaining privileges, but only if an absolute majority of workers in a given bargaining unit vote to accept union bosses as their monopoly bargaining agent — and so only 4,700 of 290,000 FedEx employees have been unionized. 

So now UPS is backing legislation in Congress that would switch FedEx employees to the jurisdiction of the NLRA, making it easier for union bosses to corral FedEx’s employees into union ranks and force them to pay union dues just to keep their jobs.

ReasonTV has just released a video — parodying UPS’s famous "Whiteboard" commercials — detailing the UPS/FedEx dispute:

Unfortunately, FedEx employees’ workplace freedoms are not only in jeopardy by Congressional action, but also by federal bureaucratic fiat.

Big Labor is pushing for the National Mediation Board (NMB) — a government agency charged under the RLA with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries — to make dramatic changes to its enforcement of the RLA, greasing the skids for union organizers to force tens of thousands of non-union railway and airline industry workers into union membership.

Big labor partisans from over 30 unions, led by AFL-CIO, are pushing to change the threshold union organizers need to impose unions on workers in the railway and airline industries to just a majority of workers actually voting in a union organizing election to make that decision for the whole group.

What seems like a small procedural change is in reality a major game changer, as it makes it exceedingly difficult for independent-minded workers to resist Big Labor’s well-funded, professional organizing machine, particularly since these campaigns must be run across an entire, often-nationwide bargaining unit.  Also, independent-minded FedEx employees would either have to take affirmative action to oppose union "representation" or otherwise potentially allow far less than a majority of their colleagues impose an unwanted union on them.

Unfortunately, regardless of how individual workers lose their rights — through actions of Congress or through executive branch machinations — Big Labor and Big Government are likely to be the only winners in the UPS-FedEx war.

Late last week, notoriously corrupt Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 1000 brass sent a clear message to those who object and attempt to expose their shady underbellies.  When California state employee and part-time reporter Ken Hamidi, a vocal critic of SEIU boss corruption, arrived at a SEIU Local 1000 meeting as in preparation for a cable access show exposing the local’s misconduct, SEIU union thugs assaulted him:

Hamidi says he came to the hall to expose how he says SEIU union leaders are spending tens of thousands of dollars on a political race, he claims, they have no right to do.  After he and a photographer walked in to the meeting, it didn’t take long for Hamidi to be right out the door and on his way to the hospital.

After Hamidi entered the meeting, SEIU union bosses ordered union militants to "beat the hell out of him." Three or four union thugs then held Hamidi down and beat him until he was "covered in blood."  SEIU union toughs then reportedly warned Hamidi that if he ever showed up again, they would probably kill him.

Hamidi was treated at the hospital for lacerations to his head and face and the district attorney is investigating the incident.

Sadly, if workers in California were protected by a Right to Work law, this incident may have been adverted.  Right to Work laws promote accountability of union officials to rank and file workers, thereby reducing union boss corruption.  If SEIU Local 1000 officials were obligated to be accountable to their members, it would have been much less likely Mr. Hamidi would have reason to investigate them and their questionable political schemes.

Last August, a health care protester was assaulted by union thugs for daring to voice his opinions at a political rally. Now Kenneth Gladney is stepping forward with his own account of what happened:

 

He [the union protester] shouted at me, “What kind of nigger are you?!” Then, he grabbed my board, so I quickly grabbed it back, then the man punched me in the face and charged at me . I put my hands up to block the second blow from the large man, when two other people from that group grabbed me and threw me to the ground and started punching and kicking me. I was kicked in the head and in the back, legs and buttocks. Then a white woman ran up to me while I was on the ground and began kicking me in my head as well.

Big Labor activism is frequently characterized by outbreaks of physical violence. Richard Trumka, the newly-installed head of the AFL-CIO who has condoned bloody violence, has made a career out of bullying and aggressive tactics. The powerful Service Employees International Union is also no stranger to physical coercion.

But why are union operatives so eager to stifle dissent over health care reform? Simple: they know that a massive expansion of Big Labor special privileges is at stake. A few weeks ago, Foundation President Mark Mix took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to explain why union bosses are so invested in the health care debate. 

After only a few months in office, the Obama Administration issued a controversial executive order that encourages federal agencies to use discriminatory Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) when allocating lucrative government contracts. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, PLAs give unionized companies preferential access to government work, which allows federal agencies to pressure unwilling employers to turn their workers over to union bosses. Fortunately, the first federal PLA issued under this executive order has just been defeated in New Hampshire:

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) today announced that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has canceled its solicitation for bids to construct a new Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H. under a government-mandated project labor agreement (PLA). The cancellation came in response to a protest filed with the Government Accountability Office Office (GAO) by ABC member North Branch Construction . . .

As the Associated Builders and Contractors’ release points out, PLAs cut nonunion companies out of the bidding process, making federal projects more susceptible to wasteful union work rules and massive cost overruns. The Foundation has filed public comments opposing the use of PLAs with the Department of Labor. Although the DoL’s response has been marked by shady union boss maneuvering, we hope the Administration will take note and rescind its discriminatory executive order. (Of course, we won’t be holding our breath given how close the administration is to Big Labor).

For more information, here’s a CNN segment on PLAs that includes an interview with Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason:

Here on Freedom@Work, we’ve kept you updated about the Obama Administration’s payback after payback to the union bosses who spent over one billion dollars in 2008 getting Barack Obama and other forced unionism proponents elected.

From rolling back union disclosure guidelines to slashing the budget of the Department of Labor’s union watchdog agency to blacklistining nonunion construction workers from "stimulus" projects, the Obama Administration hasn’t been shy about rewarding union brass.

So Friday’s news about the White House’s visitor list isn’t exactly a shocker, but it says an awful lot about the Administration’s priorities: no one has visited the White House more than Service Employees International Union chief Andy Stern.

Stern, of course, is one of the nation’s most politically powerful union barons.  Under Stern’s reign, the SEIU has also been marked by scandal after scandal, dissatisfied and unhappy workers and union members, and vicious campaigns against workers and employers.

In The American Spectator, reporter Kevin Mooney interviews Right to Work experts about the hidden payoffs to union bosses tucked away in the thousands of pages of health care overhaul legislation. Here’s a sample:

Consider the language contained in section 2531 submerged deep within the House version. Here the bill stipulates that any participating health care employer "provides wages and benefits to its nurses that are competitive for its market or that have been collectively bargained with a labor organization."

"This phrase ‘competitive for its market’ is not defined," said Greg Mourad, the main author of the NRTWC study. "This means the Obama administration will be free to define the phrase using Davis-Bacon standards and this would make it almost impossible for non-union employees to qualify."

The approach is similar to what has been done with apprentice programs in federal construction work, Stefan Gleason, vice-president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, explained.

"This is a scheme that is used to fund union organizations that are supposedly doing job training but are often doing other activities," he said. "The scenario that is set up essentially bblack-balls non-union contractors from even being eligible to work on federal contracts at all. There is a similar strategy at work here with health care."

Read the full article here.

Fort Jackson Security Guard Takes Courageous Stand Against Repeated Union Boss Threats and Abuses

National Labor Relations Board agents investigate charges after Right to Work Foundation attorneys join worker’s efforts

Columbia, South Carolina (October 30, 2009) – A local employee of Wackenhut Services, Inc, a security service provider contracted with Fort Jackson, is fighting back against compulsory unionism after union officials illegally attempted to have him fired from his job for refusing to pay forced union dues.

In September 2008, Ronald I. Paul filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging Wackenhut and International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and its affiliated Local 339 union bosses after Wackenhut fired him in August 2008 for refraining from formal, dues paying union membership. The charges were eventually settled in December of 2008 and Paul continued his employment.

Starting in May 2009, in violation of the settlement, the employer and SPFPA union officials issued new threats against Paul’s job.

(Read the full press release)

National Right to Work Committee Legislative Director Greg Mourad sits down with Breitbart TV to discuss Craig Becker, Obama’s radical nominee to the National Labor Relations Board. Click here to listen or use the embeddable player below:

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has released a telling study comparing Right to Work states with forced-unionism states in a variety of statistical categories. The statistics, provided by various governmental departments and agencies as well as respected non-profits, show the stunning economic and personal benefits families enjoy from their states’ popular Right to Work laws.

The last five years of available data shows that workers in Right to Work states not only enjoy higher non-farm private-sector job growth (9.1% versus 3.6% from 2003-2008), but their real personal incomes are also growing faster (15.8% vs. 9.1% from 2003-2008) and they enjoy a higher disposable income ($34,878 vs. $32,811 in 2008) than their counterparts in forced unionism states.

Families in Right to Work states also benefit from lower taxes and are more likely to buy a home, send their children to college, and gain private, employment-based health insurance for parents and children alike.

While Right to Work is about employee freedom in the workplace, NILRR‘s analysis shows that rolling back coercive union power has undeniable economic benefits as well.

To view the full details of NILRR‘s report entitled "Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power — 2009 Update," click here.

Today, President Barack Obama’s nomination of pro-compulsory unionism radical Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is scheduled to be taken up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

National Right to Work President Mark Mix warns in today’s Washington Times of the grave dangers Becker’s possible confirmation will pose to workers’ rights:

When the union bosses have the NLRB in their fold, workers who try to exercise their legal rights to dismiss unwanted union monopoly bargaining agents – or even to stop their forced dues from being used to elect handpicked Big Labor candidates – are denied even the most basic protections.

That’s why, especially considering Mr. Becker’s record, it’s not a stretch to believe that – should he be confirmed by the U.S. Senate – Mr. Becker wouldn’t think twice about rubber-stamping even the most abusive forced unionism schemes cooked up by union militants.

In fact, as a former AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer, Mr. Becker is solely responsible for forcing tens of thousands of workers under union boss control.

In one case, reports from a Los Angeles SEIU local union revealed that almost 63,000 people rejected membership in the union in 2007, but thanks to Mr. Becker, were still forced to pay dues.

And Mr. Becker’s own words explain why. He was even so bold as to say unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition … their actions necessarily involve coercion."

With that kind of anything-goes attitude, it’s no surprise Mr. Becker supports "home visits," in which union militants repeatedly harass workers at home until they sign union-authorization cards, and even advocates letting Mr. Obama’s handpicked arbiters impose contracts on workers, without even allowing the workers to vote on their own contract.

In fact, Mr. Becker is so extreme he actually believes the only choice workers should have is which union they should be forced to join and pay dues to!

In Mr. Becker’s view, if an independent worker refuses to pick, he and the rest of Big Labor’s lackeys on the NLRB should be able to choose a union for that worker. This kind of Big Labor kowtowing is not only outrageous, but it’s also dangerous.

To read all of Mark Mix’s op-ed in the Washington Times click here.