We’ve just released a mini video segment on the Foundation’s ongoing efforts to hold union officials liable for a campaign of intimidation and harassment against Patricia Pelletier, a Connecticut worker who successfully initiated a decertification election to eject an unwanted union from her workplace. Union hotheads even planted crack cocaine in her work area to try to get her fired. Check it out:

For more background on the case, the Foundation’s press release is available online here. The Hartford Courant’s coverage of the Foundation’s pending lawsuit is available here.

As always, check back at the Foundation’s YouTube Channel for more Right to Work video updates.

The Bush Administration is arguing Big Labor’s legal positions in court again.

Right to Work supporters recall the Bush Administration’s lousy record when it comes to employee free choice and worker freedom. Solicitor General Paul Clement seemed to take pleasure in parroting union lawyer talking points in important legal proceedings like Davenport v. Washington Education Association. Before resigning in May, Clement took another swipe at employee freedom in Locke v. Karass, another Foundation case going to the Supreme Court.

Clement’s successor, Acting Solicitor General Gregory Garre, appears to be picking up where Clement left off. On Friday, Garre filed a motion with the Supreme Court to participate in oral arguments in Locke. Worse, Garre wants to cut into time already allocated to Foundation attorneys.

In Locke, Foundation attorneys are representing 20 Maine state employees who contend that the union which "represents" them — the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) — is violating their First Amendment rights by sending part of their forced dues to a giant union slush fund which the affiliated Service Employees International Union (SEIU) can use to finance costly litigation, even though such litigation does not directly impact the state employees’ own bargaining unit. SEIU is one of the most radical and politically militant national unions.

On Monday, the Foundation filed its opposition to the federal government’s motion, making several important points to challenge both the SG’s motion to participate and the motion for divided argument.

The Acting Solicitor General has failed to adequately demonstrate the government’s concrete interest in the case. Importantly, no federal statute is at stake. Garre’s motion claims the government’s interest by vaguely pointing to the Secretary of Labor’s responsibility to advise the President on labor policy and carry out Congressional policy and to the National Labor Relations Act, though Garre even contradictorily argues in the motion "that questions arising under the NLRA are distinguishable from this case."

The High Court has the option to simply extend time for oral arguments, but Garre wants to cut into the time of both the Foundation attorneys and MSEA lawyers — even though the Court’s rules permit divided arguments "only in the most extraordinary circumstances." But of the 22 pages of argument in the Solicitor’s amicus brief, 17 are devoted to opposing the pro-worker legal position taken by Foundation attorneys.

Moreover, the MSEA cites the Solicitor’s arguments 14 times in its own brief. If the Court grants the government’s motion, it would "deny the Employees their full opportunity to present their views."

The Bush administration’s stance in Locke is inexplicable. With only a few more months before he leaves office, Bush has no electoral reason to try to appease Big Labor (not that Republican appeasement of union bosses works out very well). But as the Acting Solicitor General’s motion demonstrates, the Bush administration doesn’t have enough significant legal interest either.

Yet, the Solicitor General’s office persists in going out of its way to undercut the rights of nonunion employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment, despite the administration’s supposed support of the Right to Work. So once again we have to observe the old saying: With "friends" like these… who needs enemies?

And the Solicitor General’s office can’t say it doesn’t know the harm it is doing. Its demand for oral argument time comes after the Foundation asked it to withdraw its legal brief because, if the Justices took it seriously, it would do serious harm to employees’ rights.

Instead, Foundation attorneys may now find themselves arguing not only against Big Labor’s lawyers, but also against the Bush Administration.

Yesterday, a pro-Big Labor blogger at OpenLeft inadvertently highlighted the absurdity of the SEIU’s apparently illegal fundraising scheme (emphasis mine):

If the local doesn’t put enough money into the national PAC, they will have to pay a penalty of regular funds out of union dues to the international. PAC contributions are voluntary and only come when members feel empowered, whereas union dues are automatic, so this is a strong incentive for locals to organize and empower their members. It’s a good policy move, and it was voted on and ratified at the SEIU Convention.

Surely the author realizes that there’s some tension between "voluntary contributions" and an SEIU policy that penalizes local affiliates for failing to meet MANDATORY political fundraising targets? Actually, he does:

The requirement and penalty do somewhat cut against what it means to voluntarily give to political causes. A possible lawsuit might be viable.

For sure. Here’s the relevant section of US code quoted in the National Right to Work Foundation’s letters (.pdf) to the Departments of Justice and Labor (emphasis mine):

(2) For purposes of this section and section 79l(h) of title 15,^[1] the term “contribution or expenditure” includes a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in section 431 of this title, and also includes any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value (except a loan of money by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section or for any applicable electioneering communication, but shall not include

. . .

It shall be unlawful—

(A) for such a fund to make a contribution or expenditure by utilizing money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal; or by dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as a condition of employment, or by moneys obtained in any commercial transaction;

No political expenditures " . . . secured by financial reprisals or the threat of financial reprisals?" Sounds like a pretty explicit violation of U.S. law.

The SEIU’s political fundraising apparatus is absolutely enormous. As the author of the OpenLeft post notes, its institutional clout and massive campaign expenditures dwarf other organizations’ contributions. But coercing local SEIU affiliates into bankrolling a national campaign strategy has the potential to irreparably taint our electoral process. When even a pro-Big Labor mouthpiece concedes the viability of the Foundation’s case, it’s time for the Departments of Labor and Justice to take action.

ADDENDUM: Here’s more commentary on the political implications of the SEIU’s fundraising from QandO and Protein Wisdom.

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial up on the National Right to Work Foundation’s ongoing efforts to push the Departments of Labor and Justice to investigate the SEIU for illegal campaign fundraising. Money quote (emphasis mine):

The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year’s election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where’d they get that much money?

That’s a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union’s national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month’s SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union’s national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from
unions.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air follows up with commentary on some of the broader implications of SEIU political activism (emphasis mine):

Now the SEIU suddenly has $150 million, from which they’ve already committed at least $85 million specific to Democratic candidates. That money got squeezed out of the locals under duress, in obvious violation of the spirit and letter of federal law. The union knows how to protect itself and its interests, and the lockstep nature of their support for Democrats should awaken voters to the threat their policies comprise. This is nothing more than a closed-feedback loop for Democrats, and Card Check is the prize that will ensure its rapid growth. The Department of Justice needs to put an end to this shakedown racket immediately.

In early June, Foundation staff attorneys moved to block an injunction intended to force unwilling workers back into a union they’d already chosen to toss out.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of employees at a Narricot Industries facility in Norfolk, Virginia (a) did not belong to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2316 and (b) overwhelmingly signed on to a union decertification petition, union bosses sought to retain monopoly bargaining privileges with a series of last ditch unfair labor practice charges leveled against the workers’ employer. Among other things, union lawyers claimed that Narricot Industries’ alleged unfair labor practices somehow incited employee opposition to the union’s presence. (For the full story, check out the Foundation’s press release here).

After examining the case, Foundation staff attorneys determined that employee disatisfaction with the Carpenters Union clearly predated allegations of unfair labor practices. Accordingly, the Foundation filed a motion to intervene in the District Court’s hearing to defend employees’ decision to eject the union from their workplace.

Yesterday, the District Court ruled in favor of the employees, finding that company misconduct had nothing to do with workers’ decision to eject the union. The court also concluded that imposing union representation on unwilling employees for the duration of the NLRB’s unfair labor practice investigation would violate workers’ rights to not associate with an unwanted union. Here’s the crux of the court’s decision (.pdf):

The presence of the employee intervenors in this action in opposition to the imposition of an injunction, as well as the facts in the record which show that the employees, not Narricot, initiated the effort to remove the Union, have convinced the court that imposition of an injunction mandating the recognition of the union would not be just and proper.

With the NLRB and the union bosses aligned against them, Narricot employees really dodged a bullet. For now, at least, they’re free of the unwanted union.

Score another win for Big Labor at the expense of employee freedom. Yesterday in New York, Governor David Paterson signed a law making union dues mandatory for public employees who choose to refrain from union membership.

In the past, the law authorizing union bosses to force public employees to pay up as a requirement of keeping their job would expire every two years. The union boss spin is almost unbelievable:

[Union bosses] said on Wednesday that making the law permanent guaranteed that unions would have the money to adequately represent members and nonmembers alike, which they were required to do under a state law known as the Taylor Law. “In public employment, they have the right not to belong, but I still must represent them,” said Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “If under the law we’re obligated to represent every employee, then it’s only fair that every employee pays something toward the cost of being represented.”

Iannuzzi’s language is fairly typical among union officials (they frequently use the term "fair share" to describe the dues they seize from nonmembers to pay for unwanted "representation"). But painting union bosses as hapless victims of the very special privileges they got enacted is absolutley absurd. Exclusive representation — monopoly bargaining — is a statutory power given to unions precisely because union bosses lobbied for it.

I’d love to call Iannuzzi’s bluff — will he and other union bosses actually consent to lifting federal and state laws which give unions the special privilege of monopoly bargaining? If they had a beef with the Taylor Law, why not just petition the state to repeal the offensive portions? No, instead, the union despots demanded even more privileges — the power to line their pockets and entrench compuslory unionism.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the state Senate — after years of refusing to make forced dues for nonmembers permanent — gave in to Big Labor’s demands:

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill last month. Similar bills had passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly before, only to fail in the Senate. But with Republicans in a pitched battle to preserve their thin majority in the Senate, the party seemed unwilling to block a priority of organized labor. It passed the Senate last month by a 62-to-0 vote. The Assembly approved it 140 to 5.

Clearly, New York State Senate Republicans have abandoned principle for politics. But the leftist union bosses are always ungrateful — if they get a chance to replace any of these Republican appeasers with a union-backed Democrat, they’ll do it without hesitation.

The National Association of Manufacturer’s ‘Shopfloor’ blog has post up on another oft-repeated card-check myth. The entry starts out with Big Labor’s favorite rejoinder to critics of the erroneously-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA):

The most-common misleading response from organized labor to the criticism that the Employee Free Choice Act will destroy the secret ballot in the workplace goes like…well, here’s a recent example. It comes from Bill McCarthy, president of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation.

. . .

"The EFCA would give workers, not employers, the right to decide how to express the choice about going union: through the card-check process OR through the NLRB election process."

McCarthy is playing the readers for idiots. Theoretically, oh sure, union organizers might, possibly, theoretically, choose an election, maybe. But under what possible circumstance would that be a realistic choice?

Well said. Once union organizers are given license to unilaterally bypass NLRB-supervised elections, there’s absolutely no incentive for them to go the less-abusive secret ballot route. Union militants know that card-check drives dramatically increase their chances of warehousing employees into monopoly bargaining collectives by opening the door to intimidation and harassment.

Shopfloor also highlights the excellent congressional testimony (.pdf) of John Raudabaugh, a labor law attorney and former member of the NLRB. Here’s his assesment of the EFCA (emphasis mine):

[Big] Labor claims that elevating card-check to secret ballot status does not do away with the ballot box. Their double-speak is a pathetic attempt to "change the subject." To trigger the secret ballot process and NLRB administrative involvement, 30 percent or more of the employees in an "appropriate unit" must sign a petition requesting an election. Should a union garner signatures from more than 50 percent of the unit employees, an employer can voluntarily recognize the union or not to ensure a secret ballot election. Why? To protect the employee-voter from peer pressure and third party overreaching.

[Big] Labor wants card-check with 50+ percent yield to bypass but equate to the ballot box process. Why? To effectively silence the employer by conducting a quick, one-sided campaign without counter-information from the employer. Moreover, without the ballot-box, there is effectively no cure to overreaching and false Labor promises.

[Big] Labor and its funded academics ignore Taft-Hartley specifically protecting a worker’s right to refrain from third-party representation. Were the union to come up short of 50+ percent signed cards, would it really proceed to file a petition for an election? No, the secret ballot would not remain a real option under the EFCA proposal.

And that’s the bottom line. The card check bill will almost certainly result in the de facto elimination of all secret ballot protections in the workplace. Suggesting otherwise is simply dishonest.

For a more comprehensive look at the EFCA, check out this (.pdf) National Institute for Labor Relations Research study.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union is objecting to a plan by Detroit city officials to turn over an abandoned nursery to Greening of Detroit, a nonprofit group. What’s the problem, exactly?

Using privately raised funds and volunteers, the group would restore the nursery and use it to provide mature trees to neighborhoods. Greening already plants 2,000 trees a year throughout the city.

But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees obtained an injunction from Wayne County Circuit Court against the deal, saying it violates the collective bargaining agreement. The union says the bargaining agreement applies to any deals to turn over control of city operations to a third party — meaning city workers must staff the nursery.

…

Terrence King, director of the city’s General Services Department, called the union’s position baffling. Not only would no city workers be displaced, but there should be more work for city forestry workers once the trees are grown, he said.

Baffling is an understatement. But if these volunteers were paying forced union dues like Detroit city employees must do, we doubt the union bosses would be objecting.

Not long ago we anonymously received a copy of the following press release from the National Labor Relations Board Professional Association union dated June 30:

The Battle To Prevent Another September Massacre at the NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board Professional Association, the union representing attorneys at the Board’s D.C. headquarters, is fighting to prevent another September Massacre. The “massacre” that the Union fears isn’t dozens of controversial decisions but a wave of unfair and discriminatory mid-year appraisals and reprisals against its members.

A new performance-appraisal program sparked this battle. Applying a “forced distribution” model like those popular with corporations like General Electric, the Board forced attorney ratings to fit a pre-established distribution. As a result, the Board’s staff attorneys were more or less equally divided into Exceptional, Commendable, and Proficient categories.

To get this predetermined distribution, Board managers unfairly tinkered with individual ratings. The resultant ratings “downgrades,” in many instances of attorneys long rated in the highest category, prompted grievances by more than one third of 45 staff attorneys.

In addition, because the NLRB’s “rank-and-yank” appraisal system had a discriminatory, adverse impact on the Board’s older female and disabled attorneys, the new system generated discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity office and a grievance of the new system’s discriminatory impact on the bargaining unit by the Union.

Board management’s response to the Union’s efforts has been anything but predictable. The NLRB’s lone Democratic member, Wilma Liebman, has not settled a single grievance and threatened reprisals against grievants and a Union officer. Meanwhile, Chairman Peter Schaumber, despite his conservative, pro-employer reputation, has cooperated with the Union to settle most of the appraisal grievances of the attorneys assigned to him.

The Union recently filed grievances against retaliatory conduct by Member Liebman and contacted Congress and the NAACP for help remedying discrimination at the Board.

Where do we begin?

First we chuckle at the notion that every Board attorney fits into one of three categories ("exceptional, commendable, and proficient"), as this ranking system leaves out any possibility that a Board employee does less than "proficient" work. Given the many decisions where the NLRB has been slapped down by appellate courts for faulty logic and abuse of discretion — particularly in cases involving individual employees dissenting from union activity — it would seem that a Board attorney could easily earn a ranking of "deficient" or worse.

Still, Liebman’s apparent hypocrisy raises eyebrows. After years of carrying Big Labor’s water and working to shove forced unionism down the throats of both employers and individual employees (and she apparently also views her quasi-judicial role to essentially include lobbying for Big Labor’s coercive card check bill), Liebman suddenly finds the tables turned. The union activist now stands accused of threats, reprisals, and discrimination against employees by the very union officials that she has worked overtime to empower.

Meanwhile, these union bosses praise NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber who Liebman has derisively referred to as a promoter of an "individual rights regime." (An individual rights regime? My lands – how positively awful!)

If we thought the situation would make Liebman more sympathetic to employee free choice and individual rights, the whole experience could be a nice little learning experience for her. But we won’t hold our breath.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial up on the hypocrisy of SEIU leadership. Andy Stern and his cronies are more intent than ever on blackmailing unwilling companies into forcing SEIU "representation" on their employees through a series of vicious corporate campaigns:

SEIU President Andy Stern is the drama king of Big Labor, and Thursday’s publicity blitz will feature all of his signature choreography: Rallies in 18 states and even overseas, in which thousands of union activists will march against companies and politicians they don’t like. Themes include "Buyout Monsters On the Loose" and "The War on Greed." To listen to Mr. Stern, this is about getting Congress to close tax "loopholes" for private equity firms, while funding national health care and "middle class" tax cuts.

That’s a sideshow. The real targets are private equity firms such as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Carlyle Group, which own companies that have resisted SEIU attempts to organize their workers. Mr. Stern wants to pound these firms with bad publicity and political retribution until they break.

What’s worse, it turns out that the SEIU’s activism is apparently being funded illegally. Just today, Foundation president Mark Mix requested a Department of Justice investigation into new SEIU directives allowing Andy Stern to impose financial penalties on any local affiliate that doesn’t meet mandatory political fundraising targets. Not only that, but local unions may be forced to pay the SEIU’s fines with money collected from nonmember employees’ compulsory agency fees. We hope that the DoJ and the Department of Labor will move quickly to investigate this apparent criminal activity (the Foundation’s press release is available here).

Given the SEIU’s checkered past, these new developments aren’t particularly surprising. But aggressive union activism does have a cost. Devoting untold sums of money to intimidating employers evidently comes at the expense of the union’s so-called "representation":

Mr. Stern’s "middle class" spin would be more believable if the SEIU did more for its own members, especially their pensions. Public records based on the SEIU’s own filings show that the SEIU National Industry Pension plan – which covers some 101,000 workers – was only 75% funded in 2006. Put another way, the plan had only three-fourths of the money it needs to meet its retirement obligations. And the national chapter is only the start. Some 13 local SEIU pension plans in 2006 were less than 80% funded; several didn’t reach 65%.

Some of this might be the result of poor investment performance, but the main problem is that the SEIU hasn’t negotiated adequate employer contributions to the plans.

The SEIU’s top brass, on the other hand, is guaranteed generous compensation funded by employees’ mandatory dues-payments. Too bad the workers they’re supposed to be representing don’t receive similar benefits:

On the other hand, SEIU leaders are highly attentive to their own pension funding. A separate fund run by the national union, this one covering the benefits of SEIU officers, was 103% funded in 2006. The top SEIU guns are set for their golden years.

Read the whole sordid tale here.