Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – A nationwide poll of 760 union members from both the private and government sector conducted last week demonstrates a staggering disconnect between union members and the national union officials who claim to represent them. The scientific survey was conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz.

The poll asked various questions regarding their union leadership and the 2010 midterm elections. The poll found that 60 percent of union members oppose their union bosses’ political spending in the 2010 midterm elections, viewing it a wasteful use of union dues and treasuries to protect incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.

Despite Big Labor’s 2010 political spending blitz – led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses’ $87.5 million “incumbent protection program” – nearly 60 percent believe that a mostly even balance of power between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill is best for America and the same number would rather that money be spent working with employers to create new and better jobs. A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30 percent want her to remain Speaker.

In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59 percent of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so.

Half of union members view President Obama and the Democrat Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37 percent view it as a success. Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures. Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy; and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.

In regards to their own union representation, a plurality of union members disapprove of the job America’s “labor leaders” are doing and view their union hierarchies as less honest and principled than 50 years ago. A whopping 72 percent of union members think union bosses should be held more accountable to workers and 63 percent think union officials are overpaid. Sixty-six percent think union officers mostly look out for themselves instead of “the little guy.”

Eighty percent supported the Right to Work principle that union membership and dues payment should be voluntary and not required as a condition of employment. Nearly 90 percent of union employees surveyed favored more union hierarchy disclosure and accountability.

“As top union officials are pouring an estimated one billion dollars into re-electing Democrats into Congress, a large majority of union members actually oppose the union bosses’ political agenda” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “That’s why it comes to no surprise that union members would like to replace their own union leadership, and overwhelmingly support the Right to Work principle for all of America’s workers.”

To view the complete poll results, click here.

San Francisco, CA (October 27, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, six San Francisco-based Hilton employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the UNITE HERE Local 2 union for threatening them for not participating in a recent strike and failing to notify employees about their workplace rights.

Julio Lopez, Maria Mores, Armando Campos, Robert DelReal, Jorge Diaz Vega, and Nicholas Gonzales are all employed at the Union Square Hilton Hotel. Although UNITE HERE Local 2 is the monopoly bargaining agent for hotel employees, the contract between the union and the hotel lapsed over a year ago. Because the union lacks a contract, Hilton employees can no longer be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. However, none of the charging parties were made aware that they could leave the union and opt-out of further dues payments.

Not only did UNITE HERE officials fail to notify Hilton employees of these rights, but they threatened Lopez, Mores, Campos, DelReal, Diaz Vega, and Gonzales with disciplinary action for failing to participate in an April 2010 strike. When several employees attempted to resign from union membership this month, union officials ignored their requests and have continued to collect dues.

So-called union disciplinary hearings are frequently used by union officials to retaliate against independent-minded workers. In previous Foundation cases, union lawyers have attempted to collect fines as high as $30,000 from dissenting employees.

The employees’ charges, which will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seek the return of all illegally-confiscated union dues and a public notice of Hilton employees’ legal rights from UNITE HERE Local 2.

“UNITE HERE bosses kept workers in the dark to force them to pay exorbitant dues and participate in a union-instigated strike,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we hope the NLRB will crack down on these illegal practices, the best solution would be for California to adopt a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Federal Prosecution Against Grocery Union Bosses for Widespread Rights Abuses to Proceed as Class-Action

Union officials’ illegal forced-dues scheme violated possibly thousands of workers’ rights

Phoenix, AZ (October 22, 2010) – A federal prosecution initiated by several Fry’s Food Stores workers, whose rights were abused by local union bosses during a looming strike last year, will proceed as a “class action” and will potentially affect thousands of similarly-situated employees statewide.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees from several Fry’s locations in Arizona filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management after union and company officials continued to seize union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.

Upset by a UFCW Local 99 boss-initiated strike threat last November, the employees resigned formal union membership and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.

The charges, filed by Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence – acting for other similarly situated employees – spurred the NLRB Regional Director in Phoenix to find that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Arizona Fry’s Food Stores locations were illegal because they do not allow employees to revoke them once a contract terminates, as required by federal law.

Subsequently, the NLRB’s Regional Director initiated a statewide prosecution against UFCW Local 99 union bosses. However, an NLRB administrative law judge refused to uphold a subpoena of the union’s statewide records that would indicate how widespread the union’s practice of failing to honor Fry’s employees’ dues revocations really is. This week, the NLRB in Washington, D.C. overruled the judge’s decision and ordered the union to comply with the subpoena.

Read the entire release here.

Phoenix, AZ (October 22, 2010) – A federal prosecution initiated by several Fry’s Food Stores workers, whose rights were abused by local union bosses during a looming strike last year, will proceed as a “class action” and will potentially affect thousands of similarly-situated employees statewide.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees from several Fry’s locations in Arizona filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management after union and company officials continued to seize union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.

Upset by a UFCW Local 99 boss-initiated strike threat last November, the employees resigned formal union membership and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.

The charges, filed by Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence – acting for other similarly situated employees – spurred the NLRB Regional Director in Phoenix to find that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Arizona Fry’s Food Stores locations were illegal because they do not allow employees to revoke them once a contract terminates, as required by federal law.

Subsequently, the NLRB’s Regional Director initiated a statewide prosecution against UFCW Local 99 union bosses. However, an NLRB administrative law judge refused to uphold a subpoena of the union’s statewide records that would indicate how widespread the union’s practice of failing to honor Fry’s employees’ dues revocations really is. This week, the NLRB in Washington, D.C. overruled the judge’s decision and ordered the union to comply with the subpoena.

“Thanks to the work done by this courageous group of independent-minded employees, UFCW Local 99 bosses are now staring at the consequences of violating the rights of possibly thousands of Fry’s Food Stores workers across the Grand Canyon State,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work.

“Foundation attorneys are prepared to assist workers whose rights may be violated in various UFCW-controlled retail food stores and processing plants, banks, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, and waste management locations across the state of Arizona,” added Semmens.

Local Union Bosses Face Federal Labor Charge for Illegally Taking Money from Workers’ Paychecks

Union officials’ illegal forced-dues scheme highlights need for Right to Work law

Detroit, MI (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Farmington Hills-based nursing home employee has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate.

In October 2009, Donna Smith, a Botsford Common Nursing Home custodian, refrained from formal, full-dues-paying union membership from the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.

Under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, the Court held that nonmember employees in states without Right to Work protections for its workers may still be forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment, but they do have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

Despite her being a nonmember, SEIU union officials continued to collect full union dues from Smith’s paycheck for 10 more months. In September 2010, Smith and SEIU union officials reached a settlement in which she received the difference of full union dues and the union fees that she is forced to pay for the union bosses’ so-called “representation.”

Read the entire release here.

Detroit, MI (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Farmington Hills-based nursing home employee has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate.

In October 2009, Donna Smith, a Botsford Common Nursing Home custodian, refrained from formal, full-dues-paying union membership from the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.

Under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, the Court held that nonmember employees in states without Right to Work protections for its workers may still be forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment, but they do have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

Despite her being a nonmember, SEIU union officials continued to collect full union dues from Smith’s paycheck for 10 more months. In September 2010, Smith and SEIU union officials reached a settlement in which she received the difference of full union dues and the union fees that she is forced to pay for the union bosses’ so-called “representation.”

However, Smith later found out that SEIU Healthcare Michigan union bosses and Botsford Common Nursing Home do not have a union monopoly bargaining contract in place, and therefore, she is not forced to pay any union dues or fees at all. Under federal law, workers cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees when a union monopoly bargaining contract is not in effect at their workplace.

“SEIU Healthcare Michigan union bosses apparently are deliberately keeping rank-and-file workers in the dark to keep their forced-dues gravy train going,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “No worker should be forced to subsidize the very scoundrels whose only goal is to seize forced union dues from their paychecks at all costs.”

“This case highlights why Michigan desperately needs a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.”

Grand Junction, CO (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a bus driver who was fired because his wife opposed unionization has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against First Student, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 455 union officials.

Clark Kelley, a mechanic employed by First Student for over 20 years, is married to Traci Kelley, a former First Student bus driver. Mrs. Kelley vocally opposed a Teamsters organizing campaign in late 2009, and subsequently filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamster officials for attempting to force her to join the union. Although Clark Kelley is also employed by First Student, he did not work in the same bargaining unit and was not a union member.

A month after she filed unfair labor practice charges, Traci Kelley and her husband were suspended from their jobs. On April 21, 2010 Clark Kelley was fired from First Student in retaliation for his wife’s refusal to join the Teamsters union and for the unfair labor practice charges she filed.

Although First Student claims that he was terminated for faulty maintenance records, Clark Kelley believes that this was a pretext for retaliation against his wife. Moreover, several other First Student employees believe that Kelley was terminated “to get to” his wife for opposing the Teamsters’ presence.

While Colorado workers can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, employees cannot be disciplined for opposing unionization or refusing to join a union. Employers are also prohibited from using disciplinary action to discourage other independent-minded workers from speaking out against union officials.

Clark Kelley’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“In a heavy-handed attempt to quash employee dissent, Teamster bosses had Clark Kelley fired because his wife took a stand against workplace intimidation,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t be punished for speaking out on the job, and we hope the National Labor Relations Board will intervene promptly to ensure company and union officials are held accountable for their thuggish tactics.”

Bus Drivers Slam the Brakes on Teamster Union Boss Intimidation and Threats

Teamster bosses bullying independent-minded workers to sign self-disparaging letter just to exercise their constitutional rights

Long Island, NY (October 8, 2010) – Two Syosset-based bus drivers have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for refusing to recognize, without condition, their constitutional right to refrain from formal union membership and instead are intimidating independent-minded workers who exercise that right.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, the two Acme Bus Corp. drivers filed the charges late last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Brooklyn.

Teamsters Local Union 1205 officials are failing to acknowledge without condition the workers’ rights to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership established under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck. Instead, Teamster Local 1205 union bosses are forcing nonmember employees to sign a self-disparaging letter characterizing themselves as “dues complainers.”

Read the entire release here.

Long Island, NY (October 8, 2010) – Two Syosset-based bus drivers have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for refusing to recognize, without condition, their constitutional right to refrain from formal union membership and instead are intimidating independent-minded workers who exercise that right.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, the two Acme Bus Corp. drivers filed the charges late last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Brooklyn.

Teamsters Local Union 1205 officials are failing to acknowledge without condition the workers’ rights to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership established under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck. Instead, Teamster Local 1205 union bosses are forcing nonmember employees to sign a self-disparaging letter characterizing themselves as “dues complainers.”

In Beck, the Supreme Court held that workers who refrain from formal union membership – while still forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment – have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Teamster union bosses are further required to provide an independent breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures. So far, they have failed to adequately fulfill that requirement.

Meanwhile, the employees are also being forced to illegally subsidize the union bosses’ strike fund even though nonmember employees are not eligible under union rules to receive payments from it.

“Teamsters Local 1205 union bosses need to stop this illegal behavior immediately and cease violating the rights of rank-and-file workers,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Ultimately, the best way to protect the rights of workers in the Empire State is for New York to pass a Right to Work law ending union officials’ power to have workers fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees and making union membership strictly voluntary.”

Worker Advocate: Labor Board’s Discriminatory Rule Change Is Back Door Card Check Provision

Obama Administration bureaucrats changing rules to enact portion of the Card Check bill that was rejected by Congress

Washington, DC (October 5, 2010) – Late last week, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a memorandum to the board’s regional offices establishing new procedures in cases involving union claims that an employee has been fired unlawfully during a union organizing campaign.

The new procedure directs the NLRB’s regional offices to file an injunction in federal court – referred to as a 10(j) injunction for the section it is established under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) – requiring the employer keep a union organizer on payroll until the pending case is resolved. Notably, the new rules protect union organizers during aggressive organizing drives but do nothing for employees who are victims of union official misconduct.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation released the following statement regarding the rule change:

“The NLRB Acting General Counsel’s one-sided dictate creates a double standard against employees who want nothing to do with a union.

“For over 40 years, the National Right to Work Foundation has fought for the rights of hundreds of thousands of workers whose rights have been violated by union officials. Foundation attorneys frequently request 10(j) injunctions in cases in which union bosses are committing unfair labor practices against nonmember workers, but NLRB officials ignore those requests in virtually every case.”

To read Mark Mix’s entire statement, click here.