Right to Work: Good for Business, Good for Jobs, and Good for Workers
As reported on the Washington Examiner‘s "Beltway Confidential" blog, Development Counselors International (DCI) recently asked corporate executives and representatives which states they thought were the best to locate for business. As the Examiner notes, America’s job providers overwhelmingly favored states with Right to Work laws.
Of course this should come to no surprise. The results of DCI’s survey largely mirrors that of CNBC 2010 "Best for Business" list, in which states with Right to Work protections for its workers were ranked seven of the top 10 and 10 of the top 15.
But despite the economic benefits business enjoy from Right to Work, the real beneficiaries are America’s independent-minded workers. As the National Institute of Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has found time and again, workers and their families benefit immensely from Right to Work protections: from higher incomes and purchasing power to an increased likelihood of sending their children to college and having private, employment-based health insurance.
And most important of all, workers in Right to Work states get to exercise their fundamental freedom of association — a quintessential American value supported by 80 percent of Americans and even 80 percent of union members.
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys fight Labor Board’s decision to promote monopoly unionism in virtually every workplace in America
Washington, DC (September 16, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
The new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. However, these rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Until the rule changes, which were implemented in late August, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys believe the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Attorneys from the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging the new rule in the same complaint on behalf of two member businesses, Southeast Sealing, Inc. and Lehigh Valley Racquet and 24/7 Fitness Clubs.
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court
Washington, DC (September 16, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
The new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. However, these rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Until the rule changes, which were implemented in late August, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys believe the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Attorneys from the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging the new rule in the same complaint on behalf of two member businesses, Southeast Sealing, Inc. and Lehigh Valley Racquet and 24/7 Fitness Clubs.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the NLRB administers union certification and decertification elections and adjudicates cases when workers, employers, or union officials file unfair labor practice charges against either unions or companies. However, the NLRB is now forcing its way into as many as six million private-sector workplaces by inventing out of whole cloth a new unfair labor practice without Congressional approval. And anyone can file the unfair labor practice charge – not just the company’s employees.
No other federal agency has ever made it unlawful to fail to post a notice that wasn’t required by Congress. Any job provider that fails to post the biased notice could find itself forced into a lengthy and costly legal battle. And as a result, Mom and Pop shops, small businesses, larger companies – even some religiously-affiliated organizations – are now under the Obama Labor Board’s microscope and will feel the pressure to hand over their employees to forced unionism.
«Under these new rules, employers are essentially weaponized against workers,» said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. «This ‘divide and conquer’ strategy should erase all doubt that the biased and ideologically-charged Obama Labor Board has turned into an organizing tool for Big Labor set to do one thing: force more workers into paying union dues to keep their jobs.»
«The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is uniquely qualified to demonstrate that this one-sided rule is nothing more than yet another attempt by the Obama NLRB to force more workers into union ranks and stifle the rights of employees who want nothing to do with a union.»
News Release: California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court
California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court
Court to review Ninth Circuit decision requiring California state employees to contribute to union political fund
Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials’ political activism.
Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a «special assessment» to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union’s political fund.
California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court
Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials’ political activism.
Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union’s political fund.
Under the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment must be notified of which part of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining and be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for members-only events and union boss political activism.
In 2007, a federal district court ruled that the CSEA was required to provide a notice to nonunion employees about the assessment, allow them to opt-out of paying into the union political fund, provide a refund of monies spent on union-boss politics, and pay interest from the dates of the deductions to nonmembers who chose to opt out.
After CSEA union lawyers appealed the case, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed that decision in December 2010. On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court announced it would review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
"Allowing the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to stand would further undermine state employees’ First Amendment rights and encourage union bosses to extract more forced dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment," stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is unconscionable for a court to force employees who want nothing to do with the union or its so-called ‘representation’ to subsidize union political activities."
Worker Advocates Issue Labor Day Statement: “Big Labor and the Obama NLRB Work in Concert to Undermine Workers’ Rights”
Washington, DC (September 2, 2011) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, released the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday.
“This Labor Day, many workers will enjoy a well-deserved long weekend. But as we prepare to celebrate with friends and family, union officials – working in concert with the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board – are mounting an unprecedented bureaucratic offensive to grab more coercive power. Their goal is simple: To expand the number of workers forced to pay union dues and accept mandatory union representation just to keep their jobs.
“Big Labor’s ambitions were highlighted last week by the abrupt overturn of the NLRB’s Dana decision, which provided a modest check on abusive ‘card check’ union organizing. Instead of allowing workers a window period to contest the outcome of a card check drive with a secret ballot vote, the NLRB has ensured that union operatives need only present a bare majority of signed authorization cards – often collected through violent or unsavory means – to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges.
“And this decision is just the tip of the iceberg. The Obama Board – aided and abetted by its Big Labor allies – is moving forward with onerous new regulations to facilitate union organizing, including rules that will require companies to turn over employees’ home addresses to aggressive union organizers. Meanwhile, the NLRB is suing several states for attempting to protect workers’ access to secret ballot elections and has issued a complaint against Boeing for locating its newest production line in Right to Work South Carolina.
“Throughout the United States, more than 12 million American workers are already compelled to pay union dues just to keep their jobs. Millions more are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they never asked or voted for it.
“Meanwhile, many workers feel they have no choice but to pay for organized labor’s extensive political activities, while others are still unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide.
“This Labor Day, we commend all workers brave enough to stand up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms. But we must also continue to fight Big Labor’s bureaucratic attack, which threatens to further subvert workers’ rights.”
News Release: Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Worker advocate denounces NLRB’s ruling to take away protection workers have against card check forced unionism
Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.
Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.
The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.
Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.
Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.
Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.
The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.
Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide. The Foundation is providing free legal aid in both the original Dana case and in the newly-decided Lamons Gasket case in which the Board overturned the Dana protections. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation made the following statement regarding the ruling:
"The Obama Labor Board’s ruling to kill the Dana Corp. precedent that allows workers a secret ballot vote to kick out a union that gained control of the workplace in an abusive ‘card check’ campaign adds to an already exhaustive list of paybacks from the Obama Administration to Big Labor.
"Big Labor and its allies have launched a full-scale assault on worker freedom and the Obama Administration is working tirelessly to appease them through bureaucratic means after they failed in Congress. The American people and their elected representatives in Congress oppose the Card Check Forced Unionism bill, but the Obama Labor Board seems determined to impose card check on American workers in every way it can.
"Taken with the NLRB’s other recent actions, the Obama Administration has made it easier for union operatives to steamroll over workers while making it next to impossible for independent-minded workers to stand up for their rights or decertify the union hierarchy.
"While the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees, no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union, or accept the union’s so-called representation, to get or keep a job."
News Release: Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism
Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism
National Right to Work Foundation President criticizes Labor Board’s decision to selectively publicize workers’ rights
Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.
Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:
"The NLRB’s new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.
"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama’s NLRB comes out with a new ‘posting rule’ to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop’ stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism."
