Right to Work on Fox Business: Shady SEIU Fundraising Tactics Escape Political Scrutiny
Foundation President Mark Mix appeared on Fox Business’s "Varney and Company" to discuss the SEIU’s shady political fundraising practices:
For more on this issue, check out Mix’s recent op-ed in The Washington Examiner:
Imagine the outcry if McDonalds executives demanded that franchise owners collect “voluntary” contributions totaling $25,000 for the company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) from employees at every restaurant.
What if the fast food titan’s headquarters followed up with a threat – pay us, or face a $37,500 fine? Do you think this heavy-handed scheme would raise a few eyebrows at the Federal Election Commission (FEC)?
Replace “McDonalds” with “SEIU” in that description and you’ve got a pretty good idea of Big Labor’s latest political fundraising strategy. To meet their ambitious fundraising targets, Service Employees International Union bosses are now threatening to fine any local affiliate that doesn’t meet its PAC contribution requirements.
The only problem with this racket is that FEC guidelines explicitly prohibit organizations from collecting PAC funds by threatening members with financial reprisals . . .
Michigan Child Care Providers Take Their Case to the Airwaves
As we recounted earlier this month, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are fighting a blatant political payback scheme initiated by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to hand over all home-based child-care providers who provide services to state-subsidized low-income families over to government union bosses.
Last week, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, and Carrie Schlaud, the courageous lead plaintiff of the providers’ class-action lawsuit against Granholm and the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions appeared on the Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends to discuss the case:
Forced Unionism Scheme’s «Limitless Application»
In the latest issue of the Federalist Society’s Engage journal, National Right to Work Foundation attorney William Messenger discusses two lawsuits challenging schemes in Michigan and Illinois that force unionization on personal care providers and child care providers.
Two principal groups of individuals are currently being subjected to state-imposed representation. The first group is “Personal Care Providers,” who provide home personal care to disabled, chronically ill, or elderly individuals whose care is paid for by state self-directed home and community-based service (“HCBS”) programs established under Medicaid. This care generally includes assistance with daily living activities, such as dressing, grooming, and homemaking. Although the details of state HCBS programs vary, their core feature is that participants have discretion to hire, fire, and supervise their Personal Care Providers. The state subsidizes participants’ costs for hiring a Personal Care Provider and provides counseling to facilitate the process.
….
The second group is “Childcare Providers,” who provide home childcare (i.e., daycare) services to parents whose childcare expenses are subsidized by state programs established under the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Childcare Providers include independent contractors who operate daycare businesses from their homes, employees employed in parents’ homes, and relatives willing to watch their grandchildren or other related children in their homes. State programs generally permit participants to hire the private Childcare Provider of their choice, with the state’s role generally limited to paying some or all of their childcare costs.
As Messenger explains in the article, these forced unionism schemes infringe upon the First Amendment rights of compassionate care providers (including grandparents and babysitters) because they are being forced to support political speech and lobbying activities with no vital government interest.
In Michigan, 40,000 child care providers are now forced to pay union dues to joint venture of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions, and the scheme in Illinois forces approximately 20,000 personal care providers to pay fees to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These schemes funnel millions of dollars into union coffers at the expense of the care recipients.
Hopefully, the federal courts will correct the gross injustice done to these tens of thousands of care providers, but these lawsuits have much wider implications. At least 15 other states have similar schemes, and union bosses are on the move to impose their representation on care providers nationwide.
Moreover, if these schemes are upheld, Messenger argues, "any individuals that receive monies from a government program, such as contractors with the government and recipients of Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other government entitlements" could soon find themselves subjected to compulsory union representation.
Read the full article here.
Labor Board Investigation Finds Union Boss Scheme Discriminated Against Nonunion Teachers during Work Performance Hearings
Miami, FL (September 30, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Florida public school teacher successfully challenged a discriminatory policy that prevented nonunion educators from bringing a representative of their choosing to school conferences that can result in disciplinary action.
Shawn Beightol, a veteran chemistry teacher at Michael Krop Senior High School, was told to report to the Miami-Dade County Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to discuss a possible violation of the school’s email policy last October. Although the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) union is the exclusive bargaining agent for the Miami-Dade School District, Beightol refused to associate with the union and is instead a member of the Professional Educators Network of Florida (PENFL), a nonunion teachers association. When Beightol brought a representative from PENFL to the October hearing, school officials refused to allow his advisor to participate, citing a provision in the union’s contract with the district.
Beightol responded by filing charges against union officials and the school district with the help of Foundation attorneys, alleging that this provision unfairly discriminates against nonunion teachers by denying them the opportunity to bring personal representatives to professional hearings. Although UTD members are entitled to union representatives at these conferences, the teachers’ contract – negotiated by union officials with the school district – forbids nonunion representatives from participating. This practice effectively discourages teachers from leaving the UTD or joining a voluntary teacher association by forcing them to join the union for assistance at school conferences.
Florida law explicitly prohibits union officials from causing public employers to discriminate against nonmember employees. Florida’s popular Right to Work Law also guarantees that no employee – public or private – can be coerced into joining a union or paying union dues.
Following an investigation, a hearing officer from the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission concluded that the union’s contract violated state law. The officer recommended that the Commission strike down the union’s discriminatory contract and require UTD officials to post public notices informing teachers of their rights to nonunion representation.
“This policy is nothing more than an underhanded way to weaken workplace protections, including Florida’s popular Right to Work law, that forbid unions from forcing workers to join through coercion or discriminatory workplace practices,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Public Employees Relations Commission should take these recommendations to heart and strike down this discriminatory contract immediately.”
FEC Refuses to Issue Stern Warning Against Illegal SEIU Union PAC Fundraising Scheme
Yesterday, former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chieftain and appointment to President Obama’s "Deficit Panel" Andy Stern was reportedly being investigated by the FBI for his role in a couple of shady dealings while he was at the helm of the forced unionism leviathan. But that wasn’t the only big story coming out yesterday about widespread SEIU union hierarchy corruption during his tumultuous reign. From Ed Barnes on FoxNews.com:
Despite a finding by the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel that the Service Employees International Union violated election law when it required local affiliates to contribute to its political action fund, the FEC’s full board nonetheless quietly voted to overrule its staff attorney and dismissed the original complaint — clearing the way for the union to squeeze its locals to amass a $9 million war chest for the next election.
Moreover, the group that filed the complaint, the National Right to Work Foundation (NRWF), didn’t receive a full explanation of the FEC’s decision in the case until after 111 days had passed, ensuring that its right to file an appeal had lapsed.
…
The NRWF, long a thorn in the side of the 1.8 million-member union, filed its complaint in October 2008, challenging an amendment to the union’s constitution that required each local to contribute $6 per member to the international’s political action committee. Those locals that didn’t comply would be charged the difference between what they owed and what they raised — plus, a 50 percent penalty.
"To us it was a prima facie case for coercion," [National Right to Work President Mark] Mix said. "Plus, it looked like a money laundering scheme as well, because locals would pay the penalties from their general funds into the political action committee. General union treasury funds are not allowed to be used for political purposes," he said.
Frankly, it’s very unfortunate that the FEC seems interested in allowing Big Labor political corruption. As Mark Mix explained in the Washington Examiner earlier this month:
Imagine the outcry if McDonalds executives demanded that franchise owners collect “voluntary” contributions totaling $25,000 for the company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) from employees at every restaurant.
What if the fast food titan’s headquarters followed up with a threat – pay us, or face a $37,500 fine? Do you think this heavy handed scheme would raise a few eyebrows at the Federal Election Commission (FEC)?
Replace “McDonalds” with “SEIU” in that description and you’ve got a pretty good idea of Big Labor’s latest political fundraising strategy. To meet their ambitious fundraising targets, Service Employees International Union bosses are now threatening to fine any local affiliate that doesn’t meet its PAC contribution requirements.
The only problem with this racket is that FEC guidelines explicitly prohibit organizations from collecting PAC funds by threatening members with financial reprisals. SEIU bosses aren’t exactly hiding their intentions, either – they actually wrote this fundraising provision into the union’s constitution at their annual convention.
Citizen Activist Wins Battle to Inform Keystone State Teachers of Their Constitutional Rights
Citizen Activist Wins Battle to Inform Keystone State Teachers of Their Constitutional Rights
Teacher union bosses aimed to keep Pennsylvania’s teachers in the dark
Harrisburg, PA (September 30, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, citizen activist Simon Campbell has bested teacher union bosses in state court over his right to inform Pennsylvania’s nonmember teachers of their constitutional rights regarding union membership and dues payment.
Several years ago, Simon Campbell of Bucks County founded a group dedicated to the goal of making sure all public school children in the state have the legal right to a strike-free education after his own children were forced out of school in the wake of a debilitating union boss-instigated strike.
More recently, Campbell has requested that public school districts disclose the mailing addresses of teachers who have refrained from formal union membership with the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) union, but are still forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment because Pennsylvania does not have Right to Work protections for its workers.
Campbell wanted to advise the teachers about their rights under National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such as their right not to subsidize union boss activities other than collective bargaining and contract administration and their right to challenge the union hierarchy’s calculations regarding the amount of forced dues charged to nonmember teachers.
Read the full press release here.
Citizen Activist Wins Battle to Inform Keystone State Teachers of Their Constitutional Rights
Harrisburg, PA (September 30, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, citizen activist Simon Campbell has bested teacher union bosses in state court over his right to inform Pennsylvania’s nonmember teachers of their constitutional rights regarding union membership and dues payment.
Several years ago, Simon Campbell of Bucks County founded a group dedicated to the goal of making sure all public school children in the state have the legal right to a strike-free education after his own children were forced out of school in the wake of a debilitating union boss-instigated strike.
More recently, Campbell has requested that public school districts disclose the mailing addresses of teachers who have refrained from formal union membership with the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) union, but are still forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment because Pennsylvania does not have Right to Work protections for its workers.
Campbell wanted to advise the teachers about their rights under National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such as their right not to subsidize union boss activities other than collective bargaining and contract administration and their right to challenge the union hierarchy’s calculations regarding the amount of forced dues charged to nonmember teachers.
PSEA union officials sued the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to block Campbell’s requests. Last week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected the PSEA union lawyers’ case. Campbell has now again begun the process of obtaining the mailing addresses he sought.
“Plain and simple, all Pennsylvania teachers deserve to know their constitutional rights,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “And many independent-minded teachers would greatly benefit from Simon Campbell’s efforts to inform them of their rights upheld under various Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents.”
“However, the best way to protect the rights of Pennsylvania’s teachers, and all workers in the Keystone State, is for Pennsylvania to pass a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary,” added Semmens.
Circuit Court OKs Federal Lawsuit Aimed at Preventing Union Officials from Launching Coercive “Card Check” Drive
Boca Raton, FL (September 16, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee has won the right to proceed with a lawsuit aimed at halting a backroom deal in which his employer pledged to assist union organizers and agreed to a coercive card check organizing drive. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overruled a prior District Court decision that held Martin Mulhall lacked standing to sue the Unite Here Local 355 union and Mardi Gras Gaming.
With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mulhall originally filed suit against Unite Here in 2008 for agreeing to support Mardi Gras Gaming’s efforts to obtain a gambling license in return for organizing assistance. In exchange for over one hundred thousand dollars in union dues spent on a gambling ballot initiative and a union guarantee not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility, Mardi Gras Gaming agreed to assist organizers’ efforts to push workers into union ranks. Company officials promised union operatives they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union officials access to Mardi Gras facilities for the purpose of organizing, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.
However, the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) explicitly prohibits employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions. This rule is intended to prevent union operatives from agreeing to undermine workers’ rights in exchange for concessions from management. In his lawsuit, Mulhall argues that the company’s concessions to Unite Here are of substantial monetary value because they made the union organizing process easier and less expensive. The suit also alleges that Unite Here’s willingness to spend over a hundred thousand dollars to lobby on behalf of Mardi Gras Gaming demonstrates just how valuable the agreement is to union officials.
So-called “neutrality agreements” between companies and unions like the one agreed upon by Unite Here operatives and Mardi Gras Gaming give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization. Armed with employees’ home addresses and access to company facilities, union officials frequently harass and cajole workers on and off the job until they agree to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.
Although the District Court claimed that Mulhall’s suit could not proceed because he was in no danger of “imminent injury,” the Court of Appeals’ decision recognized that the union’s deal could infringe on employees’ rights to free association by forcing them to accept union monopoly bargaining. The ruling remanded the lawsuit to United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for it to decide Mulhall’s complaint on the merits.
“Unite Here operatives agreed to a corrupt bargain that advanced union boss interests at the expense of individual workers’ rights,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “We’re happy to report that Martin Mulhall’s efforts to challenge this backroom deal will now go forward.”
Grand Rapids Press Calls on Federal Judge to Strike Down «Forced-Unionization Travesty»
Regular Freedom@Work readers may recall that National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are duking it out in federal court against government union lawyers over a blatant political payback scheme initiated by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. In order to thank union bosses for their political support, Granholm handed all home-based child-care providers who provide services to state-subsidized low-income families over to the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions.
Granholm, following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced-union organizing, directed state officials to grease the skids for union organizers to railroad the child-care providers under union boss control.
A courageous group of child-care workers asked National Right to Work for assistance, as some of them didn’t even know they were being forced into union dues-paying ranks until it was too late, and they want nothing to do with the union. This courageous group of workers filed a federal class-action lawsuit to challenge Granholm’s scheme as a violation of their Constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and their right to freely petition government for redress of grievances because, in effect, Governor Granholm is picking the lobbyists of Michigan’s child-care providers.
In mid-July, Foundation attorneys appeared in federal court in Grand Rapids and convinced the judge to proceed with the child-care workers’ case — despite state and union lawyers’ multiple attempts to have the case dismissed. Wednesday, the Grand Rapids Press called on the federal judge to strike down the forced unionism scheme. As the Grand Rapids Press explains:
Covert unionization violates basic constitutional rights of freedom of association. The formation of the union for Michigan child care providers four years ago was downright sneaky and unfair. A lawsuit in federal court, brought by some affected child care providers, objects to their being shoe-horned into unions — and forced to pay dues — against their will. In that suit, and in one brought in state courts, the child care providers have legitimate grievances. They should prevail.
The forced-unionization travesty occurred primarily because Michigan Democrats wanted to help the UAW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) pad their membership rolls.
In 2006, the UAW and AFSCME partnered to form a union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan. The union represents and draws dues from people who care for children from low-income families. The new union members belong either to the UAW or AFSCME, depending on the part of the state in which they live.
Whatever attempts were made to inform child care providers of the pending unionization must have been feeble at best. Only 15 percent of the state’s 40,000 dues-paying providers took part in the vote-by-mail certification election that formed the union. Fully 92 percent of those voting said yes to the union. But they hardly constitute a valid majority of all the now-dues-paying members. Hopefully, the federal lawsuit will uncover how this election was allowed to occur.
The low-income clients provided a rationale — though not a legitimate one — for the forced unionization. The argument is that because providers take public money in state subsidies for those clients, they are therefore public employees. Union dues are taken directly from the state subsidies, money that should go toward child care. The UAW and AFSCME receive 1.15 percent of the subsidies, amounting to more than $1 million a year.
To suggest that government grants make providers public employees is an epic stretch. The child care workers are employed by the parents who hire them. At best, they contract with the government for child care services for low-income clients.
…The suit in federal court, filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, challenges the unionization as a violation of the workers’ constitutional right to free association.
That is the crucial point.
Indeed. And UAW and AFSCME union bosses are funneling millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced unionism politicians (such as Governor Granholm), and now those same politicians are forcing Michigan’s home-care providers to pay to the tune of $3.7 million into union boss coffers. If Foundation litigators are successful in federal court, the outcome can have a far reaching, national impact in rolling back Big Labor’s state-by-state push of forcing susceptible, unsuspecting home-care providers under union control.
Nurses’ Opposition Forces Union Operatives to Abandon Hahnemann University Hospital Organizing Drive
Philadelphia, PA (September 14, 2010) – After a two year organizing campaign aimed at forcing Hahnemann University Hospital nurses into union ranks, the California Nurses Association (CNA) union abruptly ceased its efforts to unionize the facility last month. The union’s organizing drive was marked by a legally-questionable agreement between CNA operatives and hospital management challenged by nurses represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.
Under a so-called “neutrality agreement” between hospital and union officials, CNA organizers were given preferential access to hospital facilities and Hahnemann supervisors were gagged from truthfully responding to nurses’ inquiries related to unionization. Despite these provisions, the union lost a consent election in July 2009.
During the organizing campaign, Right to Work attorneys helped Hahnemann nurses file legal challenges against the union’s abusive organizing strategy. When union officials threatened Kimberly Hummel with “private arbitration” for opposing the CNA’s presence, the Right to Work Foundation helped her file a complaint against the union’s heavy-handed threats with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Undeterred by their July 2009 election loss, CNA officials filed a series of election “objections” against the hospital for harassing union organizers. Union operatives also managed to convince hospital officials to agree to disregard the results and hold another unionization election. With the help of Foundation attorneys, another nurse stepped forward in January 2010 to file charges against CNA officials and Hahnemann for staging another unionization drive over the wishes of a majority of hospital employees.
Finally, CNA officials realized they did not have majority support and quietly withdrew their NLRB election petition in late August.
The Hahnemann University Hospital organizing campaign isn’t the first time CNA officials have faced legal challenges for suspicious organizing tactics or walked away when independent-minded nurses fought back. Several Houston-area medical professionals filed unfair labor practice charges against the union for crafting a similar “neutrality agreement” in Texas.
“Despite their best efforts to gag independent-minded nurses and cajole them into union ranks, CNA operatives have finally realized they aren’t wanted at Hahnemann University Hospital,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Coercive tactics and secret organizing pacts violate workers’ rights, so union officials’ loss is a win for employee freedom.”
