A few Right to Work-related updates from around the Internet:

1.) Over at "The Next Right," blogger Soren Dayton has an interesting post up about the implications for Right to Work if a union stooge wins the White House. Money quote:

This vision is about coercively moving more and more Americans into political organizations which use their precious financial resources in a way that they neither control nor even understand.

The entry also offers a compelling indictment of the SEIU’s reliance on "card check" organizing drives. Check out the rest of the post here.

2.) The Detroit News has published a rebuttal by Foundation President Mark Mix to a union operative’s misleading editorial on the economic benefits of Right to Work policies. Here’s the letter’s conclusion:

While the moral case for a right-to-work law rests on the principle
that no worker should be compelled to join a union against his or her
will, the economic benefits of protecting employee freedom are also clear. Michigan lawmakers would do well to heed the example of their more prosperous right-to-work neighbors when contemplating what to do about the Wolverine State’s economic woes.

Read the whole thing here.

Danielle Cookson made the news in San Diego last year when then 16-year-old girl (she’s now 17) took on UFCW union officials who were illegally demanding that she join the union or lose her part-time job. Danielle told a local news reporter:

"I don’t want to join because I don’t want to have to pay the fees since I’m saving up money for college… [The union is] not going to do anything for me. I’m sixteen with a part-time job and they just want my money."

Refusing to be bullied, Foundation attorneys helped Cookson file unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board against the UFCW Local 135 union officials. Many of the issues of the case have already been settled, with UFCW bosses having backed off some of their illegal demands.

But UFCW officials persist in demanding that Cookson pay more than can be legally required under the Foundation-won Beck U.S. Supreme Court case.

Cookson’s case recently had a positive development when the Office of the General Counsel of the NLRB ordered its regional officials to further investigate union bosses’ improper attempts to force Cookson to pay for overhead expenses for activities not related to collective bargaining. (The letter asking for more information can be downloaded here [pdf].)

Here’s video of Cookson talking about her case:

The Heritage Foundation has just put up an interesting — if at times confusing — new web memo on possible alternatives to compulsory unionization. One of the more salient points the author raises is that the legislation governing workplace relations – the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) – is almost entirely obsolete. Times have changed since 1935 (the year the bill was first drafted), and the workplace now emphasizes cooperation over confrontation between management and labor:

That economy no longer exists. Businesses today rely on feedback and communication from employees. Employers do not simply give top-down orders, but incorporate bottom-up communication and employee discretion. The line between workers and management has increasingly blurred, and most workers want cooperative—not adversarial—relations with their employers.

Unfortunately, Big Labor hasn’t changed with the times. If anything, union officials are promoting an increasingly adversarial relationship with management that relies on hate-the-boss rhetoric, vicious corporate campaigns, coercive card-check organizing drives, and scurious lawsuits to force companies to herd their employees into forced-dues-paying union collectives.

Would a more cooperative approach benefit employees? According to the memo, alternatives to the current system is certainly popular with American workers:

The fact that few workers want to join traditional unions does not mean that they do not want a voice in workplace relations. Surveys show that workers want to participate in decisions in the workplace and want to be heard by their supervisors, but they do not want hostile relations with management.

Ultimately, the policy prescriptions put forth in the web memo are unfortunately vague on the vital isues of compulsory union dues and monopoly bargaining.

If Heritage’s proposed reforms eliminate forced dues, monopoly bargaining, or both, then they would be a step forward for employee rights. However, if the "reforms" do nothing to dismantle these extraordinary monopoly union privileges and make unionism more voluntary, then it is hard to see how trying to add "employee involvement" programs to the NLRA would be anything other than a gigantic waste of time and resources.

In March, at the urging of the National Right to Work Foundation, the U.S. Supreme Court took up Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association. Now the Foundation has jointly filed an amicus curiae brief (pdf) in the case.

The High Court is reviewing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that says that Idaho’s state law banning payroll deductions for union political expenditures (narrowly defined) can not apply to payroll deductions at the local government level. 

As the Foundation’s brief explains, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling wrongly forces Idaho taxpayers to subsidize union political activities by offering valuable payroll deduction services to union officials.

When the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would take the case, Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason noted "like state governments, local governments should not act as bagmen for union political funds."

And even more alarmingly should the Supreme Cout fail to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, it will open the door for union lawyers to misuse the court’s reasoning to launch fresh new attacks on state Right to Work laws as applied to local government bodies.

The Foundation’s joined with the Utah Taxpayers Association, the Sutherland Institute, and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Center in filing the brief.

On Sunday, Denver Post columnist Al Lewis asked with skepticism "Where are the victims of unions?"

It must have struck a nerve out there. Only days later he writes a column with quotes from the "scores" of people who wrote in. Here are a few of the responses Lewis received:

• "I don’t like the direction they are headed in now… They’ve drifted from protecting the main interest of the working man into the outskirts of politics."
• "Unions use the same methods as street thugs. They steal the money of hard working people through lies and intimidation."
• "I unwillingly have $44.75 taken out of my pay check every month. My opinion of the . . . union is . . . we are nothing more than a ‘cash cow.’ "
• "If the union had to earn its money, it would really make them a better union."

As Patrick Semmens pointed out recently, Denver Post columnist Al Lewis got quite an earful for suggesting that workers are rarely dissatisfied with compulsory union representation. But at least Al has the grace to admit he was wrong. In a recent post, he acknowledged that "unions make workers pay."

His colleague Bob Ewegen, on the other hand, is an unrepentant forced unionism propagandist. In a recent column, he trots out the same tired talking points in defense of non-Right to Work states’ supposed economic vitality:

If you’re lucky enough to find a job at all, the only right the Coors plan gives you is the right to work for less. Quite a bit less, actually. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that an average worker in the 22 states with right-to-work laws earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787). Nationwide, union members earn $9,308 a year more than non-union workers, $41,652 versus $32,344.

A little fact-checking is in order. As noted in this recent post, economically-dynamic Right to Work states enjoy lower taxes, lower housing costs, cheaper goods, and better services. In fact, if you adjust workers’ salaries for relative costs of living, employees clearly make more money in Right to Work areas.

Ewegen further suggests that Right to Work states are struggling economically — rather than serving as powerhouses of job and standard of living growth.

Quoting out of context statistics is a neat — albeit intellectually dishonest — rhetorical trick. Most Right to Work states are concentrated in the South, a region that has historically endured lower rates of economic growth than the rest of the country. Now, however, these states boast higher rates of growth than their non-Right to Work counterparts. What’s changed? As this analysis demonstrates, states that embrace Right to Work principles enjoy substantially better economic performance.

And these trends show no signs of letting up. According to one blogger, the past several years have seen Right to Work states continue to register better economic performance than their non-Right to Work neighbors.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit’s flawed reasoning.

The Foundation’s press release is now available online. Money quote:

Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.

The Foundation’s amicus brief is also availble online (pdf). Union lawyers argued the California law was intended to ensure "neutrality" in the workplace, but the argument rang hollow, as Foundation attorneys pointed out (emphasis mine):

Assembly Bill No. 1889, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 (“AB 1889”), is the law at issue. It is a state labor regulation that has only one purpose and effect: to halt the free flow of non-coercive information from employers to their employees, so that unions may take advantage of the enforced silence and corral uninformed employees into unionization. AB 1889’s “gag rule” directly conflicts with the core of federal labor policy, which encourages the free flow of non-coercive information precisely so that employees can make an intelligent and fully informed decision to choose or reject unionization. Employees are the real victims of this misguided state effort to undo federal labor policy.

The Foundation’s amicus brief goes on to explain why state-enforced "neutrality" agreements are heavily biased in favor of union organizers (emphasis mine):

AB 1889 [the California law] enables unions to demand and receive so-called “neutrality and card check” agreements, under which employees’ right to choose or reject unionization in a free and uncoerced manner is hampered. For example, most “neutrality and card check” agreements place a gag on employer speech, so that employees are unable to learn from their employer anything that may be unfavorable to the union. Moreover, such agreements typically provide unions with employees’ home addresses and other confidential information, so that union agents can make home visits and other potentially unwanted solicitations as a means to cajole or coerce employees to sign cards. Additionally, unions are often given physical access to the workplace to further pressure employees to sign the cards. Perhaps most egregious, most neutrality agreements waive NLRB-supervised secret-ballot elections and substitute the “card check” process, in which a signed authorization card counts as a “vote” for the union. Thus, the union acts to prevent employees from voting their consciences in a traditional secret-ballot election, even though experience shows that the process of soliciting union authorization cards often relies upon coercion and misrepresentations.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a concise write-up here. This passage highlights the court’s key findings:

The court rejected arguments by California and labor unions that the state is entitled to restrict the use of its own funds in the workplace. Stevens said California was trying to regulate employer speech by requiring extensive record keeping, to ensure that no state funds were spent against unions, and by requiring businesses to pay the legal fees of unions and other private parties who successfully sued them for violations.

Unfortunately, this setback means that Big Labor is now more intent than ever on passing coercive "card-check" legislation. The Chronicle’s article continues:

From a union perspective, he said, the case also highlights the importance of labor-backed legislation – passed by the House, but stalled in the Senate – that would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees signed affiliation cards.

While the Foundation’s strategic litigation strategy continues to pay dividends, Big Labor’s political clout and election year campaign plans could put our forces on the defensive more than ever come November.

A few Right to Work-related updates from around the web:

1.) The Toledo Blade has a great editorial up on one city official’s attempt to strong arm private contractors into blackballing non-union workers. Money quote:

Mr. Szollosi argues that because public money was spent on the property, the principles that apply to public construction should hold sway even after the property is sold to the private sector. But the only thing that would be accomplished by restricting development on the site to union workers would be to limit Mr. Dillin’s ability to negotiate the best deal he can with local trade unions, raising labor costs and potentially putting the project in jeopardy.

And if that worst-case scenario were to be realized, there would be no jobs for anyone, union or nonunion. If that’s what the grandstanding Mr. Szollosi wants, he’s the wrong person to represent Toledo’s workers in the current economic climate.

Big Labor has a sad history of discriminating against nonunion workers and contractors, while taxpayers foot the bill.

2.) The Seattle Times posted a surprisingly thorough investigation into Washington Governor Christine Gregoire’s extensive financial connections to union PACs. Excerpting the piece really doesn’t do it justice, but here’s a quick preview. The SEIU donated $418,000 (!) to Gregoire’s 2004 campaign, and by all accounts their investment paid off handsomely:

Another big donor, the SEIU, had some major setbacks in the Legislature this year, but the union has benefited from the Democrats’ efforts to increase human-services spending.

Gregoire and the Legislature raised reimbursement rates for nursing homes, money that helped SEIU win new contracts with 20 homes and add 2,000 new members. And they passed legislation that enabled the union to organize more than 10,000 child-care providers.

3.) The Communist Party of America has apparently decided to throw its considerable political heft behind the erroneously-titled "Employee Free Choice Act." From a recent op-ed by the Chair of Communist Party USA’s Political Action Commission:

As AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker told the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists convention, “This election cannot be only about John McCain’s failings. It must be about working people’s vision — our vision of a new direction for our country. A vision that includes . . . the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act … [W]e are going to spark a movement of those who are ready to make their voices heard in shaping the new America we must build together — and we are going collect our debt this November.”

The Communist Party USA’s emergency program to repair, renew and rebuild America is a contribution toward this effort.

In the latest update to Right to Work’s YouTube channel, Daniel Locke, lead plaintiff in the Foundation’s Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case, discusses why he felt the need to file suit against Maine State Employees Association union officials.

Also in the video, Foundation president Mark Mix explains what is at stake in the case, and another Maine state employee, Mark Turek, discusses his decision to quit his job rather than be forced to pay union dues to a union he disagreed with.

The Locke case is a perfect example of how the National Right to Work Foundation’s legal aid program helps workers who have had their rights violated by compulsory unionism. Locke and his coworkers contacted the Foundation when they needed help standing up to union bosses.

Now, by taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Foundation attorneys are in a position not only to help Locke and his coworkers, but to help millions of American employees by establishing an important Supreme Court precedent advancing employee freedom.

The recent Chamber v. Brown decision (.pdf) highlighted one of the worst aspects of coercive union organizing. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens emphasized the California statute’s most problematic feature: while the free flow of truthful information about the downsides of unionization was shut off by the state’s draconian regulations, union organizers received special dispensation to harass workers both at home and on the job:

Instead of forbidding the use of state funds for all employer advocacy regarding unionization, AB 1889 [the California law] permits use of state funds for select employer advocacy activities that promote unions. Specifically, the statute exempts expenses incurred in connection with, inter alia, giving unions access to the workplace, and voluntarily recognizing unions without a secret ballot election.

"Voluntarily recognizing unions without a secret ballot election" is a euphemism for coercive card-check drives. And while the Chamber v. Brown decision is a small brake on in-your-face union organizing drives underway across America, the frequency of card-check drives has increased markedly over the past several years.  Evidently, union organizers have realized that publicly badgering employees into signing away their rights to self-representation is a lot easier than acceding to federally-supervised secret ballot elections.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Foundation staff attorneys recently acquired data from the National Labor Relations Board on the incidence of card-check petitions in the workplace.  According to this NLRB spreadsheet, union agents gained monopoly bargaining privileges using these methods in more than 250 America workplaces since November of 2007. The biggest offenders were members of SEIU President Andy Stern’s so-called "Change to Win" coalition: the SEIU and UNITE HERE racked up 26 successful card-check drives each, while the Teamsters managed to pull off an impressive 108 card-check drives.  TheNLRB was not required to record this information until the Foundation’s Dana/Metaldyne victory last September.

So why is coercive card-check organizing so uniquely damaging to employee freedom? The reason is simple: forcing workers to publicly disclose their preferences to union organizers leaves them vulnerable to intimidation, harassment, and retaliation.

Here’s an excerpt from the congressional testimony of Jen Jason, a former UNITE HERE union organizer who participated in several card-check petition drives:

From my experience, the number of cards signed appear to have little relationship to the ultimate vote count. During a private election campaign, even though a union still sends organizers out to workers’ homes on frequent canvassing in attempts to gain support, the worker has a better chance to get perspective on the questions at hand. The time allocated for the election to go forward allows the worker a chance to think through his or her own issues without undue influence—thus avoiding an immediate, impulsive decision based on little or no fact. After all, the decision to join a union is often life-changing, and workers should be afforded the time to debate, discuss and research all of the options available to them.

As an organizer working under a “card check” system versus an election system, I knew that “card check” gave me the ability to quickly agitate a set of workers into signing cards. I did not have to prove the union’s case, answer more informed questions from workers or be held accountable for the service record of my union.

When the union is allowed to implement the “card check” strategy, the decision about whether or not an individual employee would choose to join a union is reduced to a crisis decision. This situation is created by the organizer and places the worker into a high pressure sales situation. Furthermore, my experience is that in jurisdictions in which “card check” was actually legislated, organizers tended to be even more willing to harass, lie and use fear tactics to intimidate workers into signing cards. I have personally heard from workers that they signed the union card simply to get the organizer to leave their home and not harass them further. At no point during a “card check” campaign, is the opportunity created or fostered for employees to seriously consider their working lives and to think about possible solutions to any problems.

Pretty sobering stuff.  Of course, the card-check strategy was never intended to fairly gauge workers’ preferences.

After working with UNITE HERE organizers for years, Jen Jason finally got the full picture. Her experience should make the pernicious nature of card-check organizing abundantly clear:

I began my career with UNITE with a strong belief in worker’s rights and democracy in the workplace. During the course of my employment with the union, I began to understand the reality behind the rhetoric. I took in the ways that organizers were manipulating workers just to get a majority on “the cards” and the various strategies that they employed. I began to appreciate that promises made by organizers at a worker’s house had little to do with how the union actually functions as a “service” organization.