Case Update: Court Dismisses Frivolous Union Counter-Suit in Foundation Identity Theft Case
Regular Freedom@Work readers may remember the Foundation’s recent identity theft case in North Carolina, where Communication Workers of America union bosses posted nonunion AT&T employees’ social security numbers on a public bulletin board. Not only was this an open invitation to fraud and identity theft, it also violated North Carolina’s newly-enacted Identity Theft Protection Act. Foundation attorneys have slammed CWA bosses in state court, seeking damages for affected AT&T employees.
The union lawyers’ response, however, can only be described as absurd. Instead of working to ensure other workers’ confidential information is kept safe, CWA union operatives filed a counter-suit, alleging that the very act of removing workers’ social security numbers from the bulletin board and warning other workers that their confidential information had been made readily available at a public location itself violated the Identity Theft Protection Act. Naturally, the court dismissed the union’s frivolous claims and will now resolve the Foundation’s original lawsuit. The text of the decision is available here (.pdf). You can also watch the Foundation’s video on union identity theft in North Carolina:
CNN: National Right to Work Discusses Card Check on Lou Dobbs
Lou Dobbs’ recent report on Card Check featured an interview with Committee and Foundation President Mark Mix. Check out the video for a full account of union bosses’ extensive political connections to the Obama Administration and Capitol Hill, as well as their ambitious legislative priorities:
Union Boss Hypocrisy: Big Labor Attempts to Make Opposing Card Check Illegal
The lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal observes that Big Labor is attempting to gag opposition to their card check power grab, which just yesterday was introduced in Congress:
Big Labor’s drive to eliminate secret ballots for union elections has united American business in opposition, so labor chiefs are putting on the brass knuckles: The new strategy is to threaten companies with government retaliation if they don’t stop lobbying against turning U.S. labor markets into Europe.
We wrote on February 13 about the letter from the labor consortium Change to Win to the Financial Services Roundtable, demanding that banks receiving Troubled Asset Relief Program money keep quiet about union "card check." To its credit, the banking lobby hasn’t backed down. Now Big Labor is escalating, demanding in a February 23 letter to Secretary Timothy Geithner that Treasury muzzle the companies if they won’t muzzle themselves.
[…]
The double standard here is remarkable. Every year, unions collect millions of dollars in grants from government agencies they lobby. In 2002 and 2003, the Service Employees International Union — the main driver behind Ms. Burger’s consortium — lobbied the Department of Health and Human Services while receiving between $563,226 and $938,388 per year in grants. Imagine if Tom DeLay had ever said that labor unions or AARP couldn’t speak up about Medicare because they or their affiliates had accepted federal grants. The headlines would have read: "Republican Gag Rule."
Labor chiefs are desperate to pass their easy-organizing agenda this year, because they know liberal majorities on Capitol Hill won’t last. They also know they haven’t been able to organize workers with a level playing field, so they want to rewrite the rules so their organizers can see which individual workers are voting no and apply peer and other pressure. Most workers can see how unions have contributed to the destruction of Detroit, U.S. steel makers and so many other industries. That’s why unions need government-sanctioned coercion to prevail both against business and with workers.
The editorial is of course right about the glaring double standard, but even it understates the scope of this union hypocrisy, which goes far beyond simply the millions of dollars in direct taxpayer dollars that flow into union coffers.
Of course, Big Labor’s massive power depends entirely on its government-granted privilege to force workers to accept its "representation"and then (in states without Right to Work laws) force workers to pay dues to union bosses or be fired.
For a full list of Big Labor’s government-granted special powers, see this list.
Card Check Organizing: Relentless Pressure, Manipulating Workers
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, writes in the American Spectator about Big Labor’s Card Check Forced Unionism Bill. In his article Bandow cites the story of Mike Ivey, who was represented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys after UAW organizers targeted his plant for an aggressive card check campaign complete with plenty of union intimidation, pressure and harassment.
The secret ballot is key. It protects workers from retaliation — that’s why the U.S. elects public officials, rather than allowing citizens to sign election cards. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell which worker is more vulnerable to pressure and even violence: one who gets to cast a secret ballot or one who must sign or not sign a card in public view. Four decades ago a federal appeals court declared: "it is beyond dispute that secret election is a more accurate reflection of the employees’ true desires than a check of authorization cards collected at the behest of a union organizer."
Former union organizer Jen Jason testified before the House Education and Labor Committee: "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 the worker’s house had little to do with how the union actually functions as a ‘service’ organization."
In fact, misrepresentation and intimidation are routine, as union organizers lie about what signing the care means (claiming, for example, that it certifies attending a meeting or requesting more information) and badger employees to sign (sending groups of pro-union workers to people’s homes). The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has collected the stories of many employees, such as that of Mike Ivey, a South Carolina materials handler, who complained that the UAW "created a hostile work environment" through relentless pressure to sign cards. These abuses would be multiplied if card check automatically yielded recognition, foreclosing the need for a vote.
This may be why even union members favor elections. Polls have found that eight to nine of every ten of them favor a vote. Card check is a tool for union executives and Democratic politicians, not workers.
For more on Mike Ivey’s story watch this video where he talks about his experience with card check:
Worker to Congress: Union Goons Lied to Get Me to Sign Card
Today’s sham hearings for the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill looked more like a union brass press conference as civility was repeatedly thrown aside as scores of rowdy union partisans applauded every time a Senator toed the union boss line (and snickered when anyone dared to dissent from that line).
Testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was virtually monopolized by union partisans. But Larry Getts, a Dana Coproration employee in Fort Wayne, Indiana, offered a first-hand account of the kind of pressure and intimidation by union goons:
In fact, one day, an official approached me again claiming fifty percent of the plant had signed — so now I was going to have to sign the card to “get my information in the system.”
I signed the card then because I thought I had to.
I didn’t learn until later that even then, I should not have been forced to sign the card.
When the Forced Dues Payers Are Away, the Union Bosses Do Play
The posh Miami Fontainebleu Hotel will play host to Vice President Biden, Hilda Solis, and the AFL-CIO executive council this week, as union bosses work tirelessly to spend employees’ hard-earned forced dues on $1000 per night rooms and critical projects like sampling each of the facility’s eleven restaurants, thoroughly testing the resort’s 40,000 square foot spa, and enjoying the sights and sounds of Miami Beach:
The conference will also cover union bosses’ novel approach to economic recovery, which involves forcing more unwilling workers into union collectives through the grossly misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act." But we’re not quite sure how extracting millions of dollars in additional forced union dues is supposed to revive our flagging economy — perhaps the AFL-CIO plans to single-handedly save the luxury resort business by scheduling more conferences?
Of course, history tells us handing more forced unionism power over to union bosses will only make the current economic downturn even worse.
New Right to Work Podcast: Stop the Obama Administration from Rolling Back Union Disclosure Guidelines
For those of you who missed it, the National Right to Work Foundation recently released a video featuring Foundation President Mark Mix urging all Right to Work supporters to get involved in our efforts to stop the Obama Administration from rolling back basic union disclosure regulations. Now Mix’s message is available in podcast form. Click here to listen:
Lessons in Hypocrisy: How Union Bosses React When the Union’s Own Employees Want to Unionize
Here on Freedom@Work, we have told you about President Obama’s deeply disturbing executive orders aimed at blacklisting the 92.5 percent of America’s private-sector workers who have chosen not to unionize.
One of the orders effectively bars federal contractors from sharing truthful, non-coercive information with their employees about the downsides of unionization.
For an example of what this kind of information is like, look no further than what union management says when employees of a union wish to unionize.
In the letter linked below, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union president J.J. Barry warns against "chang[ing] the system…solely because of an effort stemming from the isolated complaints of a few [union employees]." Moreover,
The selection of a bargaining representative is likely to change the nature of the employer/employee relationship, by making it more formal and structured, and diminishing the present system of direct resolution of issues between Represenatives and their Vice Presidents, Department Directors, etc.
But union bosses cry foul when other employers express similar opinions, and now their powerful pro-forced unionism allies in government want to ban such speech by federal contractors so the contractors’ employees are denied the right to make a fully informed choice.
Click here to read the full letter (PDF).
Take Action Now: Obama Administration Moves to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules
In 1959, well-meaning advocates of employee freedom secured passage of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA), a bill that promised disclosure of union finances with the (mostly unrealized) promise of weeding out corrupt union racketeers.
In 2009, President Barack Obama pledged his Administration would be on the side of disclosure — but that has been revealed as a false promise.
The Obama Administration has moved to eliminate some modest union disclosure regulations that would allow American workers forced to pay union dues some basic information about the self-awarded “benefits” union bosses enjoy.
Of course, so long as forced unionism privileges remain intact, no amount of disclosure will meaningfully increase union accountability, but perhaps employees will gain a greater awareness of how their forced dues are spent.
Please watch the video below and then go to the Department of Labor’s website to comment on these detrimental regulatory changes. All comments related to this issue must be made by March 5.
You can view the Foundation’s request for extension link or make your own comment regarding the effective date change. (Just click on the yellow comment icon in either of the above links to add your own comments about this cover-up of union boss corruption.)
Note: You should have Docket: LMSO-2008-0002 listed at the top of your comment. Please let them know how you feel about this power grab. Feel free to e-mail us a copy of your comment.
You may also visit Regulations.gov and enter LMSO-2008-0002 to comment, search comments, or read your own comment after it’s been published.
###
The National Right to Work Foundation provides free legal aid to employees so they can fight back against union coercion and abuse.
The Foundation must rely on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please click here.
The Coercive Nature of American Labor Law
The Future of Freedom Foundation’s "Freedom Daily" published an article titled "The Authoritarianism of American Labor Law" by George C. Leef, author of Free Choice for Workers: A History of the Right to Work Movement.
In it, Leef points out federal labor law, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), heavily favors union officials at the expense of workplace freedom and the individual rights of employees. Leef continues by pointing out the dangers to liberty the "Card Check" Forced Organizing schemes pose to workers’ rights:
The secret-ballot elections under the NLRA at least have the virtue of shielding individual workers from reprisals for going “the wrong way.” Union officials have found what they regard as a better method of determining whether a majority want their services. It’s called the “card check” system. If a majority of workers sign a card saying that they want a union to represent them, then that should suffice for the NLRB to declare the union to be the exclusive bargaining representative, without resort to an election. Naturally, it’s easier for union organizers to get signatures on cards — using tactics that can include misrepresentation and harassment — than to get workers to vote for them in an election after the airing of arguments for and against the union.
Under the NLRA, however, employers have the right to insist on a secret-ballot election no matter how many cards might be signed. The Employee Free Choice Act would take that away and require the NLRB to certify unions simply on the basis of signed cards.
Furthermore, the [so-called Employee Free Choice Act] EFCA would ratchet up the coercion regarding contract negotiations. The current law is bad enough in compelling “good faith” bargaining, but the proposed new law would allow government officials to arbitrate the terms of the initial union contract. That is to say, if management and the union can’t arrive at a mutually agreeable labor contract, the federal government will impose one. That additional dollop of federal coercion is said by supporters to be necessary to effectuate the workers’ “right to bargain.” In a free society, though, there is no “right to bargain” with people who don’t want to bargain with you, and a fortiori there is no right to have the government dictate the terms of that “bargaining.”
Union officials were licking their chops at the prospect of using the EFCA to dragoon thousands of new workers into their ranks, but the bill has died in Congress. It will be resurrected in the future and we will again hear supporters making claims of why we need its new coercive features. We will also hear opponents arguing that we should stick with the good old status quo. What I think we really need is a discussion about the proper approach to labor law in a free society.
To read the rest of the article and Leef’s proposal for ending the compulsion currently entrenched in American labor law, click here.