Bush Executive Order Exempts Some Federal Employees from Monopoly Bargaining: Too Little Too Late?
Yesterday President Bush issued an Exectuive Order exempting several agencies and subdivisions of the Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury departments from draconian and stifling federal labor-management relations strictures.
This is good policy. However, while freeing any worker from forced union monopoly bargaining is a welcome step, the last-minute move begs the question: What took so long?
Unfortunately, making this common-sense change on the way out the door cheapens it, making it appear to be little more than political retaliation. The administration should have made this and many more pro-individual-rights moves long ago. Instead, the incompetent political managers in the White House thought that making policy concessions to the union bosses would have bought their support. How wrong they were.
Foundation attorneys have long advocated for freeing national security employees from forced unionization, including fighting for the rights of airport screeners to remain free from union monopoly control.
There are other recent examples of Administration officials foolishly failing to agressively protect employee free choice. There are big political lessons to be learned here.
Are State Right to Work Laws in Jeopardy?
Currently, 22 states have Right to Work protections which ensure that while workers are free to join unions, they are also free to refuse to join or pay tribute to an unwanted union. But this summer, federal legislation to wipe away every Right to Work law in the country was introduced in Congress.
Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, explains the nature of the threat — and how supporters of employee freedom rallied once before to protect Right to Work laws (while forced unionism proponents got wiped out in subsequent elections) — in Human Events:
In July, Sherman introduced legislation to repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act — the provision of the 1947 law that affirms the right of states to enact Right to Work laws. Strike Section 14(b) from the books, and state Right to Work laws would be preempted by federal labor policy, which upholds forced unionism.
Sherman’s bill got little attention last year. Even most Democrats
ignored the proposed 14(b) repeal. Only eight House Democrats
cosponsored the bill before Nancy Pelosi sent it to committee.But as time goes on, and particularly if Big Labor’s cronies in Congress
pass legislation like the Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill or the Police
and Fire Fighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which would force countless
thousands of America’s first responders under union control against
their will, a fresh attempt to repeal Section 14(b) may gather steam.
Read the whole thing here.
New Right to Work Podcast: Obama Administration to Pack the NLRB
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the underlying law it enforces are major tools for union bosses to force workers into union collectives and force them to pay union dues. The incoming Obama administration is expected to help Big Labor use the NLRB even more aggressively in its war against employee free choice.
Today, Foundation VP Stefan Gleason is joined by former NLRB Member John Raudabaugh, who reveals some disturbing things American workers and businesses should expect from the Obama NLRB:
You can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.
[Note: Some Firefox users have reported audio distortion when using the
player above. To ensure the podcast plays correctly just click here to listen.]
Fact Check: Forced Dues Equals Forced Unionism
On Monday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published an editorial criticizing the special privileges Pennsylvania law gives to teacher unions:
The Pennsylvania State Education Association causes untold damage to kids, taxpayers and the commonwealth. Few Pennsylvanians know how costly is this teacher union. But the public has the power to tame the beast.
With more than 185,500 members, 281 full-time employees and an annual income above $84 million, the PSEA is one of the state’s wealthiest, largest and most politically active labor unions, reports The Commonwealth Foundation, a public-policy, free-market think tank in Harrisburg.
The PSEA has had cancerlike growth because of its ability to organize employees into collective bargaining units, influence legislation through its puppets that the union’s political action committee helped to elect, and push for endless amounts of public financing for public schools, which usually ends up in union members’ pockets.
Yesterday, the PSEA lied in response:
Contrary to the editorial, Pennsylvania is not a "compulsory" union state. Act 84, the Fair Share Fee law, preserves the right of all teachers and school employees to join or not to join a union.
But unions are legally required to represent each member of their bargaining units (including nonmembers) fairly and without discrimination. So it is reasonable for unions to charge nonmembers a fee for the costs of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, as well as enforcing their collective bargaining agreements through processing grievances.
There is no question that Pennsylvania is a compulsory unionism state. That’s an outright lie from the PSEA. Further, this is a common refrain from union bosses, who refuse to mention that the only reason they must "represent" nonmembers because they seek monopoly bargaining over all employees, not just members.
The truth is that excellent teachers, who would often rather represent themselves in negotiations with school district officials, have no choice but to accept a union’s so-called "representation." That usually means good teachers are forced to accept lower compensation than they could get if they negotiated on their own behalf.
For more on teacher union abuses in Pennsylvania and other compulsory unionism states, check out this op-ed in the Tribune-Review by Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
For more on the issue of compulsory unionism and education, see this video and listen to this podcast.
Agency Trial Judge Won’t Punish Union Officials for Threatening Non-Striking PVHMC Nurses with Fines, Jail
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing free legal aid to a California nurse who faced threats of fines and imprisonment for choosing not to go on strike, will appeal an administrative law judge’s tortured reasoning with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC.
Pomona, California (November 25, 2008) – Attorneys for a Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center nurse announced they will appeal an erroneous administrative law judge ruling dismissing a federal complaint against a local union. Union officials had threatened non-striking nurses with financial penalties and even arrest for refusing to abandon their patients.
Federal labor prosecutors agreed with unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys and found that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 121RN officials had illegally coerced nurses in the exercise of their rights to refrain from union activity. The General Counsel of the NLRB formally brought the case before the federal labor law judge.
In May 2007, the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the hospital expired. SEIU officials later ordered a series of general strikes. Dozens of nurses resigned from formal union membership so they could continue treating their patients without facing retaliation by union officials. In response, union bosses menacingly disseminated information to nurses stating that, under a California “strikebreaker” law, they may be “subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail” for refusing to join the strike and returning to work. SEIU officials further suggested to nurses that nonmembers would continue to owe compulsory union dues even though no contract containing a valid forced-dues clause was in effect.
Read the rest of the Foundation’s press release here.
Reminder: Time is Running Out for Rebates for Employees Under the IAM and Washington State Teacher Union
Recently, Foundation attorneys notified employees represented by the Machinists union (IAM) and Washington Education Association union (WEA) nonmembers of their opportunity to reclaim a portion of their forced union dues from supporting the union officials’ politics as determined by law and Foundation-won court precedent.
Employees Represented by IAM
In the National Right to Work Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union", it states that:
If you are a nonmember of the IAM paying dues to keep your job, you are entitled to claim a reduction in your 2009 IAM dues of approximately 25%. For 2009, the IAM admits that 30.54% of International union dues, 16.77% of district lodge dues and 20.61% of local lodge dues are spent on political, ideological and other non-representational activities for which no employee can be required to pay. According to the "Notice" published in the Fall 2008 issue of the "IAM Journal," you can claim this reduction by sending a letter postmarked during the month of November 2008.
With November ending in less than a week and a half, now is the time to act if you have not already done so to get your 25% reduction in your 2009 IAM dues. For more information and specific instructions on how to claim your rebate, read the Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union (IAM)".
Nonmembers of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association (Washington teachers)
In the Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers" it states that:
As a nonmember of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association, you should have received your 2008/09 "Hudson" package from the WEA. Please use this suggested letter that you can fill out and mail to get your 2008/09 rebate check of around $200. You must individually complete and send in your objection/challenge/rebate request letter. Your letter must be postmarked on or before December 8, 2008!
Again, time is running out. December 8th is less than two-and-a-half weeks away and if you do not send in your letter on or before December 8th, you will probably not receive your rebate. For more specific instructions on how to claim your rebate of approximately $200, please refer to the Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers".
As always, the Foundation will continue to help employees across the country fight the evils of compulsory unionism. If you are a teacher interested in your legal rights, please refer to the Abood and Hudson decisions on our Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents webpage. If you are a private sector employee, you can learn more about your legal rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck decision on the same page.
Practice What You Preach, You Hypocrite
Politico reports that House Dems are gearing up for a battle over the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee between Representatives Waxman and Dingell:
The race itself remains a tough one to call. “I’m not even sure the candidates know,” said Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, a Waxman supporter.
And most lawmakers dread picking sides.
Asked who she would be supporting, Rules Chairwoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York exclaimed, “Oh, it’s a secret ballot, thank the Lord.”
But while Slaughter literally praises God for the fact that she can vote in private, she also is a cosponsor of an effort to strip workers of their access to a secret-ballot vote for unionization. Does she even notice the rank hypocrisy?
New Right to Work Podcast: Big Labor’s Bailout
In this week’s episode, Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Stanley Greer, Senior Research Director at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, to discuss the proposed $25+ billion auto industry and UAW union bailout, and the close connection between compulsory unionism and Detroit’s economic woes. Check it out:
Click here to download this episode
You can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.
[Note: Some Firefox users have reported audio distortion when using the player above. To ensure the podcast plays correctly just click here to listen.]
New Right to Work Video: Should the Government Bail Out the Auto Industry’s Compulsory Unionism?
Interested in learning about the connection between the Big Three auto bailout and compulsory unionism? Check out the latest Right to Work video:
The UAW has consistently leveraged its position as the Big Three’s monopoly bargaining agent to extend forced unionism throughout the automotive sector. Now they’re screaming for a federal bailout to save the entire industry. Should government really be in the businesses of saving compulsory unionism?
The answer, of course, is no. Forced unionism should be eliminated, not subsidized.
Economic Crisis Brings Even Greater Importance to Job-Producing Right to Work Laws
Recently the National Institute for Labor Relations Research released a new fact sheet that shows the numerous economic advantages associated with Right to Work states.
As the Fact Sheet details, Right to Work states have significant advantages in many areas including:
- Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income
- Growth in Real Manufacturing GDP
- Percentage Growth in Construction Employment
- Growth in Number of College Graduates (age 25+ with B.A.)
- Percentage Growth in Number of People/Children Covered by Private, Employer Based Health Insurance
And all those advantages are just icing on the cake. After all, the best reason for Right to Work protections is eliminating the injustice of firing employees for refusal to join or pay dues to a union.
That injustice has recognized by as wide a range of people as…
Thomas Jefferson who said: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical," and
Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor who said: "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."
