Last week, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Workers West organizers in Orange County, California were booted out of a hospital for the second time this year.

SEIU officials have been trying to unionize workers at Chapman Medical Center through a backroom deal known as a "neutrality agreement" designed to grease the skids for workers to be forced into union ranks.

The agreement was anything but "neutral": Company officials granted union operatives access to company facilities to conduct a coercive "card check" organizing campaign in which union organizers pressure workers to fill out cards that count as votes for union control of the workplace. Meanwhile, Chapman waived the right to have a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees really wish to be unionized.

SEIU organizers resorted to harassing late night phone calls, blocking workers’ driveways while they were heading to work, bribing workers with food to sign "cards" that would later count as "votes," and stalking workers.  One time, workers even had to resort to calling the police to remove the unwanted SEIU militants from their workplace.

Even though Chapman workers won a settlement from the SEIU over the summer which forced the union to renounce the "recognition" it received from Chapman and forego the use of card check, union organizers managed to force a unionization election. The SEIU hierarchy lost again, 90 to 48.

Meanwhile, across the nation, the California-based National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union hierarchy is on a crusade to unionize "every nurse in the nation." As a result, NNOC union bosses have entered into "neutrality agreements" with nationwide healthcare providers Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) and HCA Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: HCA), among others. 

Nurses from across the country, from Texas to Pennsylvania and Florida are speaking out against the forced unionization of their workplaces.

One major flashpoint in this nationwide battle over nurses’ workplaces recently occurred in multiple Tenet-own hospitals in El Paso, Texas. In just 10 days, three nurses from two El Paso hospitals filed federal charges against the NNOC union and Tenet for denying nurses who oppose unionization equal access to discuss the effects of unionization in their workplaces. The NLRB Regional Office in Phoenix has already found merit to some of the charges. 

Moreover, in July, nurses in McAllen, Texas successfully voted the NNOC union hierarchy out of their HCA-owned hospital. And Tenet is facing federal charges in Boca Raton, Florida for enforcing a discriminatory neutrality agreement between its facility there and SEIU organizers.

In El Paso, the NLRB held a unionization election in Sierra Medical Center. And despite all the odds, a tenacious group of nurses managed to hold off the forced unionization of their workplace by 10 votes.

Despite union bosses’ crusade to unionize every nurse in the nation, nurses everywhere are fighting back against the forced unionization of their workplaces. 

Fox Business has a great report on union bosses’ extravagant spending habits, including lavish junkets and visits to luxury resort hotels:

Besides the tens-of-millions of dollars big labor spent buying luxury resorts, country clubs or Learjets, labor unions are also spending millions of dollars in tax-free union funds on conferences at lavish hotels and resorts — including junkets at resorts owned by the unions themselves . . .

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), run by Richard Trumka, is the largest umbrella federation of unions in the U.S., with 56 unions representing more than 12 million. Its officials have been living large at member expense.

AFL-CIO unions spent at least $2.6 million in union funds on junkets to nine conferences at places like the Flamingo Hotel or Golden Nugget in Las Vegas, including more than $1.7 million at the swanky union-ownedWestin Diplomat resort and golf club in Florida, from 2010 to 2011, government documents show . . .

Luxury getaways aren’t the only thing Big Labor is buying, however. According to The Wall Street Journal, unions spent over 4.4 billion dollars on electioneering from 2005 to 2011, a figure that exceeds previous estimates (except for two studies by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research) by a factor of four:

The usual measure of unions’ clout encompasses chiefly what they spend supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions’ own coffers. These kinds of spending, which unions report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011,according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The unions’ reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent over thesame period on political activity.

The costs reported to the Labor Department range from polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year. Much of this kind of spending comes not from members’ contributions to a PAC but directly from unions’ dues-funded coffers. There is no requirement that unions report all of this kind of spending to the Federal Election Commission, or FEC.

Much of this political cash is collected from nonunion workers forced to pay dues as a condition of employment. These employees aren’t affiliated with unions and often disagree with their political agenda. Technically, union officials are supposed to allow nonunion employees to opt out of paying for union political spending, but – as recent Right to Work cases demonstrate – that requirement is often ignored or actively subverted.

Whether it’s politics or luxury junkets, the only real solution to Big Labor’s lavish spending is right to work laws, which make the payment of union dues strictly voluntary. The power to extract dues from unwilling workers has made union bosses unaccountable. If unions were solely dependent on voluntary contributions, they’d be much less likely to risk alienating their supporters with divisive political lobbying or lavish getaways for the higher-ups. 

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court took action in another case brought by Foundation staff attorneys. Instead of issuing an order granting or denying cert in the case, the High Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief in the case Harris v. Quinn. That request shows that the Justices are interested in the case.

The case stems from a legal challenge initiated by eight Illinois homecare providers with the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced (and now incarcerated) predecessor, Rod Blagojevich.

Quinn and Blagojevich issued executive orders aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. Under the Governors’ decrees, personal care providers are considered "public employees" for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU’s forced dues-paying ranks.

The providers, including lead plaintiff Pam Harris (interviewed in the video above), are challenging the executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to hear the case this Fall, after the U.S. Solicitor General files a brief.

For more information on the case, check out the Foundation’s Supreme Court petition. You can also read amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the Foundation’s petition from the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

With today’s United States Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, it’s worth revisiting the hidden privileges to Big Labor contained in the bill.

In August 2009, National Right to Work President Mark Mix wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the sweetheart deals for union bosses:

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

…

Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.

ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.

Read the rest of the op-ed here.

Like The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner also noted the landmark implications of the Foundation’s latest Supreme Court victory. Here’s the crux of their editorial on the Knox case:

The 7-2 majority — which included a concurrence by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — agreed that the union had acted illegally. But the sharpest cut comes from the court’s narrower 5-4 majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. It held that for unions to deduct special political contributions from nonmembers’ paychecks — as occurred in this case — those workers must explicitly opt in, as opposed to having to opt out. Otherwise, as in this case, the union will at best receive a free loan for political activity at nonunion employees’ expense. At worst, employees burdened with the normal concerns of life may well forget to claim their full rights, and the unions’ political activities will thrive by default at their expense.

"Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference," Alito wrote. "But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights." It should come as little surprise that nonunion workers do not want to contribute to union political initiatives, especially ones that attack nonunion workers’ rights.

For more on the case, check out the Foundation’s press release on the decision and Knox webpage. 

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an illegal Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political fee charged to California state workers without notice and opportunity to opt out.

And now for the first time, the Court is requiring union officials to obtain affirmative consent from workers before they increase union dues and fees or slap workers with "special assessments" for union boss political spending.

Not only is this Foundation victory a victory for the First Amendment principles of free speech and free association, but Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged the tension the Court has created by allowing Big Labor to get away with so much for so long.

The very fact that a five-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court openly questioned Big Labor’s incredible power to force workers info forced-dues payments suggests Big Labor has overplayed its hand and the Court may be willing to hear more cases to reconsider some of its pro-Big Labor precedents and possibly even freeing workers from the shackles of forced unionism. Via the Wall Street Journal:

Writing for a five-member majority, however, Justice Samuel Alito raises larger questions about compulsory union dues and individual rights. Shouldn’t the people who choose not to join a union, he asks, have to opt into political and ideological activities that they may presumably dispute—rather than opt out? "Which side should bear the risk?" he continues. "The answer is obvious: the side whose constitutional rights are not at stake."

Thus Knox may provide an opening to revisit some of the Court’s precedents that force people to subsidize political views or escapades contrary to their values—not to mention the First Amendment. Stay tuned.

Foundation staff attorney, Ave Maria law professor, and former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member John Raudabaugh has published his latest installment to the Foundation’s newest blog feature, "NLRB Watch."

In "NLRB Watch" #5, Raudabaugh explains how the NLRB’s newest webpage boldly demonstrates its forced unionism bias and how it’s just the tip of the iceberg:

Typical of the current NLRB, however, the [webpage] bold faces the statute’s Section 7 right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” but does not bold the remainder of the statutory sentence: “and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities.”

Why after 77 years, is the NLRB highlighting “protected concerted activity”? Is it because the agency’s caseload has diminished over the years, and it is desperate to ramp up activity to justify its ever increasing federal budget?…

Or, is the current NLRB pushing internet outreach to help unions reverse their losses?

Click here to read the rest of this and other posts located at the "NLRB Watch" page. And be sure to follow the National Right to Work Foundation on Facebook and Twitter to get alerts on new "NLRB Watch" posts!

Brenda Lee Orr, a Honloulu hotel employee, has just filed another round of federal unfair labor practice charges against the UNITE HERE Local 5 union with the help of Foundation staff attorneys. According to an audited breakdown of UNITE HERE’s finances, Orr was forced to pay for political lobbying and a union strike fund despite the fact that she is not a union member. 

Because Hawaii lacks a Right to Work law, Orr and other nonunion employees can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. However, nonunion workers cannot be compelled to pay for union politics or other activities unrelated to workplace bargaining. 

Regular readers may recall that UNITE HERE Local 5 is already facing charges from several other Honlulu hotel workers. This isn’t the first time the union has tangled with Orr, either. In 2009, UNITE HERE officials agreed to refund a substantial chunk of Orr’s union dues after they were caught using her money for political activism. 

Despite years of litigation, UNITE HERE bosses still haven’t learned their lesson. That’s why Hawaiian workers need a Right to Work law, which would ensure that no employee is forced to join or pay dues to a union just to get or keep a job. 

SCOTUSblog recently highlighted the Foundation’s Harris v. Quinn case as a petition to watch during the latest Supreme Court conference. Harris challenges a series of executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. According to the governors’ orders, personal care providers are to be considered "public employees" for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU’s forced dues-paying ranks. 

With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, eight Illinois homecare providers are challenging these executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association. 

Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff in the case and a personal care provider to her developmentally-disabled son, had this to say about the governors’ forced unionism scheme last November:

"My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son. Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with."

For more information on the case, check out the Foundation’s Supreme Court petition. You can also read amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the Foundation’s petition from the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The Philadelphia Daily News has the story:

MATTHEW and Michael Pestronk, two young real-estate developers who came here from Virginia to attend Drexel, are trying to shake up the city’s construction business by hiring nonunion labor at two huge apartment complexes they’re renovating.

But members of the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council aren’t happy, and the heated battle of young developers vs. old-school Philadelphia union power has thrown their plans for the Goldtex Building in Callowhill into turmoil.

The Pestronks — Matt, 35, and Mike, 31 — haven’t flinched as the ugly battle has escalated with charges that union members scattered bottles of urine around the Goldtex building at 12th and Wood streets, placed loose asbestos inside another development they’re working on in Germantown and allegedly harassed Matt Pestronk’s pregnant wife and child.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. Union operatives frequently rely on threats, intimidation, and even violence to keep independent-minded workers in line and deter businesses from using nonunion labor. The reasoning behind these thuggish tactics is simple: If nonunion contractors get work, employees might choose to refrain from union membership or work at a nonunion sites, depriving union bosses of more of their coveted forced dues revenue.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of union violence, we encourage you to contact the Foundation’s free legal aid program immediately.