Massachusetts Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme
Massachusetts Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme
Childcare providers fight dictate to push childcare business owners into forced dues union ranks
Boston, MA (April 16, 2014) – A group of Massachusetts home-based childcare providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a 2012 law that seeks to forcibly unionize the state’s home-based childcare providers.
Providers Kathleen D’Agostino, Denise Boian, Jean Demers, Judith Santos, Laurie Smith, and Kelly Winship filed the suit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
D’Agostino and the other providers seek to halt implementation of a recently-passed law intended to designate Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state, who are either business owners or family members who take care of children within their families.
Massachusetts Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme
Boston, MA (April 16, 2014) – A group of Massachusetts home-based childcare providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a 2012 law that seeks to forcibly unionize the state’s home-based childcare providers.
Providers Kathleen D’Agostino, Denise Boian, Jean Demers, Judith Santos, Laurie Smith, and Kelly Winship filed the suit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
D’Agostino and the other providers seek to halt implementation of a recently-passed law intended to designate Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state, who are either business owners or family members who take care of children within their families.
Home-based childcare and personal care providers, with Foundation attorneys’ assistance, have challenged similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in several states across the country, including Michigan and Illinois. The Illinois case is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Michigan ended its scheme after Foundation attorneys filed suit for providers there. A group of Minnesota child care providers are also challenging a similar scheme in federal court.
Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate the providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government. The government does not have the constitutional authority to force citizens to accept government’s handpicked political representative to lobby itself.
Under the Massachusetts scheme, SEIU Local 509 union officials are empowered to confiscate forced dues and fees from childcare providers for this forced «exclusive representation» starting in June.
«Citizens have the power to select their political representation in government, not the other way around,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «This scheme, which forces small business owners, and even grandma taking care of her grandchildren, into union political association is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear.»
«This union boss power grab scheme is nothing more than pure political payback and was popularized by disgraced Governors Gray Davis of California and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois.»
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Illinois case, Harris v. Quinn this spring. The Minnesota case has been held pending the outcome of the Harris case.
NLRB Rejects UAW’s Attempts to Silence Chattanooga VW Workers’ in Unionization Vote Hearing
NLRB Rejects UAW’s Attempts to Silence Chattanooga VW Workers’ in Unionization Vote Hearing
UAW union bosses move to eject workers from process
Washington, DC (April 16, 2014) –The United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials’ request to exclude Chattanooga, Tennessee Volkswagen workers seeking to defend the recent unionization vote in their workplace has been rejected by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The VW employees filed the motion to intervene with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys after the UAW union filed objections to the recent highly-publicized election in their workplace.
UAW union officials filed the objections with the NLRB after Chattanooga VW workers voted against giving the UAW monopoly bargaining control over the plant via a rapid-fire unionization election.
In response, the workers filed a motion to intervene in the objection process to defend the election results.
NLRB Rejects UAW’s Attempts to Silence Chattanooga VW Workers’ in Unionization Vote Hearing
Washington, DC (April 16, 2014) –The United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials’ request to exclude Chattanooga, Tennessee Volkswagen workers seeking to defend the recent unionization vote in their workplace has been rejected by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The VW employees filed the motion to intervene with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys after the UAW union filed objections to the recent highly-publicized election in their workplace.
UAW union officials filed the objections with the NLRB after Chattanooga VW workers voted against giving the UAW monopoly bargaining control over the plant via a rapid-fire unionization election.
In response, the workers filed a motion to intervene in the objection process to defend the election results. The NLRB Acting Regional Director in Atlanta ruled to allow the workers to defend the vote during the proceedings. UAW union officials then appealed the Regional Director’s decision to the Board in Washington, D.C.
Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, issued the following statement in the wake of the NRLB’s ruling:
«The NLRB Acting Regional Director ruled that the workers are entitled to defend the election results. The decision over whether or not to unionize is supposed to lie with the workers, which makes the attempt by the UAW to shut them out of this process all the more shameful.
«And based on Volkswagen management’s actions leading up to this point, these workers are concerned that VW will not actively defend their vote to remain free from union boss control and the workers’ intervention ensures that at least one party to the process is fully invested in upholding the election results.
«The real question here is: Why are UAW officials so afraid of workers and their National Right to Work Foundation-provided attorneys being part of this process?»
Foundation staff attorneys representing the VW employees will attend the NLRB hearing on Monday, April 21.
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board’s Ambush Elections Rules
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board’s Ambush Elections Rules
Proposed rules would allow union bosses to ambush workers to push them into Big Labor’s forced-dues-paying ranks
Washington, DC (April 7, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed guidelines, which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded workers.
The NLRB again proposed these rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted after a federal court struck them down in 2012. The court ruled that the Board did not have a quorum necessary to enact the new rules when it tried to do so.
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board’s Ambush Elections Rules
Washington, DC (April 7, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed guidelines, which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded workers.
The NLRB again proposed these rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted after a federal court struck them down in 2012. The court ruled that the Board did not have a quorum necessary to enact the new rules when it tried to do so.
The proposed rules dramatically shorten the time frame individual workers have to gather, evaluate, and share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. Moreover, the rules require job providers to disclose workers’ personal information (including their phone numbers, email addresses, and shift information), thus opening up dissenting or undecided workers to intimidation and harassment.
The new rules would also create a loophole which allows union organizers to claim they have support of 30 percent of employees in the workplace, the minimum number required to initiate an election, despite a dispute regarding the size of the bargaining unit in question. Then, union organizers who fear that they do not have enough support to win an election could withdraw their request for an election and use the newly-gotten personal information in later attempts to unionize the workers.
Foundation staff attorneys argue in the formal comments that this «ambush» election process would encourage the forced unionization of workers who might otherwise be opposed to unionization, and that the rule requiring job providers to hand over the employees’ personal information to union bosses violates workers’ privacy.
«The NLRB’s proposed rules make union organizing campaigns even more one-sided and stifle the rights of employees who may oppose unionization in their workplace,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «This power grab reminds us once again that the Big Labor-dominated NLRB’s enforcement of federal labor law is most often used to empower union officials, not workers, with unique and damaging privileges designed to bolster their power and revenue.»
Foundation staff attorney William Messenger will also speak against the proposed rules at the NLRB’s public meetings on the changes on Friday, April 11.
Volkswagen Workers’ Brief Blasts UAW Bosses’ Desperate and Delusional Attempt to Silence Dissenting Employees
Volkswagen Workers’ Brief Blasts UAW Bosses’ Desperate and Delusional Attempt to Silence Dissenting Employees
Foundation staff attorneys help employees preserve their decision to reject unionization
Springfield, VA (April 3, 2014) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Volkswagen employees filed a brief defending their right to have a say in the high-profile unionization dispute at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, Tennessee facility.
The brief was filed after the United Auto Worker (UAW) union asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reverse a Regional Director’s ruling allowing the workers to intervene in the union’s challenge to the outcome of the recent unionization election, which the UAW lost.
The brief opposes further delays to the NLRB’s hearing on the union’s challenge, and accuses the UAW of using false evidence to prompt the Board to remove the workers from the process. The brief also calls for a Department of Justice investigation to consider a prosecution of the UAW’s «witness» for filing demonstrably false statements under oath.
Volkswagen Workers’ Brief Blasts UAW Bosses’ Desperate and Delusional Attempt to Silence Dissenting Employees
Springfield, VA (April 3, 2014) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Volkswagen employees filed a brief defending their right to have a say in the high-profile unionization dispute at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, Tennessee facility.
The brief was filed after the United Auto Worker (UAW) union asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reverse a Regional Director’s ruling allowing the workers to intervene in the union’s challenge to the outcome of the recent unionization election, which the UAW lost.
The brief opposes further delays to the NLRB’s hearing on the union’s challenge, and accuses the UAW of using false evidence to prompt the Board to remove the workers from the process. The brief also calls for a Department of Justice investigation to consider a prosecution of the UAW’s «witness» for filing demonstrably false statements under oath.
The brief states, «That the UAW resorted to filing a false declaration that could be so easily disproved to attempt to show the existence of a grand and secret conspiracy being waged against it smacks of the desperation and paranoia increasingly gripping the union following its rejection by Volkswagen employees in the election.»
The brief then points out that the UAW’s false accusations against the Foundation are not reason enough to exclude the workers even if the accusations were true. The brief states «The UAW’s case proceeds from the misguided premise that it is objectionable if any entity campaigned or spoke against the union in the election. While this belief may reflect how elections are conducted in Venezuela or North Korea, it does not reflect how elections are conducted in this free nation.»
Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:
«The NLRB Regional Director has ruled that the workers are entitled to defend their vote to keep the UAW out of their workplace. The decision over whether or not to unionize is supposed to lie with the workers, which makes the attempt by the UAW to shut them out of this process all the more shameful.
«The UAW’s latest claims are both desperate and delusional. Nothing UAW bosses are claiming changes the fact that VW employees should have the right to defend their vote to keep the UAW out of their workplace. The real question the brief raises is: Why are UAW officials so afraid of workers and their National Right to Work Foundation-provided attorneys being part of this process?»
Wallops Island NASA Employee Files Federal Brief in Union Election Dispute
Wallops Island NASA Employee Files Federal Brief in Union Election Dispute
Government union’s stalling tactics block workers’ representation vote
Washington, DC (April 3, 2014) – A Wallops Island NASA employee filed a federal brief with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) defending his and his coworkers’ request to vote on their union representation for the first time in 40 years.
Ronald Walsh, a 10 year NASA employee, filed the brief yesterday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Forty years ago, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union hierarchy won monopoly bargaining powers in Walsh’s workplace. Since then, five AFGE-affiliated unions have enjoyed monopoly bargaining powers over the workplace without a vote.
Walsh believed that the union in his workplace was out of tune with the majority of his coworkers. So in June, 2013, Walsh circulated a decertification petition at his workplace seeking a vote which would allow the workers to determine if they would like to keep the AFGE Local 1923 union in their workplace.
Wallops Island NASA Employee Files Federal Brief in Union Election Dispute
Washington, DC (April 3, 2014) – A Wallops Island NASA employee filed a federal brief with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) defending his and his coworkers’ request to vote on their union representation for the first time in 40 years.
Ronald Walsh, a 10 year NASA employee, filed the brief yesterday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Forty years ago, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union hierarchy won monopoly bargaining powers in Walsh’s workplace. Since then, five AFGE-affiliated unions have enjoyed monopoly bargaining powers over the workplace without a vote.
Walsh believed that the union in his workplace was out of tune with the majority of his coworkers. So in June, 2013, Walsh circulated a decertification petition at his workplace seeking a vote which would allow the workers to determine if they would like to keep the AFGE Local 1923 union in their workplace. Within a few days, Walsh obtained the required 30 percent of his coworkers’ signatures and filed the petition on June 17, 2013.
An FLRA Regional Director dismissed Walsh’s petition, stating that he could only file it between July 10 and August 26, 2013. However, the FLRA Regional Director allowed the union to wait to object to Walsh’s petition on those grounds until August 27, 2013 – one day after the supposed deadline.
Had the union made its objection within the «window period,» when originally due, Walsh would have been able to timely refile his petition.
In the brief, Walsh points out that the FLRA’s so-called «window period» does not apply to decertification petitions filed by individuals and that any other interpretation of the statute could violate workers’ First Amendment rights.
«No worker should be forced to accept a union’s representation without a say in the matter,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «The FLRA should allow these workers a voice to determine for themselves what union ‘represents’ them or if they even want something to do with a union in the first place.»
