Washington, D.C. (October 8, 2002) – The following is a statement from Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on President Bush’s decision to intervene and invoke the Taft-Hartley Act provisions to halt the West Coast ports shutdown involving the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU):

“Using the union special privileges granted by federal labor law, a small group of union officials have been empowered to hold America’s economy hostage. President Bush’s decision to seek a temporary injunction to open the West Coast ports for shipping is only a temporary solution to a much larger problem.

“If the president is serious about protecting America’s economy and security, he must work to end compulsory unionism in the form of monopoly bargaining and forced union dues. This power gives union officials control over union treasuries, union offices, strike votes, and contract negotiations without fear of workers exercising any practical restraint.

“Union officials have a long history of exploiting national security and economic crises to seek more power. During the Second World War, Big Labor waged 13,000 strikes and work stoppages to impose forced unionism on hundreds of thousands of workers. By the end of World War II, more than 78 percent of unionized employees were governed by contracts that required them to pay union dues as a condition of employment, a fourfold increase. ”

Washington Times
October 7, 2002

By Stefan Gleason, Vice President
National Right to Work

As the Senate considers denying President George W. Bush managerial flexibility at the proposed Department of Homeland Security, the union brass are proving again that reports of their political demise are greatly exaggerated. Union officials have managed to convince Senate Democrats to make a risky political bet by voting against the president on a vital national security issue — and just one month before an election.

But the real sticking point in the debate over the homeland security bill is over expansion of union coercive privileges — not civil service protections, as union spokesmen have claimed. The union hierarchy wants to require the president of the United States to get their permission before implementing personnel decisions necessary to cut through crippling bureaucracy and improve national security. Such a requirement would change existing policy and bog down the administration in protracted union negotiations over petty matters.

Sadly, union officials have employed this strategy of reaching for power during previous periods of national crisis as well. Take their spectacular successes during World War II.

Big labor’s World War II power-grab began in 1941, when the federal government became more deeply involved in key defense-related industries. Realizing that their leverage would increase due to the national crisis, union officials instigated a series of 13,000 often violent and crippling strikes.

In one of the most notorious of these strikes, mineworkers union bosses shut down the coal mines owned by steel firms (steel was, of course, vital to the war effort). Union officials’ chief demand was that all mining employees be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. When a federal agency recommended a settlement that did not include this requirement, President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned the matter over to an arbitrator who ruled in the union’s favor.

As more U.S. industries became enmeshed in war production, the Roosevelt administration repeatedly used so-called «labor peace» as an excuse to rope hundreds of thousands more individuals into compulsory unionism.

Toward that end, Roosevelt created the National War Labor Board (NWLB) and gave it authority over just about every industry in wartime America. In July 1942, the NWLB revealed its loyalty to the union hierarchy when it ruled that workers may not resign their union memberships for the entire length of a union’s collective bargaining contract. Before World War II, only 20 percent of unionized employees were governed by contracts that required forced union dues payments as a job condition. By 1947, that percentage shot up to 78 percent — where it remains today.

In spite of all the efforts to placate Big Labor, however, «labor peace» never did develop during the war. The number of strikes rose 26 percent in 1943, and 32 percent in 1944, and declined by only 4 percent in 1945.

Labor expert Donald R. Richberg, in his 1957 book, «Labor Union Monopoly: A Clear And Present Danger,» detailed the «exasperation with which a war-stricken people had watched the unions take advantage of war necessities to force unreasonable demands on private industry and government.» This was, in Mr. Richberg’s words, «a disgraceful record for ‘patriotic’ labor.»
True to form, union officials have also used the horrifying attacks of September 11 as cover for their march for increased government-granted privileges.

Only two days after al Qaeda toppled the World Trade Center towers, for example, Democrat Sens. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton rammed a bill that one union dubbed «the largest expansion of labor [union] rights considered by Congress in decades» through a closed-door Senate committee without a single word of testimony or even a recorded vote. Later, they tried to sneak it through the Senate by unanimous consent. And in November, union-allied senators attempted to push through the legislation via an amendment to a «must pass» appropriations bill.

Through these shameless maneuvers, Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Clinton sought to federally mandate that all state and local governments anoint union officials as the monopoly bargaining agents for local police, firefighters, paramedics, and other public safety officers — even in jurisdictions that have wisely banned this form of compulsory unionism.

Fortunately for the many dedicated public servants who don’t want union officials and crippling workplace rules to disrupt their important work, some senators spoke out against the proposed expansion of union coercive power. «We appreciate our firemen and we appreciate our policemen, but forcing people to pay union dues is not a way to show appreciation,» said Sen. Phil Gramm.

Now, during the debate over union privileges inserted by Senate Democrats into the Homeland Security bill, union bosses are adopting a tone of outraged innocence while loudly proclaiming their dedication to national security. But their actions prove otherwise, and their long record of exploiting national crises to increase their power should stiffen the resolve of right-minded senators to stand with the president.

Stefan Gleason is vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, a Springfield, Va.-based organization.

Washington, D.C. (October 2, 2002) – The National Right to Work Foundation today blasted officials of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) for exploiting America’s economic crisis and concerns over national security to increase their power by forcing the shutdown of all West Coast shipping ports.

Using a variety of work slowdown tactics, including deliberately understaffing key operations and sending workers to jobs for which they were not qualified, ILWU officials made it impossible for the ports to function. Experts have estimated that the shutdown of West Coast ports will cost the American economy $1 billion each day.

“With actions taken directly from the union playbook used during other periods of crisis, ILWU officials have chosen to use their increased leverage to make unreasonable demands,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “This is a perfect example of why workers should be freed from government-backed forced unionism which gives union bosses a virtual stranglehold over workers’ jobs and America’s economy.”

Resulting from the many union coercive powers created by federal labor law, ILWU officials have been empowered to interfere with the ability of thousands of workers to support their families. For example, union officials may lawfully deny employees any opportunity to vote on their employer’s contract offer. Meanwhile, few employees dare to object to the union’s tactics. Workers who disagree with union demands often face hefty fines, harassment, and union violence.

Union officials have a long history of using national crises to expand their power and influence. During the Second World War, Big Labor used strikes and work stoppages to impose forced unionism on hundreds of thousands of workers. In the most notorious of these strikes, union officials were able to shut down vital iron mines and ultimately persuaded the federal government to mandate that all mining employees pay union dues as a condition of employment.

By the end of World War II, more than 78 percent of unionized employees were governed by contracts that required them to pay union dues as a condition of employment, a fourfold increase.

Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., has announced a newly formed «Neutrality/Card Check Task Force» composed of Staff Attorneys experienced in litigation under the National Labor Relations Act. The Foundation has formed this task force to provide legal assistance to employees who are victimized by a pernicious and spreading scheme of union officials and politicians to force compulsory union representation on workers.

The background is as follows: Although so-called «neutrality agreements» come in several different forms, the common denominator is that an employer is pressured into staying «neutral» with regard to a union’s attempt to organize its workforce. Neutrality agreements commonly give the union access to employees in the form of a list of their names, addresses and telephone numbers, as well as permission to come on company property during work hours for the purpose of collecting union authorization cards. This differs from the guidelines set by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts, under which an employer has no obligation to, and may actually be prohibited from, providing the union with such sweeping access to its employees.

Most neutrality agreements also include a «card check» agreement. Under such an agreement, the employees are not permitted to vote on union representation in a secret ballot election monitored by the NLRB. Instead, the employer pledges to automatically recognize the union without an election if the union presents the company with the requisite number of signed authorization cards. Experience shows that many employees are coerced or misled into signing these authorization cards, often being falsely told that they are merely health insurance enrollment forms, non-binding «statements of interest,» requests for an election, or even tax forms.

Some employers are pressured into neutrality agreements by union picketing, threats, or comprehensive «corporate campaigns.» Even more ominously, we see a growing trend in which state and local politicians pass laws mandating that any employer who wishes to do business with the state or locality must sign such neutrality agreements. In one notorious case, the San Francisco Airport Authority mandated that any concessionaires who wished to lease space at the airport had to first sign a neutrality/card check agreement. That governmental interference in private labor relations was held to be federally preempted, and was enjoined, in Aeroground, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 170 F. Supp. 2d 950 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Unfortunately, many politicians still require such neutrality/charge check agreements as a condition of contracting with the government or of obtaining grants, even though most, if not all, such requirements are unlawful under federal law.

Because employees’ rights of free choice are being sacrificed and lost by coercive «neutrality and card check» agreements, the Foundation has established its new Neutrality/Card Check Task Force to help employees who find themselves forced (or potentially forced) into unwanted union representation as a result of these devices. The Foundation stands ready, willing and able to help employees who are victims or potential victims of these schemes. Workers who wish to request assistance may write us, call us toll-free at 800-336-3600, or send an e-mail message to legal@nrtw.org. Address your request for assistance to Legal Department.

Springfield, Va. (September 27, 2002) — Stefan Gleason, Vice President of National Right to Work, is scheduled to appear on MSNBC’s Buchanan & Press on Monday, September 30.

Gleason will debate a top government union official regarding the controversy surrounding the union special privileges that Senate Democrats have inserted into legislation authorizing President Bush’s Homeland Security department. The President has threatened to veto the legislation if it does not allow him management flexibility relating to vital national security personnel.

The national television program airs Monday afternoon between 2 and 4 p.m., eastern time, with the Right to Work segment beginning at 3:00 p.m.

Los Angeles, Calif. (September 26, 2002) — On the eve of Congressional hearings into the national epidemic of union violence, the Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected an attempt by union lawyers to block a worker’s civil suit that was filed after a vicious union beating following a 2001 strike at Hollander Home Fashions.

Issuing its ruling from the bench on Wednesday, the court rejected an attempt by lawyers for the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) to dismiss Matthew Kahn’s suit. This will allow the victim’s claims of civil conspiracy, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed without delay. The court also declined to limit Kahn’s ability to collect civil damages resulting from the union assault and will allow full discovery into the union’s role in the beating.

“This ruling is a small first step toward forcing UNITE to account for its role in this cowardly assault on an innocent man,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, because of the numerous special exemptions for union violence enshrined in federal and state criminal and civil laws, Matthew Kahn still faces an uphill battle.”

With the help of attorneys provided by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Kahn, an employee of Labor Ready, filed suit against UNITE for damages incurred in May 2001 resulting from an apparently premeditated attack by UNITE Organizing Director Ramiro Hernandez and several other union militants that left Kahn with several head lacerations and other injuries. According to the complaint, the union bailed Hernandez out of jail after the assault and continued to employ him. Later investigation showed that Hernandez possesses an extensive arrest record for union-related misconduct.

In United States v. Enmons (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that strike-related violence cannot be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, which criminalizes the obstruction of interstate commerce through violence, threat, or coercion. Numerous other states have enacted similar special exemptions for enforcement of criminal laws during strikes. As a result, thousands of acts of violence (usually directed against non-striking workers) have gone unpunished. In 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed a bill limiting civil liability for unions and union officers that commit acts of violence.

Unfortunately, the vicious union beating of Matthew Kahn is not an isolated incident. The National Institute for Labor Relations Research has recorded almost 10,000 media-reported incidents of union violence since 1975. Experts on labor- and strike-related violence estimate that unreported acts of harassment, vandalism, and violence could swell that figure to 100,000 or more.

POLICY FORUM
Monday, September 30, 2002
12:00 p.m. (Luncheon to follow)

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are currently the major opponents of school choice and other positive education reforms. In this forum, speakers from three organizations battling the teacher unions will discuss the strategic steps necessary to break the stranglehold that the NEA and AFT currently have on teachers and politics.

Stefan Gleason will give an overview of the national legal and legislative battles underway to dismantle the special privileges that the NEA and AFT use to maintain their dominance over teachers and politics.

Mark Levin will discuss complaints filed with three government agencies against the NEA for underreporting political expenditures.

Myron Lieberman will discuss his new Cato Policy Analysis outlining a proposal for allowing other groups to compete with the NEA and AFT in representing teachers.

Cato policy forums and luncheons are free of charge. To register for this event, please go to http://www.cato.org/events/020930pf.html or call Julie Cullifer by 12:00 p.m., Friday, September 27, 2002, at (202) 789-5229, fax her at (202) 371-0841, or e-mail to jcullifer@cato.org.

News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call (202) 842-0200 x800.

If you can’t make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online.

Chula Vista, Calif. (September 24, 2002) — With the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two employees of Raytheon Technical Services Company filed charges against union officials for refusing to honor their resignations from the union, threatening them with internal union “disciplinary” charges, and continuing to illegally charge full union dues, including dues spent for politics.

The employees, Brent Bull and Michael Adams, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Electronic and Space Technicians (EST) Local 1553 and its affiliate, the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC). The workers claim union officials are demanding they pay full union dues, and face disciplinary fines, to punish them for resigning their membership and participating in efforts to decertify the union.

“This is a clear case of union bosses refusing to respect the rights of the workers they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “No one should be forced to pay compulsory dues to a union, especially when its officials egregiously abuse that federally granted special privilege.”

The charges also allege that union officials never informed any of the workers at the facility of their rights to refrain from union membership. As part of the complaint, Adams and Bull want EST Local 1553 to return all of the money that is being illegally seized and used for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including union organizing and political activities. They also want the union to drop its “disciplinary” charges.

“When union bosses will not tell workers what their rights are, it is clear they have something to hide,” said Gleason.

EST and SWRCC union officials’ actions violated the workers’ rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Pattern Makers v. NLRB decision. Under Pattern Makers, unions must specifically inform employees of their right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership before seizing any forced union dues.

Washington, DC (September 19, 2002) — A union-abused worker today filed class-action federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) for using a firm involved in fraudulent accounting practices to justify the union’s forced union dues demands nationwide. The charges followed multiple guilty pleas to federal criminal charges by a partner at Thomas Havey LLP, the nation’s top union accounting firm.

Meanwhile, Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA), chairman of the Workforce Protections subcommittee, publicly released a stern letter to Arthur Rosenfeld, NLRB General Counsel, arguing that the audits the Havey firm conducted for 700 unions nationwide cannot be relied upon, in light of “clear evidence that the Havey firm has engaged in fraudulent and criminal activity in auditing union books and records.”

Under current law, union officials must provide objecting employees with independently audited disclosure of how forced union dues are spent so the employees can determine if they are subsidizing activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including electioneering and other political activity.

“Workers should not be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union, especially when union officials use an accounting firm known for helping to cook the books to conceal how dues are spent,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, a national legal aid organization that is providing free legal aid to the employee who today filed his case.

In August, Thomas Havey partner Frank Massey pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges of “aiding a conspiracy to defraud the United States” by helping union officials hide on government disclosure forms how they spent over $1.5 million in union dues. Havey accountants listed union officers’ expenses for alcohol, expensive dining, and golfing trips as “Office and Administrative expenses” or “Education and Publicity.” These practices kept the top union officials from having to itemize the costs of these activities and thereby revealing how they spend workers’ mandatory union dues.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mark Simpson, an employee of Shenango Presbyterian Seniorcare, filed the unfair labor practice claim with the NLRB. Until IBT union officials give objecting employees like Simpson a credible independent audit, it is impossible for them to determine if they are unlawfully being charged for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including union politics.

The Teamsters union is one of the most politically active unions in the country. Every year, union officials seize millions of dollars in compulsory dues to support candidates and causes which many workers find objectionable. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of rank-and-file union members objects to having their dues spent for political activities.

Pensacola, Fla. (September 5, 2002) – In response to perceived union arrogance, employees of Raytheon, LLC. filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for an election to prohibit the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union from forcing workers to pay union dues as a job condition.

Led by Robert Prime, an employee for the federal contractor at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, the unionized workers are upset that IAM officials have shut them out of the decision making process on important areas such as shift change rules, retirement benefits, and general contract negotiations.

A majority of the employees object to the security clause that mandates a worker can be fired for not paying union dues or fees. Over 65 percent of Prime’s coworkers signed the deauthorization petition, far beyond the 30 percent of signatures that triggers the NLRB supervised-election.

«Without the ability to withhold union dues, workers have virtually no power to hold IAM union officials accountable for their lies and broken promises,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that is assisting the employees in vindicating their rights.

Although most Florida workers are protected by the state’s popular Right to Work Law, Raytheon employees work on federal property under exclusive federal jurisdiction, and they can thereby be forced to pay compulsory union dues as a condition of employment. As such, the only way under federal law for these employees to eliminate forced dues payment in their unionized workplace is through a deauthorization election.

If a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit vote in favor of deauthorization, union officials will be stripped of their special privilege to compel payment of compulsory dues. The requirement for an absolute majority, set by the National Labor Relations Act, is more difficult for employees to achieve than the standard for certifying a union, which requires only a majority of those voting.