Here at Freedom @ Work, we often discuss card check by citing examples of employees being harassed, misled, or lied to by union organizers.

But simple common sense also says that when (often intimidating) individuals shove a piece of paper in your face, and tell you that it is in your interest to sign, you may well do it -- even if you aren't exactly sure what you are signing.

Case in point are two videos -- both done for television shows -- of people signing absurd petitions. In both cases, the signature collectors don't even lie to the people whose signatures they seek about what they are signing.

In one video, two comedians set up a table at a fair and easily collect dozens of signatures, mostly from women, to "end women's suffrage." Meaning that without even lying, they got dozens of women to sign a petition in favor of eliminating their right to vote.

In another video, shown below, a women collects hundreds of signatures to ban "Dihydrogen Monoxide" -- better known as water -- at a rally of environmentalists. Like, the "end women's suffrage" pranksters, the signature collector truthfully informs prospective signers about the chemical (water) that they want to ban:

As these videos show, just because someone signs a petition or card, doesn't mean they really understand what they are signing. Furthermore, Foundation legal cases have shown outright lies about the meaning or effect of the cards. These realities are something that must be remembered when union bosses or their allies in Congress attempt to impose more card check coercion on workers.

The cover story of the July/August issue of Foundation Action is now available for download here.

The story details former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement's efforts to undermine the Foundation's Locke v. Karass U.S. Supreme Court case. The article also shows that this isn't the first time that the Solicitor General, who recently-resigned his position, has undercut a Foundation Supreme Court case.

You can get your own free subscription to Foundation Action here.

On July 4, former Senator Jesse Helms passed away in Raleigh, North Carolina at the age of 86. Best known for his tireless conservative advocacy, Senator Helms was a staunch defender of employees' Right to Work and a fierce opponent of compulsory unionism.

Once dubbed "Public Enemy #1" by North Carolina AFL-CIO top boss Wilbur Hobby, Helms' impressive legislative record included several notable accomplishments on behalf of the Right to Work movement. In 1978, his timely filibuster single-handedly de-railed Big Labor's efforts to pass the infamous Pushbutton Unionism Bill (or so-called "Labor Law Reform"), a piece of legislation designed to impose draconian penalties on any employer resisting compulsory unionization. Helms struck another blow against Big Labor in 1995, successfully opposing Senator Ted Kennedy's attempts to pass the Pushbutton Strike Bill.

In the 1990s, Helms actively assisted the National Right to Work Committee's efforts to safeguard employee freedom through passage of the National Right to Work Act. Not only did Helms reintroduce the legislation in 2001, he also wrote letters and recorded messages on behalf of the Committee. Through his efforts, Helms helped mobilize hundreds of thousands of citizens against compulsory unionism.

In 2001, then Foundation President Reed Larson paid Helms the ultimate tribute: "No member of Congress - nobody in the whole United States - has done as much to help [us] advance the Right to Work cause as Jesse Helms."

Employee Rights Group Seeks Federal Criminal Investigation into SEIU Union’s Political Fundraising

SEIU’s new rule forces local affiliates to raise PAC money or kick in workers’ forced union dues and pay penalties

Washington, DC (July 17, 2008) – The National Right to Work Foundation has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice open investigations into a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its recent convention.

After reviewing a new amendment to the SEIU constitution, Foundation staff attorneys have concluded that the union and its officers may be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets.

“SEIU bosses are making a mockery of federal law. It’s vital the Department of Justice and Department of Labor take action now before the damage is done,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Elections are a cornerstone of our democratic republic, and we need to do everything possible to ensure the results aren’t tainted by unlawful union activism that violates the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

Article XV, Section 18 of the union’s constitution now authorizes the SEIU’s national brass to fine local unions for failure to meet its annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligations. SEIU COPE is the union’s federal PAC, and the FEC lists it as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006.

However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.

The new amendment also appears to allow local affiliates to use nonmember employees’ mandatory dues payments to cover PAC contributions and the SEIU’s fines. While imposition of financial penalties for failure to make political contributions is illegal regardless of how those fines are spent, the use of funds derived from nonmembers’ fees for political purposes also violates those employees’ constitutional rights.

Union officials have devoted enormous sums of money to influence the upcoming fall elections. Because the SEIU’s political contributions are so significant, Foundation attorneys believe that this amendment has the potential to irreparably compromise the integrity of the electoral process. By coercing local affiliates and nonmember employees into contributing to the SEIU’s massive general election fund, union officials threaten to disenfranchise voters with a firestorm of illegally funded political activism.

In the letter to Attorney General Mukasey, Mix writes for the Foundation: “Not only are large numbers of employees (forced to fill SEIU coffers) harmed by this crime, but, given the close vote in recent national elections, the illegal SEIU activity effectively disenfranchises voters who follow the law… To protect the rights of workers forced to pay compulsory dues and fees, and the integrity of the November elections, I trust you will act upon this information…”

### 

Download the letters to the DOL and DOJ (pdf)

Not long ago we anonymously received a copy of the following press release from the National Labor Relations Board Professional Association union dated June 30:

The Battle To Prevent Another September Massacre at the NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board Professional Association, the union representing attorneys at the Board’s D.C. headquarters, is fighting to prevent another September Massacre. The “massacre” that the Union fears isn’t dozens of controversial decisions but a wave of unfair and discriminatory mid-year appraisals and reprisals against its members.

A new performance-appraisal program sparked this battle. Applying a “forced distribution” model like those popular with corporations like General Electric, the Board forced attorney ratings to fit a pre-established distribution. As a result, the Board’s staff attorneys were more or less equally divided into Exceptional, Commendable, and Proficient categories.

To get this predetermined distribution, Board managers unfairly tinkered with individual ratings. The resultant ratings “downgrades,” in many instances of attorneys long rated in the highest category, prompted grievances by more than one third of 45 staff attorneys.

In addition, because the NLRB’s “rank-and-yank” appraisal system had a discriminatory, adverse impact on the Board’s older female and disabled attorneys, the new system generated discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity office and a grievance of the new system’s discriminatory impact on the bargaining unit by the Union.

Board management’s response to the Union’s efforts has been anything but predictable. The NLRB’s lone Democratic member, Wilma Liebman, has not settled a single grievance and threatened reprisals against grievants and a Union officer. Meanwhile, Chairman Peter Schaumber, despite his conservative, pro-employer reputation, has cooperated with the Union to settle most of the appraisal grievances of the attorneys assigned to him.

The Union recently filed grievances against retaliatory conduct by Member Liebman and contacted Congress and the NAACP for help remedying discrimination at the Board.

Where do we begin?

First we chuckle at the notion that every Board attorney fits into one of three categories ("exceptional, commendable, and proficient"), as this ranking system leaves out any possibility that a Board employee does less than "proficient" work. Given the many decisions where the NLRB has been slapped down by appellate courts for faulty logic and abuse of discretion -- particularly in cases involving individual employees dissenting from union activity -- it would seem that a Board attorney could easily earn a ranking of "deficient" or worse.

Still, Liebman's apparent hypocrisy raises eyebrows. After years of carrying Big Labor's water and working to shove forced unionism down the throats of both employers and individual employees (and she apparently also views her quasi-judicial role to essentially include lobbying for Big Labor's coercive card check bill), Liebman suddenly finds the tables turned. The union activist now stands accused of threats, reprisals, and discrimination against employees by the very union officials that she has worked overtime to empower.

Meanwhile, these union bosses praise NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber who Liebman has derisively referred to as a promoter of an "individual rights regime." (An individual rights regime? My lands - how positively awful!)

If we thought the situation would make Liebman more sympathetic to employee free choice and individual rights, the whole experience could be a nice little learning experience for her. But we won't hold our breath.

The July/August 2008 Foundation Action newsletter is now available for download!

In this issue:

• Administration Lawyer Undercuts Another Foundation Case, Abruptly Resigns
• Foundation Pushes to Close Union Disclosure Loopholes
• Union Boss Monopoly Bargaining Rears Ugly Head
• Foundation Victory Reveals Widespread Use of Card-Check
• Foundation Attorneys Expose Shady Union Accounting Scheme
• Planned Giving Strategies Pay Off Now and Later

Download the July/August 2008 Foundation Action in PDF form today. You can sign up for a free subscription to Foundation Action here.

1. No employee in the United States can legally be required to be a full-dues-paying, formal union member. But in many states, an employee can be forced to pay certain union dues or be fired from his or her job.
2. Union members have the right to resign from formal membership at any time. However, dues deduction authorizations may limit when they can be revoked.
3. Employees covered by state Right to Work laws can not lawfully be required to pay any union fees to keep their jobs. But state Right to Work laws do not protect railway and airline employees and employees of private-sector contractors on some federal properties.
4. Because they enjoy the special privilege of exclusive representation, unions have a legal duty to represent fairly all employees in their bargaining units. Unions are legally required to represent nonmember employees the same as members, but unfortunately this duty is often breached.
5. If a law or bargaining agreement permits it, employees can be forced to pay certain union fees. If you don’t join the union, or resign from membership, and notify the union that you don’t want to pay full dues, the required fee must be limited to the union's proven costs of collective bargaining activities. This fee may not lawfully include things like political expenses.
6. Nonmembers with religious objections to supporting a union have the right to ask the union to redirect the forced dues amount to charity. Religious objectors do not have to belong to a specific church to claim this right.
7. A union member who wants to work during a strike should resign from union membership BEFORE going to work. If the resignation is mailed, the employee should not work until the day after the resignation is postmarked. Otherwise, the employee could be fined by the union. If you are already a nonmember, you can work at will during a strike and not be lawfully fined.
8. Many employees have a legal right to petition for an election to oust an unwanted union from their workplace or to eliminate the union’s ability to collect forced fees. You should contact us if you want to do this.
9. Your best source for information about your Right to Work rights is this web site. Foundation attorneys have represented many employees like you, and have taken several cases all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect workers’ rights.
10. If, after reviewing the information available through the links below, you are still unclear about your rights, or believe that you need legal aid because union officials have violated these rights (as they frequently do), call us at 800-336-3600 or send us an e-mail here.

To learn more about your legal rights, please select the category of employment to which you belong:

• Federal Government Employee
• Private Sector Employee
• Public School Teacher or College Professor
• Airline/Railway Employee
• State or Local Government Employee

Yesterday, SCOTUSblog reported on the opposition by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys to the Solicitor General's self-contradictory motion for divided arguments in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case. (For more background on the SG's unwelcome machinations and the Foundation's principled opposition, read this post.)

The SCOTUSblog post brings to light this new tidbit of news: "Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer for the respondent, said the union did not plan to file an opposition."

Of course he won't. The Solicitor General is making Big Labor's legal arguments. Why not add another lawyer to the union legal team at taxpayer expense?

If the Solicitor General forces his way in, Foundation staff attorneys representing a group of Maine State employees may get 5 fewer minutes to argue their case. Looking at his misguided legal brief (which the union later cited 14 times in its own brief), there can be little doubt that the SG would use the time to make the union officials' case against the employees and the First Amendment.

As the Foundation attorneys' response makes clear, the Administration's interest in the case is extremely tenuous and far fetched, and under court rules it should therefore be barred from participation in oral arguments (as in similar situations in the past).

Welcome to Big Labor's anti-employee legal team, Mr. Solicitor General. Thank you very little.