Earlier this month, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking the court to order the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to suspend further action in a case that expanded union bosses' powers to charge nonmember workers for union political lobbying.
The petition was filed after the Board held that a union hierarchy could force nurses in Rhode Island to pay for union bosses' political lobbying, including lobbying in the state of Vermont.
Foundation attorneys filed the petition after the court ruled in January that President Barack Obama's controversial purported "recess appointments" to the Board are unconstitutional. The court held President Obama could not constitutionality make those appointments without U.S. Senate confirmation because the Senate was not in recess.
Today, the court ordered the NLRB to respond to the Foundation's petition within 30 days, and then allows Foundation attorneys to respond within 15 days after the NLRB responds.
The demand for briefing on the petition suggests the court's willingness to grant the writ of prohibition that would order the NLRB to cease and desist action on the Geary case. Stay tuned.
Comments
You said it........
The petition was filed after the Board held that a union hierarchy could force nurses in Rhode Island to pay for union bosses' political lobbying, including lobbying in the state of Vermont........
Which really shows what this site is all about. Trying to abolish and eliminate political funding done by the unions. You care very little about workers rights or their wages, your agenda seems only to focus on getting union dues out of PAC funds by using FREELOADERS as your defense.
What FREELOADERS
Only a liberal collectivist would justify the use of threats to livelihood to extort funds from unwilling participants and then throw accusations of freeloading at those who are assertive enough to resist.
Let Union PAC's raise their money the way other PAC's raise theirs; through the positive opt in actions of those who believe in the cause.
Why should non-union
Why should non-union employees be forced to pay for union lobbying? Forced political lobbying is about as far away from free speech as you can get... which explains why the Obama NLRB is in favor of it.
Their not in our union
We would allow a non-union member to refrain from their dues going towards our PAC. Heck it's only 2% which means they would get around $30 back, but we don't have any nonunion members who pay dues. Again your information does not apply to all unions
Free Will or Free Load??
If you disagree with the money being spent to defend workers rights than you have FREE WILL to not work for that company. It should be rather easy considering unions only hold a 10% market share.
Or you could join the union and what small percent that is used you then could direct your representative on how and what the money is used for.
In our union the members are focused on RTW laws, so most of our money went to local leaders who are against Right To Work for less, and so far money well spent.
I guess freeloaders are also lazy bums who don't have the brains to enact change by getting active. They wait for some more "FREE" legal services, from the corporate donors demanding the destruction of unions.
Not Freeloaders, Free to choose
Or perhaps Right to work advocates are those who feel they are smart enough to act as their own bargaining agents and don't feel unions represent their interests or rights.
Unions are concerned less with rights and are more concerned with assimilation. If they were concerned with workers rights they would be ok with disclosing a workers right to not join their union. They would agree to let those who disagree with the union's political activities to restrict the union to collecting only their portion of collective bargaining, or in RTW states protect their right to work without any union participation at all. And they wouldn't work so hard to eliminate the right to a secret ballot when organizing.
But the unions don't support these rights because doing so would take some of the teeth out of the collective bargaining unit. They need every member to advance their cause whether those members believe in the cause or not. When Unions talk about protecting collective bargaining rights they're actually talking about their right to extort their "fair share" of someone else's pie. If any other organization tried to do this they would be investigated by RICO.
Free speech and Free will
If you disagree with the money being spent to defend workers rights than you have FREE WILL to not work for that company. It should be rather easy considering unions only hold a 10% market share.
Or you could join the union and what small percent that is used you then could direct your representative on how and what the money is used for.
In our union the members are focused on RTW laws, so most of our money went to local leaders who are against Right To Work for less, and so far money well spent.
I guess freeloaders are also lazy bums who don't have the brains to enact change by getting active. They wait for some more "FREE" legal services, from the corporate donors demanding the destruction of unions.
Not Free Loader; Free to choose
Or perhaps Right to work advocates are those who feel they are smart enough to act as their own bargaining agents and don't feel unions represent their interests or rights.
Unions are concerned less with rights and are more concerned with assimilation. If they were concerned with workers rights they would be ok with disclosing a workers right to not join their union. They would agree to let those who disagree with the union's political activities to restrict the union to collecting only their portion of collective bargaining, or in RTW states protect their right to work without any union participation at all. And they wouldn't work so hard to eliminate the right to a secret ballot when organizing.
But the unions don't support these rights because doing so would take some of the teeth out of the collective bargaining unit. They need every member to advance their cause whether those members believe in the cause or not. When Unions talk about protecting collective bargaining rights they're actually talking about their right to extort their "fair share" of someone else's pie. If any other organization tried to do this they would be investigated by RICO.
Free Will, Calvin
Calvin, you sure want to skate around the notion that we have the FREEDOM to refrain from applying at a job that hires union workers. If you feel that the union is corrupt or not for it's members than you have the FREE WILL not to join.
Calvin do you disagree that these so called employees have the FREE WILL to apply where they want?
We have sent out a notice to all members in our local
Hey Calvin, here some news for you, our local put a special piece in our journeyman roofers magazine that goes out to every member. In that piece it told members they have the right to resign from the union, funny part is no one in our local has even called about it.
We take a small % of the dues that goes to our PAC, and if a member came in and told us he was against our stance we would work with him to make it right. Either by refunding or explaining that the money was used to lobby against RTW as so does this website lobby against unions.
Why should my members money (dues) be spent on protecting workers who refrain from membership? That is unfair to our members who pay to have their voice heard, they don't pay so our reps can be a voice for the "Freeloaders". Common sense man.
And in our elections and when we vote it is secret. Every member is allowed to vote w/o anyone else knowing how they voted. And if it were a vote at a shop that were organizing I would definitely want a secret ballot so that those who choose to be union will not be harrased or fired by their boss after the election was over.
Sorry Calvin but you need to go back and check your facts. Our union works for its members as a whole for the better good of our members. This so called RTW bill only lowers the power of the people to organize and stand for decent living wages.
Simple common phrase which holds true today 'Divided we fall, together we stand'. So while you and your advocates try and divide us to conquer us we will come together to stand for what we believe in. I guess that's why this website can only find a handful of people in each instance that agree with your position.
We have sent out a notice to all members in our local
Hey Calvin, here some news for you, our local put a special piece in our journeyman roofers magazine that goes out to every member. In that piece it told members they have the right to resign from the union, funny part is no one in our local has even called about it.
We take a small % of the dues that goes to our PAC, and if a member came in and told us he was against our stance we would work with him to make it right. Either by refunding or explaining that the money was used to lobby against RTW as so does this website lobby against unions.
Why should my members money (dues) be spent on protecting workers who refrain from membership? That is unfair to our members who pay to have their voice heard, they don't pay so our reps can be a voice for the "Freeloaders". Common sense man.
And in our elections and when we vote it is secret. Every member is allowed to vote w/o anyone else knowing how they voted. And if it were a vote at a shop that were organizing I would definitely want a secret ballot so that those who choose to be union will not be harrased or fired by their boss after the election was over.
Sorry Calvin but you need to go back and check your facts. Our union works for its members as a whole for the better good of our members. This so called RTW bill only lowers the power of the people to organize and stand for decent living wages.
Simple common phrase which holds true today 'Divided we fall, together we stand'. So while you and your advocates try and divide us to conquer us we will come together to stand for what we believe in. I guess that's why this website can only find a handful of people in each instance that agree with your position.
No skating here
I'm not skating, I'm asserting that closed shop unions are an infringement on my right to act as my own bargaining agent. What do you say to the employee who has worked contentedly at his job for years only to find that his job has been organised underneath him contrary to his will?
I'm all for Unions rights to organize where they can. My only assertion is that the Union's voice and the Union's strength deserves only to be as loud and as strong as those who are willing to collectively bargain as members. Others should be allowed to retain or attain employment with whomever they can bargain an acceptable agreement as their own bargaining agents.
You love to use the word "freeloaders", after all it gives you at least the appearance of a moral majority. But a reasonablel man standard would aknowledge that it is not freeloading to choose to not participate in the commercial exchange of a service that was neither solicited nor wanted. However it is considered racketeering to demand protection money to protect personal property from damage and then proceed to destroy that personal property when said protection payment is refused. Unless a Union is involved.
And I think your assertion that only a handful of people support right to work might be a bit delusional. 23 states now have right to work laws, and if it can happen to Michigan it can happen anywhere.
hola
nice website here
Majority
I asked about new hires and those applying for jobs that are union, do they have free will? Again do they have the freedom to not apply at a union shop?
You could view a shop that host an election that turns union as forcing it's workers to join the union, and those who voted no are being forced to join to keep a job. True they would have to join to keep their job but they also have the freedom to acquire a job that doesn't require membership, since unions only hold 10% in all markets and even less in construction.
But in that instance you mention they are not being forced by the union, they are being forced by their co-workers who are willing to join and in America majority rules. They still have free will to find other employment and also are free to object to the union during that process.
Its not freeloading to choose not to join or participate, but to receive such wages and benefits w/o contributing your fair share to acquire those wages in my mind is freeloading and always will be.
My assertion is that this website can only find a handful of people in each case who have been done wrong, supposedly. While the larger mass is fine, and this website wants to keep posting that 80% of union membership wants RTW in their state, which is BS. This figure was taken on small scale with about 800 people in which they probably chose a union that is run poorly and there probably are some pissed off members. But it is fine for them say 80% want this law when in our local alone no one I met wants it and we have over 700 members.
And yes there are a lot of states with this law but there are 28 that enjoy no RTW which makes us the majority. And when a politician as in Michigan tells everyone months before an election that he has no intention in signing the RTW bill and gets elected, the first thing he does is sign into law a RTW bill. Now he ran on the position of being against RTW in which the citizens voted for him. Not even a week into his tenure he flips his stance and signs a RTW bill that was not put to a vote of the people.
If the people want it let them vote on it, and I'm sure you know whether or not you admit it that if the people could have voted on the bill it would have failed miserably. Now who's delusional?
But that is a fact 23 states do have RTW and those states are the ones with the highest levels of citizens living off of entitlements, "freeloaders" as Romney would say. RTW for less.