A few Right to Work-related updates from around the web:

1.) The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog helpfully summarizes the corruption allegations surrounding Tyrone Freeman, head of California’s SEIU chapter. What’s worse, union mismanagement goes all the way to the top. According to the LA Times, SEIU national brass received word of Freeman’s corrupt practices six years ago and still failed to act. (This is the same local union against which Foundation attorneys won a federal court settlement securing the return of almost $10 million in illegally seized forced union dues.)

Read the whole entry here.

2.) The New York Sun featured a great editorial yesterday on union bosses’ half-hearted efforts at workplace "representation." Money quote:

But even as unions promote counterproductive economic policies, and push for legislation allowing them to essentially force more workers into their ranks, a look at union finances shows that many unions aren’t looking after the members they already have — especially their retirement plans.

The Sheet Metal Workers International Union says prominently on its Web site that "Union Members Have Strong Retirement Plans."

But it turns out — as disclosed in unions’ mandatory annual financial reports to the Labor Department — that the Sheet Metal workers’ union pension plan is underfunded and so risks the future pensions promised to its members. Many other union pension plans are in similar straits.

This isn’t an isolated incident, either. Check out the rest of the article for an in-depth look at the glaring disparity between union bosses’ lavish salaries and the shortfalls facing rank-and-file workers’ pension funds.

3.) Townhall.com has an article up on unions’ efforts to ram the misleadingly-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" down workers’ throats. The piece also mentions the Foundation’s efforts to hold the SEIU accountable for a questionable political fundraising scheme:

In fact, alleged coercion for political gain is already occurring. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Department of Justice to investigate the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The basis for the request centers on this fact:

“The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month’s SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union’s national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in ‘local union funds’ equal to the ‘deficiency’ plus a 50% penalty.” (The Wall Street Journal, 7/28/08)

Can you name any other company or organization that could compel its membership to fund political organizations that rank and file membership may or may not agree with?

For more information on the Foundation’s efforts to deter illegal union campaign fundraising, check out here, here, and here.

The Las Vegas Sun recently published the story of Anishya Sanders, a hard-working single mother exploited by Big Labor to push for the Card Check Forced Unionism bill (aka the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act”).

Union bosses flew her to Capitol Hill to testify in support of the union power grab and let her live the limosine lifestyle of a union boss for a precious few days. Anishya lived it up at suave hotels, private meetings with members of Congress, and celebratory wining and dining on surf-and-turf and merlot at tony DC hot spots.

Things were really turning around for Anishya. She thought she’d finally made it, and she was even promised a good job by the local union boss. However, after returning home things didn’t pan out that way. Eventually, the local union official told the mother of five “your 15 minutes are over” and hung up. She is now homeless and unemployed and concludes that if Big Labor had just left her alone, she would still have a job.

So much for the little guy (or woman, as the case may be)… Once Anishya could no longer help union officials with their latest compulsory unionism power grab, the union bosses kicked her to the curb.

Read the whole sordid tale here.

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.

Via the Education Sector’s blog, the Washington Post has an excellent article up on DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s proposal to create a two-tier pay system to allow administrators to reward teacher excellence in the capital’s hidebound public schools.

Rhee’s reforms would permit teachers to forgo tenure in favor of higher pay scales based on student achievement, or choose better job security at lower rates of compensation. Predictably, union bosses are fighting the reform tooth-and-nail because it weakens their education stranglehold:

"It’s degrading and insulting," said Brocks, to ask that teachers give up tenure and go on probation for a year if they choose the more lucrative of the two salary tiers under the plan, which is at the center of contract negotiations between the city and the Washington Teachers’ Union. He said that Rhee wants only to purge older teachers and that for instructors to sell out hard-won protections against arbitrary or unfair dismissal is unthinkable. "For Michelle Rhee or anyone to ask that is like Judas and 30 pieces of silver," Brocks, 59, said.

Apparently it’s "degrading and insulting" to demand accountability from a school system that has been wracked by massive corruption scandals and boasts some of the lowest test scores in the country, even when all that the proposal does is allow individual teachers to have one single choice about the terms of their employment. Here’s the Government Accountability Office’s 2008 report (.pdf) on DC public schools (emphasis mine):

The system serves about 50,000 students and operates 144 schools.1 In fiscal year 2007, its operating budget exceeded $1 billion and the federal government provided funds for about 13 percent of that amount. Long-standing problems with student academic performance, the condition of school facilities, and the overall management of the D.C. school system have been well documented over the last several decades. In particular, the academic challenges facing the District are enormous. In 2007, D.C. public schools ranked last in math scores and second-to-last in reading scores for all tested urban public school systems on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

I particularly enjoyed reading the Education Sector’s response to union intransigence (emphasis mine):

There’s a certain infantilizing quality to this vision of teacher work, where individuals can’t be trusted to make up their own minds about their relationship with management and shouldn’t be allowed to make the tradeoff that virtually all well-compensated professionals make: more accountability and less security in exchange for more recognition and compensation.

. . .

So on the one hand you’ve got an uber-responsive chancellor who reformed the bureaucracy to better support teachers and wants to give them the option to voluntarily enter a system that would pay them a whole lot more money. On the other hand, a union that can’t return emails and is notable chiefly for a history of theft and venality so outrageous that it’s memorable even by the highly attentuated moral standards of DC municipal government.

Ultimately, this boils down to one thing: union boss control over teachers and their paychecks. If DC teachers are permitted to make their own decisions about their terms of employment, even more DC teachers may discover how unfair it is that they are forced to pay dues to union bosses for "representation" they may not they need or want.

Today, the Foundation issued a news release announcing parallel federal lawsuits concerning illegal forced dues:

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.”

Read the rest of the Foundation’s news release here.

Erin McKee, top boss of the Charleston Labor Council, has written a mind-numbingly ignorant (or intentionally misleading) response to an op-ed which outlines the mass rewriting of federal labor law Big Labor is hoping for after the 2008 election. Several of Boss McKee’s assertions are just downright factually incorrect.

Lie #1:

Mr. Factor points out that [Big] labor’s agenda is to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed, which is true. If a majority of employees have signed cards saying they want a union, it doesn’t end there. They would then be allowed to have a fair election process and not be lied to, harassed and fired.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, the text of the misnamed EFCA reveals that once union organizers present the signed cards of even the smallest majority of workers in a unit, the National Labor Relations Board "shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative." In other words, card check does effectively eliminate the secret ballot from union certification drives. The less-abusive current election process would be replaced by one-on-one harassment from union goons.

Lie #2:

In a right to work state such as South Carolina, the union is forced to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. This means that everyone benefits, not just those who choose to pay the union dues for the benefits they receive. (If you think this is fair, let’s try running our government this way and see what happens.)

Right to Work laws merely ensure that workers cannot be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union. Unfortunately, even non members are forced to accept the union’s so-called representation, even when it works against them. It’s illegal for workers to bargain with their employer on their own merits.

Further, federal law doesn’t require that unions represent non-members, they seek and obtain monopoly bargaining status. Plus, as I have previously explained, if union bosses were serious about eliminating the so-called "free rider" problem, they would oppose federal and state monopoly bargaining statutes. They don’t. They want them.

Lie #3:

Mr. Factor also seems to have a problem with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. He states that public-safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept a union’s representation. Do local governments have the manpower to negotiate a bargaining agreement with each employee individually, or would it be more effective if management worked with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package?

Yes, they do actually. Municipalities all over the country do it. (For a good summary of the more-aptly titled Police & Fire Monopoly Bargaining Act, check out this month’s Labor Watch article by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.)

Boss McKee’s language in this passage is particularly revealing of Big Labor’s patronizing attitude toward workers. Instead of each employee negotiating with the employer, union cheifs like McKee claim to want "management [to work] with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package." But what exactly is the difference? How is that not what is occurring when individual employees have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the employer? Why should a majority of the employee’s co-workers get to pick the employee’s representation? Even criminal defendants get to pick their own representation!

Foundation attorneys have filed an unprecedented lawsuit in North Carolina state court on behalf of 16 AT&T employees against local union bosses who illegally released their confidential personal information (including their social security numbers) as retaliation for exercising their right to refrain from union membership. Two of the workers explain their battle in the latest Right to Work video report…

For more background information on the case, the Foundation’s press release is available online here. The Burlington Times-News‘ coverage of the lawsuit is available online here.

Be sure to subscribe to the Foundation’s YouTube Channel for more Right to Work video reports.

In what has become an annual (or rather semi-annual) tradition, the increasingly discredited American Bar Association (ABA) is once again pointedly excluding the viewpoints of individual employees who don’t want a union in their workplace.

The intellectually dishonest organization is holding its second annual Labor and Employment Law Continuing Legal Education Conference in Denver this September. The cover of the event brochure (pdf) trumpets a panel titled "Hot Topic: Neutrality Agreements, Card Checks, and Voluntary Recognition After Dana."

The core case at issue, Dana/Metaldyne, was brought and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, and most of the law in this area is the result of Foundation litigation. Yet, the roster of attorneys on the panel again consists entirely of union, company, and government lawyers.

Foundation VP Stefan Gleason wrote the following about the anti-individual worker bias of the ABA back in February, the last time Foundation attorneys were excluded from speaking about its many cases, and the criticism therein is only reinforced by this latest episode:

ABA political hacks have pointedly refused to allow the perspective of employees who may, God forbid, not want a union to dominate their workplace. Once again, a hot topic at the conference was the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s cases defending employees whose rights are abused during card check organizing drives.

And yet again, the ABA meeting planners refused to allow the perspective of workers or their Right to Work attorneys to be heard — instead selecting speakers representing Big Labor and a small faction of squishy, union-boss-friendly management lawyers. (Of course, the views of the speakers were rejected by the NLRB in its recent Dana/Metaldyne ruling, and the views of Foundation attorneys were embraced. Just a technicality, I guess.)

The ABA’s intellectual dishonesty continues to be an embarrassment to America’s legal profession.