Yesterday, Senate Democrats held hearings and called on Members of the National Labor Relations Board to speak about their views of the NLRB.

Member Wilma Liebman, one of the most fiercely pro-compulsory unionism members ever to sit on the National Labor Relations Board, testified about what she described as “a loss of confidence in the board and its processes.”

To understand what she means by that, watch the following video clip of her testifying about the NLRB back in December before a House committee. Not long after the four minute mark of the video, Liebman bemoans the fact that, according to her, the currently NLRB seems too preoccupied with “freedom of choice”:

“The Board has said for the first time that freedom of choice – which is to say the freedom to reject unionization – prevails in the statutory scheme over promoting collective bargaining.”

So there you have it: Big Labor’s real problem with recent NLRB decisions is that the Board is protecting freedom of choice too strongly, thus allowing workers to reject unionization.

That's just one of many propsed rule changes being suggested at the National Labor Relations Board. Late last week, the National Right to Work Foundation filed comments opposing the changes which would further undermine employees' freedom to choose whether or not to unionize.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap unionization election even when no employees have expressed any interest. The proposed changes would also severely undermine employees' ability to challenge any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubber stamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

Sounds like the proposed changes a real loser for employee free choice.

Leaders of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe are up in arms because Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America union officials filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board for a representation election of their casino security personnel only to pull the plug at the last minute.

Meanwhile, SPFPA officials told The Morning Sun that they never had any intention of going through with the election:

"...the union simply wanted to get the list of names and addresses of
the casino security and surveillance personnel the union hopes to
organize."

Tribe representatives called the move a "manipulation" of the system, point out that two previous organizing attempts have failed, and question the NLRB's jurisdiction over their employees in the first place.

Most likely, collecting employees' personal information is geared at pressuring them individually to support unionization through a potential "card check" drive. Sadly, this situation shows that many times, when employees reject unionization, it's just the beginning.

Today's regretful passing of commentator William F. Buckley Jr. reminds us of how Mr. Buckley stood up to compulsory unionism with help from the National Right to Work Foundation several decades back. George Leef details the fight in pages 160-162 of Free Choice for Workers: A History of the Right to Work Movement.

After American Federation of Television and Radio Artists union officials told Mr. Buckley to join the union and pay up if he wanted to voice his opinions over the airwaves, he fought back in the form of a Foundation-aided lawsuit.

Though the case was batted between the courts and National Labor Relations Board, it ultimately led the AFTRA union to stop requiring formal membership from employees. (However, it could still compel dues from employees.)

Despite this, Mr. Buckley voiced satisfaction at his case's achievement. Mr. Leef cites:

Summing up his case, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in his sydicated column, 'Thanks to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which funded this case...employees are precisely not bound to obey the union's rules any long, and the First Amendment has won a significant victory.'

The American flag will now fly at election sites where employees vote over whether or not to unionize, according to a recent announcement by the National Labor Relations Board. How ironic, considering that union officials are pressing to eliminate secret ballots over whether to unionize in favor of the coercive "card check" process, where employees are often pressured individually.

Unfortunately, the secret ballot election process is not without fault either. If 1,000 employees vote overall, and 501 vote to unionize, the other 499 must accept unwanted union "representation" over their wages and working conditions, and in 28 states pay dues or be fired. Such tyranny of the majority has no place over such fundamental choices as the Right to Work in a country that prides itself on individual freedom to choose.

Here's a new video detailing how the National Right to Work Foundation is helping a group of nurses in Pomona, California, fight back against a hostile union hierarchy:

In Wisconsin today, a local newspaper reported that employees at Woodman’s Food Stores in Janesville and Beloit will likely be granted a decertification vote to oust the unwanted United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1473 union.

The GazetteXtra reported:

“We’re going to do what the employees tell us to do,” [company president Phil] Woodman said. “We’re going to do what’s in the best interests of the employees.”

The secret ballot election (scheduled for next week) comes after the National Labor Relations Board held hearings on the validity of the employees’ decertification petition.

UFCW Local 1473 officials delayed the workers’ vote after they asked the grocery store chain for records and files on over 2,100 employees at the 11 Woodman’s stores.

Such “blocking” tactics are not unusual for UFCW union officials to use, as recently witnessed by grocery employees in Illinois.

There, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped over 300 Treasure Island grocery workers win a vote to oust the unwanted UFCW union from their workplace, after UFCW union lawyers blocked a decertification election for nearly three years.

As we continue to follow the Foxwoods Casino and Resort story in Connecticut, the National Labor Relations Board has ended its trial over the validity of the unionization drive as of yesterday.

Center to Foxwood’s argument in the case is the harassment and intimidation tactics it says independent-minded employees endured by United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers.

TheDay.com covers the story:

Diane Weaver said she was surrounded in an employee cafeteria by a group of 10 to 15 union supporters, who shouted at her. Weaver, a table game dealer for five years, testified that one person called her “stupid” and another threatened to beat her.

One dealer even testified against Bob Madore, the director of UAW Region 9A, after receiving these intimidating threats:

Debra Beebe, a dual-rate dealer for almost 15 years, said she attended a union meeting held the week before the election at the union hall in Norwich. At it, she said, “Bob” spoke and told those in the crowd the union would know who voted “no” in the election and that if those individuals filed grievances, there would be a way for the union to “retaliate.” Beebe testified that she heard Bob say that if someone who was anti-union filed a grievance, the person's paperwork would be shoved to the bottom of the stack.

Administrative Law Judge Raymond Green will issue a written decision on unionization at the casino in early March.

Last week, we covered the United Auto Workers (UAW) union’s battle to become Foxwood Casino dealers’ monopoly bargaining agent. As the National Labor Relations Board continues its hearing on the validity of the unionization election, employees’ testimony of UAW union intimidation continues to roll in.

TheDay.com updates us on the story:

Others said they were either told directly or overheard union supporters telling dealers prior to the election that their jobs were in jeopardy if they voted against unionization.

True to form, many union organizers have no shame in dealing these casino workers a bad hand: the UAW’s back hand.

Remember, if you feel that union organizers have violated your rights, contact the National Right to Work Foundation toll-free at 800-336-3600 or visit this page to learn about your legal rights.

Since last spring, United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have had Foxwoods Resort Casino workers in its sights. Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation runs Foxwoods Resort Casino, which happens to be one of the most successful casinos in the world.

Following an election held in November, Foxwoods filed unfair labor practices at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—citing a whopping 12 objections to the UAW union’s organizing tactics.

TheDay.com has the story:

The tribe also questioned why the ballots were not multilingual and alleged that UAW representatives harassed and intimidated eligible voters before the election.

Sadly, it’s all too common for union organizers to mislead or even harass employees during a unionization drive.

With the charges, the NLRB began its hearings over the dispute yesterday. A casino employee described the UAW union’s threatening tactics:

…one dealer…“was chased by car out of the employee parking lot and almost forced into a concrete barrier.”

The outcome of the NLRB hearing could have national implications, as union officials could be granted monopoly bargaining privileges over the largest tribal casino in the nation—leaving the door open for the UAW union (and others) to sink their teeth in at other tribal casinos.