compulsory unionism

'Union's Just Another Word for Mafia'

Patrick Semmens — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:52:21 -0400

Over at the LRC blog, a reader writes in to say how Grand Theft Auto 4, currently the best selling video game on the market, contains dialog that compares unions to the mafia. At one point the main character is told: "union's just another word for mafia."

Ultimately the pop culture video game comparison of union bosses to mafia dons is more than mere tongue-and-cheek.

As currently constituted, with their many compulsory unionism special privileges, some union officials run what could be compared to a classic mafia enterprise: the protection racket.

Wikipedia defines a protection racket as follows:

Wall Street Journal Exposes Union Power Grab Over America's First Responders

Patrick Semmens — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:44:41 -0400

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today opposing the federal imposition of monopoly bargaining on America's firefighters, police, and EMTs.

The article lists many compelling reasons to be against monopoly bargaining, but never fully lays out the case for opposition to this form of compulsory unionism as a fundamental issue of employees' individual rights.

The fact is freedom of association should preclude union bosses from being able to force employees to accept their so-called "representation," thereby stripping individuals of their freedom to contract. Even worse, union bosses force employees -- union members or not -- to pay money for the "privilege" of losing their right of self-representation.

CWA Union Alert: May is the Window To Have Your Forced Dues Reduced

Will Collins — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:42:28 -0400

The month of May marks the annual 'window period' for employees to obtain a reduction in mandatory dues payments from the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union.

The Foundation has had success challenging these window period schemes designed to trap workers into the union's forced dues-paying ranks, but if you're a CWA-covered employee in a non-Right to Work state who wants to opt-out of dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining it is still recommended that you file your objection this month. (If you are under a Right to Work law you cannot be compelled to pay any dues whatsoever.)

For information on the forced-dues objection process, read this letter by Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse (pdf). The document includes a sample objection letter for CWA employees to send in to the agency fee administrator.

Compulsory Unionism Undermines DC Schools

Will Collins — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:54:52 -0400

The Washington Post has an interesting article up on internal divisions within the Washington, DC teacher union. The corrupt union has been in a state of turmoil since former top boss Barbara Bullock was caught embezzling millions of dollars from union funds.

From 1995 to 2002, Bullock ripped off teachers' forced dues to go on massive shopping sprees at Saks, Nieman Marcus, and Tiffany's. Unsurprisingly, Bullock funded her excessive spending by jacking up mandatory union dues.

Foundation Helps Employees Win NLRB Ruling for Worker Free Choice

Will Collins — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:12:34 -0400

A recent ruling by a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge upheld the right of employees to sign a union decertification petition in the midst of a debilitating strike. More importantly, the ruling also endorsed the employer's refusal to hand over non-striking workers' home addresses and other personal information to union officials bent on harassment and intimidation.

The Union Boss Mindset

Patrick Semmens — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:46:32 -0400

AFL-CIO top boss John Sweeney and Virginia AFL-CIO chief James Leaman recently had an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that shows just how union officials view the workers they claim to represent.

The headline of the article rhetorically asks: "Without labor unions, who speaks for the worker?"

The implication is that workers are incapable of representing themselves. This also implies that workers who reject union membership are too stupid to know what is best for them.

That contemptuous view of workers and their ability to look after their own best interests explains why Big Labor is constantly claiming to have employees' best interests in mind while trying to limit the ability of those very employees to exercise free choice when it comes to unionization.

Misconceptions About Right to Work Laws and Unionization Rates

Patrick Semmens — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:25:47 -0400

The Rocky Mountain News had an article this weekend on various proposed ballot initiatives in Colorado. The otherwise informative article concluded with this strange (and unsupported) sentence:

For the most part, states without right-to-work laws have higher levels of union participation, a statistic that some observers attribute to the popularity of unions rather than right-to-work laws.

The idea that the "popularity of unions" accounts for lower rates of union participation in Right to Work states, gets it entirely backwards and fails to understand just what a Right to Work law does.

Right to work laws do nothing to change the process through which a workplace becomes a union shop: a place where union officials have the power to forcibly represent every employee in the bargaining unit). Rather, they simply ensure that once a union is installed, no worker is forced to pay union dues as a condition of keeping or getting a job.

There are at least two ways that these Right to Work protections affect "union participation" rates:

Voluntary Participation. The most obvious reason is that in Right to Work states unions can't force employees to pay dues or be fired. This lets employees decide for themselves if they think the union is worth the dues they are being charged. So it should come as no surprise that when employees are actually given a choice, it drives down union participation.
Big Labor's Bottom Line. A second way in which Right to Work laws lower participation in unions is that they discourage (though not completely) Top Down union organizing. More and more drives for unionization are instigated by outside professional union organizers, as opposed to employee-led demands for unionization. But like the companies they try to organize, union officials are very aware of the bottom line, and they are always looking to maximize their revenue. Since for union bosses revenue means union dues, they realize that by targeting employers in states without Right to Work laws, they can maximize their haul because every worker - not just those who support the union - will be forced to pay up.

So contrary to what "some observers" say, there are at least two ways that protecting employees' freedom to choose impacts union participation rates.

Video: Big Labor Opposes Freedom of Choice

Patrick Semmens — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:41:21 -0400

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.

Washington Teachers Union Bosses Convicted of “Seven Year Orgy of Greed”

John Powell — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:51:38 -0500

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit affirmed a district’s court ruling to sentence local union bosses Gwendolyn Hemphill and James Baxter to jail.

The court called their case a “seven-year orgy of greed.”

Between 1995 and 2002, the conspirators stole millions of dollars from Washington Teachers Union (an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers union). As a result, a federal judge convicted two union bosses of multiple counts, including embezzlement, money laundering, false pretenses, and conspiring to commit such crimes.

Here are some of the expensive goodies these union bosses bought using money from the union dues treasury:

A $50,000 Tiffany silver set
A wedding reception for Hemphill’s son
$29,000 in dental work for Hemphill and her spouse
$19,000 in Washington Wizards tickets
Car insurance
Art décor for their homes
Personal checks to themselves ($18,805 for Hemphill and $31,000 for Baxter)

According to court documents, in 2001, these union bosses stole so much money (using union dues) that the WTU union paid $925,000 to cover the credit card bills. By 2002, the union went broke and could not pay its membership fees to the AFT union.

In the end, Hemphill was sentenced to 11 years in prison and Baxter 10 years. Barbara Bullock, WTU union’s president during this period, and her chauffeur, Leroy Holmes, both pled guilty before trial.

This astonishing example of union boss greed is exactly why forced association with unions breeds corruption. Unfortunately, heinous crimes like these are sure to continue until compulsory unionism ends.

Kennedy Vows “Card Check” to Become Law of Land

John Powell — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:01:30 -0500

At a United Auto Workers (UAW) conference yesterday, Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) – chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee – told attendees that he wouldn’t give up trying to push the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” down the throats of America’s workers.

The Daily Labor Report highlighted:

"We're going to bring it back again and again, until we prevail,” Kennedy said. “And I guarantee this: we get a Democrat in the White House and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will be the law of the land.”

Meanwhile, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released a report today entitled “Card-Check Forced Unionism Would Hurt Employees and Employers” that details the economic devastation that would result from increased union monopoly power.

The detailed 13-page research report highlights how Big Labor’s number one legislative priority (you guessed it, EFCA) will exacerbate forced unionism and expand unions’ monopoly bargaining privileges over employees.

NILRR’s report points out some of the following about card check organizing and forced unionism:

“Card-check” organizing empowers union officials to force a business’s employees to accept a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent solely through the acquisition of signed union authorization cards.
Key provisions in the legislation would effectively ban employee secret-ballot elections over unionization in the private sector and replace such elections with so-called “card checks.”
Private sector job growth is nearly three times as fast in low union-monopoly states.

To read all the facts, download the full NILRR report on the card check forced unionism bill here.