Right to Work on the Radio: Beware the Police/Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill
National Right to Work Legislative Director Dmitri Kesari appeared on the Lars Larson show to discuss Big Labor’s latest effort to push the Police/Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill into law. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:
As always, you can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.
Even Big Labor Apologists Can’t Stomach Mandating Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining by Federal Fiat
Many Freedom@Work readers are already following the latest Big Labor offensive on Capitol Hill. Under the guise of protecting our first responders, pro-forced unionism politicians are attempting to ram home the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.
This legislation would force states to adopt monopoly union bargaining for all police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Not only would this bill push unwilling public safety employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks, it would also usurp the right of state and local governments to determine if their employees unionize.
In fact, this power grab is so egregious that even the often pro-Big Labor Washington Post has taken notice. Here’s the Post’s blistering editorial against the bill:
What this bill would do is impose a permanent, one-size-fits-all federal solution in an area — public-sector labor relations — that has traditionally been left to the states, and where state flexibility is probably more necessary than ever. The imposition on Virginia would be dramatic, of course, but even union-friendly Maryland, which lets each county decide whether and how to bargain with its employees, might find itself in costly, time-consuming contention with the feds. Farther afield, Colorado’s "fire protection districts," special units of government dedicated to providing that service, would face costly collective bargaining even where firefighters and management are working harmoniously without it.
We share the bill sponsors’ esteem for first responders. They should be adequately, even generously, compensated. Still, many outsized pensions now threatening state and local governments were awarded by politicians to curry favor with public-safety unions. To be sure, the bill includes acompromise provision assuring states that they don’t have to bargain over pensions. But it hardly matters. The bill further empowers an already strong lobby that could use its additional clout to pressure state legislators to allow pension-bargaining anyway — or to enact such benefits by statute. This bill is a bad idea whose time, we hope, has still not come.
Read the whole thing here. And remember, if Big Labor sympathizers at the Washington Post are astounded by this unpopular bill, imagine how bad it must be for the rest of us.
Foundation Files Formal Comments Opposing Obama Executive Order Implementing Pro-Big Labor Double Standard
It will come as no surprise to those following the Obama Administration’s labor policy that another executive order threatens to advance union bosses’ interests at the expense of employers and employees alike. Executive Order 13494 implements a blatant double-standard for federal contractors who are subjected to union organizing drives. The order prohibits contractors from using any federal money to inform employees about the facts of union organizing.
Although this might sound relatively unobjectionable, the new directive reveals itself as a payoff to Big Labor by allowing contractors to write off expenses related to union monopoly bargaining, including company subsidies for union shop stewards and union committees.
This order creates a huge financial incentive for contractors to roll over to coercive union organizing drives, safe in the knowledge that they’ll be able to pass on many union-related expenses to the government (we the people). Meanwhile, employer efforts to truthfully inform employees about the downsides of unionization cannot be reimbursed under this discriminatory directive. In other words, this policy effectively forces taxpayers to subsidize union activities.
Naturally, the National Right to Work Foundation has filed formal comments with the Administration opposing this latest Big Labor-friendly directive. Unfortunately, this executive order is yet another example of the Obama White House’s fealty to Big Labor bosses, who helped ensure its loyalty by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Obama in 2008.
Meet the New Boss… Same as the Old Boss: SEIU Regime Change More of a Lateral Move
In the wake of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) boss Andy Stern’s retirement, SEIU Executive Vice President Mary Kay Henry was ushered in as the new chief of the notoriously corrupt and predatory union hierarchy.
Despite the mainstream media’s portrayal of Henry’s coronation as a change in the way SEIU union organizers coerce workers into dues-paying union ranks through intimidation or political deal-making, nothing could be further from the truth.
From National Right to Work’s contribution to BigGovernment.com:
Don’t let the cheery atmosphere surrounding her anointment ease concerns about her nor the SEIU and its agenda; because for her, ObamaCare and its potential for 21.1 million forced unionism conscripts are just the beginning steps for SEIU’s steady march towards domination of U.S. labor markets.
Mary Kay Henry’s intentions to further radicalize the labor movement and the American economy are clearer than Stern’s vision. With the hundreds of millions of union dues and fees flowing into SEIU’s treasury, she has the financial fuel needed to fund her ambitious desires…
Mary Kay Henry has been credited with most of SEIU’s membership growth for more than a decade; however, that growth did not come from the grassroots; it was top down.
From 1996-2007, SEIU claimed 900,000 “new members” and Mary Kay Henry’s healthcare division provided almost all its growth…
In 2006, Mary Kay Henry laid her plan on the table:
More central power is needed, said Henry. “We believe the American labor movement needs to move beyond voluntarism [joining voluntarily?] … SEIU aims to increase the union rate of health care workers from its current 20 percent to 50 percent.[iii]
SEIU’s game plan is simple and reminiscent of the 1950s: create the allusion that it has the power to subjugate employers by region and couple it with SEIU’s willingness to ignore election rules to intimidate and control almost every elected and appointed Democrat in the United States. If the plan works, SEIU organizations gain control of workers in an entire region of the country.
After creating mega-locals, SEIU begins to sign-up smaller workplaces and move these units into the appropriate mega-local conflating contracts into its master contract for the region.
In the end, SEIU’s mega-local contract spans across numerous states and worksites making it virtually impossible for individual workers to mount a successful decertification or deauthorization NLRB election.
(Emphasis in original)
To view the National Right to Work Committee’s latest video, "SEIU’s Mary Kay Henry: Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss"click here or you can watch it below:
New Jersey Governor: Forced Unionism “Is About the Accumulation and Exercise of Raw Political Power”
In a political culture in which most politicians fear Big Labor’s massive forced dues electioneering machine, it’s refreshing to see an elected official articulately and passionately condemn compulsory unionism. That’s just what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did last week at a town hall meeting.
In the video below, listen to Gov. Christie explain the evil of forcing teachers to pay union fees (roughly 85 percent of full union dues) just to exercise their right to refrain from union membership.
New Jersey employees have the limited right — secured by National Right to Work Foundation-won cases at the US Supreme Court — to pay only the portion of the fees that union bosses can prove is spent on bargaining and contract administration.
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), the Court ruled that compulsory dues for politics violates the First Amendment. In Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986), the Court agreed with Foundation attorneys and unanimously held that union officials must provide employees with an independently verified breakdown of the union’s expenditures and that employees must have the opportunity to challenge the calculation of their forced fees.
Unfortunately, Christie stops short of calling for the Garden State to pass a Right to Work law, which would make union association 100 percent voluntary. But he’s right on when he explains that the teacher union officials are motivated by "the accumulation and exercise of raw political power." Something to think about as Congress considers rewriting states’ employment laws by federal fiat.
Obama Recess Appointee Refuses to Recuse Himself in Twelve of Thirteen Cases Despite Clear Bias, Conflicts of Interest
Obama Recess Appointee Refuses to Recuse Himself in Twelve of Thirteen Cases Despite Clear Bias, Conflicts of Interest
New federal labor board member and former SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker thumbs his nose at much-touted Obama ethics policy
Washington, DC (June 9, 2010) – Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), responded this week to 13 motions for his recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in cases pending before the Board.
After President Obama installed Becker on the NLRB in late March, Foundation attorneys quickly filed recusal motions in all Foundation-supported cases due to Becker’s extreme level of hostility against the Foundation and its legal arguments for workers’ rights, even when the NLRB or United States Supreme Court have agreed and ruled against unions for their abusive practices. Additionally, some of the cases directly involve affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker’s employer up to the date of his recess appointment.
But Becker has only agreed to recuse himself in Dana Corp., one pending case in which Becker’s conflict of interest was so great even he could not ignore it. In that case, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for illegal pre-recognition bargaining. In exchange for active company assistance during a coercive card check organizing campaign, UAW union officials made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits. Becker himself coauthored a joint brief for the UAW and AFL-CIO union hierarchy in that case.
Obama Recess Appointee Refuses to Recuse Himself in Twelve of Thirteen Cases Despite Clear Bias, Conflicts of Interest
Washington, DC (June 9, 2010) – Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), responded this week to 13 motions for his recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in cases pending before the Board.
After President Obama installed Becker on the NLRB in late March, Foundation attorneys quickly filed recusal motions in all Foundation-supported cases due to Becker’s extreme level of hostility against the Foundation and its legal arguments for workers’ rights, even when the NLRB or United States Supreme Court have agreed and ruled against unions for their abusive practices. Additionally, some of the cases directly involve affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker’s employer up to the date of his recess appointment.
But Becker has only agreed to recuse himself in Dana Corp., one pending case in which Becker’s conflict of interest was so great even he could not ignore it. In that case, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for illegal pre-recognition bargaining. In exchange for active company assistance during a coercive card check organizing campaign, UAW union officials made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits. Becker himself coauthored a joint brief for the UAW and AFL-CIO union hierarchy in that case.
However, Becker will not recuse himself in a related line of cases in which union officials have devised a legal strategy to overturn a landmark 2007 NLRB decision won by Foundation attorneys also concerning the UAW’s card check campaign at Dana Corp. In that decision, the Board granted employees the ability to demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer recognizes a monopoly bargaining agent by card check. Becker denies having pre-judged the attempts to overturn that Dana decision despite a long career of advocating an extreme version of forced unionism that considers secret ballot elections “profoundly undemocratic” and despite having authored an amicus brief in that case opposing granting employees the opportunity to petition for decertification of unions recognized by card check.
Likewise, Becker has a long track record of personal bias towards the Foundation. Becker admits to having used “strong language” against the Foundation in published articles, but he ignores the fact that he once wrote that the Foundation only “purports to represent employees” even though it is patently obvious that Foundation staff attorneys have represented employees in hundreds of federal court and NLRB cases. Becker even has blamed the U.S. Supreme Court for having a “virtual obsession” with Foundation-assisted cases and criticized the NLRB’s General Counsel for putting cases like Dana before the Board.
Finally, Becker has announced a weak standard for recusal in cases involving SEIU affiliates. He ignores the financial dependence of the SEIU International, his former employer, on local affiliates and refuses to adopt the more stringent federal judge standard for recusal used by current NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman in cases concerning affiliates of the Teamster union, her former employer before being installed on the Board by President Bill Clinton.
“By announcing his weak recusal standards, Craig Becker has made a mockery of the much-touted Obama ethics pledge,” explained Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“He has pre-judged the secret ballot, and he will now decide a case that could take away from workers the limited ability to use the secret ballot to get rid of an unwanted union foisted on them by coercive card check schemes. He has helped orchestrate the legal strategy for SEIU affiliates across the country, but he has only found fit to recuse himself in one case so far,” continued Mix. “Craig Becker’s recusal standards would be comical if the livelihoods of hardworking Americans were not at stake.”
Legal Foundation Offers Free Assistance to Nurses Who Won’t Abandon Their Patients during Looming Strike
Minneapolis, MN (June 09, 2010) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a legal aid organization that assists employees nationwide, is announcing an offer of free legal assistance to any Minneapolis nurses who do not wish to participate in an impending union-instigated strike.
According to recent press reports, the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union has decided to initiate a strike against 14 hospitals in the Twin Cities area. Some 4000 nurses either voted against or did not vote at all when asked to walk out on their patients.
Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:
“Given the results of this election, many Minneapolis nurses may wish to work during the impending strike to ensure patients receive medical attention. Nurses who want to continue working must be made aware of their workplace rights, including the right to resign from union membership and not participate in a union-instigated strike. A more detailed description of every nurse’s legal rights can be found on the Foundation’s website at https://www.nrtw.org/a/a_7_p.htm
“Foundation attorneys are ready to advise Twin Cities nurses about their workplace rights. We are also prepared to provide free legal assistance to any nurses who are subjected to union harassment or retaliation for working during this or any subsequent strike initiated by MNA officials. You can call the Foundation toll free at 800-336-3600 or request free legal assistance via email at [email protected].
“The National Right to Work Foundation is committed to helping nurses who wish to continue working rather than participate in a union-instigated strike,” continued LaJeunesse. “Nurses must assert their legal rights to ensure they aren’t subjected to draconian internal union discipline for choosing to remain on the job, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist them.”
Under Supreme Court precedent and federal law:
• Workers have the right to resign from union membership at any time.
• Workers have the right to go to work even if the union is on strike. If a worker chooses to work during a strike, he or she must first resign from union membership to avoid union disciplinary action or fines.
• Workers have the right to sign a decertification petition to hold a secret ballot election to eject union officials from their workplace.
Federal Labor Board Announces Prosecution of Local Teamster Union Bosses For Threats Against Workers
Federal Labor Board Announces Prosecution of Local Teamster Union Bosses For Threats Against Workers
Teamster union officials illegally told employees who refused to toe the union line that they would be fired
Seattle, WA (June 3, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Seattle has filed a federal complaint against local Teamster union officials for intimidating employees who exercised their limited legal rights to refrain from full dues paying union membership as a condition of employment.
The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Alan Ritchey, Inc. employees Gayle May and Patricia Allen – acting for dozens of other similarly-situated employees of the mail transportation equipment repair and service center facility in Auburn – against Teamsters Local 117 union bosses.
With help from the National Right to Work Foundation, May and Allen filed charges after certain employees received a letter from union officials threatening them with job loss if they did not within three days join the union or declare again their nonmember status.
Federal Labor Board Announces Prosecution of Local Teamster Union Bosses For Threats Against Workers
Seattle, WA (June 3, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Seattle has filed a federal complaint against local Teamster union officials for intimidating employees who exercised their limited legal rights to refrain from full dues paying union membership as a condition of employment.
The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Alan Ritchey, Inc. employees Gayle May and Patricia Allen – acting for dozens of other similarly-situated employees of the mail transportation equipment repair and service center facility in Auburn – against Teamsters Local 117 union bosses.
With help from the National Right to Work Foundation, May and Allen filed charges after certain employees received a letter from union officials threatening them with job loss if they did not within three days join the union or declare again their nonmember status.
In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the Court held that workers who refrain from formal union membership have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.
At about the same time, other Alan Ritchey employees filed a petition seeking a deauthorization election which would strip union officials of their forced dues powers.
Fearing lack of support, Teamsters Local 117 union lawyers filed charges against the National Right to Work Foundation in a desperate attempt to stall the employee vote that would have rescinded their forced dues privileges, but the NLRB dismissed the union bosses’ unwarranted and frivolous charges.
“Independent-minded employees should not be forced to subsidize Teamsters Local 117 union thugs who threaten them with firings for exercising their rights,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “That is why Washington needs a state Right to Work law protecting workers from union boss intimidation and abuse.”
The NLRB’s complaint against Teamsters Local 117 union bosses will be heard before an administrative law judge in the Jackson Federal Building in Seattle on August 3.
