Truck Drivers and Dockworkers Fight Back Against Teamster Union Intimidation
Truck Drivers and Dockworkers Fight Back Against Teamster Union Intimidation
Employees seek to throw out union after union bosses’ ugly campaign of harassment and coercion
Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) — Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.
With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.
On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company. Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.
Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.
Truck Drivers and Dockworkers Fight Back Against Teamster Union Intimidation
Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) – Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.
With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.
On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company. Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.
Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.
“It’s particularly despicable to intimidate workers if they refuse to abandon their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “All workers should be free to support their families, free from harassment by union bosses.”
The Oak Harbor Freight employees work at terminal sites in Auburn, Washington; Burlington (Mt. Vernon), Washington; Olympia, Washington; Pasco, Washington; Spokane, Washington; Wenatchee, Washington; Medford, Oregon; Salem, Oregon; and Boise, Idaho.
When the Forced Dues Payers Are Away, the Union Bosses Do Play
The posh Miami Fontainebleu Hotel will play host to Vice President Biden, Hilda Solis, and the AFL-CIO executive council this week, as union bosses work tirelessly to spend employees’ hard-earned forced dues on $1000 per night rooms and critical projects like sampling each of the facility’s eleven restaurants, thoroughly testing the resort’s 40,000 square foot spa, and enjoying the sights and sounds of Miami Beach:
The conference will also cover union bosses’ novel approach to economic recovery, which involves forcing more unwilling workers into union collectives through the grossly misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act." But we’re not quite sure how extracting millions of dollars in additional forced union dues is supposed to revive our flagging economy — perhaps the AFL-CIO plans to single-handedly save the luxury resort business by scheduling more conferences?
Of course, history tells us handing more forced unionism power over to union bosses will only make the current economic downturn even worse.
Video: Right to Work at CPAC – The Dangers of Card Check
Foundation President Mark Mix spoke on the dangers of card check legislation at the 2009 CPAC Conference in Washington, DC. Here’s the video:
For previous Foundation card check coverage, click here.
New Right to Work Podcast: Stop the Obama Administration from Rolling Back Union Disclosure Guidelines
For those of you who missed it, the National Right to Work Foundation recently released a video featuring Foundation President Mark Mix urging all Right to Work supporters to get involved in our efforts to stop the Obama Administration from rolling back basic union disclosure regulations. Now Mix’s message is available in podcast form. Click here to listen:
Right to Work On CNN: Obama Executive Orders Funnel Taxpayer Dollars into Union Bosses’ Pockets
Foundation VP Stefan Gleason appeared on CNN Wednesday with Lou Dobbs as part of a piece on the Obama Administration’s new Project Labor Agreement Executive Order, which discriminates against the vast majority of construction workers who have not chosen to unionize. The executive order is likely to result in hundreds of millions of dollars in new forced union dues, while jacking up the costs shouldered by taxpayers. Check it out:
Dobbs sums it up nicely at the end when he observes that “this is a massive windfall for organized labor.”
Lessons in Hypocrisy: How Union Bosses React When the Union’s Own Employees Want to Unionize
Here on Freedom@Work, we have told you about President Obama’s deeply disturbing executive orders aimed at blacklisting the 92.5 percent of America’s private-sector workers who have chosen not to unionize.
One of the orders effectively bars federal contractors from sharing truthful, non-coercive information with their employees about the downsides of unionization.
For an example of what this kind of information is like, look no further than what union management says when employees of a union wish to unionize.
In the letter linked below, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union president J.J. Barry warns against "chang[ing] the system…solely because of an effort stemming from the isolated complaints of a few [union employees]." Moreover,
The selection of a bargaining representative is likely to change the nature of the employer/employee relationship, by making it more formal and structured, and diminishing the present system of direct resolution of issues between Represenatives and their Vice Presidents, Department Directors, etc.
But union bosses cry foul when other employers express similar opinions, and now their powerful pro-forced unionism allies in government want to ban such speech by federal contractors so the contractors’ employees are denied the right to make a fully informed choice.
Click here to read the full letter (PDF).
Take Action Now: Obama Administration Moves to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules
In 1959, well-meaning advocates of employee freedom secured passage of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA), a bill that promised disclosure of union finances with the (mostly unrealized) promise of weeding out corrupt union racketeers.
In 2009, President Barack Obama pledged his Administration would be on the side of disclosure — but that has been revealed as a false promise.
The Obama Administration has moved to eliminate some modest union disclosure regulations that would allow American workers forced to pay union dues some basic information about the self-awarded “benefits” union bosses enjoy.
Of course, so long as forced unionism privileges remain intact, no amount of disclosure will meaningfully increase union accountability, but perhaps employees will gain a greater awareness of how their forced dues are spent.
Please watch the video below and then go to the Department of Labor’s website to comment on these detrimental regulatory changes. All comments related to this issue must be made by March 5.
You can view the Foundation’s request for extension link or make your own comment regarding the effective date change. (Just click on the yellow comment icon in either of the above links to add your own comments about this cover-up of union boss corruption.)
Note: You should have Docket: LMSO-2008-0002 listed at the top of your comment. Please let them know how you feel about this power grab. Feel free to e-mail us a copy of your comment.
You may also visit Regulations.gov and enter LMSO-2008-0002 to comment, search comments, or read your own comment after it’s been published.
###
The National Right to Work Foundation provides free legal aid to employees so they can fight back against union coercion and abuse.
The Foundation must rely on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please click here.
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction
More effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues
Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) — The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.
In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.
“The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction
Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.
In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.
“The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”
“But there was a much more effective way to address this problem. The Idaho legislature should simply have banned all union payroll deductions, not just those for narrowly defined political activities,” continued Gleason. “Unfortunately, the definition of politics covered by such laws is so narrow that union bosses are essentially able to continue business as usual.”
The majority opinion also relied on the unanimous Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory. In Davenport, Foundation attorneys represented a group of nonunion Washington State teachers.
The three dissenting Justices in Ysursa were troubled by the appearance that the Idaho law targeted only union political speech rather than having a broader objective. Legal experts agree that laws which ban payroll deduction across the board – rather than just monies for certain political speech – would therefore be less vulnerable to legal attack and would better serve the public policy purposes underpinning such laws.
