Heavy Equipment Operators File Federal Charges Against Operating Engineers Union for Illegal Retaliation
IUOE union officials unlawfully threatened “internal discipline” fines against workers who continued employment with nonunion contractor
Lawrenceville, GA (October 21, 2025) – A group of construction industry employees of Dennis Taylor & Co. have filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 926 alleging IUOE union officials subjected them to illegal post-resignation discipline after the employees legally resigned their union memberships.
The workers’ charges were filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
The employees, Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, David Johnson, and Chris Oaks resigned their IUOE memberships months or years ago. Despite this, union officials are threatening the workers with fines, apparently for working at Dennis Taylor & Co., which once was part of a “hiring hall” arrangement with IUOE, but no longer is.
The resignations came after Dennis Taylor & Co. removed itself from an arrangement to hire employees through an IUOE union boss-controlled hiring hall. In theory, both union members and nonmembers can utilize union-run hiring halls to find employment with employers that have decided to utilize the hiring hall to fill openings. However there is a long history of union officials using hiring halls to discriminate against nonmembers and coerce workers into formal union membership in order to attain employment.
The charges filed by Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, and Chris Oaks each state that even before formally resigning from the union, the employees were never voluntary union members, as they had been misled into believing that union membership was mandatory. Though union officials frequently mislead workers into believing that formal union membership is required, the problem is especially prevalent when employment involves union hiring halls.
Under longstanding law, only fully voluntary union members can be subjected to internal union discipline, which often involves fines levied against workers at odds with union boss demands. Workers cannot face discipline for actions that occur after a worker has resigned from such voluntary union membership.
“Contrary to the apparent wishes of IUOE Local 926 union bosses, formal union membership cannot be required as a condition of employment, a precedent in place since the early 1960s,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is outrageous that IUOE union officials are attempting to barge back into the lives of these workers years after they’ve legally exercised their rights, and are now illegally threatening them with fines simply for working to provide for themselves and their families.”
Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers
National Right to Work Foundation-backed federal case for Starbucks employees was first federal case to argue that NLRB officials can’t be shielded from the President’s oversight
Washington, DC (October 20, 2025) – Two Starbucks employees represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Slaughter. The brief argues that restrictions on the President’s authority to fire members of executive bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers.
The amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two New York Starbucks employees who challenged the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB in a separate federal court case with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys.
Since 2023, Foundation staff attorneys have pioneered the legal argument that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because it places restrictions on the President’s authority to fire the NLRB’s members, despite it being part of the executive branch of government. This disconnect exemplifies the problem of federal bureaucrats operating as an unaccountable, “headless fourth branch,” something clearly at odds with the government’s constitutional structure.
Now, the Trump Administration is using this same argument as a justification to fire members of the FTC. Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden appointee to the FTC, has sued to be reinstated, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Foundation-backed amicus brief argues that as the Court considers the FTC, it must keep in mind that other so-called “independent agencies” that wield executive power, such as the NLRB, must be subject to Presidential control and removal.
Supreme Court May Reverse Humphrey’s, Must Recognize Its Limitations
Trump v. Slaughter provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its decision in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court crafted an exception to the general rule that the President can remove principal officers at will under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In theory, Humphrey’s exempted agencies that exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power, but not those that exercise executive power.
But regardless of the Court’s reevaluation of the case, “the NLRB fails the Humphrey’s Executor test,” the brief argues.
“The NLRB is a policymaking body that enforces the [National Labor Relations Act] based on its legal conclusions, not scientific or technical judgments,” write Foundation staff attorneys. “[T]he Board does not exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority. It exercises executive power in everything it does.”
The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”
Clear Separation of Powers Would Support Workers’ Individual Rights
A proper understanding of the limitations of Humphrey’s when it comes to executive bodies like the NLRB would support workers like Cortes and Karam as they exercise their individual rights. Cortes and Karam are trying to exercise their right to remove local union bosses from their respective workplaces. But non-statutory policies enforced by the pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB have stymied their efforts. Success in this case could help ensure that Cortes and Karam receive a fair judgment from the NLRB in their cases.
“Unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats have caused direct harm to independent-minded workers and their individual rights, and the Supreme Court should rightfully restore the proper separation of powers, including at the NLRB,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud that the very legal arguments made by Foundation attorneys are now being utilized by this administration to dismantle the unaccountable fourth branch of government and restore proper constitutional structure.”
City of Everett Employee Appeals to Washington State PERC in Case Challenging Unconstitutional Money Seizures by AFSCME Officials
Appeal: Employer botched handling employee request to cut off dues deductions, AFSCME union officials refuse to return ill-gotten money
Olympia, WA (October 17, 2025) – City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is asking the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to reverse a ruling letting union bosses and city officials off the hook for taking union dues from her paycheck after she requested a stop to further deductions. Davidsen is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Davidsen’s case charges American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials and City of Everett officials with seizing union dues from her paycheck after she invoked her First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay dues to an unwanted union in their workplace. Janus also held that union officials can only deduct union dues and fees from a public sector worker who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Davidsen’s latest filing in her case, which is an appeal from a PERC Hearing Examiner’s ruling, maintains that after revoking her dues-deduction authorization, “on 14 separate pay periods…dues were nevertheless deducted from her paycheck.” According to the appeal, Davidsen requested that dues deductions end in June 2024, at which point union officials informed the City of Everett that it should cease remitting money from her paychecks into the union’s accounts.
However, the appeal says, “the [City of Everett] failed to follow these instructions because it failed to monitor the email address that it had designated for the Union to communicate dues revocations.” Even worse, AFSCME union officials twelve times accepted dues money that City officials wrongfully took from Davidsen’s paycheck.
“On none of those…instances did the Union stop to question why it was accepting dues that it knew were unauthorized to it,” Davidsen’s brief says, yet the PERC Hearing Examiner did not find any violation of Washington labor law on the union’s part. Davidsen also contests the Hearing Examiner’s logic freeing the City of Everett from any fault regarding its improper handling of the notification to stop dues deductions: “Under the Hearing Officer’s reasoning…[the City of Everett] could indefinitely deduct dues that it has constructive notice it must put a stop to.”
Davidsen’s appeal argues that the PERC Hearing Officer incorrectly ruled Davidsen’s complaint as being filed too late under the six-month statute of limitations. Instead of treating each dues deduction from Davidsen’s paycheck as a separate violation of the law, Davidsen’s attorneys argue, the Hearing Examiner arbitrarily treated City of Everett officials’ ignoring her instruction to stop dues deductions as the only event at issue, putting the date of her original complaint outside the statute of limitations.
“AFSCME union officials believe they should be able to hold onto the hard-earned money of dissenting employees like Ms. Davidsen simply because they and City of Everett officials refuse to correct their own misdeeds,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this certainly shows the contempt that AFSCME officials have for public employees’ First Amendment Janus rights, it’s even more worrying that PERC officials are doing legal gymnastics to let union bosses get away with it.
“Under Janus, union bosses must now convince public sector workers to voluntarily support their agenda, and are not entitled to take – or keep – any money they know was seized without that voluntarism,” Mix added.
Right to Work Foundation Urges Ninth Circuit to Reject CA Law Granting Union Bosses Massive Power Over Cannabis Industry Workers
Amicus brief: “Labor peace agreement” mandate violates federal law and subjects workers to coercive union organizing tactics
San Francisco, CA (October 8, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott, arguing that California’s regulatory regime imposing so-called “labor peace agreements” on the cannabis industry violates federal law.
These so-called “agreements,” which cannabis companies must adhere to in order to maintain a license under California law, rig the law against workers opposed to union control by censoring speech critical of unionization. They also mandate that employers grant union campaigners access to employees.
“Since 1968, the Foundation has been the nation’s leading litigation advocate for employee freedom to choose whether to associate with unions,” the amicus brief reads. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether California can lawfully subject employees of cannabis retailers to union organizing agreements.”
The Foundation’s amicus brief argues in particular that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts California’s “labor peace agreement” statutes. The NLRA is the federal law that governs most private sector labor relations. The four conditions mandated for cannabis companies under California law, “an agreement with a…union, a ban on disrupting union organizing, a ban on union members picketing, boycotting, or striking, and a clause granting union organizers access to employees at work” all concern activity that the U.S. Congress intended the NLRA to deal with – not state law.
CA Statutes Force Employers to Bargain With Union Bosses Their Employees Never Voted For
Notably, the brief explains that California’s labor law requires cannabis employers to bargain with union officials – even if a majority of employees have not expressed that they want a union in the workplace. “California obligating employers to simply bargain with unions over labor peace agreements runs also afoul of [Supreme Court precedent] because the NLRA contains no such obligation,” the brief says. “The NLRA only requires employers to bargain with unions after a majority of employees choose that union to be their exclusive representative, but not before as California’s law does.”
Federal law also preempts California’s mandate that cannabis employers provide union bosses access to workers, the brief contends. The mandate lets union agitators intrude on private property so they can subject employees to campaign activity whether they want it or not. “This requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property rights,” the brief reads. “The requirement also deprives employees who oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by outside union organizers.”
“California and several other states are pushing forward so-called ‘labor peace agreements’ to appease powerful union special interests, while workers and entrepreneurs in the fledgling American cannabis industry are left in the lurch,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While federal labor law certainly has its flaws, California’s statutes and similar ones around the country provide even less protection for workers, and seemingly treat employees’ free association rights as an obstacle to greater control over the industry.
“California’s scheme has no legal underpinning and will cause employees great harm. The Ninth Circuit should invalidate it,” Mix added.
Pratt & Whitney Employee Slams IAM Union With Federal Charges For Imposing Illegal Post-Strike Discipline
Union officials insulted worker for wanting to resign membership and keep working, incorrectly told workers P&W was “closed shop”
Middletown, CT (October 6, 2025) – An employee of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney’s Middletown facility is filing federal charges against International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 700 union officials at the facility. The worker, Christopher Utley, is charging IAM union bosses with unlawfully imposing internal union discipline on him because he exercised his right to resign his union membership and continue working during a May strike. He also details IAM officials telling him that Pratt & Whitney is an illegal “closed shop” in which he needed to maintain union membership or be fired.
Utley filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual workers.
Federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors forbid union officials from enforcing “closed shop” union contracts that require formal union membership as a condition of employment. Workers who abstain from formal union membership are immune from internal union rules and discipline regarding things like strikes.
Because Connecticut lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, however, IAM union officials can impose contract provisions that require every employee in a workplace (even those who are not union members) to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary in Right to Work states.
“Instead of letting me exercise my right to leave the union and go back to work during the strike, IAM union bosses just insulted me and kept stonewalling,” commented Utley. “It’s almost like they wanted to trap me in the union just so they could subject me to internal discipline and punish me for daring to disagree with them.”
“Good Luck With That”: IAM Union Officials Ignore Resignation and Threaten Discipline on Worker
According to Utley’s charges, he called IAM Local Lodge 700 President Wayne McCarthy one day before the May strike began and informed him that he wanted to resign from the union. McCarthy “responded with various invectives, refused to identify any process to resign, said ‘good luck with that,’ and hung up the phone,” Utley’s charges say. After trying other methods of resigning, the charges read, IAM Local Lodge 700’s Vice President Chuck Hermann informed Utley that Pratt & Whitney was a “closed shop” and “he would have to be and remain a formal member of the union or face termination from his employment.”
On September 19 – months after the strike had concluded – Utley learned that IAM union bosses were “processing internal union disciplinary charges against him” for continuing to do his job during the strike. The charge argues that union officials calling Utley before a union tribunal, after he exercised his right to end union membership, violates his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“Instead of convincing workers to voluntarily support their agenda, IAM union officials are trying to turn Mr. Utley into an example of what happens when workers defy them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law unambiguously permits workers to decline formal union membership and to continue to work during union-ordered strikes. But IAM bosses misled Mr. Utley about his rights so they could attempt to subject him to their illegal retaliation.
“Foundation attorneys stand ready to provide legal aid anywhere in the country to defeat union bosses’ attempts to discipline workers for making decisions about their own livelihoods,” Mix added.
Texas Workers at Multiple Workplaces Latest to Successfully Free Themselves from Unwanted Teamsters Union ‘Representation’
Dallas-based workers at two companies petitioned the NLRB for decertification elections to remove Teamsters Local 745 bosses
Dallas, TX (October 3, 2025) – Two successful union decertification efforts have freed workers from the control of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 745 Union bosses in Dallas, Texas. Both Dallas-based delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. and employees at FCC Environmental Services in Dallas filed decertification petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. When employees are dissatisfied with union officials and want to remove the union from their workplace, they may file a “decertification” petition with the NLRB.
Union bosses often try to block elections with charges of unfair labor practices, and vigorously campaign to keep workers under their control. In both of these cases, workers ultimately were able to remove the union.
Teamsters Local 745 Can’t Win Decertification Efforts
Local Teamsters officers tried to block a decertification election at FCC Environmental Services last year, filing numerous charges of unfair labor practices, but despite these stalling attempts, the employees were successful in their effort to remove the union. The union ultimately withdrew all of their objections but one, which the NLRB Regional Director dismissed as it had no bearing on the election itself in which a majority opposed union affiliation.
Meanwhile, Local 745 officials couldn’t even put up a fight against delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. After workers filed a decertification petition at the NLRB in April, a decertification election was set for September. Only three days before the election was scheduled to take place, union officials themselves decided not to contest it, and instead disclaimed any further interest in representing the employees, who are now free from their control.
Workers Fleeing Teamsters Union Nationwide
These successful decertification efforts are part of a larger trend across the country. For four years, the Foundation has seen increasing demand for assistance from groups of workers seeking votes to remove unions. This trend has disproportionately affected the Teamsters Union, as NLRB statistics for the past 12 months show that one of every five decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
“More and more, American workers across the country are deciding they are better off without Teamsters union bosses who prioritize their own interests over that of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These successful decertification efforts demonstrate what happens when courageous and independent-minded workers assert their rights.”
“Union bosses often do not speak for the workers under their so-called ‘representation,’ and statistics show that over 90% of employees have never had a chance to vote on the union that purports to represent them,” Mix added. “That one in five decertification petitions filed last year involved the Teamsters only drives home the point that workers are increasingly rejecting the union’s coercive agenda.”
Builders FirstSource Workers Join Other KY Construction Industry Workers in Ending Teamsters Local 89 ‘Representation’
Majority of workers backed petitions calling for Teamsters removal as second workplace ejects Teamsters Local 89 bosses in recent weeks
Louisville, KY (October 2, 2025) – Kenneth Moore, an employee of Builders FirstSource, and his coworkers have been freed from the hold of Teamsters Local 89 union bosses after Builders FirstSource ended its recognition of the Teamsters as the workers’ “representative.” The employer took this decision following a petition signed by a majority of the workers demanding that Builders FirstSource end the recognition of the Teamsters.
This development comes after Moore filed a petition last month at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a decertification election to remove the union from his workplace. Moore filed his petition at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Moore and his colleagues now join Chris Smith and other IMI – Irving Materials drivers who were successful in removing the Teamsters Local 89 in Scottsville, KY last month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Thanks to the 2019 Right to Work Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers seeking to remove unwanted union bosses can also do so by submitting a majority-backed petition asking their employer to stop recognizing the union. If there is a dispute about the petition, the NLRB can administer a secret-ballot vote to assess the employees’ opposition to the union.
The workers’ petition to Builders FirstSource managers provided the company with proof that the majority of their employees do not support the Teamsters presence at their facility. In compliance with the Johnson Controls decision, the employer withdrew the Teamsters’ recognition.
Moore and his Builders FirstSource colleagues are amongst the most recent workers who have made strides to remove the Teamsters from their workplaces. According to the NLRB’s owns statistics, over the past 12 months over 20% of all decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
Kentucky is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
“These two groups of Kentucky workers are the latest to come to the conclusion that the interests that Teamsters bosses are pursuing are at odds with the wishes of the rank and file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist workers in their efforts to free themselves from the Teamsters or any other unwanted so-called ‘representation.’”
IBEW Local 16 Folds in Case Concerning Illegal $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’ Threat Against Local Electrician
Union bosses imposed illegal limitations on resigning union membership, told electrician he would be fined for starting new business unless he signed with the union
Evansville, IN (September 30, 2025) – Brian Head, an Evansville-based electrician, has vindicated his federal labor rights against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 16 union. Head filed federal charges after IBEW union officials threatened him with a $1.29 million internal disciplinary fine even though he had validly resigned his union membership. He filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The settlement requires union officials to rescind all fines against Head, expunge all records of them, and refrain from interfering with workers who exercise their right to resign their union membership in the future. The union is also required to notify other workers of their legal right to resign their union membership without restriction, and be free of any attempt to impose internal union fines post-resignation.
Fine Threats Came After Electrician Refused to Hand Over Business to Union Power
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. Head’s charges document that he had resigned his IBEW union membership on March 27, 2025, in a notarized letter that IBEW officials acknowledged receiving. However, the union’s reply letter claimed that “[i]t is a six-month process before the resignation is finally effective.”
The NLRA forbids restricting the right of workers to resign their union memberships. Section 7 of the NLRA enshrines workers’ right to refrain from union membership. Furthermore, union bosses cannot impose discipline or fines upon nonmember workers.
IBEW Local 16 union officials began retaliating against Head after he resigned his union membership and announced he was purchasing a non-union electrical firm. Head refused to sign an IBEW Letter of Assent, which would have likely forced his employees under union control without any kind of worker vote.
Following Head declining to hand over his business to a union he was no longer legally affiliated with, IBEW Local 16 officials sent Head correspondence on May 1 demanding he appear before a union tribunal. Head later received a letter from IBEW Local 16 bosses on June 9 finding him “guilty” of violating the union’s constitution and imposing a “$1.29 Million dollar fine” as a penalty.
Foundation-Won Settlement Forces IBEW to Inform Workers of Rights
An NLRB Regional Director reviewed Head’s charges against IBEW union officials’ overreach, and made a merit determination in his favor, finding that the IBEW Local 16 union officials violated Head’s rights under the NLRA. IBEW union officials quickly decided to back down and settle rather than go to trial against the NLRB and Head’s Foundation lawyers. In addition to expunging their million-dollar-plus retaliatory fine, the settlement details that IBEW bosses must stop informing workers that there are restrictions on the right to resign one’s union membership. Additionally, they must inform all their members of their rights under the NLRA, and post the settlement on the union’s website.
“The Foundation is pleased to have assisted Mr. Head as he challenged IBEW union bosses’ attempt to illegally extort him after he had followed all legal procedures necessary to break free from the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “IBEW union bosses’ use of strong-arm tactics demonstrates that they value maintaining control over Indiana electricians far above respecting those electricians’ individual rights.
“Whenever union bosses violate the rights of any American worker, Foundation attorneys are ready to assist in their defense,” Mix added.
Electric Utility Worker Asks Trump NLRB to Prosecute IBEW’s Restrictive Policies That Compel Workers to Fund Union Politics
Electric utility worker asks NLRB General Counsel to seek Board ruling against union policies that force nonmembers to fund union political spending
Benson, MN (September 23, 2025) – Theresa Klassen, an employee of Agralite Electric Cooperative, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to expedite consideration of Big Labor schemes that force workers to pay dues for union political activities. Klassen has filed an appeal with the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, asking him to issue a complaint in her case after an NLRB Regional Director let International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union officials off the hook for violating her rights. Klassen is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Klassen originally filed charges against both the IBEW international union and IBEW Local 160 to defend her rights under Communications Workers of America v. Beck. In this Foundation-won landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that union officials cannot force workers who abstain from membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s monopoly bargaining functions – including politics.
Even though Klassen successfully resigned her union membership, union bosses continued to demand full dues payments from her – including dues for union political expenditures. When she invoked her Beck rights with assistance from Foundation staff attorneys, union bosses then claimed that she could only opt out of dues payments for politics within a narrow 30-day “window period” each year in the month of November.
Brief: IBEW Union Clearly Violating National Labor Relations Act
Klassen’s appeal argues that it would violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “for a union to demand payment for any dues beyond what Section 8(a)(3) requires unless that employee affirmatively consented to pay full union dues.” Under the Beck decision, Section 8(a)(3) only permits union bosses to demand dues for union expenses that are directly related to bargaining.
Now, Klassen is asking the NLRB to uphold this interpretation and end all opt-out requirements, so that union officials must obtain explicit permission from employees to take payments for non-bargaining-related functions, including union political and lobbying activities.
Klassen is also asking the NLRB to end window period practices for becoming Beck objectors, as they similarly violate the NLRA by preventing workers from exercising their rights. Window period restrictions on when employees can exercise their Beck rights allow union officials to extract money from workers after they’ve already objected to financially supporting union political activities.
“The IBEW should be respecting my rights, not throwing up roadblocks so they can continue to use my paycheck dollars to fund their own agenda,” said Klassen. “The NLRB needs to recognize that union officials are violating the law; otherwise, these rights are not rights at all.”
Union Officials Use Restrictive Policies to Consolidate Power
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, IBEW union officials can impose contracts that force Klassen and her coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs, though this amount is limited by the Beck decision. In contrast, in Minnesota’s neighboring Right to Work states, union officials cannot force workers to pay any dues or fees just to keep their jobs.
“Free association is a right of every American, including workers who don’t want to associate with a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s telling that IBEW officials are using a legally suspect policy to make it needlessly difficult for workers to stop supporting the union’s political activities.
“While the NLRB General Counsel should urge the agency to address these illicit schemes swiftly, ultimately Minnesotans and all Americans deserve Right to Work protections, which would make all union financial support strictly voluntary,” Mix added.
