Hundreds of Sunoco Logistics Drivers Across TX, OK, LA, and NM Free Themselves From Steelworkers Union
Majority of drivers across large work unit backed petition to send USW union bosses packing
Washington, DC (May 20, 2025) – Crude oil drivers for Sunoco Logistics Partners (also known as Energy Transfer) have successfully forced unpopular United Steelworkers (USW) union bosses out of their work unit. The victory for workers comes after Jay Fifer, a driver for the oil transportation company, gathered signatures from the majority of his coworkers on a petition demanding that Sunoco Logistics officials end their recognition of the USW union as the majority “representative” of the drivers.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acknowledged Sunoco Logistics’ withdrawal of recognition from the USW union on May 12. As the result of Fifer and his coworkers’ effort, over 420 drivers from around 30 Sunoco Logistics facilities across Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico are free of the union’s control.
“I’m glad that my coworkers and I were able to band together to force this Steelworkers union out,” commented Fifer. “The union was not a positive force in our workplace, and we are better off without it. I am lucky to live in the Right to Work state of Texas where I could at least choose to stop sending my money to this union while it was still in power, but unfortunately the same can’t be said for all of my fellow drivers.”
The NLRB is the agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, which includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Thanks to the 2019 Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers who want to remove unwanted union officials 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 test the employees’ opposition to the union.
Fifer lives in Texas, a Right to Work state barring union bosses from enforcing contracts that require employees to pay dues or fees to union officials as a condition of keeping their jobs. Oklahoma and Louisiana are also Right to Work states, but Sunoco Logistics drivers in New Mexico do not have the benefit of Right to Work protections and can be forced to sacrifice part of their paychecks to union bosses or be fired. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, federal law lets union officials impose their monopoly “representation” on all workers in a work unit, regardless of whether they support the union or not.
Rank-and-File Oil Truck Drivers Gathered Hundreds of Signatures in Favor of Removing USW
Fifer’s effort to remove the USW union kicked off when he began collecting signatures on a petition asking the NLRB to administer a union removal (or “decertification”) vote at his workplace. Fifer easily met the 30% signature threshold needed to trigger such an election under NLRB rules. However, soon after the NLRB scheduled a decertification vote to take place over a range of dates in May, Fifer’s petition gained even more traction and soon garnered support from a majority of the work unit.
Fifer opted to submit his petition to his employer, who withdrew recognition from the USW union in accordance with the Johnson Controls decision. USW union officials are now stripped of their monopoly bargaining power and can no longer enforce bargaining obligations against Sunoco Logistics.
Foundation staff attorneys have helped several groups of workers exercise their right to remove unwanted USW unions within the last few years, including healthcare workers in Minnesota, metal workers in Pennsylvania, chemical employees in Louisiana, building products employees in New Jersey, and more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“Rank-and-file workers across the country like Mr. Fifer and his fellow drivers don’t enjoy the same structural and legal advantages that union officials do under American labor law. That makes it all the more impressive that he and his colleagues were able to gather signatures across a huge work unit and break free of the Steelworkers union’s control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “American workers’ increasing interest in escaping union ‘representation’ should serve as a reminder to the Trump Administration that it should pursue labor policy that enhances workers’ freedom to escape unwanted union affiliation.”
UNITE HERE Local 11 Faces Third Round of Federal Unfair Labor Practice Charges From LAX Flying Foods Employees
Workers have reported union officials using mob-like tactics, physical confrontations, false accusations, and more in retaliation for union dissent
Los Angeles, CA (May 13, 2025) – Esperanza Maciel, an employee of Flying Food Group, has hit the Unite Here Local 11 union with new unfair labor practice charges. This is the third round of federal charges since September 2024 that the union has faced from employees of the LAX foodservice provider. Maciel’s charge details another flash point in a pattern of harassment and intimidation tactics that Flying Foods workers say they are facing at the hands of Unite Here officials. Maciel filed her charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“Unite Here union officials do not care about creating a workplace where everyone is treated with respect,” commented Maciel. “They demonize anyone who disagrees with the union and try to cut them off from the rest of the workplace. This makes it even more ridiculous that I am forced to pay them every month.”
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes adjudicating disputes between management, union officials, and individual employees. NLRB officials are now reviewing Maciel’s charge. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs labor relations in the private sector, forbids both union officials and employers from retaliating against employees who speak up for or against union control.
Unite Here Rep Screamed False Accusations at Worker
Maciel’s charges state that she has openly engaged in advocacy against Unite Here union officials, and submitted a petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote among her colleagues to remove the union (“decertification election”). “Because of her dissident activities, [Maciel] has been the target of harassment, bullying, and retaliation or attempted retaliation by the Union and through its representative,” the charges read.
The charges detail a clash union bosses instigated against Maciel on May 3. A Unite Here representative replied to a question Maciel asked about health benefits by saying he would not talk to her because she was not part of the union, and promptly accused her, falsely, of “[going] to San Francisco to participate in an anti-immigrant protest.” He also shouted in front of other employees that the company was paying Maciel to oppose the union.
Maciel responded by asking why the union took money from her wages every month and reiterated her question about healthcare. The Unite Here official ignored the question and instead yelled, “She wants the Union to leave but no one is getting rid of us!” Maciel’s charge argues that the confrontation was a blatant violation of her right to oppose the union, which is activity protected under the NLRA.
Flying Foods Worker Reports Union-Incited Mob Demanded Her Firing
Unite Here Local 11 is already under federal investigation for violating workers’ rights at Flying Foods. Maciel filed charges against Local 11 in September 2024 after a union organizer illegally incited a mob of employees to demand her firing. At the end of April, another Flying Foods employee, Kenia Solano, reported in federal charges that Unite Here shop stewards manipulated other employees into isolating her and even instigated a physical altercation over her opposition to the union.
Solano’s and Maciel’s charges come as Foundation attorneys are aiding foodservice and hospitality workers across the country in challenging illegal tactics from Unite Here union officials, including threatening organizing tactics and refusing to respect workers’ rights to refrain from dues payment. Two such workers, Maria Uriostegui and Erika Chavez, hotel workers in Chicago and San Francisco respectively, were recently featured in a Foundation mini-documentary titled “The Reality of Union Bullying by UNITE HERE,” which recently surpassed 1.6 million views on YouTube:
“Independent-minded workers in the foodservice and hospitality industries are standing up to unmask Unite Here as an aggressive organization that prizes consolidating power in workplaces far above respecting employees’ rights and opinions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foodservice and hospitality workers nationwide should know that they have rights to end union membership, speak out against union bosses, and refuse to pay some or potentially all union dues without having to fear retaliation, and that Foundation attorneys stand ready to help them exercise any and all of those rights.”
Michigan Security Guards Overwhelmingly Vote to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
After Big Labor-backed Right to Work repeal, Michigan workers including security guards continue fighting forced dues
James Reamsma and his fellow security guards finally secured their right to stop their hard-earned money from going to UGSOA union bosses after a months-long legal battle. Such anti-forced-dues cases continue to increase in Michigan.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Ever since Michigan legislators repealed the state’s popular Right to Work law, Michigan employees have been turning to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to help them fight to protect themselves from union bosses’ forced-dues demands. In a long-running case, security guard James Reamsma and his colleagues at Triple Canopy Inc. not only ended union officials’ power to require union dues payments as a condition of employment, but also freed themselves of unwanted union ‘representation.’
With Foundation legal aid, the security guards organized a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) “deauthorization election” to strip United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) Local 288 union officials of their power to compel union financial support.
Overwhelming Vote Against Forced Dues Triggers End of Unwanted ‘Representation’
Despite an overwhelming vote by participating workers against forced union dues, union lawyers’ delay tactics stalled final certification of the results until October. At that point, the dissenting security guards were officially free to cut off all union dues payments, as had been the case when Michigan’s Right to Work law was in place and all union financial support was strictly voluntary.
At that point, faced with the prospect that the vast majority of the guards would likely stop dues payments, UGSOA bosses announced they were ending their so-called “representation” at Triple Canopy. This means the security guards are now not only free of forced dues, but also of monopoly union representation they oppose.
“UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired,” Reamsma said soon after his case was filed. “Many of us are retired police officers, or military, working part time, supplementing our income by providing security for government buildings across Michigan. When Right to Work was in place, guards were never forced to join the union.”
In addition to the deauthorization petition, Reamsma filed unfair labor practice charges against UGSOA, citing illegal union dues demands. The charges note that union officials were violating his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision by denying Reamsma a required breakdown of how the forced-dues amount was calculated, and also by attempting to require that he let the union automatically deduct dues out of his paycheck. Those charges remain pending with the NLRB.
Despite a vast majority of Michiganders — including those in union households — expressing support for Right to Work, union boss partisans re-granted forced-dues powers to Michigan union officials in 2023.
Foundation attorneys filed more than twice the number of cases for Michigan workers in 2024 (the year the repeal went into effect) than through all of 2023. That increase includes a number of deauthorization cases. In states that lack Right to Work protections, like Michigan does currently, the only way that workers can end union bosses’ pay-up-or-be-fired dues demands is by voting as a majority against forced dues in a “deauthorization election” or by voting to remove the union completely.
Often workers may prefer to end union “representation” entirely, but union-backed NLRB rules severely limit when decertification votes can be held, including for up to three years when a forced-dues union contract is in place. As a result, workers often turn to deauthorization to cut off union dues payments in order to incentivize union bosses to leave completely, as happened with James Reamsma and his coworkers.
Fight Against Forced Dues in Michigan Continues
“Mr. Reamsma’s situation shows the kind of greedy gamesmanship union officials can engage in without Right to Work,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As soon as Reamsma and his coworkers had gone through the complex process of voting to strip them of their forced-dues power, union officials immediately fled the workplace — almost as if they were only there to collect dues from workers who had no choice but to pay up to avoid termination.
“While we are proud to assist Michigan workers in navigating these challenges, cases like these show why it was such a mistake to repeal Michigan’s popular Right to Work law to begin with,” added Mix.
Statement on Charlene Carter Appeals Court Victory in Case Against Southwest and TWU Union
Earlier today a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in flight attendant Charlene Carter’s case against Southwest Airlines and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 for illegally firing her in retaliation for expressing her religious beliefs. The decision affirms that Southwest and TWU violated federal law for their respective roles in her termination.
Carter is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in the case, which was originally filed in 2017. More details can be found here.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement about the latest victory in Carter’s case:
“This decision is another victory for Charlene Carter. The Court of Appeals has affirmed that both TWU union bosses and Southwest Airlines violated Carter’s legal rights when the union instigated her termination by Southwest in response to voicing her opposition to union political activism, including union activities that violated her religious beliefs.”
“We are proud to help Charlene defend her legal rights. But her case exposes a bigger injustice in American labor law: that workers can be forced to accept union ‘representation’ they oppose and, adding insult to injury, can be forced to pay fees to that union. It is outrageous that, even though the court confirmed that the TWU union and Southwest violated Carter’s legal rights, Carter is still forced to subsidize TWU union bosses or else be fired by Southwest. We hope Carter’s victory today will prompt an overdue conversation about how coercive union boss power infringes on the rights of millions of hardworking Americans.”
Chicago-Area Chemical Plant Worker Asks National Labor Board to End Policy Letting Union Bosses Trap Workers in Unions
Employees submitted valid petition requesting vote to remove Teamsters union, but union bosses manipulated unproven charges against employer to block vote
Chicago, IL (May 8, 2025) – An employee of Rowell Chemical Corporation, a chemical plant based in Willow Springs, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn a regional labor board’s decision blocking a vote to remove the Teamsters Local 710 union. The worker, Jeffrey Johnston, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB, based in Washington, D.C., is the federal agency responsible for administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions, as well as adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Johnston’s Request for Review argues that regional NLRB officials blocked his and his coworkers’ requested union removal vote based on dubious “blocking charges” Teamsters union officials filed against Rowell management.
Union officials often file blocking charges to delay or cancel union decertification votes, despite the fact that their charges are often unproven and have little, if any, connection to the reasons workers cite for wanting to get rid of a union. The NLRB in 2020 adopted Foundation-backed reforms that gave workers a chance to vote before the agency handled litigation related to the election, but the Biden NLRB adopted a new rule in 2024 that lets union officials manipulate blocking charges to stop election proceedings completely.
Request for Review: NLRB “Blocking Charge” Policy Violates Multiple Federal Laws
Johnston’s Request for Review contends that the NLRB should eliminate the Biden-era rule permitting blocking charges and schedule a union decertification election for him and his coworkers as soon as possible. Johnston argues that holding up an election pursuant to blocking charges violates the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the statute that the NLRB is supposed to enforce, which states that a decertification election should occur if there is a question concerning representation. Johnston also argues that the Biden-era rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on multiple grounds.
At the very least, Johnston’s Request for Review maintains, the NLRB should hold a hearing into whether the employer misconduct alleged by Teamsters union officials actually has a connection to Johnston and his coworkers’ desire to kick the union out. The regional NLRB did not order such a hearing and simply blocked the vote.
“My coworkers and I requested a vote to remove this union almost two months ago and somehow the NLRB is letting Teamsters bosses throw around specious charges to stop us from doing so,” commented Johnston. “My coworkers and I have spent two years under Teamsters control, and I believe that the vast majority of us agree that the Teamsters don’t represent our interests. It’s not fair that union bosses and the NLRB can trump our free choice.”
“The NLRB, through its ‘blocking charge’ rule has let union officials stifle the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent’ in violation of the statute the NLRB is supposed to enforce,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnston speaks for workers across the country in challenging this NLRB-invented policy, which is completely antithetical to the idea expressed in federal labor law that employees should choose the union, not the other way around.”
New York Farmworkers Seek to Challenge ‘Card Check’ & Uproot UFW Union Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Farmworkers fight union argument that New York labor law lets union bosses trap workers forever
Porpiglia Farms workers, who were targeted by an aggressive UFW ‘card check’ campaign against the farmworkers, are banding together to vote the union out and ensure that union officials reap what they have sown.
MARLBORO, NY – In 2020, the New York State Assembly passed a Big Labor-backed law that granted union officials sweeping new powers to impose their monopoly bargaining control over the state’s farmworkers. Since New York is one of 24 states that lacks a Right to Work law, the law authorizes union bosses to force farmworkers to pay union dues or else be fired.
But that’s not all: New York labor law went even further by mandating “card check” organizing, in which union officials deny workers a secret ballot union vote and instead claim majority support by submitting cards ostensibly showing worker support. These cards are often collected through pressure tactics, intimidation, or even threats.
But even that dramatic increase in power over the agricultural sector and agricultural workers is not enough for United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials.
UFW tyrants are advancing the cynical argument that, under New York law, workers can be forced into union ranks but can never escape forced unionism. They argue this to counter a recent National Right to Work Foundation-backed union decertification case for employees of Porpiglia Farms, an apple farm in the Hudson Valley of New York.
NY Fruit Farmworkers Seek Union Ouster After ‘Card Check’
Porpiglia employee Ricardo Bell submitted a petition last year in which he and his coworkers asked the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to hold a vote at the orchard on whether to remove the UFW. (Despite its name, PERB is responsible for enforcing labor law in both New York’s public and agricultural sectors.)
In late 2024, Foundation attorneys filed a brief for Bell countering union officials’ absurd argument that one card check drive should lock employees in a union forever. Additionally, more Foundation-backed decertification cases are sprouting up in both New York and other Big Labor-dominated states for farmworkers who are rejecting UFW officials’ card check schemes.
Brief Challenges Theory That Workers Have No Right to Remove Incumbent Union
Bell filed his decertification petition with Foundation legal aid after UFW union officials seized power at his workplace through a hasty card check unionization drive. His newest filing attacks union bosses’ contention that once a union is certified as the monopoly union “representative” of a work unit, there can be no option to remove it.
“[New York labor law] does not indicate that employees have a single chance at self-organization,” the brief says. “If that were the case, the very action of choosing a representative under [New York labor law] would deprive employees of the ability to exercise [their rights] in perpetuity….”
Foundation-Backed Workers Battle UFW ‘Card Checks’ Across Country
Since Bell’s filing, Foundation attorneys have also assisted in a union decertification effort for workers at Cherry Lawn Fruit Farms near Rochester, NY, who were targeted by a similar UFW card check campaign. These two groups of New York farmworkers join Foundation-backed employees of Wonderful Nurseries in California in challenging the UFW’s tactics.
Wonderful Nurseries workers still have multiple unfair labor practice charges pending against UFW bosses for deceptive behavior during an early 2024 card check drive. The charges detail UFW agents lying about the true purpose of cards that they collected from workers, and harassing workers who now back an effort to vote the union out.
“The aggressive and often demeaning tactics that UFW union officials use to seize control over agricultural workers show clearly why ‘card check’ is a bad idea in the agricultural sector, the public sector, and in any sector,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “UFW officials are arguing that workers should have little or no chance at all to challenge a union’s ascent to power by this process.
“The idea that workers have no ability to eject a union once it is installed in power further demonstrates that this is not about workers’ choices at all, only about union bosses’ power over workers, even when workers overwhelmingly want nothing to do with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation,’” added Messenger.
Philly-Area Manufacturing Employees Triumph Over UAW Intimidation Campaign
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW bosses now required to attend federal training after trying to fire non-striking workers
Despite an active federal corruption investigation, UAW President Shawn Fain and his underlings continue to push a radical political agenda using workers’ dues money while ignoring the rights of the rank-and-file employees union bosses claim to “represent.”
PHILADELPHIA, PA – It’s not particularly difficult to see why United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials are having trouble convincing workers that the union has their best interests in mind.
The union’s upper echelon is still reeling from a federal probe that hit about a dozen top union bosses with prison sentences for embezzling workers’ dues, and to this day it appears that UAW President Shawn Fain — a so-called “reformer” — is being scrutinized by federal monitors for manipulating his position to secure personal benefits.
But the corruption within the UAW goes far beyond the union’s top executives. Throughout 2024, National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers for auto accessory manufacturer Dometic fought illegal UAW demands that they strike or be fired.
UAW Union Used Mass Texts, Social Media to Bully Workers
In March 2024, seven Philadelphia-area Dometic employees filed unfair labor practice charges against the UAW Local 644 union, detailing that UAW bosses had ordered a strike and threatened to get fired anyone who decided to keep working.
Despite the employees’ resignation of their union memberships, UAW officials began internal proceedings against each of them soon after the strike began. Federal labor law forbids unions from imposing internal discipline on those who abstain from union membership.
The Dometic workers didn’t back down. With free Foundation legal aid, all the workers won settlements in October 2024 that fully vindicated their rights. UAW officials must now make postings correctly informing workers of their right to abstain from union activities, and the settlement even requires union chiefs to undergo mandatory training on the limits of “a union’s right to impose internal discipline,” among other topics.
As the workers’ legal battle dragged on, the Dometic workers continued to expose ugly details of the UAW’s intimidation campaign surrounding the strike. In April 2024, Dometic employee Mario Coccie filed a second round of charges against UAW Local 644 for a mass text message that threatened all Dometic employees — not just those who had filed charges against the union — with termination if they didn’t strike.
“The information in this text reveals union officials’ real intentions, which is to hurt anyone willing to stand up for themselves,” said Coccie at the time. “What is happening in this case is completely unjust.”
UAW officials also refused to respect Coccie and his coworkers’ rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prohibits union officials from requiring workers to pay for the union’s political expenditures just to keep their jobs. Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UAW bosses can force workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment, but must abide by Beck.
Legal Privileges Enable UAW Corruption
In addition to the notice postings and required training, the Foundation-won settlement orders union officials to delete social media posts threatening workers who refused to strike.
“We’re proud to have helped Mario Coccie and his coworkers vindicate their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But it has become all too clear that union corruption — which can take the form of anything from stealing millions in worker dues to intimidating workers to join a picket line — is only made easier when union bosses are granted more legal privileges.
“Policymakers need to protect workers’ freedom to cut off funding for union bosses who don’t serve their interests, and to fully abstain from union activities that individual employees do not see as in their own best interest,” Semmens added.
City of Everett Employee Slams AFSCME Union and City With Labor Board Complaints for Illegal Dues Seizures From Paycheck
Washington State labor board finds merit in charges, demands response from union bosses and management
Everett, WA (May 2, 2025) – Xenia Davidsen, a custodian employed by the City of Everett, filed complaints against American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 2 union bosses and her employer for seizing dues money from her wages in violation of the First Amendment. Davidsen, who filed her complaints at Washington State’s Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Davidsen invoked her rights under the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, under which American public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay dues to an unwanted union in their workplace. In addition to establishing that no public sector worker can be fired for declining to subsidize union activities, 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. Janus protects public sector workers from forced union dues even in states like Washington that lack Right to Work protections.
Davidsen’s complaints explain how she ended her union membership and exercised her right under Janus to cut off dues payments for AFSCME, but City of Everett officials continued to deduct dues money from her paycheck for several months after her request. Even worse, Davidsen’s complaints reveal that AFSCME officials also violated Washington State labor law by accepting those deductions, not telling the employer to correct the issue, and not returning the illegally seized money to Davidsen.
Just this week, PERC agents issued a “Cause of Action Statement” finding merit in Davidsen’s charges and requesting a response from AFSCME union officials and the City of Everett. A hearing in the case will likely follow.
“I exercised my constitutional right to stop my hard-earned money from going to the AFSCME union or its officials, but neither my employer nor the union is respecting my freedom” commented Davidsen. “I’ve made it clear that I don’t support the AFSCME union. Union bosses shouldn’t get to hold onto my money simply because my managers violated the law by continuing to take it after I demanded a stop.”
Union Refuses to Return Money Illegally Seized From Worker’s Wages
According to Davidsen’s complaints, in June 2024 she submitted to AFSCME Council 2 a request to cut off dues deductions. Even though City of Everett officials received word of this request that same month, Davidsen’s complaints explain, “the Employer unlawfully continued to deduct dues from Davidsen’s paycheck, and [AFSCME Council 2] continued to accept those dues.”
“The unlawful deductions continued until February 2025,” the complaints say – which was when Davidsen obtained legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. Even though the City of Everett continued to take money from Davidsen’s paycheck for several months after she exercised her Janus rights, the union refuses to “return the monies that they were not legally entitled to back to Davidsen,” reads the complaint.
By ignoring her Janus rights, the complaints argue, AFSCME and the City of Everett violated multiple portions of Washington State labor law, including its provisions that permit workers to refrain from supporting a union and require unions to represent workers fairly.
“Janus might as well not exist at all to Washington State AFSCME union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “They believe they are entitled to hold on to a worker’s ‘dues money’ despite strong evidence it was taken against their will. That’s not far off from union bosses’ pre-Janus practice of forcing every worker under their control to pay union dues, whatever their objections might be.
“Under Janus, union bosses must now convince 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.
New Campaign Exposes UNITE HERE’s Anti-Worker Tactics
National Right to Work Foundation offers free legal aid to hotel industry employees nationwide
Washington, DC (May 1, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is launching a nationwide campaign offering free legal aid to hotel workers in the wake of widespread abuse by UNITE HERE officials.
The groundbreaking new campaign, featuring the mini-documentary “The Reality of Union Bullying by UNITE HERE,” shows the reality of deceptive promises and intimidating behavior from one of America’s most powerful unions, as well as the steps workers are taking to safeguard their rights from union bosses. “They’re supposed to protect us, but they just take our money and our voice,” says Erika, a San Francisco hotel worker who has been forced to pay dues for years. “The only time UNITE HERE would talk to us was when we would get paid.”
Erika is not alone. Across the country, Maria, a Chicago Hilton worker, has faced the same intimidating behavior as UNITE HERE officials attempt to muscle into her workplace. The video detailing these heartbreaking experiences has already gone viral, amassing well over a million views.
“I hope this video and my story helps inspire others,” Maria said of the video and campaign. “My message to other hotel employees is: Don’t let UNITE HERE bully you. The National Right to Work Foundation helped me stand up for my rights and they can help you too.”
Foundation staff attorneys have in recent years aided many hospitality workers in fighting coercion from the UNITE HERE union, including at hotels and resorts in Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; Orlando, Florida; and elsewhere. Employees helped have included housekeepers, concierges, foodservice staff and providers, casino maintenance workers, Disney crew members, and others.
“UNITE HERE officials have engaged in practices that undermine the very workforce they claim to want to protect,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Maria and Erika have bravely stood up for their friends and coworkers in the face of intimidation and coercion. The National Right to Work Foundation is proud to have provided them with free legal aid.”
“We’ve heard from many workers and we know there are many more out there who need help – they should know they have resources,” continued Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys are prepared to assist any hotel employees facing UNITE HERE’s abusive tactics.”
To learn more about free legal aid, visit hotelworkersrights.com.
The full video can be seen here.
