New Right to Work Video: Should the Government Bail Out the Auto Industry’s Compulsory Unionism?
Interested in learning about the connection between the Big Three auto bailout and compulsory unionism? Check out the latest Right to Work video:
The UAW has consistently leveraged its position as the Big Three’s monopoly bargaining agent to extend forced unionism throughout the automotive sector. Now they’re screaming for a federal bailout to save the entire industry. Should government really be in the businesses of saving compulsory unionism?
The answer, of course, is no. Forced unionism should be eliminated, not subsidized.
Economic Crisis Brings Even Greater Importance to Job-Producing Right to Work Laws
Recently the National Institute for Labor Relations Research released a new fact sheet that shows the numerous economic advantages associated with Right to Work states.
As the Fact Sheet details, Right to Work states have significant advantages in many areas including:
- Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income
- Growth in Real Manufacturing GDP
- Percentage Growth in Construction Employment
- Growth in Number of College Graduates (age 25+ with B.A.)
- Percentage Growth in Number of People/Children Covered by Private, Employer Based Health Insurance
And all those advantages are just icing on the cake. After all, the best reason for Right to Work protections is eliminating the injustice of firing employees for refusal to join or pay dues to a union.
That injustice has recognized by as wide a range of people as…
Thomas Jefferson who said: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical," and
Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor who said: "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."
Union’s $200,000 Political Donation Goes Unreported
Just two days before the election, the Washington Post’s Tim Craig unearthed some last-minute, secretive union politicking:
The Virginia Democratic Party failed to properly disclose a $200,000 donation it received in early September from a labor union, party officials admitted today.
In Virginia, there are no limits on how much an individual or organization can give to a political candidate or party, but all donations of $10,000 or more have to be reported to the State Board of Elections within three business days. The information is then uploaded on the State Board of Elections’ website so the public can keep track of who is funding political committees and candidates.
On Sept. 4, the Laborers’ Political League Education Fund gave the state party $200,000, which at the time was the largest contribution the state party had received in at least a decade, excluding transfers from candidates or other Democratic committees. But the state party never reported it until Oct. 15, when it filed its quarterly campaign finance report.
United Steelworkers Face Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Illegal Dues Objection Procedure
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, two Chemtura Corp. employees filed unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers union:
Morgantown, WV (November 17, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers national union for two Morgantown workers for its illegal scheme to coerce them to pay full union dues.
Chemtura Corporation employs approximately 80 workers at its Morgantown factory who are “represented” by the USW. Because West Virginia is not a Right to Work state, nonmembers are forced to pay certain compulsory fees to the union, but only for activities which union bosses can prove are related to collective bargaining. Previous Foundation-won litigation has established that workers have the right to refuse formal union membership and that union officials may not charge nonmembers for activities like political activism, organizing, and member-only events.
The USW forces David Yost, Ronald Echegaray, and other similarly situated Chemtura employees to renew their objections to payment of full union dues in a 30-day window period each year. Nonmembers who do not annually renew their previous objections are suddenly assumed to be “non-objectors” and against their will and without their consent are compelled to pay full union dues or lose their jobs.
Read the rest of the Foundation’s press release here.
United Steelworkers Face Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Illegal Dues Objection Procedure
Morgantown, WV (November 17, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers national union for two Morgantown workers for its illegal scheme to coerce them to pay full union dues.
Chemtura Corporation employs approximately 80 workers at its Morgantown factory who are “represented” by the USW. Because West Virginia is not a Right to Work state, nonmembers are forced to pay certain compulsory fees to the union, but only for activities which union bosses can prove are related to collective bargaining. Previous Foundation-won litigation has established that workers have the right to refuse formal union membership and that union officials may not charge nonmembers for activities like political activism, organizing, and member-only events.
The USW forces David Yost, Ronald EchegarAy, and other similarly situated Chemtura employees to renew their objections to payment of full union dues in a 30-day window period each year. Nonmembers who do not annually renew their previous objections are suddenly assumed to be “non-objectors” and against their will and without their consent are compelled to pay full union dues or lose their jobs.
In contrast, union officials do not need to get new consents each year from union members, re-establishing that they want to remain members and continue to pay dues through payroll deduction. As the charges explain, the USW’s policy is discriminatory and “solely designed to burden objecting nonmembers.”
With its arbitrary “Nonmember Objection Procedure,” the USW has violated its duty to represent fairly nonmembers in good faith. Moreover, federal labor law does not grant certified unions the authority to convert nonmembers into “non-objectors” without their consent.
In June, Yost sent a letter to USW union bosses asserting his procedural rights under Communication Workers of America v. Beck and related cases. The Supreme Court has held that unions must provide nonmembers a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor, and the opportunity to challenge the basis of the fee. In his letter, Yost declared his intent to file unfair labor practice charges if the union did not consider his objection permanent and continuing. Echegary sent a similar letter in August, before his objection was to expire. In both instances, a USW lawyer replied that the employee would need to re-object each year.
“It is unbelievable that United Steelworkers union bosses expect nonmembers to follow these arbitrary and illegal union procedures,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.
Should Congress Force Taxpayers to Bail Out the UAW Bosses??
Over the last couple of days, the media has devoted considerable print and airtime to a proposed bailout of the so-called Big Three — the Detroit-based car giants GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
"Big Labor Three" is more like it.
What really separates the Detroit automakers from the "foreign" automakers (who also make hundreds of thousands of cars in the U.S.) is compulsory unionism. Foreign manufacturers like Toyota, Honda and Nissan have U.S. plants that are free from monopoly bargaining, and they produce cars largely in Right to Work states, where forced dues are prohibited.
Some of the bailout coverage has addressed the destructive effects of the United Auto Workers union’s monopoly bargaining privileges (who can forget the $31/hour paid to over 12,000 UAW members to do crossword puzzles?) which have run these once-great companies into the ground and costing tens of thousands of jobs.
While the proposal is, at a minimum, an indirect bailout of the UAW and forced unionism in general, it appears the union bosses have a direct bailout in mind as well. The Washington Post explains,
The $25 billion would come on top of $25 billion in low-interest loans Congress approved in September for the car companies to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. And the United Auto Workers plans to press next year for an additional $15 billion in public funds to cover the first payment the three companies are due to make into a new independent entity that will fund retiree pensions and health benefits.
After the UAW’s two-day strike against GM last year led to the creation of union-administered trusts to handle health and pension obligations to union retirees, CNN noted this amazing statistic:
Today, the number of UAW retirees and surviving spouses collecting benefits from the big three automakers – about 540,000 – outnumbers active members working at the three automakers by three to one.
If this sounds like a pyramid scheme, don’t be surprised to learn that this is exactly where the bailout money — tens of billions of taxpayer dollars — will be going. The Big Three simply won’t be able to afford payments to the union-boss-run trusts, and now they want all Americans to pay for them.
What has sadly gone unreported in this fiasco is the nature of union-administred trust funds. The National Right to Work Foundation has previously revealed the lack of accountability in union pensions, which have often been used by union bosses as slush funds. As we told you last month, despite new federal reporting requirements, union and trust fund officials can choose to hide any trust expenditures they wish from their members. Can we really expect the new administration to ensure that union trusts aren’t misusing their funds?
It seems unlikely that Americans will tolerate a bailout of the UAW bosses.
Houston Nurses Derail Union Sham Election
In another egregious example of Top Down union organizing, California Nurse Association (CNA) union officials and Tenet Medical Corporation attempted to corral unwilling nurses into union ranks by agreeing to forgo federal supervision during unionization elections.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, several nurses filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Now we learn that the NLRB has decided to put the sham "elections" on hold pending an official investigation into the charges. Here’s an excerpt from the Foundation’s press release:
Federal labor prosecutors have blocked a so-called “consent election” sought by the Tenet Healthcare Corporation and the California Nurses Association (CNA) while the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducts an inquiry into the legality of a secret backroom deal entered into by Tenet and CNA officials.
The National Labor Relations Board’s Regional Director heeded the wishes of Houston-area nurses who filed unfair labor practice charges against Tenet and the CNA with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation. The scheduled “consent election” would have determined whether the CNA became the monopoly bargaining agent of nurses at the Houston Northwest Medical Center.
For more on top-down organizing, check out the Foundation’s webpage on the subject.
Tenet Nurses’ Unfair Labor Practice Charges Derail Union Officials’ Sham Election
Houston, Texas (November 11, 2008) – Federal labor prosecutors have blocked a so-called “consent election” sought by the Tenet Healthcare Corporation and the California Nurses Association (CNA) while the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducts an inquiry into the legality of a secret backroom deal entered into by Tenet and CNA officials.
The National Labor Relations Board’s Regional Director heeded the wishes of Houston-area nurses who filed unfair labor practice charges against Tenet and the CNA with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation. The scheduled “consent election” would have determined whether the CNA became the monopoly bargaining agent of nurses at the Houston Northwest Medical Center.
Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks location, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Medical Center, filed the charges on August 12 with the National Labor Relations Board in Fort Worth. The charges allege that an “Election Procedures Arrangement” Tenet and the CNA secretly agreed to violates employees’ rights.
The nurses’ charges detail how the agreement, signed by Tenet and CNA officials, subverts the NLRB’s role in supervising union certification elections and bypasses critical employee protections. The agreement calls for the NLRB merely to count ballots and “certify” the union without providing oversight for the actual process.
Tenet is also charged with providing unlawful assistance to CNA union organizers and discriminating against nurses opposed to unionization. Tenet managers were forbidden from answering workers’ questions about unionization, and employees who opposed a union presence in the workplace were prevented from using company facilities to express their views. CNA organizers, on the other hand, were given wide-ranging access to company grounds to facilitate unionization.
“California union militants, with the assistance of complicit Tenet officials, are attempting to corral unwilling nurses across the state of Texas into union ranks.” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “If similar agreements elsewhere are any indication, CNA may have sold out employees’ interests to become Tenet’s favored union. We’re pleased that the NLRB stepped up to investigate the matter before proceeding with more of these sham consent elections.”
The NLRB’s decision places the “consent election” on indefinite hold pending the outcome of the unfair labor practice charges.
“Streamlining” Union Intimidation
Last week, blogger Clayton Cramer gave his take on why Big Labor bosses would want to wipe out secret ballot elections from the American workplace. His account includes some telling examples of union boss intimidation:
I am more inclined to suspect that a lot of people sign the union authorization cards because they are either strongly encouraged or even directly threatened to do so. Labor unions are fundamentally institutions of organized violence. A friend who has since passed on left me this account of working in a union shop in California during World War II (when the federal government leaned pretty heavily on employers to accept unions):
Our next problem was that after three months on the job, workers were required to join the paper workers union. Those who did not received disfiguring beatings after hours. Having seen what happened to another girl in same position as Wanda and I, we decided that rather than face the same treatment we would quit our jobs before the three months ended.
I remember being quite young and surprised that my father was home during the day. He explained that his union, the Boilermakers/Blacksmiths, had gone on strike. "Can’t you go to work anyway?"
"Not if you want to live."
And unfortunately, this wasn’t just his imagination. There’s a fascinating decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Enmons (1973), that held that the Hobbs Act that "makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion" did not apply to labor unions engaged in destroying power company transformers with rifles and explosives because such use of violence did not qualify as extortion.
Extortion means that you are getting something that you don’t have a right to get–while higher wages obtained through such violence was a legitimate union bargaining tactic. The Court may have actually come to the right conclusion, based on the legal definition of extortion and the legislative intent of the Hobbs Act–but it does show you something of how labor unions get things done.I had a friend in California who grew up in Michigan. His father was a UAW local official. He remembered vividly being in a coffee shop with his family one day. The guy in the next booth made some remark to a companion that was uncomplimentary to the union–and my friend’s father instinctively swung his coffee mug around and shattered it on this guy’s jaw.
There’s a long and ugly, bloody, deadly history of corporations and labor unions fighting it out in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There’s plenty of evil that was done by both sides. But this is not the situation today–not even close. Labor violence today is almost entirely by labor unions. I can easily believe that the reason that the AFL-CIO wants to "streamline" the process is that they are intimidating workers into signing authorization cards–and don’t dare risk a secret ballot.
Well said.
To learn more on how union organizers mislead workers into signing away their rights and to view an appalling example of an actual "authorization card" used by Teamster union organizers to deceive employees into compulsory unionism, click here: Spotlight on "Card Check" Deception.
Special Right to Work Podcast: Election Aftermath and the Looming Union Assault on Our Freedoms
In this special episode of the National Right to Work Podcast, National Right to Work Committee and Foundation President Mark Mix tells host Stefan Gleason about the ramifications of the power-shifting election.
