Public Servants Across Country Stand Strong in Defending Janus Rights
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2026 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Jose Ramos, a University of Puerto Rico maintenance employee, isn’t going to let union bosses maintain their flimsy defense that they are entitled to keep his hard-earned money in violation of the First Amendment.
As 2025 waned, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys brought their expertise to bear as government employees in Washington State and Puerto Rico continued legal battles to get back money that union bosses never should have seized from their paychecks.
These workers are invoking their rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, which the Supreme Court handed down in 2018. In Janus, the Justices ruled that all American public sector workers have a First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to union officials they don’t support.
Despite Janus’ commonsense protections, many union bosses, intent on keeping their coffers stocked with dues money seized from unwilling public employees, are still trying to skirt the Court’s ruling.
AFSCME Bosses Refuse to Return Illegally-Seized Money to Worker
That includes AFSCME union officials in Washington State, whom City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is fighting at the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). Davidsen charged AFSCME chiefs with accepting money that City officials had illicitly funneled from her paycheck to the union.
Davidsen had requested dues deductions to stop in 2024 in accordance with Janus, but City officials failed to monitor the email address through which AFSCME directed the City to stop the deductions. This incompetence led to the City seizing dues money from Davidsen at least 12 times without her authorization — and AFSCME union officials have stubbornly refused to admit they must post a notice stating they were wrong to accept the deductions.
“On none of those… instances did the Union stop to question why it was accepting dues that it knew were unauthorized to it,” argue Foundation attorneys in Davidsen’s latest brief before the PERC.
Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys also defended the Janus rights of two groups of Puerto Rico public employees in oral arguments before the First Circuit Court of Appeals last October.
Foundation Challenges Puerto Rico Court’s Refusal to Nix Anti-Janus Statute
In one case, Cruz v. UIA, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) employee Reynaldo Cruz is trying to reclaim union dues money that officials of the Authentic Independent Union of Water and Sewer Authority Employees (UIA) took in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Cruz’s lawsuit challenges both union bosses’ demands that he pay union dues or lose his job, as well as the Puerto Rico territorial laws that allow such unconstitutional demands. Though UIA union bosses claim they have already deposited the illegally-seized money with a lower federal court, that court confusingly declined to issue a ruling that legally entitles Cruz to collect the funds.
During oral arguments, Cruz’s legal team argued that this legal sleight-of-hand created “a roadmap for civil rights defendants to violate civil rights plaintiffs’ rights.”
Foundation Won’t Let Union Bosses & Bureaucrats Ignore Janus
Also argued before the First Circuit at the end of 2025 was Ramos v. Delgado, in which Foundation attorneys represent Jose Ramos and other University of Puerto Rico maintenance employees who had dues illegally deducted from their paychecks for years.
Ramos and his colleagues are seeking refunds of all dues taken unlawfully since the Janus decision. Puerto Rico continues to be a hotbed for union violations of the Janus decision, but luckily, workers continue to stand up with Foundation legal aid.
Most recently, public employee Luis Rigau filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the Puerto Rico Industrial Commission (PRIC) union’s blatantly illegal reinstatement of automatic forced-dues deductions against nonmembers.
“Despite Janus’ clear constitutional command, union bosses, legislators, and public officials are still trying to do legal gymnastics to end-run the decision,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“All public sector workers deserve the free choice that Janus secures, and Foundation attorneys will continue to back them in their court battles for freedom.”
Counselor at IL Correctional Facility Slams Union With Federal Charges For Illegally Seizing Money From Paycheck
AFSCME union officials told worker that formal membership and full dues payments are required just to keep her job
East Saint Louis, IL (February 11, 2026) – A mental health professional employed by University Correctional Healthcare Solutions has just filed a federal charge against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 union, maintaining that union officials are forcing her to join the union and pay full union dues – including dues for union politics.
The employee, J. Denise Bradley, is pursuing her case 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 private sector labor law. Ms. Bradley works primarily at the Illinois Youth Center Pere Marquette in Grafton, IL.
Even though federal labor law permits union bosses in many states to force workers to pay money to a union to keep their jobs, the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. General Motors forbids mandatory formal union membership. Additionally, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision prohibits union officials from requiring workers who opt out of union membership to pay dues for the union’s “nonchargeable” expenses, which include political and ideological actions.
Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, meaning union officials can enforce union contracts that require workers to pay money to the union or else be fired. However, this legal privilege is limited by Beck. In contrast, in Right to Work states like Illinois’ neighbors Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Kentucky, all union financial support is voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
“My colleagues and I are very proud of the services we provide, as challenging as our jobs are. The last thing I need is AFSCME union officials threatening my livelihood because I refuse to support their regime inside the workplace and their political agenda outside the workplace,” commented Bradley. “No worker in any profession deserves to be bullied into funding a union they oppose, especially if they feel that the union isn’t doing anything to improve their work.”
Council 31 is notably the same AFSCME affiliate that Foundation attorneys faced in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling establishing that public sector employees have a First Amendment right to refrain from paying dues to union officials. While Bradley works for a private contractor and is not under the purview of Janus, federal law still protects her from being forced to pay full dues or authorize automatic deduction of union dues for AFSCME Council 31.
AFSCME Union Officials Ignore Supreme Court Precedent, Use Unlawful Dues Forms
According to Bradley’s charge, AFSCME union officials told her and her coworkers that “it was a condition of employment to: (1) be a member of the Union; (2) pay full Union dues and/or (3) sign the Union’s unlawful dual-purpose membership and dues deduction authorization form.” Federal law prohibits the use of “dual-purpose” union membership forms, which confusingly demand that workers assent to both membership and direct paycheck deduction of union dues with only one signature.
In late 2025, Bradley attempted to exercise her right to refrain from union membership and her right to pay a reduced amount of union dues as per Beck. AFSCME union officials sent correspondence to Bradley rejecting her attempts to exercise her right under federal law to refrain from membership. Those communications also stated “the Union [does] not permit employees to pay a reduced fee.”
“Solely to preserve her employment, [Bradley] involuntarily signed the Union’s unlawful dual-purpose membership and dues deduction authorization form ‘under protest,’” the charges read. Bradley’s charges finally report that the union has never made any attempt to respect her rights under Beck and that full union dues are now flowing from her paycheck to AFSCME Council 31.
“AFSCME Council 31 union officials are just as intent on attacking workers’ free association rights as they were when Janus was being litigated,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Instead of trying to win the support of Ms. Bradley and her coworkers voluntarily, they are ignoring federal laws to fund union political and ideological activities.
“Unions that disrespect employees like this don’t deserve a cent of employees’ hard-earned pay, which is why all American workers deserve the Right to Work freedom to choose for themselves whether or not to fund a union,” Mix added.
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.
More Minnesota Nurses Send MNA Union Bosses Packing
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Politics-motivated union faces string of successful decertification votes in Minnesota
Brittany Burgess (front, center) and her coworkers at Mayo Clinic’s Mankato, Minnesota, branch sparked a wave of Foundation-backed efforts across Minnesota to declare independence from union bosses, with the most recent success in Fairmont, Minnesota.
FAIRMONT, MN – In 2022, then-President of the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union Mary Turner expressed to the Minnesota Reformer her ambition to continue pushing the MNA’s political agenda in the Minnesota state legislature and eventually vie for the presidency of the National Nurses United (NNU) union, MNA’s parent.
The NNU is also known for its ardent political activity — in 2016, the union’s super PAC spent roughly $1 million on promoting self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders for president.
When asked whether the union’s politics played a role in the fact hundreds of nurses, backed by the National Right to Work Foundation, had just voted MNA union bosses out of power at Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota, Turner had this to say: “They’re going to have to prove to us that they want the union because they lost it.”
Fast-forward to 2025, and the MNA’s obsession with politics hasn’t changed — and neither has nurses’ opposition to the alienating nature of the union. This January, with free Foundation legal aid, nurses at Mayo Clinic’s Fairmont, Minnesota, location voted by over 60% to remove MNA union officials from their facility.
“The MNA was a very divisive force in our workplace, and I think we’ll be able to better serve our patients and the community without the union,” commented nurse Jamie Campbell on the vote.
Foundation Backs Another Grassroots Effort to Nix MNA
Campbell kick-started the union removal effort by submitting a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in December 2024 requesting a union decertification vote.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Campbell’s union decertification petition contained well over the number of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, MNA union officials had the legal power to require all the Fairmont Mayo nurses to pay at least a portion of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions, union membership and all union financial support are voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials are able to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on all employees in a work unit, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
Fairmont Victory Follows Others in Mankato, St. James
The election took place in January, and within a week, the NLRB certified the nurses’ successful ouster of the union.
Since 2022, several sizable units of healthcare workers in Minnesota have sought out Foundation legal aid to obtain removal votes against the MNA and other unions, and have often been successful in freeing themselves. After Mankato Mayo Clinic nurses voted MNA out, nurses at Mayo’s St. James branch did the same with AFSCME Council 65 in August 2022. Support staff at the Mankato facility kicked out American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1856 union officials in 2023.
“MNA union bosses’ influence and political connections did not shield them from suffering another defeat by rank-and-file nurses at the ballot box,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“Ironically, Minnesota’s lack of Right to Work protections — which are vociferously opposed by the MNA — likely removed an important accountability tool from the relationship between the MNA and the nurses they claim to ‘represent.’ It’s no surprise that union bosses who can force workers to pay union dues or fees on pain of termination wind up being far less effective and more out-of-touch than union officials who must earn the voluntary financial support of each worker.”
Public Overwhelmingly Opposes Labor Department Proposal to Loosen Union Financial Disclosures
Over 97% percent of comments oppose proposal to let union bosses hide more political spending from workers
The National Right to Work Foundation recently filed detailed comments in opposition to a Department of Labor Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) proposed rule to significantly reduce financial disclosures union officials are required to file. With the comment period concluding last week, it is now clear that commenters overwhelmingly agree with the Foundation that the rule should be rejected.
Of 299 public comments submitted, over 97% strongly opposed the rule change.
The full comment submitted by the National Right to Work Foundation can be read here.
The Foundation’s comments note that the rule cannot be justified because workers’ rights will be undermined if union officials are permitted to more easily hide their spending of dues money, including money seized from workers forced to pay dues or else be fired:
“OLMS data for the past year…shows over 7,700 filings from unions with receipts under $450,000 that are located in states that lack Right to Work laws. These unions reported combined annual receipts of over $523 million, annual disbursements of over $514 million, and over 4 million members… The lack of more detailed reporting requirements for these unions therefore harms over 4 million workers by denying them meaningful details…”
These sentiments were echoed by hundreds of Americans, including rank-and-file workers, who are furious with the OLMS for proposing to deprive millions of workers of vital information on how union officials spend their dues payments, especially spending on union political and ideological activities. As over 225 of the comments point out, this change would allow over 850 unions, spending over $200 million annually, to hide their activities from detailed financial disclosure accessible to workers and the public.
Former union members used the public comments to share their personal experiences with union misconduct, and their desire for more accountability:
- A former member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters shared retaliation he experienced for speaking out about errors in union financial reports.
- A former professor recalled being forced to pay union dues and being coerced into supporting union candidates and policies.
- A former member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers remembers union chiefs spending lavish amounts of money on politicians he would never vote for.
- A former member of the Communications Workers of America felt betrayed by union bosses and urges the Department to make them account for every cent they misuse.
Other detailed comments opposing the rule came from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Institute for the American Worker, Yankee Institute, and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, as well as others.
Of the just seven comments that actually favored the change, a majority were filed by union officials who predictably want more leeway to hide their spending of dues money from the rank-and-file they claim to “represent.”
Among them was the National Education Association (NEA) which unsuccessfully attempted to hide its controversial 2025 handbook from the public just as comments were being solicited.
Meanwhile, union bosses at the AFL-CIO and AFSCME actually argued for even less disclosure to workers than the rule proposed, with AFL-CIO even suggesting that thresholds should be automatically raised every year.
The United States establishes a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. OLMS should reject these union bosses’ personally-motivated requests, and instead listen to the voice of the overwhelming majority calling for this change to be withdrawn.
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.
Support Staff at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children Vote to Eject AFSCME Union Officials
Large unit of over 270 medical assistants, office coordinators, and others will now be free of union control
Philadelphia, PA (December 20, 2023) – Support staff at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia have successfully voted American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials out of power at their facility. The victory follows hospital employee Shidiah Jackson’s submission of a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which contained signatures from enough of her coworkers to trigger a union decertification vote under NLRB rules.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys provided Jackson with free legal advice during the decertification process. The approximately 277-person work unit contains medical assistants, office coordinators, medical secretaries, and many other support employees, and the tally of ballots showed nearly 60% of those participating in favor of ousting AFSCME. The vote occurred on November 30, and the NLRB certified the results of the election earlier this month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install or remove unions. Under NLRB rules, a union decertification petition must contain the signatures of at least 30% of the employees at a workplace to trigger a decertification election.
If a majority of workers vote against a union in a decertification vote, the union is removed from the workplace and loses its monopoly bargaining power. Such power permits union officials to dictate the contract provisions of all employees in a unit, even those who oppose or voted against the union.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AFSCME union bosses had the power to enter into contracts with hospital management that forced Jackson and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Healthcare Employees Across the U.S. Reject Union Control
“AFSCME union officials were taking money from many employees’ paychecks but didn’t advocate effectively for me or my colleagues,” Jackson commented. “I’m glad that we were able to exercise our right to remove the AFSCME, and I think we will be able to serve the hospital’s medical staff and patients better with the union gone.”
In Minnesota, support staff at Mayo Clinic in Austin are currently seeking to boot Steelworkers union officials from their facility as well. Foundation staff attorneys earlier this month filed an NLRB union decertification petition for patient care specialist Erin Krulish, which contains signatures from a majority of other support staff at the clinic. Krulish’s effort is the latest in a string of Foundation-backed union decertification efforts in the Gopher State, with nurses and support staff at Mankato’s Mayo Clinic and St. James Mayo Clinic nurses all voting successfully to remove unions in 2022 alone.
“It seems that American medical employees are discovering that union officials’ one-size-fits-all ‘representation’ doesn’t always work to their benefit, nor does it help them take better care of their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s easy to see why healthcare workers would want to avoid compulsory dues payments, or being ordered to strike and abandon their patients during a busy time.”
“Those in the healthcare industry should know that they have a right to petition the NLRB for a vote to remove a union, and that National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys can assist them through this daunting process,” Mix added.
Video: The Anniversary of the Janus Supreme Court Victory and the Ongoing Fight for Worker Freedom
On the 5th Anniversary of the landmark First Amendment decision, Foundation President discusses Janus, the cases that led to the decision, and the path forward
Springfield, VA (June 27, 2023) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix released a video statement on the 5-year anniversary of the landmark Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. The case, which affirmed the First Amendment right of all public employees to get or keep a job without being forced to pay union dues or fees, was successfully argued at the Supreme Court by National Right to Work Foundation Legal Director William Messenger.
The Janus anniversary video is available here.
In the video, Mix discusses the cases that led to Janus, the importance of the 2018 decision, and next steps for the Foundation regarding workers’ freedom from coercive unionism. Mix notes in the statement that “while the Janus ruling is clear, unfortunately, though predictably, we’ve seen widespread attempts by government union bosses to subvert the ruling and implement schemes to block government employees from exercising their First Amendment rights. In response, Foundation staff attorneys have already filed over 50 cases to enforce the Janus decision, directly helping over 70,000 workers so far.”
He also looks at how Foundation is building on the 2018 Supreme Court victory: “Janus introduced a new wave of Foundation litigation enforcing the decision against union bosses who refuse to accept its limits, and launching new cases, like the Goldstein case, seeking to expand the First Amendment rights of workers opposed to forced unionization.”
Mix concludes by noting that Public employees or any worker who needs legal assistance in enforcing their rights against coercive unionism can contact the Foundation to request free legal aid: https://www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/.
Majority of Mankato Mayo Clinic Support Employees Vote to Remove AFSCME Union Officials
Nursing support staff and others in 186-person unit vote to remove AFSCME union following nurses’ vote to remove MNA union last summer
Mankato, MN (June 19, 2023) – A majority of nursing support staff, clerical staff, and environmental staff at Mankato Mayo Clinic have voted to remove American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1856 union officials from power at the hospital. The effort was spearheaded by Mankato Mayo employee Melody Morris, who submitted a petition on May 9 asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a union “decertification vote” at the facility. This petition was also supported by the majority of her coworkers.
Morris received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in submitting the petition. The successful union ouster comes less than a year after nurses at Mankato Mayo clinic voted to send Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials packing from the hospital.
Workers often seek free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation in exercising their right to vote out an unpopular union because the NLRB’s process for doing so is convoluted and prone to union boss gamesmanship. The right to decertify is especially important for Mankato Mayo Clinic employees and other workers across Minnesota because, due to the state’s lack of Right to Work protections, union officials can force workers under their control to pay dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“My colleagues and I want to provide the best support we can to the medical staff at Mankato Mayo Clinic Hospital, and we determined that having AFSCME in the workplace wasn’t helping us do so, nor was the union looking out for our interests,” commented Morris. “I’m grateful that we came together to free ourselves from the union, and we’re also grateful for the help of the National Right to Work Foundation in helping us accomplish this.”
Mankato Mayo Clinic Support Staff Remove AFSCME Amid Wave of Decertifications Across MN and Country
Morris and her colleagues’ successful union decertification vote comes as a growing number of Minnesota healthcare employees attempt to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union officials. In addition to Mankato Mayo Clinic nurses, nurses from Mayo’s St. James, MN, branch removed the AFSCME Council 65 union from their hospital last August with Foundation aid. Employees from four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations across the Brainerd Lakes region of Minnesota also sought Foundation aid in their decertification effort against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials last year. Even amid these efforts, Minnesota union officials seem unwilling to examine why growing numbers of workers want them ousted. A Minnesota Reformer profile on MNA President Mary Turner reported that Turner believes “it’s the nurses in Mankato, not the union, who need to change their approach.”
Interest in decertifying unions is also increasing among Starbucks workers. Just a year after union bosses and union-allied politicians heavily lauded successful unionization campaigns at the coffee chain, Starbucks workers are already attempting to kick out Service Employees International Union (SEIU)-aligned union officials. This includes Foundation-backed efforts at Starbucks locations in Buffalo, NY, and Manhattan, NY, both of which were the targets of high-profile unionization pushes in 2022.
“It’s easy to see why workers across the country are increasingly trying to free themselves from monopoly union ‘representation.’ Workers who prefer to speak for themselves or have interests that deviate from the union’s are all forced to accept the monolithic voice of union officials, who often chase politics or other superficial goals instead of doing what’s best for workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Minnesota healthcare workers may additionally be concerned that union boss-ordered strikes might force them to choose between staying with their patients or following the union agenda.”
“Any worker, public or private, who is interested in exercising their right to be free of union control should contact Foundation staff attorneys for free help in exercising their rights,” Mix added.
Foundation-Backed NLRB Rules Make It Easier for Workers to Vote Out Unwanted Unions
The Foundation-backed 2020 NLRB “Election Protection Rule” curtailed the non-statutory “blocking charge” policy that union bosses used to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote out a union. Prior to the rule, union officials could easily manipulate such “blocking charges” to stop workers’ requested votes from taking place for months or even years by making one or multiple unproven allegations against the employer.
The “Election Protection Rule” stopped the most common blocking charge tactics used by union lawyers to stall worker-requested votes, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally. Despite numbers showing increased worker interest in voting out unwanted union officials across the country, Biden-appointed NLRB officials in Washington have initiated rulemaking to roll back the Foundation-backed reforms, including those targeting “blocking charges.”
Second Group of Mankato Mayo Clinic Employees Petition for Vote to Oust Union from Workplace
Nursing support staff and others in 200-person unit demand vote to remove AFSCME union officials after nurses voted MNA union out last summer
Mankato, MN (May 12, 2023) – Less than a year after Mankato Mayo Clinic nurses voted the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union out of the facility, Mankato Mayo nursing support staff, clerical staff, and environmental staff are undertaking a similar effort. Mankato Mayo employee Melody Morris, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed a petition on May 9 asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote at the clinic on whether American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) officials should be removed.
A majority of Morris’ colleagues within the work unit under the control of AFSCME union officials supported her petition. Under NLRB rules, a union “decertification” petition containing the signatures of at least 30% of workers in a unit is enough to prompt the NLRB to administer a union decertification election.
Workers often seek free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation in exercising their right to vote out an unpopular union because the NLRB’s process for doing so is convoluted and prone to union boss gamesmanship. The right to decertify is especially important for Mankato Mayo Clinic employees and other workers across Minnesota because, due to the state’s lack of Right to Work protections, union officials can force workers under their control to pay dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The Foundation-backed 2020 NLRB “Election Protection Rule” curtailed the non-statutory “blocking charge” policy that union bosses used to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote out a union. Prior to the rule, union officials could easily manipulate such “blocking charges” to stop workers’ requested votes from taking place for months or even years by making one or multiple unproven allegations against the employer.
The “Election Protection Rule” stopped the most common blocking charge tactics used by union lawyers to stall worker-requested votes, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally. Despite numbers showing increased worker interest in voting out unwanted union officials across the country, Biden-appointed NLRB officials in Washington have initiated rulemaking to roll back the Foundation-backed reforms, including those targeting “blocking charges.”
More and More Minnesota Healthcare Workers Dissociate from Union Officials
Morris and her colleagues’ petition comes amid a surge in interest among Minnesota healthcare employees in exercising their right to vote out union officials they oppose. In addition to Mankato Mayo Clinic nurses, nurses from Mayo’s St. James, MN, branch removed the AFSCME Council 65 union from their hospital last August with Foundation aid. Employees from four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations across the Brainerd Lakes region of Minnesota also sought Foundation aid in their decertification effort against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials last year.
Minnesota union officials seem unwilling to examine why growing numbers of workers want them ousted. A Minnesota Reformer profile on MNA President Mary Turner reported that Turner believes “it’s the nurses in Mankato, not the union, who need to change their approach,” and also quoted her as saying that Mankato Mayo nurses “[are] going to have to prove to us that they want the union because they lost it.”
“Minnesota healthcare workers may have any number of reasons for opposing monopoly union ‘representation’ in their workplaces: divisive union politics, inefficient work rules, or strikes that take them away from patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But one thing is for certain: They are increasingly exercising their right to boot out unwanted unions, and the push from union officials and their allies at the highest levels of government to coerce and trap workers in unions shows a preference for power over worker freedom.”
“Minnesota employees who are interested in exercising their right to be free of union control should contact Foundation staff attorneys for free help in exercising their rights,” Mix added.
