DOJ Attorney Battles Biden Admin Union Power Grab Over Justice Department
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.
Foundation attorneys challenge last minute DOJ unionization in violation of FLRA case law
NTEU union bosses backed Kamala Harris for President, but when voters rejected her, NTEU union officials and the Biden-Harris Administration hastily moved to install the union at the DOJ in an apparent attempt to obstruct Trump’s priorities.
WASHINGTON, DC – In states across the country, union officials go to great lengths to gain more political influence, and will often violate established law to do so.
As veteran Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Morrison is discovering, federal agencies are no exception. Morrison is challenging a last-minute attempt by National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) bosses to gain monopoly bargaining control over attorneys at both the DOJ Civil Rights Division (CRT, where Morrison is employed) and the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD).
The unionization campaign was fast-tracked just days after Trump’s November election victory, in an apparent attempt to formally hand NTEU union officials power over the divisions prior to inauguration day. Morrison’s legal action asks the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to formally review the actions by the Biden DOJ and NTEU officials. The FLRA is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes between federal employees, union officials, and agencies within the federal government.
Brief: DOJ Holdovers and NTEU Bosses Colluded to Flout Existing Law
Morrison, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, contends in filings before the FLRA that the NTEU’s scheme violates an existing FLRA decision in which the agency ruled that CRT attorneys did not comprise a work unit appropriate for unionization.
DOJ management raised this exact concern about the CRT unit with the FLRA after NTEU union bosses began their campaign, but the DOJ dropped its opposition just days after the November federal elections.
Morrison is asking the FLRA to review the decision of the Regional Director to allow the election to go forward in the CRT and ENRD divisions without properly considering if these divisions are an appropriate unit under the law.
Morrison’s filings (called “Applications for Review”) came after DOJ management and NTEU union officials agreed that the CRT and ENRD were work units appropriate for unionization. His Applications for Review point out that a prior FLRA decision, Antitrust Division, held that CRT lawyers “did not have a separate and distinct community of interest from other DOJ trial attorneys” and for that reason couldn’t stand as a distinct bargaining unit.
“[T]he Authority determined this very unit to not be an appropriate unit…The Regional Director’s failure to comply with current, binding Authority precedent is in error and must be reversed,” the Application for Review says regarding the CRT attorneys. This same argument is applied to the ENRD division because it is similarly situated to CRT in the DOJ hierarchy.
FLRA Failed to Conduct Investigation Into NTEU’s Union Scheme
Morrison’s applications also contend that the FLRA “fail[ed] to conduct an independent investigation into the appropriateness of the unit,” despite the law requiring that the FLRA make such a finding.
“An agency agreeing with a union that a unit is appropriate does not mean that unit is actually appropriate. Agencies, like DOJ here, cannot usurp the Authority’s role in deciding unit appropriateness…” say the Applications for Review.
“Right before power changed hands in Washington, DC, NTEU union bosses and DOJ bureaucrats appear to have colluded to flout longstanding precedent that says Justice Department attorneys cannot legally be unionized division by division,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“The FLRA has ignored established precedent to let this hasty unionization attempt go through, and our attorneys are proud to assist Mr. Morrison in opposing this maneuver.”
Hundreds of OH Workers Exit Teamsters as Union Bosses’ Amazon ‘Strike’ Stunt Flounders
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.
Teamsters O’Brien tried to take away Christmas cheer, but couldn’t take away Ohio workers’ freedom
Daniel Caughhorn led a scrappy group of his coworkers in voting Teamsters bosses out of their workplace, a scrap metal processing facility in Toledo, OH. They also beat back union bosses’ attempts to overturn their vote.
WASHINGTON, DC – This past December, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien announced the “largest-ever strike against Amazon,” claiming that thousands of workers would heed his strike order, abandon their delivery vehicles and hit the picket lines. O’Brien threatened that Christmas gifts would be delayed unless his demands were met.
Those who took O’Brien’s rhetoric at face value would have thought he was a veritable Grinch stealing Christmas (even though he tried to explain it was Amazon’s fault that the strike had to occur). But even reporting from pro-Big Labor outlets soon revealed that the order was more story than substance: According to Labor Notes, only about 600 employees obeyed the strike order despite Teamsters honchos claiming to “represent” some 7,000 to 10,000 Amazon employees.
Even the small number who did cease work on O’Brien’s command are arguably not employees of Amazon, and likely aren’t under Teamsters control at all: They work primarily for independent contractors that carry out some delivery functions for Amazon. Even if O’Brien’s dubious theory claiming he had control over those delivery drivers was correct, it would have only affected 10 out of the roughly 110 Amazon centers nationwide. Still, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys put a special legal notice out to delivery drivers nationwide informing them of their rights if they were illegally coerced to strike.
Workers Defeat Cynical Attempt by Teamsters to Overturn Vote
The December 2024 Teamsters “strike” against Amazon may go down in history as a strained publicity stunt. But the more significant Teamsters news that month was that hundreds of Foundation-backed workers across Northern Ohio took real action by voting to free themselves from unwanted Teamsters officials’ so-called “representation.”
Dusty Hinkle, an employee for Frito-Lay’s plant in Wooster, OH, and Daniel Caughhorn, a worker at scrap metal firm Omnisource’s facility in Toledo, OH, paved the way to freedom for their coworkers by submitting petitions asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes among their coworkers to remove or “decertify” Teamsters unions at their facilities. They submitted these in October and August 2024, respectively, with free Foundation legal assistance.
Because Ohio lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Teamsters officials enforced contracts that required Hinkle, Caughhorn, and their colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB, the federal agency that enforces federal labor law, administered decertification votes at Hinkle’s and Caughhorn’s workplaces after finding that both petitions contained enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under agency rules. Even though clear majorities of workers voted against Teamsters union control in both votes, Teamsters union officials filed objections alleging misconduct by Frito-Lay and Omnisource management in an attempt to overturn the election results.
However, in both cases regional NLRB officials tossed the union objections and certified the workers’ votes. The Omnisource and Frito-Lay employees — over 430 in total — thereby cut all ties with the Teamsters unions. Now both sets of employees are free both of union bosses’ forced-dues demands and their ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on the workplace.
In the final months of 2024, Foundation attorneys assisted a number of other workers from across industries with efforts to remove unwanted Teamsters officials. From just October to December 2024, truck drivers from Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey successfully booted out Teamsters union officials or initiated removal efforts with Foundation aid. These cases came despite increasingly hostile rulemaking from the outgoing Biden Administration’s NLRB bureaucrats in 2024, which undid key Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Teamsters Schemes to Steal Christmas and Workers’ Rights Both Failed
“Sean O’Brien’s Christmas publicity stunt might have made him seem like an attempted stealer of gifts and holiday cheer, but these two Foundation cases from Ohio demonstrate what Teamsters bosses really are: stealers of workers’ rights and freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“That Teamsters officials in both these cases attempted to disenfranchise workers who opposed them shows why workers are turning against their power-hungry tactics, and why American workers deserve the Right to Work choice to withhold financial support from union officials who aren’t serving their interests.”
Full Foundation Action March/April Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the March/April 2025 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
- Cincinnati-Area Kroger Worker Secures Victory Against Illegal Union Dues Deductions
- AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues
- Trump Was Right to Tell Biden Labor Board Appointee “You’re Fired!”
- NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU
- Foundation-Backed Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of the page.
Full Foundation Action May/June Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2025 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
- Cincinnati-Area Kroger Worker Secures Victory Against Illegal Union Dues Deductions
- AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues
- Trump Was Right to Tell Biden Labor Board Appointee “You’re Fired!”
- NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU
- Foundation-Backed Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of the page.
Foundation-Backed Starbucks Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Starbucks employees’ challenge to agency power boosted by firing of Biden Board Member
It may not look like much, but this Starbucks store in downtown Buffalo, NY, is the place where barista Ariana Cortes started her trailblazing legal battle against both the SBWU union and a hostile NLRB bureaucracy.
WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump isn’t the only person seeking reform in the federal government. Several National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers have advanced lawsuits in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of a federal agency.
Two upstate New York Starbucks baristas (Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam), represented by Foundation staff attorneys, filed the first case in the nation challenging NLRB members’ removal protections. Their case advanced a revolutionary argument that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) removal protections for NLRB members — which protect them from presidential removal during their entire terms except in very rare cases — let them exercise executive power in violation of separation of powers doctrines in Article II of the Constitution.
This power is plain to see — unelected NLRB members have the power to decide who can vote in union elections, adjudicate disputes between employers and unions, impose one-size-fits-all union “representation” on employees who don’t want it, and much more. Showdown Over Removal of Biden Appointee Headed for SCOTUS President Trump utilized the same arguments when he announced he was ousting Biden-appointed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox (a former SEIU union lawyer) for issuing radical decisions that “vastly exceeded the bounds” of federal law.
Wilcox’s lawyers sued Trump over the removal, arguing — wrongly — that NLRB members’ removal protections are valid and prevent the President from doing virtually anything to stop NLRB members who have gone rogue. The case between President Trump and Gwynne Wilcox has now joined Cortes and Karam’s suit in being considered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As this issue goes to print, the Supreme Court has ordered Wilcox off the NLRB while it decides whether Wilcox should remain off the NLRB while the case is ongoing. Foundation attorneys submitted a legal brief on behalf of Cortes and Karam backing the President’s contentions. Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership are not characteristics of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate under Supreme Court caselaw.
The brief also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings — Gwynne Wilcox — to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
Because of the weighty constitutional matters at stake, many have already predicted that this question will likely receive final consideration from the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit is fully briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled for May. Their case was spurred by NLRB bureaucrats’ decision to block the baristas and their coworkers from exercising their right to vote to decertify (or remove) Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials.
NLRB Region 3 rejected petitions in which a sufficient number of coworkers from both Cortes’ and Karam’s upstate New York Starbucks locations requested such elections. Regional NLRB officials cited unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation as the reason for barring the votes. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification requests.
Starbucks Baristas’ Battle Promotes Liberty for Workers Across Country
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam spoke up on behalf of untold numbers of independent-minded workers nationwide when they filed their federal lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The NLRB regularly stops workers from exercising their rights to push back against union influence for any reason union bosses dream up. Board members’ ability to do this without fearing any accountability to the elected President has effectively turned the agency into a fourth branch of government.
“We hope the Starbucks baristas’ lawsuit, boosted by the President’s efforts to reform the government, eventually results in lasting change to the Board that protects worker freedom,” Semmens added.
NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Sun River Health employees’ election abruptly canceled by NLRB officials
Laura Gallo is passionate about the healthcare work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.
LONG ISLAND, NY – Laura Gallo, a senior patient representative at Sun River Health in Long Island, NY, thought she’d secured a rare chance for her and her coworkers to vote out the 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East union.
Her goal? Give hundreds of colleagues a chance to escape from unwanted union “representation.” Unfortunately, on February 13, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 29 Director abruptly derailed her campaign citing a dubious technicality.
Now, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gallo is battling to reverse the ruling and expose a system that allows union legal trickery to block workers from voting on whether a union deserves to remain in their workplace.
Legal Hurdles Undermine Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
Despite the clear right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to petition for decertification elections to free themselves of unwanted union “representation,” numerous NLRB-invented rules and policies give union officials the ability to block or delay employee-requested decertification votes.
In Gallo’s case, not only did she need to collect signatures for the required 30% of the bargaining unit, but because she works in the healthcare industry, NLRB rules require her to file the petition within a short window before the union contract expires. If she missed the window, union officials could have blocked her vote for up to three years under the Board-invented “contract bar” policy.
Despite navigating the complicated process pro se (without formal legal representation), Gallo nailed the timing, submitting her petition with the supporting signatures of her coworkers in August 2024, following instructions from NLRB officials to trigger the vote.
At that point, the decertification was on track, with the company and union agreeing to how the election would be run. Only then did the NLRB Regional Director, possibly due to improper backchannel communications with union lawyers, suddenly cancel the scheduled vote without providing any meaningful explanation to Gallo or Sun River attorneys.
When the full Board in Washington, D.C., was asked to review the case, the Regional official suddenly “clarified” that additional signatures in support of the petition arrived just outside the contract bar window, meaning under a 1993 precedent the decertification election request could be rejected under the contract bar.
In February, having retained National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to represent her, Gallo filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, asking that the Regional Director’s decision be overturned. The filing argues that her election should be allowed to go forward because she followed the Board agent’s instructions and, as a pro se petitioner, she should receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to estimating the total number of signatures needed to trigger a vote.
This decertification effort isn’t the only battle Ms. Gallo is fighting against the 1199SEIU union. Laura Gallo is passionate about the work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.
Pending unfair labor practice charges Gallo filed against the union show why many workers have likely soured on the union: The charges maintain that SEIU union officials unlawfully interfered with access to the hospital, took pictures of Gallo without her consent as an intimidation tactic, and engaged in other disruptive and coercive behaviors that were so egregious local police were called to end the disruption.
Time to End NLRB’s Rigged Rules that Protect Incumbent Union Bosses
Gallo’s case is one of many where Foundation attorneys are asking the Board to overturn non-statutory barriers that workers face when trying to remove unions they oppose.
“Ms. Gallo’s case pulls back the curtain on how NLRB policies are rigged against individual workers to protect unpopular incumbent union bosses,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“She followed NLRB agents’ instructions, navigated the Board-created ‘window’ for filing her petition, and even got an election scheduled, yet the Regional Director blocked the vote and handed SEIU bosses a gift at the expense of Gallo and her coworkers’ rights.
“The NLRA, which the NLRB is supposed to neutrally enforce, only has one limitation on a workers’ right to vote out a union they oppose, which is a previous vote within the last year.” added Messenger. “All the other NLRB-invented policies and bars should be eliminated so workers can fully exercise their right to free themselves of unwanted unions.”
Full Foundation Action January/February Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the January/February 2025 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Dartmouth, MIT, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Challenge Forced Unionism
- Chicago 911 Operators Notch Another Janus Victory Over IBEW
- Philly-Area Manufacturing Employees Triumph Over UAW Intimidation Campaign
- New York Farmworkers Seek to Challenge ‘Card Check’ & Uproot UFW Union Bosses
- Michigan Security Guards Overwhelmingly Vote to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
- Austin Worker Files 5th Foundation-Backed Lawsuit Arguing NLRB Violates US Constitution
Austin Worker Files 5th Foundation-Backed Lawsuit Arguing NLRB Violates US Constitution
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.
Case joins others for employees nationwide arguing Labor Board’s structure is illegal
Dallas Mudd helps connect people with the social services they need, and his and many other workers’ ability to do their important work shouldn’t be stymied because unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats are forcing union “representation” on them.
AUSTIN, TX – In November, Dallas Mudd, an employee for online social service coordination platform Findhelp, filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that the agency’s structure is unconstitutional. Mudd’s case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is the latest in a series of legal actions by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for employees challenging the NLRB’s authority.
Mudd’s case comes after he filed a decertification petition with the NLRB, seeking a vote to remove the Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) from his workplace. However, NLRB officials blocked the vote, disenfranchising Mudd and his colleagues on the basis of unproven charges union bosses made against Findhelp. Mudd appealed the decision to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., while also filing a federal lawsuit to challenge NLRB members’ removal protections.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Mudd’s Foundation attorney also asked the Northern District Court of Texas to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the NLRB from adjudicating his appeal until the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is resolved. Mudd argues that he is suffering ongoing and irreparable harm by being forced to navigate a statutory process before an agency that he claims is unconstitutionally structured.
Constitutional Challenge: A Broader Legal Campaign
Meanwhile, in its own case against the NLRB, Findhelp has successfully secured an injunction against the NLRB in a federal district court making arguments similar to those raised by Mudd.
Mudd’s lawsuit follows four other constitutional challenges backed by the National Right to Work Foundation, targeting the NLRB’s structure. This includes a case for New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, who filed the first constitutional challenge to NLRB Board Member protections.
Their case is currently being briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but since their groundbreaking lawsuit, numerous major employers have utilized the arguments first made in federal court by Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the radically pro-union boss BidenHarris NLRB.
“Independent-minded workers should not be forced to depend on biased agencies staffed by bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The Constitution does not permit a powerful federal agency to operate as the judge, jury, and executioner without proper oversight.
“Contrary to the wishes of Big Labor bosses, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution,” added Semmens.
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.
