This story from the September/October issue of Foundation Action reports on the Foundation’s efforts on behalf of two nurses who are suffering from a corrupt and illegal agreement between the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and their workplace to force nurses into CNA union ranks.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription. To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

Check out the Foundation’s latest Right to Work Video Report on compulsory unionism in the workplace. John McHenry, a Philadelphia worker and union member his entire life, never knew he could resign his formal union membership and stop paying full union dues. But when union bosses rammed a corrupt pension plan down his throat, he turned to the National Right to Work Foundation for help:

For more Right to Work video updates, remember to check back regularly at the Foundation’s YouTube channel or Eyeblast.tv channel.

From 11 to noon today the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Locke v. Karass, in which Foundation Staff Attorney Jim Young represented 20 Maine State employees challenging attempts by the SEIU union to charge the nonmembers for union litigation unrelated to their collective bargaining unit.

Here, lead plaintiff Daniel Locke takes questions from reporters flanked (left to right) by Former Maine State employee Mark Turek of UnfairShare.org, Foundation V.P. Stefan Gleason and Foundation Staff Attorney Jim Young:

For background on the case watch our video, which includes an exclusive interview with lead plaintiff Daniel Locke, and also see our Locke case page for all the legal briefs in the case. For a more detailed analysis of the case, this article (pdf) from Labor Watch is highly recommended.

UPDATE:
The transcript of today’s Locke argument at the U.S. Supreme Court is now available for download (pdf).

Ever since the National Labor Relations Board ruled in the Dana/Metaldyne case exactly one year ago yesterday, pro-forced-unionism "scholars" have rushed to decry the decision as "revolutionary." Apparently giving workers more freedom of choice is deeply disturbing to union bosses.

A paper by Anne Marie Lofaso, of the University of West Virginia is a perfect example of hyperbole trumping facts, while posing as academic scholarship. In over-the-top style, Lofaso titles her paper: "September Massacre: The Latest Battle in the War on Workers’ Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act." (Despite being published in May, as of August the paper was still the most downloaded Labor/Employment/Benefit paper off the Social Sciences Research Network site, according to the Workplace Prof Blog.)

Here’s an excerpt from the paper’s section on the Board’s Dana Corp decision, a ruling she calls "The ‘Massacre’ in the September Massacre":

In keeping with a hard-in theme, the Bush Board most notably changed its rules governing voluntary recognition…

In recent years, voluntary recognition has served as an alternative for unions frustrated with the Board’s election rules, which have given employer advantages such as captive-audience speeches. The Board’s modified approach diminishes the value of that alternative and assaults
the principle of majority rule: a decertification petition supported by thirty percent of the employees trumps a card-check agreement supported by seventy percent of the employees,thereby forcing an election.

The problems with her biased analysis are plenty, but the most glaring is that contrary to her claims, unions are actually easy-in and hard-out.

The truth is that even with the Foundation-won protections afforded employees under Dana/Metaldyne, employees face a system drastically skewed to get unions in power and keep them in power. And under "card check," these systemic biases are multiplied exponentially.

First – and most obviously missing from Lofaso’s discussion – is the fact that under a card check "voluntary recognition" both the union organizers and the employer favor instituting the union (otherwise the employer would demand a secret-ballot vote).

Similarly, her complaint about "captive-audience speeches" rings hollow because under the current so-called "voluntary recognition" process captive audience speeches are most likely to be used to aid organizers in imposing the union on employees. Take the case of the Johnson Controls, for example.

Finally, Lofaso completely ducks the issue of the deep problems with card check compared to less coercive methods. There have been numerous employee reports of intimidation, half truths, lies and harassment of employees by union organizers during card check drives, where organizers corner workers one on one to pressure them into signing cards that are later counted as "votes" but Lofaso never addresses, or even references, those obvious problems that help provide the basis for the Dana/Metaldyne decision.

Ultimately despite what Lofaso and other pro-Big Labor "academics" say, Dana-Mataldyne does only one thing… give workers an additional right to challenge a union’s claim of majority support via a secret ballot election. This important yet modest check represents only a small rebuke against the ability of union organizers to gain monopoly control over a workplace without even the support of a majority of employees.

Only in pro-Big Labor academic la-la land could the granting of that small check to employees be part of a "Massacre on Workers’ Rights."

Big Labor’s big money boys are pulling out all the stops to get the presidential candidate of their choice elected. Across the country, teacher union bosses have been pushing their preferred political causes and candidates and the result is the disturbing politicization of the classroom.

Today, the Washington Times reported that union brass of the Virginia Education Association Union (VEA), an affiliate of the National Education Association Union (NEA), sent an e-mail to Virginia teachers which:

…encouraged members to bring politics into the classroom by wearing blue in support of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and simultaneously suggested that the union’s voter registration efforts include those "you teach."

Meanwhile, the New York Post reported today that teacher union bosses in New York have been "handing out thousands of Barack Obama campaign buttons" to teachers. However, as the Post notes, “the Department of Education… has a long-standing policy barring teachers from wearing political campaign buttons in schools.” The teacher union bosses in New York said they will appeal the Department’s decision. The Post quoted Department of Education spokeswoman Ann Forte as saying:

Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons… We don’t want a school or school staff advocating for any political position or candidate to students and we don’t want students feeling intimidated because they might hold a different belief or support a different candidate than their teachers.

Indeed. But what about the teachers that don’t support the union bosses’ chosen candidate? They too should not be subjected to union officials’ politicking. In the 28 states that do not have Right to Work laws (including New York), union officials are notorious for extracting forced union dues to fund political pet projects that teachers often oppose.

Unfortunately, most teachers are not even aware of their rights to refrain from contributing to Big Labor’s political pet projects as established by Foundation-won Supreme Court cases. However, while our work is cut out for us, there is hope. As Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, stated in an op-ed printed last month, “Praise the teacher, not the union”:

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is currently providing free legal aid to thousands of teachers and other employees who object to their compulsory fees funding the political agenda of union bosses, whose ultimate goal, according to one former NEA official, is "to re-order the priorities of the United States of America."

If you are a teacher who would like to stand up for your rights against the evils of compulsory unionism, click here.

Yesterday, the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) posted on its website a weak final rule which revises standards governing disclosure of certain expenditures of union trusts, including union pension funds, strike funds, and credit unions.

Earlier this year, OLMS sought comments from interested parties concerning the new standards. On April 14, Glenn Taubman, staff attorney at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and counsel for the National Right to Work Committee, submitted comments regarding the gaping "sensitive information" loophole which allows union bosses to hide the very waste, fraud, and corruption that are all too common in these notoriously mismanaged and underfunded union trusts:

This "sensitive information" exception to full disclosure is simply a loophole allowing union and trust fund officials to unilaterally determine what disclosure must be made public, and then hide a vast array of questionable expenditures. Financial reports of trust fund operations and expenditures can never be considered "confidential" information, because this money is owned by the employees, not the union or trust fund officials. Fiduciary agents have no right to maintain secret records or engage in secret transactions that are purposefully hidden from principals – the employees who are the actual owners of the funds.

But instead of closing the loophole, DOL merely pays lip service to these serious concerns. The fact is — as long as this loophole exists, corrupt union bosses will be able to withhold disclosure of any expenditures they wish, claiming an exemption. DOL officials "reiterate" or "emphasize" that their sensitive information loophole should be used "sparingly." They say abuse of the loophole will be investigated. But why even have it?  There is no justifiable reason, as Foundation attorneys had explained.

The Department of Labor’s serial refusal to promulgate disclosure rules with real teeth is deeply troubling. If President Bush’s DOL appointees intend to leave so much discretion to the bureaucrats, these appointees ought to go ahead and quit now — rather than waiting until January.

Oral arguments in Locke v. Karass, the Foundation’s latest Supreme Court case, occur on Monday, October 6. Just in time, the October issue of Labor Watch features a cover story on the case by Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation:

The U.S. Supreme Court has so far refused to recognize that all compulsory union dues, no matter how they are spent, violate workers’ First Amendment rights and that no compelling state interest exists to justify subverting these rights. However, the Court has concluded that forced union dues for certain union expenditures violates nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that union officials cannot compel nonmembers to support union lobbying, political activities and other forms of ideological expression.

On behalf of Daniel Locke and 19 other current and former Maine state employees, NRTW Foundation attorneys will argue this month that because litigation is also inherently expressive, unions cannot compel nonmembers to pay for it. Moreover, because litigation regarding a union’s affiliates in another state does not affect the union’s own collective bargaining process, there should be a bright line drawn to ensure that no extra-unit litigation is ever subsidized by objecting nonmembers.

Union lawyers insist workers must pay for litigation activities that unions undertake outside their own bargaining unit using a pooling arrangement that union bosses analogize to insurance. If union bosses get their way, unions will be permitted to seize dues from members and nonmembers alike – even from employees who never wanted a union’s “representation” – and pool them together in a giant slush fund to subsidize Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

Read the full article online (PDF only).

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled in favor of a nonunion worker represented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, finding that Interstate Bakeries Corp. and local Teamsters union officials violated the law when they stripped a nonmember worker of his seniority during a merger.

In November of 2005, company and union officials agreed to consolidate two corporate divisions. One division was staffed by a single nonunion sales representative who had put in more time with the company than any of his counterparts at the other division. Company officials tried to ensure that he retained his seniority during the merger, but Teamsters officials stood fast, insisting on discriminating against him because of his nonunion status.

In the sales business, seniority has serious implications for workers. The longer you’ve been with the company, the better your chances are of securing more desirable sales routes and vacation time. In this case, union officials wanted to unilaterally strip a nonunion sales representative of his earned seniority, placing him at the bottom of the totem pole. It was effectively retaliation for his nonunion status.

Fortunately, the NLRB agreed with Foundation attorneys and found that union officials broke the law when they discriminated against the nonunion sales representative by favoring unionized employees during the merger. Here’s the crux of the decision (emphasis mine):

The only difference between Rammage [the nonunion worker] and those Dolly Madison employees who were dovetailed [given favorable seniority status during the merger] was the fact that Rammage had not previously been represented by the Union. The Union admits that it treated Rammage differently and unfavorably because he was not previously represented. In addition, the comments of Respondent Employer’s managers Roberts and Simmons to Rammage, that he lost his seniority because "he was not in the Union," demonstrate that he was singled out becasue he had not previously been represented by a labor organization.