Chicago, IL (April 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a group of home-based personal care providers today filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their efforts to force Illinois personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

The suit stems from an executive order issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich shortly after his election, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities were designated as “public employees” of the state of Illinois for the purpose of granting Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them.

Following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced unionism, Quinn signed an executive order last June that made an additional 4,500 home-based personal care providers susceptible to unwanted union boss bargaining and political “representation.” Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his recent closely-contested primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

The additional 4,500 home-care providers who are not yet under union control soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin in a mail-in vote. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to out-of-state SEIU and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the home-care providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics.

Pam Harris, Gordon Stiefel, and several other home-care providers — with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation — filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers unionized by Blagojevich and on behalf of home-care providers threatened by forced unionism as a result of Quinn’s executive order.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

The class-action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Quinn is picking the lobbyists of Illinois’s personal care providers, all in exchange for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”

A copy of the complaint can be downloaded (pdf) by clicking here.

New Obama Administration Contracting Policy "Nothing More Than Payback" to Big Labor

So-called "project labor agreements" discriminate against the 85 percent of construction workers who have opted against unionization

Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

Click here to read more.

Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

The National Right to Work Foundation filed formal comments with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council last summer opposing the proposed rule. The Foundation argued that the directive is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, and that imposing discriminatory PLAs on federal contractors violates workers’ rights, passes along higher costs to taxpayers, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.

Some of the typical conditions demanded by unions in PLAs include monopoly bargaining, forced dues and fees for all “represented” workers, exclusive union hiring halls, and inflexible union work rules which strictly separate job functions into exclusive union jurisdictions based on craft.

One other particularly egregious feature of many PLAs requires contractors to make contributions to union pension plans. Nonunion employees will receive no retirement benefits for their work on a project because union pension plans have vesting periods that last longer than most projects. Nonmembers thus end up subsidizing the pensions of longtime union members.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor, only 15 percent of construction workers in the United States are unionized.

Here’s an update on the case of Sean Beightol, a veteran Miami chemistry teacher denied access to private counsel at a school disciplinary hearing.

Although union members are allowed to consult with advisers from the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) union during similar proceedings, school administrators prevented Beightol from bringing an adviser from his voluntary teacher association to the meeting, a clear-cut case of workplace discrimination against nonunion teachers.

Foundation attorneys responded by filing charges on Beightol’s behalf with the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission, which issued an official complaint last week against the union and the local Miami-Dade school district. The complaints against the union and the school district can be found here and here; the Employee Relations Commission will now investigate the matter to determine school and union officials’ culpability.

To paraphrase our press release on the charges, the discriminatory work rule Beightol challenged is nothing more than a tool to discourage teachers from leaving the union and enrolling in a voluntary teachers association.

A victory for Beightol would end this discriminatory practice and stop union officials from undermining Florida’s popular Right to Work law.

Jackson, MI (April 8, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four local workers have agreed to a settlement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 164 union after union officials obstructed their attempts to opt-out of certain union dues.

Michael Vetrovec, Robert Harris, Ken Low, and Larry Kunk are employed by Perfection Associates L.L.C. in Jackson, Michigan. All four workers objected to Teamster membership and attempted to opt-out of paying full union dues last summer.

Because Michigan lacks a Right to Work law, employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck guarantees the right of workers to opt-out of forced dues intended for purposes other than workplace bargaining, such as lobbying, political activism, and members-only activities.

Despite this precedent, Teamsters officials initially refused to stop collecting dues earmarked for non-bargaining activities from Vetrovec, Harris, Low and Kunk. Union officials also failed to provide all four workers with an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures, which is required by law to ensure that employees are not forced to pay for objectionable activities.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, the workers filed federal unfair labor practice charges last October with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Instead of contesting the charges, Teamsters officials recently agreed to a settlement that refunds dues collected for non-bargaining activities from all four employees since July 2009. The union also agreed to post public notices informing employees of their rights to resign from union membership and opt-out of dues unrelated to workplace bargaining.

“We’re pleased to hear that Teamsters bosses will refund money seized from four independent-minded workers who have no interest in subsidizing political and members-only union activities, but this type of abuse will continue as long as employees can be forced to pay union dues just to keep a job,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to really protect workers is for Michigan to adopt a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Labor Board Announces Prosecution of SEIU Union Bosses for Illegal Union Membership Opt-Out Policy

Illegal union procedure forces nursing home workers to pay full union dues

Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.

The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.

The full press release is available here.

Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.

The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.

The NLRB’s complaint challenges the SEIU District 1199 annual objection policy, but other meritorious charges remain pending, and the NLRB has indicated that further complaints will be issued unless the union hierarchy settles.

“The SEIU District 1199 union officials’ illegal behavior shows they’re just after forced union dues revenue,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “This blatant disregard for the rights of the workers SEIU bosses claim to represent shows why West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary.”

Today, the Supreme Court announced its decision not to hear Jeffrey Reed v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, a case brought by Foundation attorneys that challenged a discriminatory United Auto Workers (UAW) forced unionism policy.

In response to the Court’s failure to take up the case, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement:

"It’s deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court will not address a discriminatory UAW policy that forces employees who object to union activities on religious grounds to pay more union dues than secular objectors or union members. The Right to Work Foundation will continue to work towards safeguarding the rights of all employees of faith to get or keep a job without compromising their deeply-held religious convictions.

"While we will continue to press this issue in the courts, the only sure way to end this type of injustice once and for all is by ending forced unionism and stripping union officials of their special powers to impose monopoly bargaining and forced dues on any employee."

FEC Confirms Postal Union Improperly Diverted Worker’s Dues to Union Political Action Committee

Despite finding, FEC dismisses complaint citing NPMHU officials’ claim that diversion of union dues was so-called “technical error”

Washington, DC (April 5, 2010) – The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).

In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.

The full press release is available here.

Washington, DC (April 5, 2010) – The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).

In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.

It is illegal for union officials to fund union PACs using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.” NPMHU union bosses were also accused of violating federal election law by making a political campaign contribution in another person’s name and soliciting political contributions under false pretenses while failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.

Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union’s PAC, but then redirected the portion of funds not intended for union political activities back to membership expenses after the 2006 midterm elections, blaming it on a “technical error” and prompting the FEC to dismiss the charges.

“Unfortunately, the FEC failed to investigate whether this instance of political money laundering was part of a larger scheme afoot,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Even if the union officials’ dubious claims that it was a mistake are to be believed, in effect Mr. Wakeman was forced to give an interest-free loan to the union to use his dues for politics.”

“We will work to ensure that the FEC’s lack of action in this case does not embolden union bosses to concoct similar schemes to funnel union dues for politics as long as they ‘fix’ it later,” Semmens said.