In August, we told you about allegations of corruption against Tyrone Freeman, then head the largest Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate in California. Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times published new allegations against Freeman and his union.

In 2004, Freeman's local launched what they called a "charity" to develop affordable housing for its members. The charity's board is mostly comprised of union officials, and the charity shares office space with the union.

The problem? In at least two years of operation, the "charity" failed to spend a single cent on its charitable mission.

The charity, launched by a scandal-ridden Los Angeles chapter of the Service Employees International Union, had total expenses of about $165,000 for 2005 and 2006, and all of the money went to consulting fees, insurance costs and other overhead, according to its Internal Revenue Service filings.

Charity watchdogs say that nonprofits should never have zero program expenses in two successive years and that well-performing charities direct at least 70% of their annual spending to their charitable purpose.

"Of the 5,000-plus charities we've looked at, I don't think we've ever seen one that didn't spend anything on its charitable programs," said Sandra Miniutti, vice president of Charity Navigator, an online rating service.

Running a union-affiliated charity that doesn't actually do any charity -- sounds a bit like the kind of job Rob Blagojevich was asking the SEIU to set up for him.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing free legal aid to a California nurse who faced threats of fines and imprisonment for choosing not to go on strike, will appeal an administrative law judge's tortured reasoning with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC.

Pomona, California (November 25, 2008) – Attorneys for a Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center nurse announced they will appeal an erroneous administrative law judge ruling dismissing a federal complaint against a local union. Union officials had threatened non-striking nurses with financial penalties and even arrest for refusing to abandon their patients.

Federal labor prosecutors agreed with unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys and found that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 121RN officials had illegally coerced nurses in the exercise of their rights to refrain from union activity. The General Counsel of the NLRB formally brought the case before the federal labor law judge.

In May 2007, the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the hospital expired. SEIU officials later ordered a series of general strikes. Dozens of nurses resigned from formal union membership so they could continue treating their patients without facing retaliation by union officials. In response, union bosses menacingly disseminated information to nurses stating that, under a California “strikebreaker” law, they may be “subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail” for refusing to join the strike and returning to work. SEIU officials further suggested to nurses that nonmembers would continue to owe compulsory union dues even though no contract containing a valid forced-dues clause was in effect.

Read the rest of the Foundation's press release here.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit's flawed reasoning.

The Foundation's press release is now available online. Money quote:

Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.

The Foundation's amicus brief is also availble online (pdf). Union lawyers argued the California law was intended to ensure "neutrality" in the workplace, but the argument rang hollow, as Foundation attorneys pointed out (emphasis mine):

Assembly Bill No. 1889, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 (“AB 1889”), is the law at issue. It is a state labor regulation that has only one purpose and effect: to halt the free flow of non-coercive information from employers to their employees, so that unions may take advantage of the enforced silence and corral uninformed employees into unionization. AB 1889’s “gag rule” directly conflicts with the core of federal labor policy, which encourages the free flow of non-coercive information precisely so that employees can make an intelligent and fully informed decision to choose or reject unionization. Employees are the real victims of this misguided state effort to undo federal labor policy.

The Foundation's amicus brief goes on to explain why state-enforced "neutrality" agreements are heavily biased in favor of union organizers (emphasis mine):

AB 1889 [the California law] enables unions to demand and receive so-called “neutrality and card check” agreements, under which employees’ right to choose or reject unionization in a free and uncoerced manner is hampered. For example, most “neutrality and card check” agreements place a gag on employer speech, so that employees are unable to learn from their employer anything that may be unfavorable to the union. Moreover, such agreements typically provide unions with employees’ home addresses and other confidential information, so that union agents can make home visits and other potentially unwanted solicitations as a means to cajole or coerce employees to sign cards. Additionally, unions are often given physical access to the workplace to further pressure employees to sign the cards. Perhaps most egregious, most neutrality agreements waive NLRB-supervised secret-ballot elections and substitute the “card check” process, in which a signed authorization card counts as a “vote” for the union. Thus, the union acts to prevent employees from voting their consciences in a traditional secret-ballot election, even though experience shows that the process of soliciting union authorization cards often relies upon coercion and misrepresentations.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a concise write-up here. This passage highlights the court's key findings:

The court rejected arguments by California and labor unions that the state is entitled to restrict the use of its own funds in the workplace. Stevens said California was trying to regulate employer speech by requiring extensive record keeping, to ensure that no state funds were spent against unions, and by requiring businesses to pay the legal fees of unions and other private parties who successfully sued them for violations.

Unfortunately, this setback means that Big Labor is now more intent than ever on passing coercive "card-check" legislation. The Chronicle's article continues:

From a union perspective, he said, the case also highlights the importance of labor-backed legislation - passed by the House, but stalled in the Senate - that would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees signed affiliation cards.

While the Foundation's strategic litigation strategy continues to pay dividends, Big Labor's political clout and election year campaign plans could put our forces on the defensive more than ever come November.

Danielle Cookson made the news in San Diego last year when then 16-year-old girl (she's now 17) took on UFCW union officials who were illegally demanding that she join the union or lose her part-time job. Danielle told a local news reporter:

"I don't want to join because I don't want to have to pay the fees since I'm saving up money for college... [The union is] not going to do anything for me. I'm sixteen with a part-time job and they just want my money."

Refusing to be bullied, Foundation attorneys helped Cookson file unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board against the UFCW Local 135 union officials. Many of the issues of the case have already been settled, with UFCW bosses having backed off some of their illegal demands.

But UFCW officials persist in demanding that Cookson pay more than can be legally required under the Foundation-won Beck U.S. Supreme Court case.

Cookson's case recently had a positive development when the Office of the General Counsel of the NLRB ordered its regional officials to further investigate union bosses' improper attempts to force Cookson to pay for overhead expenses for activities not related to collective bargaining. (The letter asking for more information can be downloaded here [pdf].)

Here's video of Cookson talking about her case:

The Daily Labor Report (subscription only) recently reported on an important win for National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court:

Upholding the National Labor Relations Board's January 2006 decision against Studio Transportation Drivers Local 399 of the Teamsters, the appeals court found that the union, which used the arbitration awards for nonrepresentational purposes such as political and charitable contributions, should exclude the money from its calculation of agency fees rather than use it to reduce its reported nonrepresentational expenses.

By spending the arbitration award money on nonrepresentational rather than representational expenditures, the union in effect increased the agency fees owed by the objecting nonmember for representational expenses, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the appeals court.

The win is important because it prohibits cooking the books to overcharge nonmembers who are forced to pay dues to union officials as condition of employment.

It is now even more clearly illegal for union officials to funnel revenue from sources other than union dues to pay for "non-chargeable" items – like politics, lobbying and members-only activities.   Using this scheme, union officials try to get away with charging a higher percentage of the remaining activities to forced-dues-payers.

You can be certain that as long as union officials can force employees to pay dues they will continue to develop schemes to maximize the amount of the dues they extract from unwilling workers.  Thanks to National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, at least this particular method of union discrimination is clearly illegal.

A Foundation Action subscriber recently brought this developing story to our attention. Reports of union-related violence and intimidation have surfaced in Bakersfield, California, where members of the local United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners are accused of physically abusing a project manager at a local construction site. Police have responded to reports of union-related violence by opening an investigation into the incident.

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. intends to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board charging the union with physical violence, coercive behavior, and invasion of a job site. The organization represents non-union contractors nationwide.

This incident is only the most recent example of union members threatening non-striking co-workers with violence and intimidation. In case you missed it, Freedom@Work has been covering a campaign of union-instigated harassment at a Volvo auto plant in Pulaski County, Virginia. Data compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research suggests that these confrontations are symptomatic of a wider problem, as union violence is often under-reported and difficult to prosecute.

News today of more squabbling between SEIU and CNA union officials. A dispute over reigning roughly 8,000 Ohio nurses, and their forced union dues, into compulsory unionism led to a fight at a banquet.

As you can watch described below, not only did union operatives throw punches, hit people with signs, and link arms to block out the arriving police, but an elderly woman was also knocked to the ground.

If a recent article in Variety is any indication, it sounds like Hollywood heavyweight George Clooney may share the late Charlton Heston's distaste for forced unionism. He told Variety about his recent decision to resign his formal union membership:

"When your own union doesn't back what you've done, the only honorable thing to do is not participate."

However, Clooney must still pay some union dues since California has no Right to Work law banning forced union dues. The article continues:

Clooney says he would have quit the WGA altogether if he could, but
that would have prevented him from working on all WGA-covered
productions.

If George Clooney or anyone else would like more information or request free legal aid, they can click here.

Oral arguments take place this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court in a key case in which the Ninth Circuit reversed two of its earlier rulings and found that employers that receive state funds can be forced to implement coercive union organizing, including "card check" drives.

When the Supreme Court took up the case in November, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason had this to say:

“California officials are using the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies seem to be having difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in
order to maintain the flow of forced union dues."

Many other states and municipalities have passed similar special interest legislation, prompting the High Court review. To read the rest of Stefan's statement, click here.

Following up on forced dues for foster parents in Washington State, another op-ed in the Seattle P-I this week says that the California Legislature wants to "unionize Grandma." The article states:

A bill pending in the Senate would create a union to organize family
members who provide child care for their kin and are paid by the state
so that mothers can work outside the home.

Furthermore:

Child-care providers who did not want to join the union would still
have to pay fees -- likely in the same amount as the union dues.

Most disturbingly, this extension of compulsory unionism is part of a broader trend:

The move in California is part of a nationwide strategy by SEIU and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Since
2005, governors in eight states have issued executive orders or taken
other action giving family child-care providers the right to unionize
and bargain as a group.

And in all of those states without a Right to Work law, those care providers must pay union dues. What a tell tale sign that this is all about the money that union officials must stoop to compelling payment of union dues from people taking care of their own families.