Obama Labor Board Launches Assault on Workers' Right to Secret Ballot to Remove Unwanted Union

NLRB's decision to revisit pro-worker precedent highlights Board Member Craig Becker's refusal to recuse himself despite massive conflicts of interest

Washington, DC (September 1, 2010) – In a decision dated August 27 but only released yesterday, three members of the National Labor Relations Board granted review of a landmark 2007 case in which the federal labor board granted employees the right to demand a secret ballot election to remove an unwanted union within 45 days after the union obtained monopoly bargaining status through the coercive card check process.

In late 2009, union lawyers initiated a strategy to overturn the Dana Corp. decision won by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. In a series of cases nationwide, union lawyers asked the NLRB to revoke the new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism, and now three members of the Board – all former union lawyers themselves – have agreed to consolidate two of those cases in a review of Dana.

As the dissenting Board members point out, workers across the country have already used Dana decertification elections to kick out unwanted unions, demonstrating the unreliability of card check instant organizing campaigns. Workers frequently sign union authorization cards due to union organizers’ intimidating tactics or even outright lies about what signing a card means. To remove the limited protection of the secret ballot in these cases – as the Obama NLRB appears set to do – would deny workers the ability to vote according to their conscience and remove an unwanted union from their workplace.

Read the full press release.

Today, House Republican leader John Boehner called on President Barack Obama to veto any controversial legislation that passes during the post-midterm election lame-duck Congressional session. One of those controversial bills is the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

As Right to Work Foundation legal director Ray J. LaJeunesse details in the Spring 2010 issue of the Texas Review of Law & Politics journal, this draconian bill's three primary provisions contain many injustices toward American workers and job providers.

Regarding the bill's provision to strip workers of their rights to a secret ballot election and opening them up to intimidating "home visits":

...the absence of a formal election process works an obvious unfairness, facilitates intimidation and deception of workers, and runs contrary to the American tradition of secret ballots and the freedom to vote in privacy. The United States Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue, recognizing that “secret elections are generally the most satisfactory—indeed the preferred—method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.”

There also is a serious question whether EFCA will unconstitutionally deny employers and employees their free speech rights... Because there would be no open campaign leading up to a secret-ballot election, EFCA would eliminate open debate, thus curtailing the speech rights of employers and individual employees opposed to the union.

As for the unconstitutational, government-mandated binding arbitration provision:

Mandatory governmentally-imposed binding interest arbitration... runs afoul of various provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, in requiring governmentally-imposed arbitrators to dictate contract terms, EFCA would unconstitutionally take the property of employers and give that property to their employees (as wages, for example) for a non-public use, in violation of the takings clause...

And finally, regarding the lopsided nature of the penalties imposed on job providers:

These drastic new penalties for unfair labor practices that apply to employers but not to unions raise concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and may violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

These one-sided changes in the NLRA’s remedial scheme would adversely affect employees as well as employers. With the Damoclean sword of punitive remedies looming, employers faced with union organizing campaigns will be more likely to gag themselves to avoid unfair labor practice charges by unions, thus depriving employees of the “information opposing unionization,” which they have an implicit “right to receive” under NLRA section 7, and which is necessary to make an informed and free choice about whether to support unionization or not.

As LaJeunesse clearly explains, the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill certainly "presents serious legal and policy issues" indeed.

The full article is published in the Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 14, No. 2.

'Card Check-lite’ proposal would undermine the integrity of workplace elections and push more employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely . . .

Click here to read more. 

Obama Recess Appointee Refuses to Recuse Himself in Twelve of Thirteen Cases Despite Clear Bias, Conflicts of Interest

New federal labor board member and former SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker thumbs his nose at much-touted Obama ethics policy

Washington, DC (June 9, 2010) – Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), responded this week to 13 motions for his recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in cases pending before the Board.

After President Obama installed Becker on the NLRB in late March, Foundation attorneys quickly filed recusal motions in all Foundation-supported cases due to Becker’s extreme level of hostility against the Foundation and its legal arguments for workers’ rights, even when the NLRB or United States Supreme Court have agreed and ruled against unions for their abusive practices. Additionally, some of the cases directly involve affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker’s employer up to the date of his recess appointment.

But Becker has only agreed to recuse himself in Dana Corp., one pending case in which Becker’s conflict of interest was so great even he could not ignore it. In that case, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for illegal pre-recognition bargaining. In exchange for active company assistance during a coercive card check organizing campaign, UAW union officials made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits. Becker himself coauthored a joint brief for the UAW and AFL-CIO union hierarchy in that case.

Click here to read the full release.

Gov. Quinn Faces Class-Action Suit for Executive Order Designed to Unionize Home-Care Providers

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys assist home-based personal care providers pushed into union’s forced-dues ranks against their will

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.”

Click here to read the whole release.

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

Today, the Denver Post questioned President Obama's recess appointment of radical SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, noting how Becker's biases against workers' rights:

From the Denver Post:

We question Becker's ability to be an arbiter enforcing fairness in union elections...Becker served as counsel to both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO. It was [SEIU] president Andy Stern who visited the Obama White House 38 times (at last count), and his union spent a reported $66 million to help the president win election.

The Post continues:

He not only supports so-called "card check," the Employee Free Choice Act that which would effectively eliminate secret ballots and strip away worker privacy when forming a union, he also advocates for the elimination of the "no union" option from workers' ballots. And he thinks employers should have no "role in union organizing campaigns and in union representation elections."

How can Americans expect Becker will exhibit impartiality?

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, for instance, already has asked Becker to recuse himself from 12 cases because "his prior writings demonstrate a bias against the group."

Read the whole Denver Post editorial here.

It appears Big Labor will stop at nothing to impose card check forced unionism on American workers and job-providers. Public opposition from energized Right to Work supporters and other concerned Americans to the draconian card check bill -- which eliminates the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives, opens up workers to intimidating "home visits," and allows government bureaucrats to impose contracts on workers -- has thus far stalled the legislation in the Senate.

On Tuesday, in what may have been a test vote on card check, the Senate rejected an attempt to move President Obama's nomination of radical union lawyer Craig Becker to a seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the quasi-judicial agency that administers federal labor law.  Becker's writings indicated a willingness to impose the card check forced unionism mechanism through NLRB rules, without even a Congressional vote.

But despite this setback union officials aren't giving up on card check, and neither are the forced unionism proponents in the Obama Administration.  The Daily Caller reports that White House staffers are considering a new executive order that could effectively require all federal contractors to submit their workers to coercive card check campaigns:

Critics say the proposals would heavily favor unionized companies and significantly increase the cost and amount of time needed to award contracts. Estimates have the potential cost increase at 20 percent, adding about $100 billion a year to the federal budget.

“Making contracting decisions based on political or ideological litmus tests will waste taxpayer dollars and limit economic growth at a time when we can least afford to do so. The administration’s new rules amount to a backdoor attempt at card check. The last thing our small businesses need is to be saddled with new rules that effectively say ‘unionize or die,’” said John Hart, communications director for Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. Coburn and four other Senate Republicans sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag last week asking for a briefing on the proposals; they have yet to receive a response.

...

Now the administration is facing increasing pressure to go around Congress and implement pro-labor policies via executive order. The Service Employees International Union, one of the groups lobbying the White House to adopt the new labor policies, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

No surprises here: SEIU czar Andy Stern was the most frequest visitor to the White House in Obama's first year.

Yesterday in Roll Call, Bret Jacobson noted the importance of today's Senate hearings on President Obama's nomination of Service Employee International Union General Counsel, Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

Thus, we have today’s hearing for Becker, a longtime strategist and lawyer for organized labor. If they can’t get “card check” through a broad, participatory legislative process, they’ll push to grab a similar victory through the federal board’s ability to regulate without approval of the people’s Representatives.

As such, this hearing — demanded by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is troubled by Becker’s blatantly anti-employer views — signals that we have officially hit plan B on the administration’s strategy for pandering to the organized labor lobby. This new course will focus on the quiet job-killer of regulation and card check by fiat.

But the real problem isn't that Becker is anti-employer -- it's that his career as a diehard union boss apologist reveals an extreme hostility to the very employees the union bosses claim to represent.  Last October, National Right Work president Mark Mix took to the pages of the Washington Times to make this very point:

In fact, as a former AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer, Mr. Becker is solely responsible for forcing tens of thousands of workers under union boss control.

In one case, reports from a Los Angeles SEIU local union revealed that almost 63,000 people rejected membership in the union in 2007, but thanks to Mr. Becker, were still forced to pay dues.

And Mr. Becker's own words explain why. He was even so bold as to say unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition ... their actions necessarily involve coercion."

With that kind of anything-goes attitude, it's no surprise Mr. Becker supports "home visits," in which union militants repeatedly harass workers at home until they sign union-authorization cards, and even advocates letting Mr. Obama's handpicked arbiters impose contracts on workers, without even allowing the workers to vote on their own contract.

Contrast Craig Becker's radical, pro-coercion views with the words of Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor: "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."

For more on Becker, see this post from the National Right to Work Committee's blog and visit their action center here.

At The Daily Caller, the anonymous Anchorman -- "a well-known news anchor from a top-10, big-city news station" -- brings up an interesting point about his colleagues' political coverage. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) union "represents" most television network news correspondents and anchors.  That "representation" includes political advocacy, including as the anchorman points out, lobbying efforts on the health care / forced unionization legislation currently pending in Congress.

If that bothers you, you should also know that your “objective” network correspondent, roaming the halls of Congress right now trying to ferret out the “truth,” probably pays hundreds, or even thousands of dollars in union dues to AFTRA every year. He or she, in all likelihood, depends on AFTRA for one of those “Cadillac” health insurance plans that is the subject of so much debate. He or she also will receive a nice little AFTRA pension come retirement time, and perhaps most importantly, will depend on AFTRA to help defend, protect or advise them in any serious conflicts, demotions, firings, or legal issues with management at their TV station or network.

Might this conflict of interest also impact the media's coverage of the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill?  We'd be surprised if it didn't affect some reporters' objectivity  In fact, here's the kind of analysis of that bill you won't see on the nightly news.

In 2007, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to establish new rights for workers through the landmark Dana/Metaldyne decision.  The ruling empowered workers to call a vote to kick out an unwanted union during a 45-day window period following a successful "card check" organizing drive.

The ruling was a rebuke of union organizers and their coercive tactics, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acknowledged the abuses, and determined that employees needed a way to challenge the imposition of a union workplace monopoly via card check by obtaining a secret ballot decertification election.

Prior to the Obama Administration, the NLRB maintained an online database of all card check recognitions and any subsequent union decertification elections. The NLRB, however, stopped updating this information last spring. Foundation attorneys recently demanded the NLRB to update the database regularly, and NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman responded last week.  Although she blamed the General Counsel's office for the neglect, she stated the agency would post new information monthly going forward.

While this information doesn't prevent coercive card check organizing on the job - an increasingly common union tactic even without passage of the pending EFCA legislation in Congress - it does help the public see how widely used this abusive union organizing actually is... and which companies have blocked their employees' access to secret balloting.

Perhaps even more importantly, this data reveals the nasty little fact that card check signing does not represent employees' true wishes.  For in many cases, the very union bosses who came in through card check were sent packing -- only days later -- after employees obtained a secret ballot vote.