Manny Lopez from the Detroit News comments on the United Autoworker (UAW) union hierarchy's "new" strategy of organizing workers, (i.e. using even more intimidation and harassment to force additional workers into their dues-paying ranks):

Bob King, the new president of the UAW was stumping for democracy yesterday, and you'd think that it would be hard to corrupt such a thing.

But he did. See, democracy to the unions means do it our way, or no way.

King said the UAW will try a new tactic to organize foreign automakers. The membership-declining union is going to draft a set of principles that will bar companies from using derogatory, untruthful or threatening statements to dissuade workers from organizing (as if that was a one-way street).

"Any company that does not agree to the UAW principles is essentially declaring war on freedom of speech and assembly," he said.

Ta-da, the "shame campaign" (my interpretation, not his).

Those that don't sign on will be labeled as being against the First Amendment.

But as Lopez correctly points out, UAW union hypocrites seem the least bit interested in protecting Michigan workers' rights to also not be forced to associate with something they want no part of:

In fact, the UAW's push for freedom could be a good thing if it were universally open to such a thing. How about the UAW abide by its own new interest in openness and allow its members in Michigan and other forced unionism states to also have the freedom to decide whether they want to be in the union?

I'll buy into the UAW's campaign for the First Amendment and the freedom of speech and assembly when it gives its workers in every state that same opportunity.

How about it Mr. King? Let's make Michigan a right-to-work state. Or is the freedom to choose limited to certain circumstances?

And not only would Right to Work protections be great for workers' rights, it would also be good for their wallets.  Now that's a "new" strategy Michigan's families could support.

Group Home Workers Force SEIU Bosses into Forced Union Dues Refund

Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to challenge illegal union membership “opt-out” policy

Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.

The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).

In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.

Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.

Click here to read the whole release.

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.

Employee Hits AT&T/Union Officials with Federal Labor Charges Attacking Scheme to Unionize Workers

Fearing lack of support, communications union bosses are attempting to rig election employees initiated to throw out unwanted union

Seattle, WA (February 24, 2010) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Redmond-based AT&T Mobility employee filed federal charges after union organizers illegally colluded with company officials to sweep AT&T workers across the state into union ranks in exchange for contract concessions.

Per a so-called “neutrality agreement” between the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union hierarchy and AT&T, workers in a 140-employee bargaining unit (which consists of various locations across the state of Washington) had CWA union monopoly bargaining foisted upon them after a card-check forced unionism campaign. In exchange, union officials agreed with AT&T to subject the employees to a previously negotiated contract which results in lost benefits and perks for the workers.

As part of the agreement, the workers would be swept into the CWA union’s regional monopoly bargaining unit which consists of thousands of employees – making it virtually impossible for them to later organize to remove the union officials’ monopoly bargaining privileges.

Greg Hartmann of Auburn is challenging the pre-recognition negotiations because he and his colleagues were not even aware of the terms either of the neutrality agreement or the employees’ new contract until after the card-check campaign.

Click here to read the full release.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has just released a report entitled "Tax-Paying Families Are Fleeing Forced-Unionism States" that details how and why families are moving from the 28 states that do not protect employees from forced unionism to the 22 states that do:

The IRS’s Statistical Information Service (SIS)... data for the Tax Filing Year 2008 show that a total of 1.523 million personal income tax filers were residing that year in a Right to Work state after residing somewhere else in the 50 states or the District of Columbia the previous year.  Meanwhile, a total of 1.338 million tax filers were residing in a Right to Work state in 2007, but filed from one of the other 49 states or the District of Columbia in
2008.

That means a net total of 185,000 tax filers moved from a forced-unionism state to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008.

The SIS also calculates and makes available to the public the aggregate adjusted gross incomes for migrating households in the year immediately following the move.  Personal income tax filers moving to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008 reported a total of $76.432 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $50,190 per filer.  Tax filers moving out of a Right to Work state during the same period reported a total of $61.773 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $46,165 per filer.

Both because of their substantial taxpayer losses due to net domestic out-migration, and because the taxpayers they gained earned significantly less per capita in 2008 than did the taxpayers they lost, forced-dues states lost a total of $14.659 billion in adjusted gross 2008 income in a single year.

The research report also highlights how those workers who flee forced unionism benefit with an adjusted gross income more than $4000 higher than their counterparts who moved from a pro-worker freedom state into a forced unionism state.

Of course, the most important aspect of why workers are fleeing to Right to Work states is because Right to Work laws give workers the needed protections to counter Big Labor's forced dues monopoly in the workplace.  Right to Work laws allow workers to keep their own hard-earned money if they find union dues payment to be objectionable or even just undesirable. Because of that right, Right to Work laws allow independent-minded workers the ability to better hold union bosses accountable for their actions.

To read the full NILRR report, click here.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has released a telling study comparing Right to Work states with forced-unionism states in a variety of statistical categories. The statistics, provided by various governmental departments and agencies as well as respected non-profits, show the stunning economic and personal benefits families enjoy from their states' popular Right to Work laws.

The last five years of available data shows that workers in Right to Work states not only enjoy higher non-farm private-sector job growth (9.1% versus 3.6% from 2003-2008), but their real personal incomes are also growing faster (15.8% vs. 9.1% from 2003-2008) and they enjoy a higher disposable income ($34,878 vs. $32,811 in 2008) than their counterparts in forced unionism states.

Families in Right to Work states also benefit from lower taxes and are more likely to buy a home, send their children to college, and gain private, employment-based health insurance for parents and children alike.

While Right to Work is about employee freedom in the workplace, NILRR's analysis shows that rolling back coercive union power has undeniable economic benefits as well.

To view the full details of NILRR's report entitled "Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power -- 2009 Update," click here.

The alarming trend of politicians forcing workers into union ranks continues in Illinois as Governor Pat Quinn -- in order to win Big Labor's political support -- is resurrecting the sordid legacy of disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich (and Gray Davis of California) subverting workers' rights to benefit forced dues-hungry union bosses.

Quinn recently signed an executive order arbitrarily reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care providers as state employees -- thereby opening them up to forced unionism under state law.  Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union organizers, armed by the state with the addresses of Illinois's nearly 3,500 in-home health-care providers, are competing to corral home health-care providers into compulsory union membership by going door-to-door to solicit support for their respective unions.

Pam Harris, a mother who stays home to take care of her son with special needs, was visited by two aggressive out-of-state SEIU organizers at her front door.  Understandably, Ms. Harris is worried that the Detroit-style labor relations that destroyed America's auto industry could also destroy her right to care for her son as she wants. (To say nothing of the union dues she will be forced to pay for the "privilege.")

Because she does not live in a state with Right to Work protections, if SEIU union bosses are successful in corralling all home health-care providers into forced dues membership, Ms. Harris will be forced to pay tribute to union bosses just to continue to take care of her own son -- even if she refrains from formal union membership.

However, as many Freedom@Work readers may already be aware, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Just last month, National Right to Work President Mark Mix reiterated in the Wall Street Journal NRTW's previous warnings that union bosses are working to unionize the health-care industry and that under Obamacare, the very thing that is happening in Illinois will happen nationwide:

Following [the Davis/Blagojevich] playbook, pending government-run health care bills create a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation on hundreds of thousands of folks like Ms. Harris to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (CLASS)" reimbursement plan.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing federal health-care policy...

Last week, the pro-worker think tank National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released a Fact Sheet entitled “Negative Employment Growth Since November 2001” that details how highly-unionized states are suffering a "lost decade" in terms of private-sector job growth, while the least-unionized states have benefited from a nearly 1.5 million private-sector job growth:

As of 2001, the year of the last national recession prior to the current one, 9.7% of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation. But in 16 states – Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,. Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin – 11.0% or more of private-sector workers were unionized.

From November 2001, the trough of the last recession, through June 2009, the most recent month for which non-preliminary, state-by-state payroll jobs data are available at this writing, these 16 heavily unionized states suffered an aggregate private-sector job loss of 990,000 – or 2.2% of their November 2001 total. Ten of the 16 states, or nearly two-thirds, had fewer private-sector jobs in June 2009 than they had had nearly eight years earlier.

...

The overall job losses in states with average private-sector unionization were far smaller than in heavily unionized states, and the 16 states which had private-sector unionization of 6.0% or less in 2001 actually gained jobs.

These low union-density states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia. They gained an aggregate of nearly 1.5 million private-sector jobs from November 2001 through June 2009. That constitutes a 4.5% increase.

Even with recent setbacks taken into account, fifteen of the 16, or 94%, of the lowest union-density states have experienced net job gains since November 2001.

Putting aside the inherent abuse of workers' rights, the data clearly indicates that job growth is negatively impacted by Big Labor's government-granted monopoly bargaining special privileges.  Yet NILRR's findings should come to no surprise to regular Freedom@Work readers, as we reported recently:

NILRR recently found an especially strong correlation between a state’s Right to Work status and its job growth, while employees in Right to Work states are benefiting from faster job growth and higher real purchasing power than their compulsory unionism counterparts.

History clearly demonstrates how union monopolists have hindered the creation of new jobs with costly operating procedures and wasteful work rules, especially during times of financial hardship.  Meanwhile, union bosses use their monopoly bargaining and other special forced-dues privileges to fill their political coffers while proliferating Big Government-mandated regulations on job providers and higher taxes on employers and employees alike. 

As the current economic downturn continues, many states across the nation are starting to find it increasingly difficult to stay afloat after having capitulated to the union bosses' extortionate demands.  Last week, the Wall Street Journal cited the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) -- an anti-compulsory unionism think tank that exposes the harm forced unionism inflicts on workers -- when discussing Big Labor's contribution toward the severe financial difficulties California, New York, and New Jersey are experiencing and the migration of workers leaving these forced-unionism states:

Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.

Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.

NILRR recently found an especially strong correlation between a state’s Right to Work status and its job growth, while employees in Right to Work states are benefiting from faster job growth and higher real purchasing power than their compulsory unionism counterparts.

Perhaps it's also worth revisiting a Wall Street Journal article penned late last year by National Right to Work President Mark Mix, reminding us that a massive expansion in forced unionism power played a key role in making the Great Depression longer and deeper.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) recently published a fact sheet discussing U.S. Census Bureau data from 1999 to 2007 that shows the "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill and similar legislative "compromises" actually endanger workers' access to health insurance.

According to NILRR's observations:

As of 1999, according to economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, 10.2% of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation.  In 10 states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Washington -- 14% or more of private-sector employees were unionized. From 1999 to 2007, these states suffered an aggregate decline of 3.0%, or 1.44 million, in the number of people with private, job-based health insurance.

The 22 states with 1999 private-sector unionization of between 7.0% and 13.9% also experienced an overall decline in access to job-based insurance, but the decline was substantially less
severe. The employment-based insurance rolls in these states -- Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming -- fell by 843,000, or 1.2%, from 1999 to 2007.

Meanwhile, the 18 states with 1999 private-sector unionization of no more than 6.9% -- Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia -- had a very different experience. These least-unionized states enjoyed an increase of 2.96 million, or 5.2%,
in the number of people with job-based private health insurance.

NILRR sums up their findings by stating, "there is a strong negative correlation between the growth in the ranks of the privately insured within a state and the share of its private-sector employees who are subject to union monopoly bargaining."  In other words, in states where union bosses are more likely to hold their grasp on private-sector workers in the workplace by claiming monopoly bargaining privileges over them, the more likely the number of those employees and their families receiving private health insurance from their employer will decrease -- i.e. forced unionism threatens workers' access to private-sector job-based health insurance. 

Enter Big Labor's latest compulsory-dues power grab: card check forced unionism.  Card check forced unionism (and similar legislative "compromises" being floated in the U.S. Senate right now) intends to help Big Labor herd more workers into compulsory unionism by making it easier for union bosses to use coercion and intimidation to claim monopoly-bargaining power over millions of additional workers.  However, NILRR's research illustrates that President Barack Obama and Congressional compulsory unionism advocates are working steadily to sell out not only workers' rights -- but also their well-being -- to continue to dole out paybacks for Big Labor's political support.

For more on NILRR's findings, click here.