Recently, Foundation attorneys notified employees represented by the Machinists union (IAM) and Washington Education Association union (WEA) nonmembers of their opportunity to reclaim a portion of their forced union dues from supporting the union officials' politics as determined by law and Foundation-won court precedent.

Employees Represented by IAM

In the National Right to Work Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union", it states that:

If you are a nonmember of the IAM paying dues to keep your job, you are entitled to claim a reduction in your 2009 IAM dues of approximately 25%. For 2009, the IAM admits that 30.54% of International union dues, 16.77% of district lodge dues and 20.61% of local lodge dues are spent on political, ideological and other non-representational activities for which no employee can be required to pay. According to the "Notice" published in the Fall 2008 issue of the "IAM Journal," you can claim this reduction by sending a letter postmarked during the month of November 2008.

With November ending in less than a week and a half, now is the time to act if you have not already done so to get your 25% reduction in your 2009 IAM dues. For more information and specific instructions on how to claim your rebate, read the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union (IAM)".

Nonmembers of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association (Washington teachers)

In the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers" it states that:

As a nonmember of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association, you should have received your 2008/09 "Hudson" package from the WEA. Please use this suggested letter that you can fill out and mail to get your 2008/09 rebate check of around $200. You must individually complete and send in your objection/challenge/rebate request letter. Your letter must be postmarked on or before December 8, 2008!

Again, time is running out. December 8th is less than two-and-a-half weeks away and if you do not send in your letter on or before December 8th, you will probably not receive your rebate. For more specific instructions on how to claim your rebate of approximately $200, please refer to the Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers".

As always, the Foundation will continue to help employees across the country fight the evils of compulsory unionism. If you are a teacher interested in your legal rights, please refer to the Abood and Hudson decisions on our Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents webpage. If you are a private sector employee, you can learn more about your legal rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck decision on the same page.

A few Right to Work-related updates from over the weekend:

1.) Does the AFL-CIO owe $14 million in back taxes? Perhaps an IRS audit will reveal other problems with the AFL-CIO's overtly partisan and massive campaign expenditures. The author overstates the good that comes from oversight of union finances by the Office of Labor Management Standards, but he does point out the amusing fact that Democrats are in favor of "smaller government" in this one instance:

One of the branches of the Department of Labor that provides a real services to all Americans is the Office of Labor-Management Standards. These are the guys who make sure that labor unions are being transparent about their finances. Or they try, when the Democrats don't cut their budget. But, for now, you get to see how unions spend their money.

If you're interested in reading more about the Foundation's ongoing efforts to ensure greater union financial disclosure, subscribe to the latest issue of Foundation Action. The July/August newsletter features a story on the DOL's latest half-hearted attempt to promote financial transparency -- any why a crippling "confidential information" loophole would render DOL's whole exercise as useless.

2.) More good stuff from the Washington Examiner. John Barnes has a informative post entitled "Why public sector labor unions are a bad idea." Here's the money quote:

This is how the cycle works: state workers are forced to join a union, even if they don't want to -- the unions collect mandatory dues from state worker paychecks -- the unions use that money to support campaigns for the very elected officials with whom they bargain for contracts -- not surprisingly, the unions tend to get favorable contracts that usually result in higher membership dues that in turn provide the unions with more money to fund "friendly" elected officials. Add a growing state workforce, repeat cycle, and stir. What's the basic ingredient here? Your tax dollars.

For those of you who missed it, Freedom@Work spotlighted Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire's incestuous relationship with union officials last week. The Seattle Times article detailing her connections to Big Labor is well-worth a read.

The International Association of Machinists (IAM) has a long and troubled relationship with true workplace representation.  In fact, the union bosses' authoritarian nature of governance more closely resembles communist North Korea.

Section B-2 of the IAM's "Official Circular No. 813 - Strike Sanctions and Benefits" (pdf) lays out the organization's procedures for accepting a renegotiated contract or rejecting a new offer from management and going on strike:

". . . a secret ballot vote by the membership present and voting must carry by a two-thirds (2/3) majority in order to declare a strike."

Section B-3 makes it perfectly clear that IAM officials can unilaterally "ratify" a collective bargaining agreement even if a majority of employees vote against the new contract. In other words, IAM representatives are empowered by their own regulations to ignore workers' preferences:

"In the event that a strike vote fails to carry by the required two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the collective bargaining agreement at issue will be accepted." [Emphasis in original]

Not exactly what you'd call fair -- vote no, but get yes. A recent NLRB administrative law judge ruling (pdf) involving a collective bargaining dispute in Indiana reveals that local IAM officials agreed to a renegotiated contract despite the fact that a majority of employees had already rejected management's new offer:

"The union put the agreement [the new contract] to a vote of employees and, following its established procedures, when less than a majority voted in favor of the contract, this triggered a strike vote requiring supermajority approval, and failing to garner approval for the strike, the contract was deemed accepted."

This situation lays bare the fraud of exclusive representation, also known as monopoly bargaining.  Unfortunately, workers have little voice when the union hierarchy is installed as the middleman... and often given other compulsory unionism privileges to boot.

With help from Foundation staff attorneys, several employees have come forward to challenge the IAM's monopoly bargaining privilege in the above-referenced workplace. These workers are interested in having a real workplace voice, not meaningless sham elections that can be ignored on a whim. Their appeal (pdf) to the NLRB General Counsel is pending further review, but we'll continue to post updates as the case progresses.

The threat of union violence continues to plague hard-working Americans across the country.

A story published in Alabama’s Times Daily highlights a rare instance where a judge actually issued a restraining order against a union. This recent incident involves North Alabama Building and Construction Trades Council and International Association of Machinists (IAM) union militants who targeted employees (and members of the Steelworkers union) who returned to work during a strike. At least one union militant dove onto a car entering the Wise Alloy worksite:

“…the employees attempted to return to their jobs Tuesday morning. Wise officials said Steelworkers union employees were being intimidated at the employee entrance to the plant by employees who are still on strike.”

“Wise officials also reported, however, that a former employee, who was demonstrating in the picket line, dived onto the hood of a vehicle that was entering the plant.”

Of course, it is common for union militants to ignore restraining orders in the rare instances they are issued.

If you or someone in your family has been a victim of union violence or intimidation, call the Foundation toll-free at 1-800-336-3600 or write to legal@nrtw.org and ask to speak with an attorney.

When hard-working employees object to paying forced dues for politics, they mean it.

But despite such opposition, union officials will try to find every way possible to demoralize and hamstring employees so that their forced dues money continues to follow into union political coffers.

Take a look at Robert Prime from Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Prime works at the Naval Air Station. In December 2003, he filed charges with help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation after IAM union officials told him he had to object every single year to paying for union political advocacy.

IAM union officials refused to acknowledge that his objection should apply continuously. And while Mr. Prime fights for his objection to be honored, he and his coworkers are forced to oblige to a burdensome and discriminatory policy until a decision is issued after a hearing scheduled for the end of this year.

It took nearly four years for him just to get that far. But Mr. Prime and his coworkers in Florida are not alone.

Just months ago, the NLRB delayed another ruling where George Gally, a 40-year veteran at Colt Firearms, requested that the federal board rule on his case under similar circumstances.

Right to Work attorneys helped Mr. Gally of Connecticut originally file unfair labor practice charges in 2003. His charges challenged the United Auto Worker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of requiring employees to object annually in order to receive refunds of forced union dues spent for union political activities.

But the NLRB, with its reputation for dragging its feet, refused to rule on Mr. Gally’s precedent-setting case and punted the decision back to a Regional Director for further review.

As a result, Mr. Gally has no choice, like Mr. Prime, to wait longer for a ruling as union officials continue to enforce bogus hurdles designed solely to keep rank-and-file workers in line.

Union officials do not require the same of their members. So why do they require those employees – who do not want to pay for union political activities – to object every year?

The answer can surely be heard in the “cha-ching” of union bosses’ coffers.