Worker Advocates Issue Labor Day Statement: “Big Labor is Pulling Out All the Stops to Maintain Power”

Leading union watchdogs warn of Big Labor’s unprecedented spending spree to expand forced-dues powers and trample employee rights

Washington, DC (September 5, 2010) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, released the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday.

“This Labor Day, as we celebrate working men and women across the nation, union officials are mounting an unprecedented effort to expand their coercive powers over America’s employees and employers. Their goal is to expand the number of workers forced to pay union dues or fees and accept mandatory union representation just to keep their jobs.

“Union officials’ ambitious agenda goes beyond the scope of previous years. By their own admission, Big Labor officials are gearing up for their most aggressive midterm election political blitz ever. And regardless of the outcome, they are focused on a series of unprecedented power grabs and pay backs sure to send shivers up any independent-minded worker’s spine.

“Statements from key congressional leaders and union officials indicate a high probability of a post-election lame-duck Congressional session, where they will try to breathe life into coercive ‘card check’ legislation, which would shove millions of unwilling workers into unions and force struggling job-providers to knuckle-under government-imposed contracts. Meanwhile, the rights-infringing, budget-busting Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which threatens America’s first responders with federally-mandated monopoly unionization, still lurks in the shadows of the Senate. The National Right to Work Committee continues to mobilize its 2.6 million members to combat these draconian bills.

“Throughout the U.S., more than 12 million American workers are already compelled to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. Millions more are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they never asked or voted for it. And for the first time ever, a majority of government employees nationwide work under monopoly unionism.

“Sadly, many workers feel they have no choice but to pay for organized labor’s extensive political activities, while others are still unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide.

“American Federation of Labor founder Samuel Gomper’s famous adage that ‘No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion’ is as relevant as ever this Labor Day. This Labor Day, we commend all workers brave enough to stand up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms. And we look forward to the day when no American is forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

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.

The Board’s decision to reconsider Dana highlights concerns over one member’s ethics and impartiality. President Obama’s radical recess appointee Craig Becker joined in the decision to revisit Dana despite his own participation as a lawyer for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) in that very case.

In response to over a dozen motions for recusal brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Becker agreed to recuse himself in a case that serves as a sequel to Dana because he coauthored a brief jointly filed by the AFL-CIO and United Auto Workers (UAW). However, he refused to recuse himself from two of the cases (AT&T Mobility and Aramark) in which union lawyers are seeking to overturn Dana because “[n]either of [his] former employers is a party or represents a party” in those cases.

But that’s only true if one accepts Becker’s shaky distinction between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its local affiliate unions (Aramark involves the Service Workers United union, an affiliate of the SEIU). Foundation attorneys have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether Becker’s participation in cases involving SEIU local unions violates his ethics pledge.

As Foundation attorneys point out, while Becker contends the national and local unions are “separate and distinct legal entit[ies],” the SEIU itself considers locals to be “constituent subordinate bodies.” Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies.

The Obama NLRB’s decision to revisit Dana even appears designed to sidestep Becker’s ethics problem. Even though Aramark is also pending, the Board only consolidated two challenges to Dana, neither of which involves the SEIU or its affiliates. That means Becker could overturn the Dana precedent even though he participated as a union lawyer in the original Dana case and even though doing so would directly benefit his former employer in another pending case.

“While President Obama and members of Congress continue to push for a federal bill that would end the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives, an obscure federal agency stacked with former union lawyers is poised to eliminate the private vote for workers who have been subjected to unreliable and coercive card check campaigns,” explained Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“This is just the beginning of the Obama NLRB’s assault on freedom in the workplace, and individual employees are the ones who will pay the price,” continued Mix.

Kansas City Nurse Challenges Backroom Union Deal to Silence Employees Who Oppose Unionization

Research Medical Center nurse files federal unfair labor practice charges against secret “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential treatment

Kansas City, MO (August 12, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Kansas City nurse has filed unfair labor practice charges against two unions and her employer for signing a “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential access to Research Medical Center.

Mary Hill and many other nurses oppose unionization at Research Medical Center. Despite these reservations, HCA, Inc., Research Medical Center’s parent company, agreed to help organizers from two collaborating unions impose monopoly bargaining on Hill and her colleagues.

Hill states that, facing pressure from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and California Nurses Association (CNA) union organizers, the company signed a secret “neutrality agreement” with officials from both unions.

Although the exact terms of this secret pact are unknown, HCA has given CNA and SEIU organizers wide-ranging access to employee break rooms, lounges, and other company facilities. On the other hand, HCA is refusing to grant employees who oppose unionization equal access to its facilities, and has gagged supervisors from discussing unionization with concerned employees.

Although it appears the “skids have been greased” for union officials to gain monopoly bargaining control of employees at Research Medical Center, employees who oppose unionization are thus left at a disadvantage. CNA union officials are already facing charges for using similar tactics during union organizing drives at Philadelphia and Houston hospitals.

Hill’s complaint will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“Caught between union bosses and corporate executives who sell out employees to gain what will likely be very short term union boss favors, Kansas City employees have been stripped of their rights to organize against forced unionism in their workplace,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Medical professionals shouldn’t be subjected to backroom deals that give union operatives preferential treatment at the expense of employees’ workplace rights.”

Worker Advocate Asks Attorney General Holder to Investigate Apparent Violations of Obama Ethics Pledge by Labor Board Member

Craig Becker, Obama’s recess NLRB appointee, has rejected requests to recuse himself from pending cases involving his former employer

Washington, DC (August 9, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees, today asked United States Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recess appointee Craig Becker’s participation in cases involving his former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Earlier this summer, Right to Work attorneys filed more than a dozen recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the SEIU and AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the NLRB during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s in-house lawyer, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation clients and developed legal strategies for SEIU local affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.

Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers, the SEIU, or its subordinate affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has refused to recuse himself in every case but one.

Only the Attorney General or his appropriate designee has the authority under the Executive Order to investigate any violations of the Obama Administration ethics pledge, which Becker signed. The pledge explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years.

Becker argues that he may participate in cases involving SEIU affiliates because the national and local unions are “separate and distinct legal entit[ies].” The SEIU’s own constitution, however, considers local affiliates “constituent subordinate bodies” of the national union. Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies.

The Foundation’s letter to Holder also notes Becker’s close involvement in the SEIU’s national legal strategy for corralling healthcare workers into unions. Wade Rathke, a former SEIU local union boss and founder of ACORN, praised Becker’s work in this field. As Rathke explained, Becker’s “role was often behind the scenes devising the strategy with the organizers and lawyers, writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the pieces together.” Becker’s “separate legal entity” analysis fails to account for this kind of relationship that actually exists between the SEIU and its local affiliates.

“If Craig Becker’s shaky analysis stands, the Obama Administration’s much-touted ethics pledge clearly is not worth the paper it is printed on,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Independent-minded workers who dare to challenge the SEIU’s coercive practices deserve a fair hearing, but how can they get that from the very same union’s former top lawyer?”

Airline Workers Challenge Federal Ruling on Sham Transportation Unionization Election Procedures

Appeal contests federal district court ruling that upheld new policy stacking the deck in favor of forced unionization of railway and airline employees

Washington, DC (July 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Delta Air Lines employees have appealed a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to uphold a major rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

In June, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul Friedman refused to impose an injunction halting the new unionization election procedures, which were hastily instituted over the objections of National Mediation Board Chair Elizabeth Dougherty.

The two NMB members who approved the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the NMB to discard its election policy of 75 years.

The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over railway or airline industry workers if the union acquires support from just a bare majority of eligible workers in an election, no matter how few actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

The five Delta workers and similarly situated employees in the railway and airline industries could soon find themselves forced into fees-paying ranks against their will. There are ongoing unionization efforts at Delta by the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and AFA unions.

Foundation attorneys contend that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in a class or craft.

Unlike private sector workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, nonmember employees in the railway and airline industries are not protected by the Right to Work laws in Georgia, where Delta is headquartered, and 21 other states. Furthermore, the rule change is especially troubling given the complicated bureaucratic hoops these workers must jump through to remove an unwanted union.

“Legal disputes over terms of employment are too often depicted as battles between union bosses and management,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation Legal Information Director. “We believe the district court erred in ignoring the impact of these new election procedures on individual employees, whose right to bargain individually with their employers could now be tossed aside by a stealth organizing campaign undertaken by professional union organizers.”

Legal Aid Foundation Files Comments Opposing NLRB “Electronic Voting” Scheme for Union Organizing Drives

‘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.

The Foundation’s comments note that under an electronic voting scheme, it would be even easier for workers to be threatened, coerced or bribed by aggressive union organizers with access to portable electronic devices like laptops or cell phones. Compared to an NLRB-supervised unionization election, the potential for abuse during a union organizing drive conducted via electronic voting is clearly higher.

The Foundation’s comments also note that remote voting would make it difficult to verify the identity of workers submitting electronic ballots, opening the door to voter fraud and abuse. Moreover, electronically-submitted votes could be monitored or altered by hackers or system administrators, leaving workers vulnerable to retaliation and vote-stealing after they’ve submitted their ballots.

“Although their efforts to bypass the secret ballot through coercive card check legislation have stalled, Big Labor could be handed another tool to undermine workplace elections if the NLRB moves to adopt electronic voting,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Much like card check organizing, electronic voting leaves the door open to coercion and identity theft, and will be used by aggressive union organizers to impose forced unionism on more workers.”

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.

However, Becker will not recuse himself in a related line of cases in which union officials have devised a legal strategy to overturn a landmark 2007 NLRB decision won by Foundation attorneys also concerning the UAW’s card check campaign at Dana Corp. In that decision, the Board granted employees the ability to demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer recognizes a monopoly bargaining agent by card check. Becker denies having pre-judged the attempts to overturn that Dana decision despite a long career of advocating an extreme version of forced unionism that considers secret ballot elections “profoundly undemocratic” and despite having authored an amicus brief in that case opposing granting employees the opportunity to petition for decertification of unions recognized by card check.

Likewise, Becker has a long track record of personal bias towards the Foundation. Becker admits to having used “strong language” against the Foundation in published articles, but he ignores the fact that he once wrote that the Foundation only “purports to represent employees” even though it is patently obvious that Foundation staff attorneys have represented employees in hundreds of federal court and NLRB cases. Becker even has blamed the U.S. Supreme Court for having a “virtual obsession” with Foundation-assisted cases and criticized the NLRB’s General Counsel for putting cases like Dana before the Board.

Finally, Becker has announced a weak standard for recusal in cases involving SEIU affiliates. He ignores the financial dependence of the SEIU International, his former employer, on local affiliates and refuses to adopt the more stringent federal judge standard for recusal used by current NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman in cases concerning affiliates of the Teamster union, her former employer before being installed on the Board by President Bill Clinton.

“By announcing his weak recusal standards, Craig Becker has made a mockery of the much-touted Obama ethics pledge,” explained Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“He has pre-judged the secret ballot, and he will now decide a case that could take away from workers the limited ability to use the secret ballot to get rid of an unwanted union foisted on them by coercive card check schemes. He has helped orchestrate the legal strategy for SEIU affiliates across the country, but he has only found fit to recuse himself in one case so far,” continued Mix. “Craig Becker’s recusal standards would be comical if the livelihoods of hardworking Americans were not at stake.”

Federal Labor Board to Prosecute Hospital Union for Illegal Bargaining in Secret Agreement

Union officials and Tenet Healthcare came to terms before the union ever represented any employees

Houston, TX (June 03, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a formal complaint against the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and Tenet Healthcare Corporation (THC) for illegally negotiating contractual provisions before the union received majority support from Tenet employees. The complaint was prompted by unfair labor practice charges filed by several nurses at the Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center with the help of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.

According to the NLRB’s complaint, Tenet Corporation and union officials agreed to a so-called “Election Procedures Agreement” (EPA) before the CNA’s presence was put to a vote by Cypress Fairbanks nurses. Under the terms of the secret agreement, Tenet and CNA officials committed to mandatory third-party arbitration if they could not agree to a contract within 90 days.

Federal labor law prohibits company and union officials from negotiating a contract until a union receives majority support from the company’s employees. This requirement is intended to prevent union officials from undercutting workers’ rights or negotiating unfavorable wages and working conditions in return for organizing assistance from an employer. At Cypress Fairbanks, CNA officials agreed to the EPA – including the binding arbitration provisions – with Tenet Corporation before they received the consent of Cypress Fairbanks nurses to negotiate on their behalf.

The CNA’s organizing drive at Cypress Fairbanks was also marred by several provisions in the EPA designed to quash anti-union dissent. Tenet managers were forbidden from truthfully answering hospital employees’ questions about unionization, and employees who opposed a union presence were prevented from using company facilities to express their views. CNA organizers, on the other hand, were given wide-ranging access to company grounds to facilitate unionization, as well as a list of employees’ home addresses. Tenet settled earlier Foundation-supported charges by granting employees opposed to unionization equal access to its facilities.

The NLRB’s complaint will be heard by an administrative law judge.

“CNA operatives foisted themselves on Cypress Fairbanks nurses through a backroom deal designed to impose unionization,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is telling that these union bosses are so intent on forcing themselves into nurses’ workplaces that they were willing to violate the rights of the very employees they claim to represent.”

SEIU Bosses Threaten to Have Workers Fired for Refusing to Sign Union Cards

Employees hit service union officials with federal charges for coercing employees during ugly card check unionization drive

Pittsfield, IL (May 7, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four Pittsfield-based Help at Home employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for threatening workers with termination if they refused to sign union authorization cards.

The cards, which the employer counted as “votes” in favor of unionization, were then used to force employees to accept SEIU officials as their exclusive bargaining agents at the Pittsfield Help at Home office.

Tina Evans and three of her Help at Home coworkers allege that employees were unlawfully compelled to attend a mass meeting with union organizers during work hours. Independent-minded workers who opposed unionization were also threatened with layoffs if they did not sign union authorization cards. Despite lacking the un-coerced support of a majority of employees, SEIU bosses have now made the payment of union dues a condition of employment for workers at the Pittsfield Help at Home office.

The union involved in this organizing scheme – SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana – is a chronic offender. Officials from the same union are facing Foundation-assisted charges in Danville, Illinois for illegally forcing other nonunion Help at Home employees to pay full union dues. The union was also named in a Foundation lawsuit on behalf of Illinois home care providers, who allege that union officials collaborated with Governor Pat Quinn to force them into the SEIU’s dues-paying ranks.

The Foundation’s charges seek immediate injunctive relief for Help at Home employees forced to pay SEIU dues. The charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“Given the union’s history of workplace abuses, I can’t say we’re surprised by this latest scheme,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s unconscionable that union operatives would use threats to foist themselves on unwilling workers.”

“These tactics also highlight the dangers of pending ‘card check’ legislation, which would effectively mandate the coercive card check organizing system,” continued Semmens. “Without the privacy of the ballot booth during unionization elections, workers are regularly subjected to intimidation and harassment at the hands of aggressive union organizers.”

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.”

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.