Worker Advocate Praises Today’s Supreme Court Decision Overturning California Law Facilitating Coercive Union Organizing
U.S. Supreme Court agrees with National Right to Work Foundation’s arguments
Washington, DC (June 19, 2008) – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Chamber v. Brown case in which the Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the ultimate outcome.
“In its Chamber v. Brown decision, the Supreme Court correctly reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold a California law which increases pressure on employees to join unwanted unions.
“The law was nothing more than an underhanded attempt by union officials to use public funds to corral California workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and the High Court was correct to find that the law is pre-empted by federal labor law.
“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. Moreover, union organizers would have insisted that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.
“California officials were wrong to use the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies are having trouble persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.”
An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that would have effectively forced coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.
###
The decision can be downloaded here.
Comments
Forced Unionism
It's about time this subject gets front page news...in today's economy, we cannot be throwing away our money into organizations that do NOTHING for us!!! Forced unionism needs to be ABOLISHED!!!
National Right To Work activities
Individually, the average working person is vulnerable to virtually any abuse employers choose to pile on him. Read history and find out what employers did to miners and in the garment industry before unions were able to force improvements. In foreign countries where unions are non-existant, they still pay slave wages and keep workers in deplorable circumstances. Even today in America, in some businesses, when someone is fired, an armed guard gives them a few minutes to gather their personal belongings and escorts them out the gate without even letting them say goodby to friends. In others, if you get sick, you get fired. Workers are not perfect, but capitalism without unions doesn't work much better than communism did, because unregulaated capitalism will always be overcome by human greed and man's inhumality to man. I've also noticed that God usually helps those who help themselves first. Long observation of Right To Work convinces me that they have little regard for the working person, but in the long run they will find that they have shot themselves in the foot if they are ultimately successful in their drive to kill labor unions. America doesn't have Japan's tradition of company loyalty to its employees, so when the workers hurt badly enough, here we comes socialism.
There is no effort to kill unions
I am a former client of the National Right to Work foundation and found no evidence of any desire to kill labor unions - only an effective effort to protect the rights of workers. The Foundation does not represent employers, only employees who have had their rights violated by unscrupulous unions and employers.
Bismarck
High Taxes and Living Costs
I would add that among the primary advocates of higher taxes and increased living costs are the lords of labor. If you examine their legislative agendas, you will find that if enacted the economy would be increasingly controlled by government at great cost to efficiency and private property rights.
Bismarck
Key quote from ruling
A very important part of today's favorable decision is this quote:
"The Taft-Hartley Act amended [NLRA] §§7 and 8 in several key respects. First, it emphasized that employees 'have the right to refrain from any or all' §7 activities." This "amendment to §7 calls attention to the right of employees to refuse to join unions, which implies an underlying right to receive information opposing unionization." Brown, slip op. at 6-7.
One more step forward in favor of the worker!.
I'm very glad the court ruled as it did. Now, if I could just figure out how to begin the process to change my state (Missouri) to a "right to work" state things would be great.
I used to work for a company that was unionized. Because I was in a very small office and was part-time (and because the headquarters were in a "right to work state") I was not forced to join a union (asked but I opted out -- adamantly). But, I can recall a number of very qualified people that came through our office to apply for driving positions and then turned and walked out the door when they learned the drivers were unionized and they would be required to join up within a certain amount of time after becoming employed there.
I still don't get it. In this day and age, with the oversight in place regarding worker rights and safety, and with an abundance of lawyers on every corner willing to defend an individual's rights if they be violated, why would any hardworking American want to join up with unions whose very beginnings were seeded from socialism and who exact high dues from their members for representation that is sketchy at best. American workers have to sacrifice too much of their hard-earned dollars to taxes, ever-increasing living costs, and medical and insurance needs. Wouldn't they be benefited even more if they could keep those union dues in their own budgets to feed, clothe, and provide for their families?
Personally, I have an advocate, that is Christ, who is more than able to effect change when it's needed. And, I try to live by the biblical principle that once you go to work for a company or employer at an agreed-upon wage and for agreed-upon benefits, it is at that which you should expect. If that employer finds your work beneficial to him/her and chooses to increase your wages or give you added benefits, then more the blessing. If the working conditions or environment become unsafe or unbearable or the employer/employee relations degrades, then both are free to quit the agreement.