Right to Work Blog

On Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the U. S. Senate voted on a measure that would have removed even the minimal protection afforded workers by secret ballot elections during union organizing drives.

The vote on H.R. 800, the “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007” (more aptly called the “Card Check Scam Bill”) was 51 YEAs, 48 NAYs, 1 Not Voting. The motion needed 60 YEA votes for passage.

While, technically, Tuesday’s vote was on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider H.R. 800, if the motion had received the 60 Senate votes necessary to move the bill forward, it would have virtually guaranteed the bill’s passage.

Check out how your Senator voted.

A YEA vote was a vote to take away a worker’s right to a secret ballot during union organizing elections.

(Right to Work supporters are encouraged to contact their Senators regarding their votes on the H.R. 800 cloture motion. All Senate offices may be reached through the Senate switchboard, 202-224-3121.)

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware:
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida:
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York:
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay

For more information, check out the following links:
H.R. 800
Senate Vote 227

With Congress spending like drunken sailors, we’re surprised to see House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) offer a small cut in spending — one that, of course, helps the Union Bosses.

Robert Novak reports that Obey and company increased spending for the Labor-HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) appropriations bill by a whooping 8 percent but “the House Democratic version cuts by 19.6 percent the Labor Department request for funds to enforce disclosure by labor unions of how they use membership dues. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has tried, against opposition from organized labor, to enforce at long last union disclosures imposed by the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Labor Reform Act. The funding reductions in the House bill would force Chao to cut enforcement personnel and effectively undercut her efforts.”

Union Bosses have continually tried to prevent rank-and-file members from knowing how their dues money is spent. This is further evidence of it.

As we battled to save the Iowa Right to Work Law, union bosses and activists began to publicly promise that their goal was not to repeal the job creating law. Instead, they just wanted folks to pay their “fair share” as they tried to make Iowa state employees second class citizens with fewer rights than their private sector counterparts.

But the Sioux City Journal reports on an amazing discovery:

The May 2007 issue of the Iowa AFL-CIO News tells us a decidedly different story. Under the title “Promises Broken n Labor Betrayed,” this official publication gives a hint of what Big Labor really was after.

“After forty-two years of waiting, forty-two years of supporting Democrats, in the hope of getting rid of the accursed right to work law or, short of that, at least passing Fair Share, labor was betrayed by those who led us to believe they supported us.”

As the paper points out:

So, there it is. Big Labor does want to reverse Iowa’s status as a right-to-work state, no matter what they said in public. The article goes on to say “. . . all you have is your word, and if your word is no good, you have nothing.”

Indeed.

The Sioux City Journal was a stalwart in protecting Iowa’s Right to Work statute. But they shouldn’t be shocked at such duplicitous behavior. The battle is, was, and will be about forcing Iowa workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of working.

While Big Labor hypocrisy, as it relates to forced unionism, is nothing to get really excited about anymore, when the highest levels of the Democrat party expose their double dealings on behalf of Big Labor and forced unionism, that should get a lot of attention.

A piece published in Investors Business Daily sorts it all out.

The first vote on the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill (the deceptively labeled “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007″) is expected on Tuesday, June 26, around 11:30 a.m.

If you haven’t already call your senators at (202) 224 3121 (ask for them by name) and tell them to oppose the Card Check Bill (H.R. 800/S. 1041) on all votes.

With Sen. Harry Reid prepared to bring the Card Check Scam Bill to the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has denounced the bill in uncertain terms:

Liberals in Congress have introduced the “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007,” and it’s impossible to think of a bill that is more deceptively named. Calling it the “Employee Intimidation Act” would be better.

Rather than enable employees’ free choice, the bill would eliminate it — by ending the requirement that workers voting on whether to unionize or not do so by secret ballot. That rule is currently enforced by a government agency, the National Labor Relations Board. Instead, workers would have to declare their vote publicly — under the glare of their employer and their potential union bosses.

Thankfully, he’s not alone. It is expected that all Republicans in the Senate except, perhaps, Sen. Arlen Specter will oppose the Scam Bill.

But Senate Republicans aren’t alone in fighting the big labor give-away. Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has joined the fight:

This week, though, the unions are going to try something that could reverse their long decline. The Senate will vote on a measure the House has already passed that would do away with secret ballots on votes to unionize. This would allow union officials to visit individual workers separately to persuade them to sign a card in favor of the union. Given the rather colorful history of some labor unions, it’s not hard to understand why so many people think this is a very bad idea.

Nevertheless, the current [C]ongress may in fact pass it. Unions give a lot of their members’– and nonmembers’– dues to political candidates, and they’re really good at providing free labor to campaigns. So they have a lot of influence in certain parts of [C]ongress. That may explain, for example, why the House Appropriations Committee is apparently planning to cut the budget of the Office of Labor Management Services — the office that investigates illegalities by unions.

Let me restate the obvious. In America, we need the right to join a union. We also need the right not to join a union.

With Congress failing to act on measures critical to the American people, they have made time on their schedule to payback Big Labor for their support in the past election. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that a vote on the Card Check Scam bill could come as early as June 20th.

Former San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, his chief budget aide Joe Guerra, and a garbage company have been on trial in California for their part in “negotiating a deal with Norcal Waste Systems Inc. for San Jose’s trash-hauling contract. They were accused of secretly agreeing to give Norcal an additional $11.25 million in public money in exchange for the company having its recycling subcontractor, California Waste Solutions, switch to the Teamsters union and pay employees more.”

The case originated in the 2000 contract negotiations between Gonzales and Norcal for garbage pickup and recycling services. Prosecutors accused Gonzales of promising to use city money to cover pay raises for the firm’s workers without informing the City Council of the arrangement if Norcal allowed the Teamsters union to represent workers at its recycling subcontractor.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, even though the basic facts appear to be correct, Superior Court Judge John Herlihy decided that prosecutors have “mistaken ordinary political back-scratching for bribery.”

In dismissing the corruption charges against Gonzalez, Judge Herlihy wrote, “This is not bribery. This is politics.”

There is only one way to read this decision. In California, selling out workers and taxpayers isn’t corruption, just politics.

On June 14, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a novel Washington State Supreme Court ruling that had discovered a “constitutional right” for union officials to spend dissenting employees’ mandatory dues on political causes they oppose.

By ruling, in Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA), that union officials have no constitutional right to spend employees’ forced dues for politics, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of Gary Davenport and more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but who were nonetheless forced to pay union dues under erroneous State ruling.

The Los Angeles Times quotes Justice Antonia Scalia:

“Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmembers employees.”

In Davenport, the Supreme Court has thwarted an outrageous attempted power grab by union lawyers that could ultimately have gutted the 22 state Right to Work laws now on the books. These laws prohibit all forced union dues and fees. But the Court also brought into focus how ineffective “paycheck protection” campaign finance laws are in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism.

And, unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed that it would do nothing to stop the exaction of compulsory union dues as a condition of employment from private or public sector workers.

Unless and until the High Court changes its mind on this subject, remedying the fundamental abuse of compulsory union dues will require legislative action at both the federal and state levels.

For more information go here.

Union bosses will fight to the death to oppose giving workers the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join or pay dues to a union. After watching the Big Labor front group “American Rights at Work” trying to raise voluntary contributions, it’s no wonder.

American Rights at Work is a union funded front group that promotes Big Labor’s agenda. But it appears that their efforts to supplement union largess is falling on deaf ears. In an email to supporters, the group pleads for contributions to hit their $15,000 goal. In fact, response appears to be so slow that the deadline for contributions was “extended.” As of the last call for cash, the group only raised $13,905.

It’s no wonder the union bosses won’t relinquish their right to coerce workers into paying dues. It’s a lot easier than asking for it.

Thanks to the efforts of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, workers at an Ohio Goodyear Tire plant who suffered a wave of harassment from the union hierarchy can live life easier. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) union for hitting nonunion workers with illegal retaliatory strike fines and waging an ugly campaign of threats, recriminations, and hate mail.

With help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, Goodyear employee Frank C. Steen III originally filed federal charges against the USWA union after officials levied fines of $620 each against several employees for refusing to walk off the job during a union-ordered strike. Union officials imposed the fines on each of the workers after ordering them to attend an internal “kangaroo” court (which the employees refused to attend) for continuing to do their jobs. Union officials also “accused” the employees of allegedly informing others of their legal right to refrain from formal union membership.

Between October 2006 and January 2007, USWA officials ordered employees to walk off the job at the Goodyear plant. However, in order to support their families, Steen and his coworkers resigned from formal union membership in November and exercised their right to return to work.

After USWA officials issued the unlawful fines, Steen filed federal charges against USWA union officials because they disregarded the employees’ November resignations and unlawfully continued to deduct full union dues from their paychecks.

After his resignation, Steen received approximately 10 pieces of hate mail from union officials. Similarly, on two different occasions, USWA union operatives shouted through bullhorns outside Steen’s residence, calling him a “low life” for refusing to abandon his job. In a separate incident, another union-strike supporter threatened one of Steen’s coworkers over the phone that he would be fined for “everything he made and then some” and would be fired once the strike was over.

Union officials want Frank Steen and his coworkers to shut up and pay up. This case shows the contempt that union officials often have for employees who exercise independent judgment and who work to support their families during an unpopular strike.

According to the NLRB Regional Director, the case will be heard before an Administrative Law Judge on August 21, 2007. The order for an official hearing comes after Goodyear saw a USWA union-ordered walkout of over 15,000 of its employees across its 16 plants in North America for several months.

Unfortunately, as long as Ohio workers labor without the protections of a Right to Work law — which makes union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary — abuses of this nature will surely continue throughout the Buckeye State.