Right to Work Blog

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has taken a leadership role to help educate the American people about the true nature of the Card Check Scam bill.

“What we’re trying to do is what we did with immigration: Let people know the facts and over a period of time build the level of anger,” DeMint told Congress Daily after a forum he held on the issue.

Three cheers to Sen. DeMint.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a video describing the plight of Patricia Pelletier, a Connecticut worker who recently suffered through a vicious union campaign of harassment, intimidation, and identity theft. To watch the video, click here. To read more on the legal action the Foundation is undertaking on behalf of Mrs. Pelletier, click here.

Montana Democrats endorsed a party platform this week that specifically rejects workers’ choice and the Right to Work. Montana’s neighbors: Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming, have all benefited from the enactment of a Right to Work law. Surrounded by a sea of worker choice states, the Democratic Party of Montana just hung up a sign on the state that says “closed for business.”

This is not a theoretical debate. Just ask the working folks of Kentucky who lost a billion-dollar investment by VW to neighboring Tennessee — a Right to Work state.

You could be forgiven for thinking that Big Labor’s primary purpose is politics these days. With the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) well into its plan to spend some $150 million to elect the pet politicians of Big Labor bosses, it is time to ask: “Where’d they get that much money?”

A July 28 editorial by the Wall Street Journal puts it into perspective:

That’s a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union’s national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month’s SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union’s national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in “local union funds” equal to the “deficiency,” plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from unions.

The SEIU political mandate may also violate federal law. Union and corporate PACs are supposed to rely on “voluntary” contributions, and it is illegal for them to use money secured by the “threat” of “financial reprisal.” It’s hard to see that an SEIU mandate enforced by financial penalties of 50% isn’t a “threat” or would qualify under any definition of “voluntary.”

There’s more. As many workers who would rather not join a union realize, employees can be required to join a union or to pay dues as a condition of employment. It is illegal, however, for a union to take these compelled union dues and use them to affect federal elections.

SEIU locals will no doubt try to fulfill their national commitment with voluntary contributions. But the SEIU’s amendment suggests that unions that fail to meet that obligation will be required to pay for both the shortfall and penalty with member dues and agency fees. Any use of that dues money in a PAC would be a federal no-no. Meanwhile, use of dues from nonunion members (those who must pay dues even though they refuse to join a union) for any political activity, a PAC or otherwise, is prohibited. . . .

The Journal got it right:

. . . The SEIU contribution demand isn’t just another technical violation of campaign-finance rules but may break serious rules about labor operations and union dues. The time to investigate this is before the election.

Union employees have every right to participate in elections. Union chiefs don’t have the right to coerce them.

Sen. Lamar Alexander
(R-TN), July 22, 2008
At the Dedication of Nissan’s $100 Million
Headquarters in Franklin, Tennessee

I thank the legislatures that worked with all of us in such a bipartisan way to maintain Tennessee’s other competitive advantages: the right to work law, one of the nation’s best 4-lane highway systems and a fair workman’s compensation system.

Mallory Factor, the head of the New York “Monday Meeting,” has a good overview of Big Labor’s obscene political spending and what it will be cashing in should its candidates — including Barack Obama — win elective office this November.

Indeed, Big Labor is launching its largest political campaign in its history, and this year, more than ever, Big Labor means Big Money. The two largest union coalitions — the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation, a coalition of labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO — admit that they will spend at least $300 million on federal elections alone. When combined with political action committees, local unions and other union funders, at least $1 billion of pro-union money is being dumped into electioneering. You can bet the union bosses expect a lot of “change” from Obama next year on labor law. An Obama administration — possibly coupled with a filibuster-proof Senate — will feel a real sense of obligation to repay Big Labor that supported them.

Michigan is in the throes of a Big Labor induced economic recession and Crain’s Detroit Business report has weighed in with an idea that is a small step in the right direction.

Crain’s suggests the state enact Right to Work zones. That, of course, is not an equitable solution as some workers would be protected from Big Labor coercion and others would not be, based solely on the location of their place of employment.

What was the cause of their suggestion? Michigan’s loss of a near $1 billion automobile facility to two Right to Work states — Tennessee and Alabama.

Where will Volkswagen build its new U.S. plant? That’s the $788 million question.

By late last week, sister publication Automotive News was reporting the automaker was leading toward Huntsville, Ala., and Chattanooga, Tenn.

Michigan tried hard, with its $18.7 million “Choose Michigan” program of loans and tax credits, but it wasn’t enough.

According to Crain’s:

To many manufacturers, Michigan suffers from the perception that organized labor calls the shots. Labor strikes, including this year’s shutdown at American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc., don’t help that image.

Perception?

In this case, clearly perception is reality.

All workers deserve the same protections from forced unionism. And if Michigan would take that step, the whole state would benefit from new jobs and new economic growth.

The editors of Crain’s have taken a small step in the right direction, but it is still a step indeed.

Writing for the New York Sun, Diana Furchtgott-Roth has discovered that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) dramatically under funded the pension fund for its rank-and-file members.

. . . [T]he SEIU National Industry Pension Plan, a plan for the rank-and-file members, covering 100,787 workers, was 75% funded. That is, it had three-fourths of the money it needed to pay benefit obligations of workers and retirees.

In contrast, a separate fund for the union’s own employees, numbering 1,305, participants was 91% funded. Even better, the pension fund for SEIU officers and employees, which had 6,595 members, was 103% funded.

In other words, the pensions of the union bosses are secure while rank-and-file members’ pensions are at risk.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation just issued the following news release.

SEIU’s new rule forces local affiliates to raise PAC money or kick in workers’ forced union dues and pay penalties

Washington, DC (July 17, 2008) – The National Right to Work Foundation has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice open investigations into a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its recent convention.

After reviewing a new amendment to the SEIU constitution, Foundation staff attorneys have concluded that the union and its officers may be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets.

“SEIU bosses are making a mockery of federal law. It’s vital the Department of Justice and Department of Labor take action now before the damage is done,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Elections are a cornerstone of our democratic republic, and we need to do everything possible to ensure the results aren’t tainted by unlawful union activism that violates the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.

Read the entire news release here.

The announcement of a near half a million dollar ad campaign in Missouri by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for Democrat Jay Nixon’s campaign for Governor adds to the growing total of over $75 million of political spending this election cycle.