Right to Work Blog

Smelling blood — and a chance for another vote to end employee secret ballot elections — union bosses in Indiana are bankrolling the upstart campaign of Michael Montagano against incumbent Mark Souder.

Souder, who has called the Card Check Scam Bill a license to intimidate workers, is under attack by Montagano whose campaign is funded almost exclusively by Big Labor money. The Journal Gazette reports that Big Labor has:

. . . contributed more than $130,000 to Montagano’s campaign operation – $20 of every $100 in total donations; 75 percent of all the political action committee money.

It’s more cash than unions donated to Souder’s last six challengers combined.

Spending a record $60 million on the presidential campaign alone, the big government union American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is putting 40,000 “volunteers” on the ground in Ohio to carry the state for Sen. Barack Obama and, as AFSCME union boss Gerald McEntee says to “increase worker-friendly majorities” in the House and Senate. “Worker friendly?”

Those “worker friendly” House and Senate members will eliminate workers’ right to a secret ballot election. Those “worker friendly” House and Senate members will coerce more workers into joining unions as never before. Those “worker friendly” House and Senate members will try to eliminate your Right to Work.

The only thing they are friendly to is the union bosses who put them in power.

Larry Sand, a classroom teacher in Los Angeles for more than 27 years, is telling fellow Californians that the actions of the union bosses of the California teachers unions are being done without his support or consent. Unfortunately, he has little impact as California does not afford workers Right to Work protection. None the less, he has eloquently written about the frustration he and hundreds of thousands of his fellow teachers share everyday:

In 28 states, a teacher is essentially forced to join a costly union. A typical teacher in Southern California, where I teach, pays $922 every year to his or her local, which then sends $611 of that amount to the state affiliate, the California Teachers Assn., or CTA, and $140 to the national affiliate, the National Education Assn., or NEA. (One has to wonder, if the unions are so beneficial, why do teachers need to be forced to join and to fork over such hefty dues in most states?)

And just what are all of these forced dues spent on? Untold millions go to political causes, whether a teacher agrees with the cause or not. According to Reg Weaver, the recently retired NEA president, his union’s rank-and-file teachers are about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican and one-third independent. Yet more than 90% of NEA political spending goes to Democratic causes, according to OpenSecrets.org. Thus, if you are a Republican and have conservative values, your dues are being used to support causes and candidates you oppose.

In August, just before relinquishing his position, Weaver spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Although it was not surprising that he expressed support for Barack Obama, he made an egregious statement at the end of his speech. After extolling the virtues of his candidate, Weaver said, “That, my friends, is why the 3.2 million members of the National Education Assn. are organized, energized and mobilized to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America.”

. . .

Another example is Proposition 8, a controversial measure on the November ballot in California that would seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. The CTA, which represents more than 300,000 teachers, just this week contributed $1 million — on top of a previous $250,000 donation — to help defeat Proposition 8.

As usual, the CTA did not seek input from its rank-and-file members on this issue. Although certainly some teachers are in favor of same-sex marriage, others are not. And just what, exactly, does Proposition 8 have to do with education? Why is the CTA pushing a “values” agenda that many parents, and many of its own members, may find offensive?

Aside from political choice, there are other areas in which teachers don’t fare well under the auspices of their unions. Carol Katter, a veteran teacher and lifelong Catholic, objected to the fact that her union supports abortion on demand. When she sought a religious exemption from paying her dues, a union official suggested that she change her religion! In her state, Ohio, the law allowed only Seventh-day Adventists and Mennonites to claim such an exemption. Only after much legal wrangling was Katter able to do so.

One of the great bêtes noires of teachers unions is merit pay. They insist that all teachers at a similar point in their careers make the same amount of money, regardless of workload, classroom size, job performance or other measure. Good teachers earning more than bad teachers? Not on their agenda.

Clearly, this old-style industrial model of paying people based on seniority can kill incentive. Good teachers are less likely to have the incentive to excel when peers who have lower aspirations, are less talented or less effective make the same amount of money.

All of us who object to what amounts to taxation without representation must speak up. Teachers who are happy with their union should have the right to continue that affiliation. However, the rest of us — especially those who live in states where we are forced to join a union — would be well served to take a hard look at the organization that claims to represent our best interests and start demanding change.

From the Los Angeles Times:

A Los Angeles labor leader now the target of a corruption probe routinely ordered employees of a charity he headed to work on campaigns for political candidates — a practice barred by law — according to people who said they participated in such activities.

Tyrone Freeman, president of the Service Employees International Union’s largest California local, later denied to the Internal Revenue Service that the charity employees were required to do campaign work, said a person close to an IRS inquiry into the matter.

We have a hard time believing that the reported actions of Mr. Freeman are any different from hundreds of other union bosses. Political power has become the goal of organized labor, and they will use any tool at their disposal to grab it.

With polls showing that Sen. Barack Obama is likely to become the next President of the United States, the question is how fast he tries to repay his Big Labor benefactors by pushing for enactment of the coercive Card Check Scam Bill.

Peter Kirsanow, writing for the National Review blog “The Corner” believes action on the bill will start soon after inauguration day. “Smart money says that some form of EFCA [Employee Free Choice Act] will be one of the first bills Obama signs — perhaps as early as February,” Kirsanow writes.

We can’t disagree. Be prepared for a swift and ongoing attack on workers’ rights by the new Congress and new President.

We have been warning readers for years that enactment of the Card Check Scam Bill — certainly a top agenda item for a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president — will have a negative impact on Right to Work states, and more people are starting to recognize that fact.

The Birmingham Business Journal takes a look at the possible impact the so-called Employee Free Choice Act will have on Alabama employers:

The proposed bill, often referred to as card check legislation, would take away the right of the employer to demand a secret ballot when more than 30 percent of its employees petition in favor of union participation. If the petition is declared valid, the union would then be certified as the exclusive representative of all the company’s employees.

The bill also proposes federal mediation if a unionized company and a union can’t agree upon a collective bargaining contract within 120 days.

The concern for businesses is that unions might use pressure to push employees into union membership and that they won’t understand the ramifications, like the union bargaining exclusively for all employees, said Jay St. Clair of labor and employment law firm Littler Mendelson PC in Birmingham.

“The concern is that there can be coercion and people can’t vote their true feelings,” he said. “It does away with the fundamental process (secret ballot) that has been in law since 1930 and a process we’re all familiar with and have endorsed for 70 years.”

And in Virginia, where former Democrat Gov. Mark Warner is running for the Senate, Warner refuses to say that he will vote against the Card Check Scam Bill — a fact that has the Harrisonburg Daily News-Record rightfully up in arms:

As the polls repeatedly tell us, former Gov. Mark Warner makes an appealing candidate for U.S. Senate. But a recent refusal to commit, up or down, on an issue critical to many Virginia voters, in our mind, diminishes this appeal.

The issue to which we refer is the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which would, in essence, replace the secret ballot in the decision to organize a union with a “card check” system. The system would allow union organizers to place pressure — at times, undue pressure — on individual workers to “check” that “card” to organize a union. A secret ballot affords each and every worker, well, the secrecy of their vote on this matter. It affords them protection. So in a state such as Virginia, which cherishes a right-to-work tradition that for decades has been a foundation stone of state prosperity, Mr. Warner’s position, or lack thereof, should be political dynamite for the business community and its employees.

Asked no less than three times this past Friday during a question-and-answer session at The Winchester Star whether he would vote “yes” or “no” on this undemocratic bill, Mr. Warner admirably imitated a crawfish. He wiggled and danced, and gave explanations for his wiggling and dancing, but never did answer the question.

We find that middling odd — and much more when we note that such a committed old liberal as George McGovern has actually made a television commercial opposing this “undemocratic overreach.” Part of the script reads as follows: “Voting is an immense privilege. That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.”

We wholeheartedly agree with Mr. McGovern, but would lend a bit of nuance to his statement. While it is true that “labor” — and by this we mean individual workers — would see no benefit from this act, “Big Labor,” the unions themselves, could realize substantial succor.

For his part, Mr. Warner pledged fealty to the state’s right-to-work law and tradition, but said the process of union organization was an entirely different matter. He said “reform” of the process was necessary, and that “over the last eight years,” the balance had shifted too much toward management, at the expense of labor. Nonetheless, he did say he had certain “concerns” about provisions of the legislation in question. Bottom line: Mr. Warner said he would not vote for any measure giving an “unfair advantage” to labor or management, yet refused to commit either way on this piece of legislation.

Yet this bill would give an “unfair advantage” to labor leaders by taking away from workers the right to choose without coercion, the same right all Americans exercise in an election. What about this does Mr. Warner not understand — particularly when a liberal like George McGovern sees it so clearly? This is a right-to-work issue.

Often the Supreme Court — with the help of the National Right to Work Foundation staff — is the last place workers can go to protect their rights from Big Labor bosses. That’s why Right to Work staff lawyers made their 14th trip to the Supreme Court for oral arguments in the Daniel Locke v. Edward Karass case on October 6.

The case centers on previous court rulings that help employees not protected by Right to Work laws to refrain from joining a union. Union officials may still force non-members to pay union fees as a condition of employment; however, unions cannot force them to pay for activities like union politics and lobbying. But where to draw the line? The case will set criteria for determining whether an employee can be forced to fund Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

Stefan Gleason, of the Foundation, takes an in depth look at the case for the Capital Research organization.

Ford & Harrison’s D. Gerald Coker has taken an in-depth look at the Card Check Scam Bill and answers a number of fundamental questions:

As Coker notes, doing away with the secret ballot will empower union activists to use high-pressure tactics to force employees to sign a card. Workers need the protection of a secret ballot. The Card Check Scam Bill takes away that protection.

The largest circulation newspaper in America comes out against the Card Check Scam Bill:

Workers deserve to hear both sides, vote in private.

When citizens go to the polls on Nov. 4, they will be free to vote their conscience — regardless of pressure from relatives, friends or co-workers — after having had a chance to weigh the alternatives. Campaigns and secret ballots are sacrosanct elements of American democracy.

So it’s surprising and disturbing that organized labor wants to do away with both these elements when workers decide whether to form a union.

Under the current system, once 30% of a company’s workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.

Under a major rewrite of U.S. labor law being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.

This misguided measure passed the House shortly after Democrats took the majority in 2007. But it needs several more votes in the Senate and a president who will sign it. Barack Obama supports it; John McCain does not. It’s no surprise, then, that the AFL-CIO plans to spend an eye-popping $200 million this election cycle to support Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress. A win for Obama and big gains for Senate Democrats could remove the remaining obstacles to the euphemistically named “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Cajoled choice is more like it. The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren’t contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome.

Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney in the space below, argue that the proposed law wouldn’t prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they’d be unlikely to call for a vote they’d probably lose.

The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can’t agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.

Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it’s understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. But undermining democratic principles is not the answer.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission [FEC] asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

To read the rest of the Foundation’s press release on the FEC complaint, click here.