Right to Work Blog

An AT&T employee has sought and received support from the National Right to Work Foundation over the illegal threats the union made when he expressed his desire not to strike.

The argument that workers will be pressured into joining a union if the Forced Unionism Card Check Bill is enacted into law is not theoretical. Fox News interviewed workers at Dana Corporation Auto Parts for the real story of the Card Check process.

Former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s parting gift to Big Labor has been repealed:

Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order Thursday repealing the move by her predecessor to require state agencies to meet with unions representing state workers.

Brewer said the “meet and confer” requirement is inconsistent with constitutional provisions making Arizona a “right to work” state. That prohibits anyone from being required to join a union to get or maintain a job.

Brewer said she feared the order, signed by Janet Napolitano after she knew she was quitting to take a job in the Obama administration but a month before she actually left, “unnecessarily exposes the state to legal claims” and conflicts with the constitution.

Those aren’t our words (though the thought has crossed our minds) but the words of Malcolm Harris, the boss of the Union of Union Representatives which represents 210 employees of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The group is picketing the SEIU brass, accusing them of “union busting and anti-worker policies,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. (This also begs the question, if you work at the Union of Union Representatives, would you be represented by the union of Union of Union Representatives?)

For refusing to unionize the employees of the Delta Queen, an historic U.S. landmark, the Seafarers International Union used its political muscle to sink the ship’s business.

The actions of the American Federation of Musicians in California hit a sour note with seven nonmember musicians who were blacklisted by the union. They have filed a lawsuit in federal court with the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Film Music Magazine has the story:

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the suit alleges that union officials conspired to blacklist musicians in retaliation for resigning from formal union membership. Union officials are accused of violating their “duty of fair representation” by refusing nonmember musicians access to a rehearsal hall, hindering their efforts to find employment, and enshrining certain discriminatory policies in contracts with several local symphonies.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, workers have the right to resign from formal, full dues-paying union membership. Because California has no Right to Work law making dues payment strictly voluntary, employees in a union-controlled bargaining unit can still be obligated to pay certain dues for union activities related to collective bargaining. However, employees who exercise their right to resign from formal union membership cannot be discriminated against by union officials or employers. The lawsuit contends that every plaintiff musician has met its forced-dues obligation to the union’s local affiliates.

The Foundation, in a press release describing the lawsuit, described the specific allegations claimed by the musicians:

* “AFM union employees attempted to blacklist dissenters who resigned their union membership by informing prospective employers that they were “not in good standing” and therefore ineligible for work. As a result, several orchestras and producers declined to hire nonunion musicians.”

* “AFM union officials included a discriminatory clause in contracts with local orchestras explicitly forbidding the employment of nonunion workers.”

* “Union officials from one local also prevented nonunion employees from accessing a rehearsal hall used by several employers.”

Foundation attorneys are seeking financial restitution for the plaintiffs as well as a court injunction preventing future discriminatory practices.

“Ugly union discrimination and intimidation of this nature is a widespread practice in the entertainment industry,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We expect the union will face a substantial and embarrassing defeat as a result of this lawsuit.”

With Washington State quickly developing a reputation as a big labor fiefdom, SEIU boss Andy Stern has set his sights on the Evergreen State in his effort to limit the state’s investment in private equity companies.

The Wall Street Journal notes:

The SEIU recently filed a citizens initiative to the Washington legislature to limit the state’s investment in private equity companies. Under the proposed SEIU-drawn rules, the State Investment Board, which manages $62 billion in public pension money, would be required to consider certain “societal criteria” before it could invest in the likes of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts or the Carlyle Group.

On the SEIU political checklist are a private equity firm’s “lack of transparency, poor employment practices, environmental impacts and other indicators of irresponsible corporate behavior.” The Investment Board would also have to encourage private equity to comply with the SEIU’s vision of “corporate responsibility.” That means firms would have to release data on revenues, taxes, and executive compensation, provide “living wages and benefits,” recognize a “collective bargaining representative” at each portfolio company, and mitigate “climate risk,” which is to say be politically correct on global warming. The Investment Board itself would also have to “support changes to tax laws that eliminate unfair advantages” to private equity, and more.

In other words, Washington state pension funds would for all practical purposes be barred from investing in private equity. State Investment Board Executive Director Joe Dear concluded as much when he told a local newspaper that “No private equity firm that we want to do business with will do business with us under these terms.” He predicted this would “cost taxpayers and beneficiaries millions in higher taxes and contributions.”

And he has the data to prove it. Nearly $14 billion of Washington’s investments are in private equity, which has provided returns of 12.6% over the past decade, compared to 7.9% for pension holdings as a whole. Barring private equity would “destroy our ability to invest in our highest-returning asset class,” said Mr. Dear. The losers would be union pensioners who depend on those returns for retirement income.

Mr. Stern’s real agenda here is to coerce private equity firms into giving his union a free hand in organizing workers at their portfolio companies. Having failed to organize those workers in elections, or to negotiate unionization deals with private equity management, Mr. Stern is now seeking political retribution. His strategy is to demonize the industry in public and promote damaging legislation until the companies give in. . . .

Investment boards should be focused in on one goal — achieving the best return for investors and taxpayers possible. Playing Big Labor politics with seniors’ retirement funds is a recipe for disaster.

As you watch the Democrat convention in Colorado, keep in mind that over one quarter of all delegates are union activists. With a receptive audience, the AFL-CIO promises to “. . . charge up delegates for the convention and a hard-fought election season. They’ll discuss the Labor 2008 grassroots political program and key issues in the election, . . . ” including the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

Big Labor’s organizers will brief delegations as to why the law is priority number one for the union bosses.

It’s sad but true, the party that claims to champion voting rights for all now supports repeal of secret ballot elections for some. With so many union operators pulling the strings at the convention, there is little hope the Democrat party will stand up for workers’ right to choose whether or not they want to join or pay dues to a union.

As pointed out by Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow.com: “A considerable amount of funds raised toward defeating California’s Proposition 8 — which would define marriage as between one man and one woman — has come from two unions.” But despite the fact that California is not a Right to Work State, workers can do something about it.

In an interview with OneNewsNow.com, Stefan Gleason with the National Right to Work Foundation explains that:

“In this situation, many teachers may be very outraged to find out that their money is being diverted into this kind of a left-wing and controversial social cause,” he contends.

Gleason says union members need to learn their rights because unions are not letting them know. He explains that if members object on religious grounds, they need to submit a list of two or three organizations they can support, and they then agree with the union on a charity. “And the union may or may not agree to that. There may be some back-and-forth, but it has to be a mutually agreed upon charity,” Gleason adds. “It has to be one that does not conflict with the employee’s religious beliefs.”

The California Teacher’s Association is one of the unions supporting retaining homosexual marriage, which in May was legalized by the state supreme court.

An audit of the Teachers Association of Long Beach (TALB), California, confirms that workers’ dues money that was to go to the general fund was used for election campaigns, according to the Long Beach Press Telegram.

The audit found that:

Political expenses appeared to have been paid with money designated for the union’s general operations, and not from separately maintained accounts reserved for political causes.

The amount of campaign spending appeared to have exceeded the totals approved by the union’s two governing bodies. . . .

. . . [A]uditors found that TALB appeared to have used $39,629 from its nonpolitical accounts for campaign purposes, according to a copy of the audit, which was based on the firm’s review of financial documents and employee interviews.

Of that total, $10,667, which had been designated for bargaining expenses, apparently was spent on political items such as postage, a banner, campaign photography, legal services and other purchases, the auditors concluded.

They concluded that the money should have been allocated to the union’s separately maintained political fund.

Because union members designated specific amounts of their dues for politics, the use of TALB’s financial resources for political activities “would be considered a misappropriation of funds,” auditors concluded in their written findings.

Also part of the $39,629 total was a nearly $29,000 check from TALB general funds made out in August of 2006 to attorney Fredric Woocher for the payment of legal fees. An invoice from Woocher’s law firm did not specify the exact purposes of the legal services that were provided, according to the auditors. . . .

Workers in California do not have the Right to Work and are coerced into joining the union and paying union dues even after mismanagement of their funds.