Right to Work Blog

Big Labor is making its presence felt at the Democrat convention in Denver and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Wall Street Journal.

We all know of Big Labor’s desperate effort to enact the Card Check Scam Law. But wait, there’s more:

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal “right to work” laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn’t win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one — Iowa — and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

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.

The United States Supreme Court has overturned a 9th Circuit Court ruling that tried to legitimize a massive Big Labor forced-unionism scheme.

As reported by Tony Mouro of the First Amendment Center:

By a 7-2 vote, the Court ruled that federal labor law prevents California from restricting the ability of employers to speak out against union organizing.

The state law, according to the Court, violated “Congress’ express protection of free debate” concerning unionization, and congressional desire to avoid regulation within “a zone protected and reserved for market freedom.” . . .

The California law, similar to statutes on the books or under debate in 20 other states, said that any employer receiving state funds through grants or contracts cannot use those funds — even when commingled with other money — to “assist, promote or deter union organizing.” The law also established what the Court said was a “formidable enforcement scheme” that required employers to maintain records that would establish whether state funds they received were used for purposes related to union organizing. . . .

“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,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which advocates measures that prevent employees in unionized workplaces from being coerced to join unions.

Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the decision as well. “Today the Supreme Court declared that it’s unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act for a state to muzzle employers’ speech rights.”

The Denver Post ran a column by Al Lewis that questioned the need to enact a Right to Work law in Colorado and the reaction has been visceral. Dozens of citizens have taken it upon themselves to teach Mr. Lewis a thing or two about the unfairness of forced unionism. A sample of the reaction:

* . . . I am 72 years old and had been in the work force for 50 years prior to my employment with the City of Boulder and this is the FIRST time that I have ever been in a union. $10.00 a month is deducted from my pay and to me it is a waste of my money. Don’t feel that I get anything for my money. Can’t even write it off on my taxes. A lot of us are part-time employees, so we don’t make that much anyway and I know most of my peers don’t like the fact that we have to pay union dues. . . .

* I work for Qwest Communications. As a condition of employment with the company, (union requirement) I am forced to pay union dues. I do not have to join the union, however.

I am happily NOT a member but still am forced to pay. . . .

* I was surprised you were unable to find people forced to pay union dues. Perhaps not everyone reads the newspaper. Nonetheless, I do and am grateful to be able to vent about my union dues obligation.

The International Association of Machinists Union (IAM), cover flight attendants employed with our major airline. We are REQUIRED to pay union dues. ([O]ur carrier has a policy against talking to the media, but I can tell you we used to have a large base here - until 1995.) There are still approximately 500 to 1,000 flight attendants residing in the Denver area who commute to work either in Houston, Newark or Cleveland (our three remaining hubs) and must pay dues.

We pay Colorado State taxes, so I’m guessing we all would be covered under Amendment 47 - should it pass.

I unwillingly have $44.75 taken out of my pay check every month. Should I request my employer cease from having the dues paid to the union - contractually they are required to fire me.

My opinion of the IAM union is — we are nothing more than a ‘cash cow’ to them. Their representation is feeble or lame at best.

I hope Amendment 47 passes the vote!

Why do union bosses so desperately want to enact the card check scam? The enactment of a state version of the bill in Colorado shows the reason why:

The Denver Post reports:

At least 22,500 secretaries, prison guards and other state employees will soon fall under a union monopoly bargaining contracts following a vote tallied Wednesday, though the majority of eligible workers didn’t cast a ballot [emphasis added.]

With Colorado’s version of the Card Check Scam, less than 25% of the workforce was able to force the other 75% into the union. About 6,900 state workers from a pool of 22,500 who were eligible participated in the election, which gave them a choice between Colorado WINS (a coalition of labor unions who got together to ensure there would be no fighting over the expected revenue stream) or no union representation.

Colorado union bosses try to justify forced-union dues, and their opposition to a state Right to Work law, by claiming that all employees “benefit” from forced-union representation.

But here is a clear case (one of an increasing number) where the school board wants to offer a substantial pay increase to a significant number of teachers in fields where there’s a shortage, and the union bosses oppose it and can almost certainly block it. Without a union, math and science teachers would get paid more next year than they actually will get paid with a union monopoly-bargaining agent. How are they benefiting? Forcing such teachers to pay union dues, even when they don’t belong to the union, adds insult to injury.

According to the Rocky Mountain News:

Denver Public Schools is eager to offer the largest annual pay increase in memory to its classroom teachers - one of its proposals would hike base salaries an average of 7.7 percent.

There’s more. With incentives available through the ProComp performance-pay system, average salaries, the district calculates, would rise by a jaw-dropping 18 percent.

Given the slumping economy, stagnating wages in the private sector and the fact that salaries at other local school districts may not keep pace with inflation, you’d think the Denver Classroom Teachers Association would be all over the offer. Instead, the union has flatly rejected it.

The district’s three-year-old ProComp program is the sticking point. All new hires are covered by ProComp, which is building up a sizable reserve from a tax approved by voters. The district wants to use that revenue to sweeten its incentive-based pay, such as for those who teach difficult subjects in hard-to-staff schools. It also wants to direct more money to teachers who are early in their careers.

The union instead is insisting that a new contract largely preserve the current salary structure, which gives a larger slice of the compensation pie to senior teachers and funnels less money into incentives.

The Denver Post has taken Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter to task for firing the first shot in the battle between Big Labor and workers, calling his pro-union-bosses giveaway “inane.”

Ritter’s weakness also has been exposed in his inability to avert a nuclear showdown on this fall’s ballot between business and labor leaders. Ritter provoked the business-sponsored right-to-work initiative with his inane executive order granting collective bargaining rights to state workers.

That, in turn, provoked labor to run a handful of ballot measures that would be devastating to Colorado businesses. And Ritter, so far, has been powerless to stop it.

Ritter needs to spend this summer somehow rebuilding the coalitions he frittered away with his labor giveaway. Otherwise, Coloradans can look forward to two more lackluster years while the state’s highways, bridges and universities crumble.

Big Labor has, so far, promised to spend a remarkable $35 million of forced union dues against a Right to Work initiative in Colorado. Much of the money will pour in from out of state.

The Denver Post reports that “more than $1.1 million of the nearly $1.6 million raised so far came from the Washington, D.C., offices of powerful unions such as the Service Employees International Union [SEIU], the AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [IBEW]. Nearly $500,000 came from local chapters of the Teamsters, the SEIU and other labor groups.”

An executive order by Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter opened the door to unionization of state employees, and the Colorado Springs Gazette estimates that nearly two-thirds of the state’s 32,000 government employees could be unionized by next month. Ritter’s order opened the door to a Card Check Scheme where, “[i]f 30 percent of the workers in any group sign petitions seeking an election, it allows them to vote on allowing one union to represent them in creating an ‘employee partnership agreement’ with the state.”

Colorado Springs Republican Rep. Bob Gardner, who has complained that unionized employees would demand greater compensation and strain the state’s budget, was not surprised after what he called an aggressive push by union leaders.

Although the order did not mandate binding arbitration, “Ben DeGrow, a policy analyst with the conservative Independence Institute, argued, however, that permitting partnerships opens the door to further allowances, including binding arbitration.”

Putting a layer of bureaucracy between employees and their managers also could serve to remove workers one step further from the taxpayers who are supposed to be their bosses, said Bob Culwell, a supervisor in the state Treasurer’s Office who opposes unionization.

Culwell called the push heavy-handed - he said he knows of state workers who have gotten visited at home by union representatives - and the campaigning has been done by union organizers rather than employees.

“I believe it’s in the realm of absolute metaphysical certitude that it could hurt taxpayers if this happens,” Culwell said. “The union, by definition, would be standing between them and would be operating in the interests of its members and, therefore, to the non-benefits of citizens.”

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) today released results from a series of surveys in the battleground states of Minnesota, Colorado and Maine conducted by McLaughlin & Associates showing that the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill is hurting its supporters at the ballot box.

Nearly two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68%), Maine (72%) and Minnesota (65%) oppose the Card Check scam. Moreover, voters in Minnesota and Colorado would be less likely to support candidates who support elimination of workplace secret ballot elections. Specifically, a plurality of voters would be less likely to vote for Mark Udall (44%) and Al Franken (41%) if they support this legislation.