» Welcome

The National Right to Work Committee® is a coalition of 2.2 million American citizens united by one belief:

No one should be forced to pay tribute to a union in order to get or keep a job.

These citizens agree that Federal labor law should not promote coercive union power, and support the protection and enactment of additional state Right to Work laws until the federal sanction for compulsory unionism is eliminated.

Click here to learn more about the National Right to Work Committee and how you can help.

Help Us Fight Forced Unionism!

Contribute Now!

We at the National Right to Work Committee are fighting at many levels to protect America's working men and women's right to decide for themselves whether or not a union deserves their financial support.

Whether it be in the state and federal legislatures, the courts, or hearing rooms at the FEC or the NLRB, we fight to ensure that workers join unions because they want to -- not out of fear or federal mandate.

Please become an active member by pledging a monthly gift, or by helping us financially on one of the specific legislative efforts highlighted above.

National Right to Work Committee
8001 Braddock Road
Springfield, VA 22160
703-321-9820 (p)
703-321-7342 (f)
Email: members@NRTW.org

Because of NRTWC's tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501 (C) (4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contribu tions (IRC 170) or as a business deduction (IRC 162(e)(1).

Right to Work Blog

News & commentary from the legislative trail

Archive for the ‘Card Check’ Category

The Election Choice: Unions

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

With polls suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama will become the next President of the United States, more and more commentators are beginning to examine the impact Obama’s election will have on the legislative agenda of the Big Labor bosses. The Wall Street Journal’s take:

Big Labor is hoping to have a big election next Tuesday, with a goal of building a majority to rewrite negotiating rules between unions and management. Though it has received little media attention, Barack Obama’s pro-union agenda is the most ambitious in decades and has a real prospect of becoming law. His stated goal is to “strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions” by doing the following:

- Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Unions would be certified to negotiate pay, benefits and work rules simply by collecting signed “union authorization cards” from a majority of employees at a work site. The law passed the House in 2007 but didn’t come up for a Senate vote.

Under current law, union organizers and management both have the opportunity to present the pros and cons of forming a union. A secret employee vote is then held. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, unions would be the sole provider of information to the employee, and the worker’s decision whether to organize would no longer be private.

Unions say current law favors management, which can stall to a point where workers lose interest in organizing. But the median number of days between filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and holding an election has actually fallen over the past two decades. In 2007, more than 1,500 such elections were held, and unions won 54% of them, the same win rate of the early 1970s.

- Another labor-friendly provision of the Employee Free Choice Act is mandatory arbitration. Under current law, labor and management are required to bargain in good faith but aren’t obliged to reach an agreement. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, if the parties can’t settle on a contract within 120 days, the dispute goes to an arbitration panel which can impose a contract that is binding for two years.
As a practical matter, contracts typically involve dozens of provisions dealing with wages as well as seniority, grievances, overtime, transfers and promotions. Rarely is this accomplished in four months. The provision would notably shift bargaining power to unions, which would have an incentive to run out the 120-day clock and let an arbitrator impose a contract that is bound to include much of what unions demand.

- Mr. Obama also supports legislation to reverse the NLRB’s “Kentucky River” ruling last year, which fleshed out the definition of a supervisor for the purposes of organizing. Unions usually prefer a narrow definition of management, because it increases the number of people potentially under their control. Conversely, labor has worked to expand the definition of “employee” to include everyone from temp workers to graduate-student teaching assistants.

- The Democrat also wants to bar companies from replacing striking workers — a right that management has held for some 70 years. Unions made a similar push in the early 1990s, and a bill passed the House but was blocked in the Senate. Mr. Clinton issued an executive order that would have ended the provision for federal contractors. It was struck down in federal court. Mr. Clinton then tried to get the NLRB to make it more difficult to replace striking workers. The courts overturned that too. Mr. Obama says he will “work to ban the provision,” but hasn’t provided specifics.

- Mr. Obama supports the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act and has said he’d push for its enactment as president. The bill, which passed the House last year and already has 60 votes in the Senate, would force state and local governments to recognize union leaders as the exclusive bargaining agent for police, firefighters and other first responders. More than half of the states would have to change their laws. Thousands of public safety officers would no longer be able to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf.

- Last year Congress raised the minimum wage, which is set to rise to $7.25 an hour next year from the current $6.55. But Mr. Obama wants to raise it again, to $9.50 per hour by 2011, and index it for inflation. Mr. Obama says further increases are necessary so that “full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.” According to Census data, less than 1% of workers over 25 are earning the minimum. And rather than family heads or full-time workers, they tend to be young single adults, teenagers living at home or spouses providing a second income.
John McCain has not made labor issues a major part of his campaign, but he opposes both the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The Republican has also gone on the record in support of national right-to-work legislation that would repeal all current federal laws that authorize the firing of employees for refusing to join or pay dues to a union. Some 22 states currently have right-to-work laws, which Mr. Obama opposes.

Secret Ballots a Must to Protect Rights of Union Workers

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Kingley Guy of the Sun-Sentinel newspaper hits the nail on the head when he writes:

The right of workers to form a union is vital to American freedom, but the secret ballot is fundamental to it. Yet, Barack Obama and most Democrats in Congress are acting like marionettes as labor unions pull the strings to deny workers a secret vote when deciding whether to organize.

The so-called “card-check” legislation would allow a union to form when a majority of workers publicly affix their names to a document stating their desire for representation. The potential for abuse is obvious. Forget peer pressure, and instead think about union goons strong-arming members to sign up. Toe the line, or else!

The Democrats have given the pending legislation the Orwellian name of the “Employee Free Choice Act.” It should be called the “Sign Up, Or We’ll Break Your Kneecaps Act.”

“Vegas Style” Union Organizing

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

The Las Vegas Sun has an interesting overview of the stakes and implications of enacting the Card Check Scam Bill.

As the Sun reported, passage of the bill “. . . would for the first time in 60 years, allow workers to organize without putting the issue to a secret-ballot vote.”

The legislation also has a provision that would:

. . . stiffen penalties for employers who commit unfair labor practices during an organizing drive and impose binding arbitration in bargaining cases in which the sides cannot agree.

Taken together, the changes would shake the foundations of modern labor law and likely usher in the largest unionization drive since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Chicago-based Seyfarth Shaw LLP, a leading labor relations law firm, held a Web seminar last month outlining the implications of the bill . . . .

As Amanda Sonneborn, a lawyer with the firm, put it: “. . . you read it and weep.”

This isn’t speculation by Sonneborn. She points to Illinois as an example of the bill’s “cascading effect.”

The state passed mandatory card check in 2003. As a result, union density soared, she said. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, for instance, doubled its number of bargaining units in four years, Sonneborn said.

In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union has tripled its membership over the past 20 years primarily through negotiating voluntary card check agreements with casino companies. The union added 10,000 members from 2002 to 2005 alone — and will add another 6,000 when MGM Mirage’s CityCenter opens in 2009.

In Canada, the effect also has been striking. Thirty-two percent of the country’s workers belong to a union, a density not seen in the United States since the American labor movement’s pinnacle in 1955. Only 12 percent of American workers today belong to a union. Labor benefits from mandatory card check laws in some Canadian provinces. Alberta sports the lowest union density of those places — a whopping 24 percent.

. . . Under the card check bill, employers would face fines for unfair labor practices of up to $20,000 per violation.

Star Bulletin: Protect Secret Ballot Elections

Monday, May 5th, 2008

The Honolulu Star Bulletin is taking on Big Labor and their local congressman, Neil Abercrombie, by opposing efforts to enact the Card Check Scam Bill, both nationally and in Hawaii. The Star proclaims that Gov. Linda Lingle “. . . rightly vetoed a bill approved by the Legislature that would have had the effect of eliminating secret elections in union organizing . . . .”

Abercrombie had written an editorial supporting the elimination of secret ballot elections, but the Star didn’t find his reasoning compelling. “Abercrombie points out that management is known to pressure employees to reject union organization. That can be effective in discouraging them from signing union cards, but anonymity protected by secret ballots in union elections is the best way to thwart pressure from both management and labor.”

Stand Firm

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

“Maintaining the secret ballot is the best way to protect workers’ privacy and to ensure workers have the ability to vote their conscience without fear of repercussion or retaliation,” Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle said in a statement upon her veto of Hawaii H.B. 2974 (a Big Labor-backed bill to replace Hawaii’s current law that requires an election by secret ballot when workers attempt to organize).

“There is no compelling justification for replacing a fair, democratic process with one that has the potential to erode a worker’s existing rights and protections under the law,” she continued.

Indeed, there isn’t.

The likelihood of this vastly unpopular legislation receiving a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Legislature by May 1 to override the governor’s veto is slim, but we urge Hawaii’s Right to Work supporters to stand firm in their vocal opposition to this destructive legislation.

George Will on Card Check Scam Bill

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008

Columnist George Will reminds readers about the arrogance displayed by union bosses and their congressional benefactors pushing the Card Check Scam bill:

Bruce Raynor, president of the union Unite Here, expressed organized labor’s compassionate liberalism when he urged sparing workers the burden of democracy: “There’s no reason to subject workers to an election.” The House agreed, voting for “card check” organizing that strips workers of their right to a secret ballot when deciding for or against unionization of their workplace. Unions, increasingly unable to argue that they add more value than they subtract from workers’ lives, crave the “card check” system. Under it, once a majority of workers, pressured one at a time by labor organizers, sign a card, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers. Senate Republicans blocked this, but the Senate Democrats voted to cripple the Department of Labor agency that requires union bosses to explain how they spend their members’ money.

Union Bosses Giving Away the Store

Saturday, December 22nd, 2007

Tim Miller, writing for the New York Post, notes that:

There has been nothing coy about the Democratic presidential candidates’ courtship of Big Labor. After all, union endorsements come with armies of door-knocking, phone-calling, sign-waving foot soldiers; union leaders will spend about half a billion dollars on political campaigns this election cycle.

Of course, the union chiefs are making sure their political suitors come bearing gifts, and what they’re after - support for the de
ceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - is a much bigger present than flowers or chocolate.

EFCA, of course, would:

. . . strip employees of the right to a secret ballot vote, and make it much easier for union organizers to push employees into union membership - which in turn means more dollars for labor leaders.

Like a love note written in the heat of passion, Democrats have taken to describing their passion for Big Labor in stark terms.

“I will be the best union president in the history of this country,” John Edwards said.

Barack Obama gushed, “I’m ready to go on offense for organized labor; imagine a president who knows what it’s like to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and walk with you on that picket line.”

And Hillary Clinton, not to be outdone, donned un-presidential-like boxing gloves at an AFSCME press conference and said she would “go 10 rounds with anybody,” on behalf of the union bosses.

Of course, those ten rounds include union members whose rights will be trampled and pounded by enactment of the Card Check Scam bill.

As Miller concludes:

If union officials and politicians are allowed to consummate this relationship in 2008, the result will be a problem child that will choke the American economy for many years to come.

Big Labor Giveaway Blocked

Wednesday, June 27th, 2007

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

Murdock Gets it Right

Wednesday, April 4th, 2007

Syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock understands the Card Check scam: As the Senate considers this anti-democratic legislation, Democrats will fight for union bosses like UNITE’s [Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employee’s] Bruce Raynor. He perfectly expresses Big Labor’s position on job-site democracy: “There’s no reason to subject the workers to an election.”

Miller’s Backyard Paper Fights Card Check Scheme

Thursday, March 1st, 2007

The San Francisco Examiner has weighed in with a policy editorial opposing Rep. George Miller’s (D-CA) Card Check Bill calling it “Orwellian.”

“Under the [so-called] Employee Free Choice Act,” according to Miller’s cleverly worded press release . . . “[w]hat Miller really wants is to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, substituting a “card check” system whereby union activists collect cards allegedly signed by employees . . . . Abuses of workers’ true wishes not only are potential, they are guaranteed.”

Nice job — especially from a paper in Miller’s backyard.

Right to Work supporters can contact their representatives through the National Right to Work Committee’s website. Click on your state on the interactive map, and then click on the word “contact” beside your representative’s name. Urge your representative to oppose Big Labor’s attempt to eliminate the right of workers to a secret ballot election. Urge your representative to vote against the so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

Also contact Representative Miller and let him know that getting rid of workers’ right to a secret ballot election has nothing to do with “free choice.” It’s just a Big Labor power grab and a Congressional payoff for services rendered.