RLA

Obama Bureaucrats Promote Monopolistic Unionism

On June 18, 2010, By NRTW Committee Staff

President Obama's overarching labor policy seems to be, "The more union monopoly bargaining, the better." Credit: L.A. Times

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Right to Work Fights For Independent Transportation Employees

Over the past three-quarters of a century, federal labor policy has done enormous damage to employees and businesses by authorizing and promoting monopolistic unionism.

Federally-imposed “exclusive” union bargaining undermines efficiency and productivity by forcing employers to reward equally their most productive and least productive employees.

The damage is compounded when the employees already hurt by being forced to accept a union bargaining agent opposed to their interests are forced as well to pay dues or fees to the unwanted union.

Fortunately, Right to Work laws in 22 states, where nearly 40% of the private-sector work force is employed, prohibit the collection of forced dues from the vast majority of employees. (Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress have recognized states’ freedom to protect employees’ Right to Work.)

However, in 1951, when Congress first foisted forced union dues and fees on employees covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), Big Labor senators and representatives opted to deny states the option to protect employees’ Right to Work.

Ever since, Big Labor has had the government-granted power to get airline and railroad employees fired for refusal to bankroll a union in all 50 states, including Right to Work states. (more…)

A Faster Track to Union-Boss Monopoly?

On March 11, 2010, By NRTW Committee Staff

Obama Bureaucrats Keen to Help Herd Transport Workers Into Unions

(Source: January 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Much that is written about American labor unions is misleading because it assumes they operate like other private, nonprofit organizations.

In key respects, this assumption is false. For example, affiliation with private organizations is, the vast majority of the time, a purely personal decision. But under federal labor law, union affiliation is not a personal decision.

Under American traditions of limited government, your decision to contribute your household’s money to a charity, a political campaign, or a single-issue lobbying organization is made individually, or together with your spouse or solicitor.

Public Overwhelmingly Opposes Union Monopoly Bargaining

Your neighbors, fellow employees, or business associates may offer advice, but do not get a chance to vote on which private groups you support or don’t support.

But U.S. labor laws empower pro-union employees who constitute a majority within a government-delineated “bargaining unit” to force other employees who don’t want a union to accept a particular union as their “exclusive” (monopoly) bargaining agent in their dealings with their employer.

Furthermore, once a monopoly-bargaining agent is in place, under federal law it and the employer are legally authorized to agree to fire employees who refuse to pay dues or fees to the union.

Apologists for current labor laws typically cite “majority rule” as the rationale for forcing unwanted union monopoly bargaining and forced dues or fees on employees who don’t wish to join a union.

But under our constitutional system, majority rule normally controls only the affairs of government or the internal affairs of a private association. The invocation of majority rule to force unwilling persons into membership in or financial support for a private organization is not acceptable.

For example, the decision by the majority of businesses in a community to join and pay dues to the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t give them the legal power, under any statute, to force the remaining businesses to join or pay dues.

Furthermore, opinion polls have shown for many years that the general public overwhelmingly opposes union monopoly bargaining.

Airline, Railroad Union Bosses Push For Expansion of Monopoly-Bargaining System

A recent nationwide survey conducted by veteran pollster Del Ali and his firm Research 2000 found that 81% of Americans who regularly vote in statewide elections believe that employees in unionized businesses who do not want to be union-represented should retain the right to bargain for themselves.

While the American people are clearly against monopoly bargaining, union officials and their apologists are for it and want far more of it.

That’s why, last fall, union bosses persuaded the two Barack Obama appointees who now constitute a majority of the three-member National Mediation Board (NMB) to rewrite the rules for union organizing under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

Under an NMB rule change published last November 3, airline and railroad union dons will need the backing only of a majority of employees who vote, not a majority of all employees within the bargaining unit, to get monopoly-bargaining power.

Once it becomes final, this rule will often allow a pro-union minority of workers to foist a union on the majority of their fellow employees who prefer not to have a union.

“Union lobbyists could try to get the same rewrite of RLA organizing rules adopted legislatively, but they know they couldn’t persuade even today’s Big Labor-dominated Congress to do so,” noted National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Congress fears the political consequences of creating an even faster track to union monopoly bargaining — specifically a backlash from employees, businesses and consumers. By now paving that faster track bureaucratically, the Obama Administration is being grossly irresponsible.”

Posted in: NRTWC Newsletter, National Mediation Board (NMB), Obama Administration, RLA

Government Union Bosses Suffer TSA Setback

On February 21, 2010, By NRTW Committee Staff

Despite Big Labor’s Intense Support, Southers Nomination Sinks

(Source: February 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

President Obama, Big Labor U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and union-label House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are all eager to help government union bosses grab monopoly-bargaining privileges over more than 45,000 airport screeners employed at the Transport Security Administration.

At the same time, however, neither the President nor the two congressional leaders seem to want to accept accountability for corralling TSA employees into a union. Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, and Ms. Pelosi know that foisting a union monopoly on a federal agency that is critical for national security would be very unpopular.

That’s why, until very recently, they planned to let Erroll Southers do their dirty work.

Last September, the President named Mr. Southers, a former FBI agent, as his choice to head the TSA.

Had the Senate confirmed him as assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for the TSA, Mr. Southers would have had the discretion to rescind administratively the prohibition on union monopoly bargaining over federal airport screeners imposed in 2003.

Unionization Would ‘Make It Harder’ For TSA to ‘Meet Changing Terrorist Threats’

And, even though Mr. Southers refused to say publicly whether or not he intended to hand government union bosses monopoly power to bargain over airport screeners’ working conditions once the Senate had confirmed him, Big Labor was obviously confident he would do just that.

On September 10, 2009, even before the President had officially nominated Mr. Southers, top bosses of the American Federation of Government Employees union (AFGE/AFL-CIO), who expect to be the principal beneficiaries of TSA monopoly bargaining, issued a press release applauding the choice.

The release quoted AFGE union President John Gage: “The question of [monopoly] bargaining . . . at TSA is not a matter of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ We are confident that the appointment of Mr. Southers as administrator will help put that matter to bed.”

By late November, the AFGE hierarchy appeared to be on the verge of having its way. Two Senate committees had already rubber-stamped the nomination in lopsided votes.

But the National Right to Work Committee and its 2.5 million members weren’t ready to let AFGE union kingpins coercively collectivize TSA airport screeners without a fight.

Working closely with key pro-Right to Work senators, the Committee moved late last fall to block the confirmation of Erroll Southers, and thus prevent union bosses from obtaining monopoly power to negotiate over how airport screeners do their jobs.

Handing Big Labor this power would, as the respected Wall Street Journal editorial page has pointed out, “make it harder for the executive branch to hire, fire, train and reassign workers to best meet changing terrorist threats.”

Pro-Right to Work South Carolina Senator Placed ‘Hold’ on Nomination

On November 29, pro-Right to Work Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) placed a “hold” on the Southers nomination, indicating his intent to prevent the nomination from moving forward until Mr. Southers had stated publicly and plainly whether or not he intended to unionize the TSA, and explained the reasons for his stance.

Subsequently, several other pro-Right to Work senators, including Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), declared that they also had “serious concerns” about Mr. Southers.

Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Reid vowed he would push aside all objections and ram through the nomination, without any additional debate, shortly after the Senate reconvened on January 19.

However, on January 20, beset by questions not just about whether he would impose union monopoly bargaining at the TSA, but also about his improper handling of confidential FBI files while employed there and his false testimony regarding the latter matter, Mr. Southers pulled out his nomination.

Battle Over TSA Employees’ Right to Work Goes On

“Thanks largely to the diligence of Right to Work legislative staff and the principled stance of Sen. DeMint, the AFGE union bosses’ scheme to seize monopoly-bargaining power over federal airport baggage screeners has been temporarily derailed,” said Committee President Mark Mix.

“Unfortunately, it is almost inevitable that President Obama’s next nominee to head the TSA, whoever that is, will wear a union label.”

“Once again, it will be up to Right to Work allies in the Senate to make sure the nominee provides clear answers on the monopoly-bargaining question before he or she is confirmed.”

Tagged with: Erroll Southers • Harry Reid • Jim DeMint • John Gage • Nancy Pelosi • TSA
Posted in: Forced-Dues for Politics, Government Grants to Unions, NRTWC Newsletter, National Mediation Board (NMB), Obama Administration, Public Employees, RLA

Big Labor for Coakley — It's lonely out there!

On January 19, 2010, By Post

Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley’s campaign was so dependent on big labor, “it was all we had,” one Democrat political consultant said.

75 Years Of Policy Turned on its Head

On December 12, 2009, By Post

At the prodding of Big Labor, The National Mediation Board, which regulates the rail and air industry, is preparing to overturn 75 years of labor policy.

From Wall Street Journal:

The board plans to stack the deck for organized labor in union elections. Under a proposed rule, unions would no longer have to get the approval of a majority of airline workers to achieve certification. Not even close. Instead, a union could win just by getting a majority of the employees who vote. Thus, if only 1,000 of 10,000 flight attendants vote in a union election, and 501 vote for certification, the other 9,499 become unionized.

This radical break with precedent is the handiwork of President Obama’s appointees to the three-member board: Harry Hoglander, once president of a pilots union, and Linda Puchala, former president of the Association of Flight Attendants.

The board got a request to adopt the jerry-rigged voting standard from the AFL-CIO in September. Without a hearing or invitation for preliminary views, the Obama duo drafted the AFL-CIO demand and published it in the Federal Register. It’s now subject to a 60-day comment period, after which Ms. Puchala and Mr. Hoglander will no doubt vote to inflict it on all the nation’s airline and rail carriers.

Since 1934, every National Mediation Board—even those with Democratic majorities—has upheld the current rule on grounds that companies governed by the Railway Labor Act are vital to the U.S. economy. The existing rules were designed to reduce strikes by ensuring that a majority of airline and rail employees support union representation. In their rule change, Mr. Hoglander and Ms. Puchala brush aside the many historical and legal barriers to their change, arguing that under “broad statutory authority” they can do what they want.

And that’s kind compared to their treatment of the board’s Bush-appointed Chairman Liz Dougherty. According to a letter Ms. Dougherty sent Congress, the two Democrats never sought her input or participation in crafting the proposal. Instead, they gave her a “final” version of the rule, said they were sending it in two hours and forbade her from publishing a dissent. They relented later, but only if she removed some of her criticism.

Ms. Dougherty noted such “arbitrary” and “exclusionary” behavior (we’d call it thuggish) has never been the norm at the agency. Her Democratic colleagues’ frantic rush to change a 75-year-old rule “gives the impression that the Board has prejudged this issue,” and is trying to “influence the outcome of several very large and important representation cases currently pending.”

Indeed. The AFL-CIO letter was inspired by Delta’s acquisition of Northwest. Northwest was largely unionized but Delta wasn’t. The unions are now struggling to win the required new elections, and they want the Mediation Board to manipulate the rules in their favor. It is growing clear that Ms. Puchala and Mr. Hoglander are in on the game. So too, presumably, are the folks who appointed them.

Tagged with: Teamsters • UTU
Posted in: Monopoly Bargaining, Obama Administration, RLA

Railroading Workers

On November 16, 2009, By NRTWC Staff

Katie Packer looks at the National Mediation Board’s effort to change the rules to railroad workers into labor unions.

In a backdoor attempt to force unionization on workers, the National Mediation Board (NMB), which oversees labor relations in the airline and railroad industries, is proposing a change to rules for aviation and railway workplace organizing. The NMB’s proposal would change the voting process from majority rule, which has been in place for 75 years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, to minority rule. This would allow the will of a small group of employees to dictate the fate of the entire workforce.

Instead of requiring a majority of employees to vote for union representation, a majority of only those voting in the election would be required. This assumes that anyone not casting a ballot is, in fact, in favor of abdicating their own right to negotiate with their employer and allowing a union to represent them.

Who is asking for this rule change? Not a majority of railway and airline workers, or their employers. The request comes from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), in a self-serving attempt to make it easier to unionize so they can collect massive union dues at the expense of our freedoms.

The AFL-CIO has demanded that the NMB throw out the process by which airlines allow their employees to unionize due to Delta Airlines’ union elections. Delta Airline’s rules about the unionization process currently require a majority of the employees to support unionization in order for the process to move forward. For greedy, labor bosses at the AFL-CIO this reasonable standard which has been in place for nearly a century is – all of a sudden – unworkable.

The AFL-CIO wants to change the rules so that more workplaces can be under the authority of labor bosses, many of whom have sordid pasts like Mr. Richard Trumka.

Simply stated, this is an attack on the democratic process and highlights the means by which the AFL-CIO is attempting to force unionization on workers across the country.

By attempting to change these rules in the airline industry, the AFL-CIO is demonstrating exactly why the rules were put in place to begin with – to protect industries that are critical to the infrastructure and operation of the country. Snatching the power away from workers and forcing a minority rule is just plain wrong, any way you look at it.

I believe that NMB’s proposal is also a backdoor scheme to usher in portions, if not all, of the job-killing Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA), which will also force unionization on workers.

EFCA is at the top of the union bosses’ agenda because it will increase dues-paying members at a time when private-sector union membership is at its lowest in recent history.

The Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act would give the government control over contract negotiations and lead to decisions over workplace benefits, rules, and salaries that are then binding and cannot be appealed. In addition to workers putting their fate in the hands of a government arbitrator, workers would lose the right to vote by secret ballot during union-organizing elections.

Yet, EFCA will cause a loss of 600,000 jobs in the first year it’s passed, with more to come in the following years. There is no good that can come from forced unionization that will result in more unemployment and lost freedoms.

This NMB proposal is nothing but another bailout for special interests at the expense of worker freedoms. The American people do not support forced unionization and the National Mediation Board’s actions set a dangerous precedent that the public and small business across the country cannot and will not support.

Posted in: National Mediation Board (NMB), RLA

A Pro-Freedom Ruling

On December 19, 2007, By Linda Staulcup

Once again the legal-eagles at the National Right to Work have stuck a blow for freedom when an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) struck down a nationwide policy of a major international union that requires employees to object annually to prevent union officials from spending union dues for political activities. The policy is a pervasive tactic used by union officials to prevent dissenting employees from reclaiming forced-union dues used to promote political causes they oppose.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped Robert Prime, an employee of L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC at the Naval Air Station, file unfair labor practice charges in December 2003 against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union Local Lodge 2777. The charges alleged that union officials violated Prime’s rights by forcing him to renew his objection to funding union political advocacy every single year.

NLRB administrative law judge Michael A. Marcionese issued a ruling from the bench yesterday at the conclusion of a hearing in Pensacola. Marcionese found that the IAM policy was arbitrary, discriminatory, and bordered on being irrational. Although Foundation attorneys have asked for refunds for any objecting employee nationally within the last four years, the scope of the remedy will remain unclear for the next few weeks until the judge issues a supporting written ruling.

In November 2003, Prime filed an objection with IAM union officials to funding their political activities, as the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck decision permits. The Beck decision recognized that workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership and cannot be forced to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. However, when Prime asked union officials to honor his request as a “continuing objection,” IAM officials refused, claiming that Prime and his coworkers must object annually because they are not subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

IAM union officials already accept “continuing objections” from railroad and airline employees covered by the RLA due to favorable rulings in prior Foundation cases. However, union officials arbitrarily refuse to abide by those rulings for employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

“America’s workers may have one fewer hoop to jump through to reclaim their forced dues used for politics,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

“However, this lengthy legal battle underscores why no one should be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union in the first place.”

Florida’s highly-popular Right to Work law, on the books since 1944, is one of 22 state laws that secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.

However, because Vertex Aerospace employees work on federal property under “exclusive federal jurisdiction,” the state’s Right to Work law does not protect those workers from being forced to pay union dues to keep their jobs.

Tagged with: IAM • NLRB
Posted in: Forced-Dues for Politics, RLA

Big Labor for Coakley — It's lonely out there!

75 Years Of Policy Turned on its Head

Railroading Workers

A Pro-Freedom Ruling

Right2Work Tweets

NRTWC Blog Archives

Blog Categories

Right to Work Links

Obama Bureaucrats Promote Monopolistic Unionism

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

A Faster Track to Union-Boss Monopoly?

(Source: January 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Government Union Bosses Suffer TSA Setback

(Source: February 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Big Labor for Coakley — It's lonely out there!

75 Years Of Policy Turned on its Head

Railroading Workers

A Pro-Freedom Ruling

Right2Work Tweets

NRTWC Blog Archives

Blog Categories

Right to Work Links

Blog Tags