November-December 2011 issue headlines:

Capitol Hill Support For Right to Work Growing — More Senators, Representatives Cosponsor Compulsory-Dues Repeal

Obama Bureaucrats Bolster Monopolistic Unionism — Labor Board Chipping Away at ‘Choice to Remain Unrepresented’

United Way Chief: ‘Please Support Your AFL-CIO’ — Brian Gallagher Prods Charity Workers to Assist Union Lobbyists

Lafe Solomon ‘Did What IAM Bosses Told Him To’ — E-mails Reveal Why Top NLRB Lawyer ‘Screwed up the U.S. Economy’

College Graduates Flock to Right to Work States — States Seeking a ‘Brain Gain’ Should Bar Compulsory Union Dues

All in All, ‘a Hopeful Year For America’ — Big Labor Bosses Fume as Benefits of Wisconsin Reform Spread

Dr. Moe: As long as monopolistic teacher unions “remain powerful,” effective schools “will be short-changed.”

Stanford Professor Lambastes Monopolistic Teacher Unionism

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

On June 1, Tennessee achieved a legislative milestone when its elected officials effectively repealed a 33-year-old state statute authorizing and promoting union monopoly-bargaining control over teachers and other K-12 public school instructional employees.

Under the new K-12 reform law approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Bill Haslam (R ), no union or other organization will be handed a legally protected monopoly over all “employee” input in discussions with school boards over working conditions.

Once this law, known as the Collaborative Conferencing Act, takes effect, teachers who choose not to join any union will, for the first time in decades, have a voice in discussions throughout Tennessee regarding salaries, benefits and grievances.

Tennessee revoked teacher union bosses’ monopoly-bargaining privileges last month largely thanks to persistent lobbying by the roughly 46,000 National Right to Work Committee members and supporters in the Volunteer State.

And, according to Stanford University political scientist and education specialist Terry Moe, the Tennesseans who helped pass the Collaborative Conferencing Act have done an enormous favor for their state’s schoolchildren.

From Children’s Standpoint, Union Boss-Perpetuated Salary Rules ‘Make No Sense at All’

In his new book Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools (Brookings Institution Press), Dr. Moe documents how teacher union monopoly bargaining, still statutorily enshrined in more than 30 states, impairs school outcomes while sharply raising the cost to taxpayers.

In practice, charges Dr. Moe, “exclusive” union bargaining routinely produces “key decisions that depart from — and are systematically biased against — what is best for kids and effective organization.”

One example among many are so-called “single salary schedules” that furnish teachers with extra pay for additional degrees and course taking, even though “research has consistently shown” that simply accumulating degrees and/or additional course credits, “does not make teachers more effective.”

From “the standpoint of what is best for children,” such Big Labor-perpetuated salary rules “make no sense at all” (emphasis Dr. Moe’s). But teacher union officials ferociously defend “single salary schedule” rules, because they keep educators dependent on the union for securing better pay and career advancement.

Monopolistic Unionism Can Never Be ‘Reform Unionism’

In today’s America, Special Interest goes on to point out, many education policymakers and other leaders “recognize that teacher unions are standing in the way of effective schools,” but mistakenly believe that union officials “can be persuaded to do good things with their [monopolistic] power.”

This is the false hope of what is commonly called “reform unionism.”

Of course, in the current political environment, with millions of Americans demanding major changes in schools that consume a higher and higher share of taxpayers’ incomes even as school enrollments and standardized test scores stagnate, it often behooves teacher union bosses to feign openness to reform.

But “when the details are ultimately hashed out,” supposedly “reformist” teacher union bosses like American Federation of Teachers (AFT/AFL-CIO) union czarina Randi Weingarten “will ultimately weaken, limit, and dissipate reform” to protect core teacher union institutional interests.

“National Right to Work Committee members and supporters have long known that eliminating teacher union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues is an indispensable precondition for achieving genuine, significant education reform,” commented Committee Vice President Mary King.

“But Terry Moe is to be commended for thoroughly explaining how monopolistic teacher unions are destroying educational opportunities for millions and millions of schoolchildren and ripping off taxpayers.

“I’m hopeful that Special Interest will receive a wide distribution, and inspire even more freedom-loving Americans to press their state legislators to emulate their counterparts in Tennessee by prohibiting union monopoly bargaining in public education.”

August 2011 issue headlines:

Committee Mobilizes Support For Forced-Dues Repeal — House Speaker Urged to Allow Roll-Call Floor Vote on H.R.2040

Still Eager to ‘Strap’ Workers ‘to the Mast’– Ex-Clinton Labor Chief Tramples Truth to Defend Forced Unionism

State After State Rejects Union-Only PLAs — But Obama Administration Continues to Back Anti-Taxpayer Schemes

Recent Right to Work Victories Under Fire — Big Labor Campaigning For Reinstatement of Forced Union Dues

House Jousts With Obama NLRB’s Top Lawyer — But Congress Needs to Do Much More to Curtail Board Abuses

‘Choice to Remain Unrepresented’ Under Attack — Extremist Vision of Obama NLRB Appointee Moves Toward Realization

(Source: June 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

With their hopes buoyed by the passage earlier this year of two new state laws barring the extraction of forced union dues from public servants in Wisconsin and Ohio, pro-Right to Work Americans are now preparing to take the offensive in the U.S. Congress.

“National Right to Work Committee members and their grass-roots allies in the Badger and Buckeye States stunned Big Labor in March when they successfully lobbied for legislation removing government union bosses’ forced-dues privileges,” recalled Committee Vice President Mary King.

“Now it’s time for Committee members and supporters nationwide to show we can lobby just as effectively in support of legislation that would repeal federally-imposed forced union dues and fees.”

S.504 and H.R.2040 Would Repeal Federally-Imposed Forced Union Dues

Ms. King continued: “When it comes to private-sector forced unionism, Congress is the culprit.

“Congress rubber-stamped the provisions in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] and the 1951 Railway Labor Act [RLA] amendments under which an estimated 6.3 million private-sector employees must now pay dues or fees to their Big Labor monopoly-bargaining agent, or face termination from their jobs.

“Therefore, Congress has the primary responsibility to remedy the injustice it spawned.”

On May 26, legislation repealing the NLRA and RLA provisions that authorize compulsory union dues and fee payments as a condition of employment was introduced in the U.S. House as H.R.2040 by pro-Right to Work Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa).

The Senate version of this national Right to Work measure was introduced several weeks earlier as S.504 by staunch forced-unionism foes Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

The two measures have a total of 19 congressional sponsors as this Newsletter edition goes to press.

“The principle behind S.504 and H.R.2040 is that Congress should not authorize a labor union or any other private organization to compel financial support from people who don’t want to be members,” explained Ms. King.

“The fact is, conscientious and talented employees are all too often harmed when they are forced, by government policy, to accept an unwanted union as their ‘exclusive’ bargaining agent on matters concerning their pay, benefits and working conditions.

“Harvard economist Richard Freeman, arguably the leading academic apologist for forced unionism in the U.S., has actually paid tribute to union bosses’ remarkable success in ‘removing performance judgments as a factor in determining individual workers’ pay.’

“And when unionized employees who would surely get paid more if their employer could take their personal performance into account are forced to pay dues or fees to the very union bosses who prevent their employer from doing so — that’s like pouring salt in a wound.

“Right to Work is the right thing to do, period. And it’s also sound economics.

“Years of official federal data show forced-unionism policies hinder private-sector job and income growth.”

Votes Would Draw Bright Lines Between Right to Work Allies and Big Labor Stooges

In the months ahead, Ms. King and other Right to Work leaders will deploy the Committee’s mail, e-mail and telecommunications operations to mobilize its 2.6 million members in support of recorded Senate and House votes on S.504 and H.R.2040.

“Recorded votes will advance the Right to Work cause even if Big Labor rounds up enough pro-forced unionism and union boss-appeasing politicians to prevent the legislation from passing in either chamber of Congress,” Ms. King explained.

“That’s because recorded votes will make it clear exactly which politicians support employees’ personal freedom of choice, and which are Big Labor stooges. And poll after poll shows nearly 80% of Americans who regularly vote in federal elections support Right to Work.”

June 2011 issue headlines:

Committee Mobilizes Against NLRB Power Grab — Obama Bureaucrat Eager to Tell Businesses Where They May Expand

Teachers Aren’t ‘Interchangeable’ in Tennessee — Volunteer State Teacher Union Bosses Losing Monopoly Privileges

Right to Work Good For Pay and Benefits — Private-Sector Compensation Growth Lags in Forced-Unionism States

Union Bosses Out For Revenge in Wisconsin — Pro-Right to Work Legislators Targeted in July ‘Recall’ Elections

Michigan Renounces Day-Care Forced Unionism — But Union Dons May Get to Keep $4.5 Million Wrung From Providers

Right to Work Bill Introduced in U.S. House — Would Bar Firing Employees For Refusal to Bankroll Unwanted Union

Big Labor Blitzes For Compulsory Unionism in Wisconsin and Ohio

(Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Since the 1960′s, Big Labor lobbyists in 21 states have successfully pressured elected officials to pass statutes explicitly authorizing union bosses to get independent-minded public servants fired for refusal to pay dues or fees to a union the employees would never voluntarily join.

Until this year, despite the growing success of the Right to Work movement with regard to the private sector, not a single state legislature had ever revoked government union bosses’ forced-dues privileges after previously granting them by statute.

But this March two states, Wisconsin and Ohio, made history by restoring the Right to Work of public servants.

Over ferocious and sometimes menacing Big Labor opposition, Badger State legislators approved, and GOP Gov. Scott Walker signed into law, S.B.11. Key provisions in this law abolish all forced union dues and fees for teachers and many other public employees. Unfortunately, it leaves public-safety officers unprotected.

The Buckeye State reform, which union militants opposed with nearly equal bitterness but considerably less media attention, includes provisions protecting the Right to Work of all categories of state and local government employees, including public-safety officers. This law, signed by GOP Gov. John Kasich, is still commonly referred to by its legislative bill number, S.B.5.

National Right to Work Helped Mobilize Public Support For Reforms

“Public support for S.B.11 was mobilized in part by the National Right to Work Committee’s e-mail and telecommunications activities,” noted Committee Vice President Matthew Leen. “And the 118,000 National Committee members in Ohio were instrumental in helping secure the passage of S.B.5.

“These were major victories for the Right to Work cause. But they are in danger of being reversed.”

In Wisconsin, Mr. Leen noted, a Dane County Circuit judge whose son is a union operative and currently runs a consulting firm for union-label politicians in the state has taken the extraordinary step of prohibiting publication, let alone enforcement, of S.B.11.

The state Supreme Court may well ultimately overturn Judge Maryann Sumi’s edict, but this could take months, or even years.

And in Ohio, Mr. Leen added, the union brass has announced it is prepared to spend $20 million to kill S.B.5 in a statewide referendum this November. Big Labor agents are now collecting signatures to get their repeal measure on the ballot.

Right to Work Leader Hopeful Big Labor Blitzes Can Be Repelled

“In both states, the National Committee will be offering our advice and counsel, as well as financial resources, to citizen groups and individuals who are battling to keep the new Right to Work laws on the books,” said Mr. Leen.

“Given the enormous amount of forced-dues money union bosses continue to have at their disposal in Wisconsin and Ohio, these will be difficult fights. But one important factor we have in our favor is that Gov. Walker and Gov. Kasich have both demonstrated they are willing to stand up for the Right to Work principle.

“Both Mr. Walker and Mr. Kasich offer a refreshing contrast to another Midwestern Republican governor, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, who sabotaged comprehensive Right to Work legislation in his state this year rather than face a showdown with Big Labor over it.

“Thanks in part to the willingness of Mr. Walker and Mr. Kasich to use their bully pulpits to counter Big Labor distortions and falsehoods, I am hopeful the new public-sector Right to Work measures in Wisconsin and Ohio will withstand all union-boss assaults.”

The White House said it “strongly opposes” a provision in the House Appropriations Committee’s military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that would block the administration from encouraging the use of so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs). Such pacts allow government contracts to be awarded exclusively to unionized companies.

The Obama administration says the use of these arrangements “can provide structure and stability to large construction projects,” according to the policy statement. “The coordination achieved through PLAs can significantly enhance the economy and efficiency of Federal construction projects.”

That wording is similar to a February 2009 executive order stating it was the administration’s policy to encourage “executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement.”

The House panel’s language would prohibit future use of that order.

“The vast majority of contractors and their employees — more than 80 percent — have voluntarily opted against unionization,” according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Because most contractors and employees choose to refrain from unionization when they have the free choice, Big Labor turned to politicians to remove that choice and impose union representation on employees from the top down.”

In an apparent shot across the committee’s bow, the White House added that it “strongly opposes inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.”

If the provision is included in the final version of the legislation, the administration would oppose it — but the White House stopped short of threatening a veto.

(Source: March 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

In Contrast, Maine Governor Stands Up For His Avowed Principles

Eight years ago, Indiana citizens who were determined to free themselves and their fellow Hoosiers from the shackles of compulsory unionism launched what they knew from the beginning would be a sustained, and often difficult, effort to pass a state Right to Work law.

Ever since then, the organization these citizens put into high-gear in 2003, the Indiana Right to Work Committee, has mobilized an ever-loudening drumbeat of support for employee freedom.

Over the course of the ongoing campaign, the Indianapolis-based Right to Work group has benefited from the counsel and experience of the National Right to Work Committee.

And National Committee members and supporters who live in the Hoosier State, roughly 119,000 strong and growing in number year after year, have been the bulwark of the Indiana Right to Work campaign.

Stubborn Opposition to Right To Work Has Ended Long Political Careers in Indiana

In the 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 state election cycles, pro-Right to Work Hoosiers sent thousands upon thousands of postcards, letters, and e-mail messages to their legislative candidates urging them to oppose forced unionism. Right to Work activists also reinforced the point with phone calls and personal visits.

Since the Indiana Committee emerged as a major statewide citizens lobby, many politicians who once rode the fence have decided to take a stand in favor of Right to Work. Other politicians who stubbornly continued to carry water for, or at least appease, Big Labor have gone down to defeat.

For example, in early 2005, then-Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton (R-Columbus) told National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix that Right to Work legislation wouldn’t get a floor vote in his chamber as long as he held his leadership position.

In 2006, Mr. Garton, a 36-year incumbent and the longest serving Senate pro tem in American history, was defeated by primary challenger Greg Walker, an underfunded political novice. A critical asset Mr. Walker did have going for him was his 100% support for Right to Work.

That same year, 26-year state Rep. Mary Kay Budak (R-LaPorte) was ousted in a primary upset by pro-Right to Work challenger Tom Dermody. A few months earlier, Ms. Budak had been one of the minority of House Republicans who voted with Big Labor to defeat an amendment that would have made Indiana a Right to Work state.

While Mr. Garton and Ms. Budak are Republicans, the vast majority of Big Labor collaborators in the Indiana Legislature have been Democrats. That’s why, last year especially, major Right to Work electoral gains have been a boon for Republican leaders.

This year, Republicans are solidly in control of the Indiana Senate and the Indiana House of Representatives, and majorities in both chambers are on the record in support of passing a Right to Work law that would bar the firing of employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

If Mitch Daniels, Indiana’s GOP governor, had wanted his state to have a Right to Work law, he could almost certainly have gotten it this year.

Actions of Indiana Governor Belie His Professed Support For Right to Work Principle

Right to Work supporters in Indiana and around the country have long known Mr. Daniels was no stalwart foe of forced unionism. But they have also had ample grounds to hope after their 2010 Hoosier State election sweep that the governor wouldn’t stand in their way.

Mr. Daniels himself late last year admitted that Indiana’s lack of a Right to Work “does hold us back economically. There’s no doubt about it.” In the same interview, he was indirectly quoted as referring to Right to Work as a “valid idea.”

But even as he continued to try to avoid angering the pro-Right to Work majority of Indianans by purporting to agree with them, Mr. Daniels waged a low-key but devastating campaign from late last fall into mid-February to block passage of Right to Work legislation in Indiana.

Time and again, publicly as well as in private, the glum governor put out the word that he opposed any serious debates or recorded votes over Right to Work this year.

Mr. Daniels offered a few flimsy excuses for his dour determination to sabotage legislation that clearly had sufficient House and Senate support to pass and that was overwhelmingly favored by Hoosiers generally and by his own political base in particular.

For example, the governor claimed it would be wrong for the Legislature to pass a Right to Work law in 2011, because the issue hadn’t been discussed in the 2010 elections.

This was laughably false. In reality, last year alone the Indiana and national Right to Work organizations sent out roughly 278,000 pieces of targeted mail identifying the forced-unionism positions of state legislative incumbents and challengers and urging citizens to lobby their politicians on the issue.

“Issue-oriented mailings went out not just to members and other identified Right to Work supporters, but also to vast numbers of other people our organizations believed were likely supportive of the cause,” noted National Committee President Mark Mix.

“We practically mailed the phone book in targeted districts. We felt safe doing so, because we knew from poll after poll that roughly 80% of Indianans support the Right to Work principle.

“This Daniels excuse is the opposite of the truth. In all probability, Indiana candidates’ stands on Right to Work were better known by the public last year than their stands on any other single issue.”

Speaker Kept Right to Work Measures Bottled up Until It Was Too Late

Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma (Indianapolis), despite having personally vowed to the National Committee board of directors in 2004 that he would do everything necessary to make Indiana a Right to Work state as soon as he had a chance to do so, kept Right to Work measures bottled up in committee this year at the governor’s behest.

Only on February 21, the last day before all House measures that had not been approved by the entire chamber would automatically die, did Mr. Bosma allow a pro forma hearing and committee vote on Right to Work legislation.

Mr. Bosma knew by then he could let a panel pass a Right to Work measure (deeply flawed because it excluded construction industry employees from protection) without offending Mr. Daniels, because the House Democrat minority could kill it the next day simply by fleeing the capitol, as they did.

Right to Work advocates were left without a quorum, and even the half-measure the speaker had allowed to come up at the last minute expired without a recorded floor vote.

Had Right to Work legislation been brought up early in January, as National and Indiana Committee strategists repeatedly told Indiana legislators, Big Labor Democrats could not have prevailed without absconding for the entire legislative session. It’s unlikely they would have dared to do so.

Republican Politicians in Other States Act in Accord With What They Say

“I know the rationalizations Mitch Daniels has made for backstabbing Right to Work supporters are phony, but I don’t purport to know what really did motivate his and Brian Bosma’s betrayal of their freedom-loving constituents,” said Committee President Mix. “I just know Right to Work supporters have been sold out, temporarily.

“One consolation is there is fresh evidence this year that not all politicians act that way.

“Take what’s going on in the state of Maine, for example. After years of pain-staking mobilization, Right to Work supporters in the Pine Tree State are now close to securing sufficient legislative support to send a Right to Work measure to GOP Gov. Paul LePage’s desk.

“And, unlike Mitch Daniels, Paul LePage is actually trying to help move Right to Work legislation forward so he can sign it. In a February 26 radio address, Mr. LePage stated forthrightly: ‘If you do not believe union membership helps in your pursuit of happiness, you should . . . have the right to decline participation.’

“Pro-Right to Work Hoosiers deserve to have such a governor. And, if they don’t allow themselves to become discouraged and keep pressing hard to make Indiana a Right to Work state, one day in the not-too-distant future they will.”

Boeing, which is moving production from high-cost Washington State (a non-Right to Work State) to more competitive South Carolina (a Right to Work State), is under assault from the Board for its decision. The Wall Street Journal weighs in:

We knew that Big Labor had political pull at the Obama-era National Labor Relations Board, but yesterday’s complaint against Boeing is one for the (dark) ages. By challenging Boeing’s right to build aircraft in South Carolina, labor’s bureaucratic allies in Washington are threatening the ability of states to compete for new jobs and investment—and risking the economic recovery to boot.

In 2009, Boeing announced plans to build a new plant to meet demand for its new 787 Dreamliner. Though its union contract didn’t require it, Boeing executives negotiated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to build the plane at its existing plant in Washington state. The talks broke down because the union wanted, among other things, a seat on Boeing’s board and a promise that Boeing would build all future airplanes in Puget Sound.

So Boeing management did what it judged to be best for its shareholders and customers and looked elsewhere. In October 2009, the company settled on South Carolina, which, like the 21 other right-to-work states, has friendlier labor laws than Washington. As Boeing chief Jim McNerney noted on a conference call at the time, the company couldn’t have “strikes happening every three to four years.” The union has shut down Boeing’s commercial aircraft production line four times since 1989, and a 58-day strike in 2008 cost the company $1.8 billion.

This reasonable business decision created more than 1,000 jobs and has brought around $2 billion of investment to South Carolina. The aerospace workers in Puget Sound remain among the best paid in America, but the union nonetheless asked the NLRB to stop Boeing’s plans before the company starts to assemble planes in North Charleston this July.

The NLRB obliged with its complaint yesterday asking an administrative law judge to stop Boeing’s South Carolina production because its executives had cited the risk of strikes as a reason for the move.

No wonder, the movie Atlas Shrugged is a surprise hit.

Even as they scream for “workers’ rights,” the one workers’ right that union bosses despise is the Right To Work.  Big Labor and its overwhelmingly Democratic allies oppose a woman’s right to choose whether or not to join a union. Instead, they prefer that predominantly male employers and labor leaders make that choice for her.

The American Left has hoisted “choice” onto a pedestal taller than the Washington Monument. Liberals and their Big Labor buddies will race to their battle stations to defend a woman’s right to choose to abort her unborn child. Meanwhile, they holler themselves hoarse to prevent her (and her male counterparts) from freely choosing to accept or avoid union membership.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., understands that exercising this choice is a basic human right, and neither private employment nor government work should require joining or paying dues to a union.

“Many Americans already are struggling just to put food on the table,” DeMint said, “and they shouldn’t have to fear losing their jobs or face discrimination if they don’t want to join a union.” Thus, on Tuesday, DeMint introduced the National Right to Work Act.

Notwithstanding that right-to-work states are comparatively prosperous engines of job growth, the case for right-to-work is not merely economic but also moral.

“Government has granted union officials the unprecedented power to force individual employees to pay up or be fired and to coerce workers into subsidizing union speech,” says the National Right to Work Committee’s Patrick Semmens. “This fundamental violation of individual liberty — an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of association — finally would end with passage of the NRTWA.”

“Compulsory unionism…should not be lawful under a free government or tolerated by a free people,” Donald R. Richberg argued in his book, “Compulsory Unionism: The New Slavery”. As a labor attorney and federal official, Richberg helped draft landmark union laws, including the 1926 Railway Labor Act, the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act, and the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. Later in his career, however, Richberg considered such legislation authoritarian.

If, however, unions must dragoon workers into their ranks, why should government allow or even mandate such bondage?

Last October, pollster Frank Luntz surveyed 760 private- and public- sector unionized employees. Eighty percent agreed that union membership and dues should be optional. Hence, the National Right To Work Act is good policy and good politics — if only Republicans and free-marketeers would promote it.

From the Washington Examiner:

When it comes to President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill, what Big Labor wants, Big Labor gets. Unions spent $400 million electing Democrats in 2008, so they demanded to select which fox gets to guard the henhouse overseeing organized labor.

In the least surprising news of the week, Craig Becker — Big Labor’s go-to legal expert — has served on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for barely three months, and he’s already under investigation.

Becker lost a bipartisan Senate confirmation vote for the NLRB before Obama gave him a recess appointment. Becker is so pro-union he previously opined that “employers should have no right to be heard” in cases before the NLRB.

Aside from impartiality, the other concern about Becker was that the former associate general counsel for the radical Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFL-CIO lawyer would be embroiled with conflicts of interest regarding unions he’s now charged with overseeing.

Sure enough, on June 2, Becker joined in on an NLRB decision involving SEIU Local 1957 and denied St. Barnabas Hospital’s request to review a union election. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked the Inspector General to examiner Becker’s conflict of interest in the matter. An investigation is underway.

After being appointed to the NLRB, Becker signed an ethics pledge that reads in part:

“I will not for a period of two years from the date of my appointment participate in any matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”

When you’ve received numerous paychecks from the nation’s two largest unions, upholding that ethics pledge would mean recusing yourself from an enormous number of disputes that come before the NLRB. So Becker came up with a novel solution to this quandary — he ignores the ethics pledge.

The NLRB told The Washington Examiner Becker isn’t commenting on the investigation but did pass along a windy ruling Becker authored on recusal motions. Becker argues it would be appropriate to recuse him from cases involving the national SEIU but not cases involving the local chapters because they are “distinct legal entit[ies].”

Does Becker’s hairsplitting seem reasonable? Hardly. The SEIU’s own constitution says the national union has “jurisdiction over its affiliated bodies and all Local Unions.”

In the same ruling, Becker himself notes he is further bound by the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, which in part reads “Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards. … [Whether] standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts. ”

Becker does not get to decide for himself whether his own conduct is in violation of ethical guidelines. It should have been painfully obvious to Obama that Becker is not just incapable of being impartial but also incapable of meeting the most basic ethical requirements to perform his job.

In related news, White House political director Patrick Gaspard — a former top lobbyist for the SEIU — revealed last week that he forgot to disclose that the union paid him $40,000 while working at the White House last year.

These revelations about Becker and Gaspard follow SEIU’s June announcement that it is spending $44 million for “incumbent protection.” In the Obama administration, it seems the foxes can waltz right into the henhouse — provided they pay handsomely for the privilege.

July 8, 2010 Near midnight last Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow forced unionism apologists in the U.S. House of Representatives disgracefully amended a “must-pass” war funding bill to include language that is designed to force police officers, firefighters, and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) into “exclusive” union bargaining in every state in the country.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that policies expanding public sector monopoly unionism have played a major role in driving many states to the verge of insolvency.

In 2009, according to respected labor economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, 41 percent of government employees nationwide were subject to a contract negotiated by a union monopoly-bargaining agent.

However, in the 22 states which prohibit forced union dues for government employees and most of which don’t authorize public-sector union monopoly bargaining, fewer than 30 percent of public workers are unionized. Not one of these 22 states was to be found on last month’s Business Insider’s list of the states “most likely to default.”

Business Insider ranked heavily unionized California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin as the worst default risks. And the Hirsch-Macpherson data shows that an average of 61 percent of public-sector employees in these nine states were under union monopoly bargaining — 20 percent higher than the typical state.

In these nine worst default-risk states from 1999 to 2009, aggregate private-sector jobs fell by 4.2 percent, but heavily unionized state and local government jobs increased by 9 percent. Since annual state and local government employee compensation costs nationwide come to $1.1 trillion, or half of all state and local government spending, it’s not hard to see that the Big Labor-driven growth in government payrolls is a fiscal catastrophe for states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey.

Yet to Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, even calling attention to the fact that government payrolls for years have grown while private payrolls have shriveled is tantamount to an “assault on public employees.”

In a Huffington Post commentary bearing that heading, McEntee thundered that the only acceptable solution to the daunting fiscal problems faced by states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey is for elected officials to squeeze even more taxes out of beleaguered private-sector employees and businesses.

But for all his bluster, he can’t keep New Yorkers, for example, from noticing that while the number of Empire State pupils enrolled in K-12 public schools fell by more than 121,000 over the last 10 years, schools added 14,746 teachers and 8,655 non-teaching professionals to their payrolls, all of whom are required to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.

But government union bosses are expecting to have the last laugh if fed-up taxpayers and their allies limit themselves to going after just bloated public-sector payrolls and unsustainable public pension plans, rather than root of the problem itself.

Laws empowering government union officials to negotiate the contract terms for all front-line employees at a public agency, even for those employees who want nothing to do with the union, are behind the messes in Sacramento, Springfield and Trenton. And laws that authorize the firing of public servants for refusing to pay union dues or fees to an unwanted union make matters even worse.

Long-term solutions to state budget crises will require addressing the core problems of union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues in the public sector.

Until then, hopefully the Senate will spare police officers, firefighters, and EMTs from forced union “representation” that will make budget matters worse for the numerous states that have already rejected it.

Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.

Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor/White House Fog 

Marietta, which has only about 15,000 residents, but enjoys a place of honor as the oldest city of any size in Ohio, is located more than 230 miles outside the Washington, D.C., Beltway. 

And from the vantage point of Marietta’s community building at Lookout Park, where the town council considered adoption of a so-called “project labor agreement” (PLA) on May 13, it appears to be far easier to see and state the obvious than it is at the White House or on Capitol Hill. 

This spring, building trades union bosses lobbied furiously to convince the council’s seven members to impose a Big Labor PLA on employees and firms seeking to participate in the renovation of the town’s former Ohio Bureau of Employment Services building into a new municipal court facility. 

Parkersburg Marietta Construction and Building Trades Council union President Bill Hutchinson claimed, time and again, that the reason he and his cohorts were twisting arms to get a PLA was to ensure that “local” workers got the jobs. 

Finally, at the council’s May 13 meeting, Councilman Jon Grimm decided to test building trades union bosses’ sincerity. 

Mr. Grimm called attention to the provision in the PLA mandating that 50% of any contractor’s employees be registered with the union and pay union dues, even if they weren’t union members, and didn’t want to join. 

Would union officials accept a PLA retaining all the other provisions, but excluding “mandatory union membership”? Mr Grimm asked. 

Vast Majority of ‘Local’ Construction Workers in Marietta Aren’t Unionized 

Marietta law director Roland Riggs, who had hammered out the PLA deal with union officials, bluntly responded: “I don’t believe the folks from the building trades council would be interested in signing an agreement if that were removed.” 

A crowd of union militants, including several union officials, was in the room. No one from the crowd contradicted Mr. Riggs. 

“The plain fact is, the vast majority of ‘local’ construction workers in Marietta, Ohio, are union-free, and show no signs of wanting to be unionized,” observed National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. 

“According to labor scholars Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, just one in four construction workers across the state of Ohio is currently under union monopoly bargaining. And southern Ohio, where Marietta is located, is much less unionized than northern Ohio. 

“Forcing independent local hardhats to pay dues to an unwanted union in order to work on taxpayer-funded projects is no way to ‘help’ them — and a Marietta council majority had no trouble seeing the truth and voting down the PLA. 

“Unfortunately, all too many Inside-the-D.C. Beltway politicians from President Obama on down seem to have a much harder time deconstructing the phony claims of Big Labor bosses demanding union-only PLAs on taxpayer-funded public works. 

“For example, in issuing Executive Order 13502, promoting union-only PLAs for federal taxpayer-funded public works in February 2009, the President mechanically repeated Big Labor propagandists’ contention that PLAs promote ‘economy.’ 

“The truth is exactly the opposite. By discriminating against the union-free majority of construction employees, PLAs jack up taxpayer construction costs by a minimum of 10–20%, according to nonpartisan researchers. 

“Even a recent study commissioned by Obama appointees at the Department of Veterans Affairs predicted that PLAs would raise taxpayer costs in markets like Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. 

“But rather than cancel the PLA executive order after Veterans Affairs found it would fail to accomplish its purported objective, the Obama Administration proceeded to implement it this April!” 

Right to Work Movement Is Fighting Back 

“Fortunately, there’s still hope that the Obama Administration’s anti-taxpayer E.O.13502 can be stopped,” Mr. Mix continued. The legal system is one possible means. 

In April, attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a federal court brief charging that a California PLA illegally discriminates against independent construction workers. (Mr. Mix is president of the Foundation as well as of the Committee.)If the Foundation’s argument in this case (known as Rancho Santiago) prevails, that will raise serious questions about the legal viability of E.O.13502.

(Source: April 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Recently, millions of Americans have been dismayed by reports, based on official U.S. Labor Department Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, that from 1999 through 2009 our country endured a “lost decade” in private-sector employment.

In this context, the term “lost decade” refers to annual BLS statistics showing that in 2009 there were 107.95 million private-sector jobs nationwide, roughly 370,000 fewer than in 1999, when there were 108.32 million.

This marks the first time since the Great Depression that an entire decade has gone by with negative net growth in private-sector employment across the U.S.

However, some of the 50 states have fared far better than others over the past 10 years. And a review of how each state’s job market performed suggests that the U.S. Congress could dramatically improve America’s employment prospects for the next decade by adopting one simple change in federal labor policy.

Private-Sector Employment in Right to Work States up by 1.5 Million Since 1999

Current federal labor law authorizes and promotes the payment of compulsory union dues and fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Under pro-forced unionism provisions in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the 1951 amendments to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), an estimated 6.6 million private-sector employees must pay dues or fees to their Big Labor monopoly-bargaining agent, or face termination from their jobs.

At the same time, thanks to many years of vigilant efforts by freedom-loving Americans, federal labor law continues explicitly to recognize states’ option to protect employees from forced union dues and fees by adopting Right to Work laws.

Currently, 22 states have Right to Work laws on the books prohibiting the firing of employees simply for exercising their right to refuse to join or bankroll an unwanted union.

A huge majority of the 22 Right to Work states actually experienced net gains in private-sector employment from 1999 through 2009. Overall, private-sector employment in Right to Work states is up by roughly 1.5 million since 1999.

Meanwhile, the 28 forced-unionism states collectively endured a “lost decade” in employment growth far more bleak than that of the nation as a whole. In these states, private-sector employment is down by 1.9 million since 1999.

All five of the states enjoying the biggest net absolute increases in private-sector jobs since 1999 have Right to Work laws on the books. Not one of the five states experiencing the worst private-sector job losses has such a law. (See the table above for details.)

“Leading labor economists such as Dr. Richard Vedder of Ohio University have shown repeatedly that forced unionism hinders employment growth,” noted Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“Big Labor’s counterproductive work rules and fomentation of the ‘hate-the-boss’ mentality lead to less employment growth or, very frequently, employment losses in the unionized businesses themselves.

“On top of that, union bosses funnel a huge chunk of the forced dues and fees they collect with federal labor law’s abetment into efforts to elect and reelect state and local, as well as federal, Big Labor politicians who support higher taxes and more red-tape regulation of businesses.”

‘Actions of Forced Dues-Funded Politicians . . . Result in Less Job Growth’

“The actions of forced dues-funded politicians thus result in less job growth, period. And, of course, union-label politicians do the most damage in the states where union bosses rake in the most forced-dues money,” Mr. Mix added.

“Moreover, in today’s globalized economy, when Big Labor militancy squashes job-creating business investment in a state, some investment is likely to go overseas. Then no American workers end up getting the jobs.

“But if Congress repealed all the forced-dues provisions in the NLRA and RLA, this massive impediment to employment growth nationwide would immediately be lifted.

“Forced-dues repeal would spur job growth in all 50 states. Businesses based in current Right to Work states would share the benefits as their major out-of-state suppliers and customers were freed from the burden of compulsory unionism.

“Today, there would be an additional 4.42 million U.S. private-sector jobs if private-sector employment nationally had increased exactly as much as it did in Right to Work states over the past decade.

“That gives you some idea of the extent to which American employees and businesses would benefit over the next 10 years if Congress and the President stood up to Big Labor and enacted a national Right to Work law now.”

President, Congress and Governors Remain Beholden To Union Special Interests

Unfortunately, despite nationwide unemployment that hovers near 10% and the widespread economic hardship resulting from most businesses’ lingering inability to hire more workers profitably even as the country reemerges from the 2008-2009 recession, Washington, D.C., keeps moving in the wrong direction.

“In January 2009, when it was already clear the economy and the job market were in dire straits, Sen. Jim DeMint [R-S.C.], working hand-in-hand with the Right to Work Committee, secured a Senate floor roll call on a forced-dues repeal amendment,” recalled Mr. Mix.

“But a majority of senators, including 14 who are seeking reelection or full terms this year, kowtowed to Big Labor and voted for federally-imposed compulsory union dues.

“And a majority of senators and House members and President Obama are all on record in favor of S.560/H.R.1409, the cynically mislabeled ‘Employee Free Choice Act,’ which would enable union bosses to grab forced-dues power over millions of additional private-sector workers.

“This year, several governors are also ignoring the economic facts and endorsing schemes to expand Big Labor’s forced-dues privileges.

“For example, Big Labor Iowa Gov. Chet Culver [D] is backing H.F.2420, legislation that would gut the Hawkeye State’s Right to Work law, even though Iowa’s long-term economic growth is far superior to that of Midwestern forced-unionism states like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.”

Politicians May Pay a Steep Price This Year For Backing Forced Unionism

In the recent past, union-label politicians have sometimes gotten away with supporting anti-growth labor policies, because most voters believed the economy was performing well enough, and didn’t see a pressing need for improvement.

However, in the harsh economic climate of 2010, citizens are unlikely to be so tolerant of federal and state politicians who pander to Big Labor.

“In their federal and state candidate Survey 2010 programs, the National Right to Work Committee and allied regional and state organizations have already begun mobilizing millions of citizens to contact their politicians regarding their compulsory-unionism records,” said Mr. Mix.

“It’s likely politicians will pay a steep price this year for backing compulsory unionism.

“But there’s still time for many politicians who up to now have been Right to Work opponents to make amends with freedom-loving citizens by pledging publicly to oppose forced unionism 100% of the time in the future.

“Federal and state politicians who are running for election or reelection this year can accomplish this objective by completing, signing and returning their 2010 Right to Work candidate surveys.

“Long experience shows that election time is the best time for Right to Work advocates to change Big Labor-appeasing politicians’ minds about the forced-unionism issue. I urge Right to Work members and supporters everywhere to participate in the Survey 2010 program.”

March 10, 2010

National Right to Work Vice President Blasts the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill in Testimony to Congress

Big Labor power grab would be a disaster for workers, taxpayers and struggling state economies

Washington, D.C (March 10, 2010) – National Right to Work Committee Vice President Doug Stafford, urged members of Congress to oppose H.R. 413/ S.1611, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill in a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions this morning.

As detailed in Mr. Stafford’s testimony, if it becomes law H.R. 413 and S. 1611 would force monopoly bargaining on every police officer, firefighter, and emergency medical technician (EMT) in the country, putting them under the monopoly control of union bosses. Mr. Stafford blasted the bill as “yet another bill in a long line of paybacks to union bosses,” in his testimony before the House HELP Subcommittee:

“First, let’s be clear. The ultimate goal of this legislation is to force every firefighter and police officer in the country under union boss control, whether the individual public safety officers want it or not. And whether state and local governments want it or not.

“Under monopoly bargaining, individual workers lose the power to speak for themselves in dealing with their employers, to the detriment of workers and taxpayers. In addition to imposing monopoly bargaining on countless workers, H.R. 413 and its companion bill in the Senate, S. 1611, would override state labor laws across the country.”

Currently, state and local governments have the authority to enter into monopoly bargaining agreements. Many have chosen to do so and many have not. But H.R. 413 and S. 1611 would grant the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) oversight of the labor-management laws of public safety workers in political subdivisions across the country, stripping localities of the right to govern themselves.

Mr. Stafford’s testimony also demonstrated how monopoly bargaining strains the already-vulnerable budgets of state and local government:

“This power comes with a price — H.R. 413 and S. 1611 would also have a detrimental impact on the budgets of state and local governments. Last year, Vallejo, California — where union bosses have already been granted control over public safety workers — went bankrupt after nearly 75 percent of its budget was spent on unionized police and firefighters. And today, despite a $26 billion state budget deficit, out-of-control public sector union bosses aren’t shouldering cuts or taking blame for the problems they’ve caused — they’re threatening strikes!

“In other states where union bosses have been granted monopoly bargaining privileges over public sector workers, we’re seeing the exact same thing. In fact, the Mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania recently stated that these struggling cities are ‘handcuffed’ by public sector monopoly bargaining.

“Put simply, passage of the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill could be the last economic straw for already struggling communities. During these troubled economic times, the last thing Congress should be considering is a Big Labor power grab that would hurt workers and bust state budgets.”

###

The National Right to Work Committee, established in 1955, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to the principle that all Americans must have the right to join a union if they choose to, but none should ever be forced to affiliate with a union in order to get or keep a job. 

www.NRTWC.org