President’s Handpicked Bureaucrats Ignore 2010 Election Results

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

In the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 Congresses, Big Labor’s top objective was a rewrite of federal labor law making it even easier for union bosses to seize monopoly-bargaining power over millions of employees in the American private sector.

Union strategists’ legislative vehicle was the cynically mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act,” introduced by pro-forced unionism Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). After Mr. Kennedy died in 2009, union-label Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin took over as the lead Senate sponsor.

The Miller-Kennedy-Harkin measure was more accurately called the “Card-Check” Forced-Unionism Bill.

Even without a federal card-check mandate, union bosses have long been able to acquire “exclusive” (monopoly) power to negotiate employees’ pay, benefits, and work rules solely through the acquisition of signed “union authorization cards.”

Consequently, individual workers under the peering eyes of union organizers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control.

However, as stacked as current law is in favor of Big Labor’s monopoly-bargaining power, employers nevertheless retain the right to stand up for their employees against union-boss intimidation tactics.

But Miller-Kennedy-Harkin would have empowered union officials to impose monopoly bargaining through card checks automatically, with no recourse for any pro-Right to Work employee or employer.

This legislation was totally contrary to the policy views of the vast majority of citizens, including union members.

Last November 2, 31 Card-Check Bill Supporters Lost Their Re-Election Bids

“Over the years, polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly oppose union monopoly bargaining, period,” explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“The public certainly has no interest in backing policies designed to help Big Labor grab monopoly-bargaining privileges over millions of additional workers.”

On Election Day, 2010, the American people had their say about whether Washington, D.C., should be handing union bosses more power over workers and helping funnel more forced dues into union coffers.

“Last November 2,” noted Mr. Mix, “31 House and Senate incumbents who had voted for the card-check scheme lost their re-election bids. This was about as clear an electoral repudiation as any bill ever gets.

“Unfortunately, the forced-unionism zealots who now hold all but one of the four occupied seats on the National Labor Relations Board don’t seem to have noticed.

“Despite the fact that voters in last fall’s elections sent a clear message they oppose the imposition of new federal policies to help Organized Labor increase the share of workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control, the Obama NLRB last month unveiled its plan to achieve precisely that goal.”

‘Ambush’ Elections Would Deny Workers a Meaningful Vote

On June 22, Wilma Liebman, the ex-Teamster lawyer whom President Obama elevated to the NLRB chairmanship in 2009, and two other ex-union lawyers appointed by Mr. Obama to sit on the NLRB proposed sweeping changes to the current procedures through which Big Labor may obtain monopoly-bargaining privileges.

According to Peter Kirsanow, a former NLRB member and a Right to Work supporter, the proposed rules “would substantially shorten the time period between the filing of a petition for a union-representation election and the actual conduct of an election.”

Currently, the NLRB allows an average of 38-40 days from the time an employer is notified that a union is seeking monopoly-bargaining privileges over his or her employees to the time the workplace election occurs.

Employers often use that relatively brief period of time to make the case to their employees that unionization isn’t in their best interest.

But the “ambush” election rules proposed by the Obama NLRB would “shorten the time frame to a mere 10-20 days,” by Mr. Kirsanow’s assessment.

Mr. Mix charged: “Effectively, employees would be denied the opportunity to hear both sides of the story before voting on unionization, because employers would be denied enough time to make their case.

“The bottom-line impact of this bureaucratic sop to Big Labor would be very similar to that of the Miller-Kennedy-Harkin card-check mandate that union lobbyists tried unsuccessfully to ram through Congress from 2007 to 2010.”

Employee Phone Numbers, E-Mail Addresses Would Be Handed Over to Union Organizers

“In fact, as Mr. Kirsanow has correctly observed, the new rules would stack the deck against independent-minded employees so thoroughly that many employers would choose ‘not even to go through the expense’ of a rigged election, but ‘simply . . . recognize the union upon showing of authorization cards,’” Mr. Mix added.

In addition to effectively denying business owners and managers the opportunity to counter union organizers’ claims, the NLRB’s proposed new rules mandate that employee phone numbers and e-mail addresses be handed over to union organizers at the outset of each “ambush” election campaign.

“Current NLRB rules already seriously infringe on employees’ privacy by requiring their employers to hand over their names and physical addresses to union officials,” said Mr. Mix.

“But the new scheme would expose employees who don’t want to sign a union card or promise to vote for a union to even more intense Big Labor intimidation.

“And the new rules would also make it even more difficult for independent-minded employees and businesses to challenge election misconduct by union bosses and their henchmen.”

The NLRB’s proposed overhaul of union organizing campaign procedures wasn’t the only bad news for American employees and business owners who prefer to remain union-free to come out the week of June 19. The day before that plan went public, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced through her staff a reinterpretation of the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act.

This proposal would force employers to file federal reports whenever they seek outside help during union organizing campaigns, even if the consultants never communicate with any employees. Meanwhile, union organizers would continue to be exempt from reporting any hiring of consultants or lawyers.

In practice, the new Labor Department policy will, once it takes effect, encourage employers to capitulate to union organizing drives.

Committee President Vows to Back Legislation Thwarting New ‘Card Check’ Threat

“Thumbing their noses at the 2010 election results, President Barack Obama’s NLRB and Labor Department bureaucrats are now in the process of foisting ‘card check’ on American workplaces,” said Mr. Mix.

He vowed that the Committee would work closely with Capitol Hill allies to craft measures blocking implementation of the “card check” schemes introduced by the NLRB and the Labor Department last month.

“Enactment of legislation reining in such abuses will be a tall order in 2011 and 2012, due to the all but inevitable opposition of Big Labor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] and President Obama’s veto power,” Mr. Mix acknowledged.

“But it’s a battle Right to Work supporters can’t afford to pass up. Before we can make things better, we have to stop them from getting even worse.”

The Hill newspaper details how George Miller (D-CA) and the “American Rights at Work” (Obama Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis used to be the Treasurer for this AFL-CIO front group.) are working together to defend the NLRB’s outrageous attack on Boeing employees and South Carolina’s Right to Work law. Miller has received millions from labor union PACs over his decades in Congress and the group “American Rights at Work” is a big labor front group funded by the union bosses.

It’s too bad the newspaper didn’t connect the dots for their readers.

Since forced-unionism cheerleader Barack Obama became President in January 2009, Big Labor bosses and their yes-men in the U.S. Congress have helped him inflict a lot of damage on employees, businesses, and taxpayers across America.

To take just the latest example, last month union puppet politicians in the Senate and House rubber-stamped a special-interest measure (H.R.1586) that will ultimately extract an additional $10 billion from beleaguered private-sector employees and businesses to maintain and expand wasteful unionized government payrolls.

From 1998 to 2007, the number of instructional employees at K-12 public schools nationwide soared by 15.9% — an increase 3.5 times greater than the 4.5% growth in school enrollment over the same period.

The rapid-fire expansion of school payrolls, roughly 70% of which are unionized, produced no measurable improvement in educational outcomes, but cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the terms on which H.R.1586 piles on another $10 billion are expressly designed to ensure that currently strapped states do not pare back the past decade of teacher union boss-driven growth in K-12 payrolls in order to avoid increasing the burden on taxpaying individuals and businesses.

On August 11, just one day after the House had okayed H.R.1586, President Obama signed it into law.

Big Labor Bosses Still Far From Satisfied

But despite having received a host of handouts like H.R.1586 during the past two years, top union bosses remain far from satisfied. They are making no secret about the fact that they think they are still owed at least a few more juicy legislative plums before the end of this Congress.

After all, as union dons never hesitate to remind the Democratic President and congressional leaders, they, more than any other special-interest group, are responsible for giving one political party control of the White House and lopsided Senate and House majorities at the same time.

It’s estimated that, in 2007 and 2008, the union political machine pumped well over a billion dollars, mostly siphoned off from workers’ forced union dues and fees, into efforts to put Big Labor Democrats in firm control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

Consequently, union barons expected to see enacted in the current Congress legislation that would help them sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control.

Their original vehicle for achieving this objective was S.560/H.R.1409, the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Sponsored by Big Labor Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.), S.560/H.R.1409 would grease the skids for union-boss workplace takeovers in several ways. Most famously, it would effectively end secret-ballot elections in union organizing drives, replacing them with so-called “card checks.”

That means, if S.560/H.R.1409 became law, union organizers would have far more opportunities than they currently do to intimidate individual workers into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to Big Labor control.

Right to Work Resistance Has Stalled Power Grab

Unfortunately for union bigwigs, since early 2009 the National Right to Work Committee and its allies have mobilized massive public opposition to S.560/H.R.1409, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form.

In response, for many months now Big Labor lobbyists and politicians have huddled together with the intent of concocting new, passable legislation that would accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means.

Now it seems that their “Plan B” might well emerge in the 2009-2010 Congress — but not until after Election Day!

On August 12, union-label Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) publicly confirmed what freedom-loving Americans have suspected for some time: that he will reconvene the Senate soon after Election Day on November 2. Under his plan, the “lame duck” chamber could remain in session until well into December, with only a brief Thanksgiving recess.

Reid lieutenant Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has confirmed that the Senate will be considering major policy initiatives, and not just “must-pass” budget bills, after Election Day.

“It may well be we have to wait until a lame-duck session to pass whatever we’re able to pass,” Mr. Bingaman admitted to the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico in mid-August.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has also made it clear she intends to hold a “lame duck” session in her chamber, though she has yet to publicly announce a schedule

“Union bosses from AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka on down are now reiterating their demand that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi bring up the ‘card check’ bill, or its near equivalent, before the 2009-2010 Congress is over,” noted Right to Work President Mark Mix.

“Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi are desperate to satisfy their Big Labor patrons. But at the same time they want to minimize the electoral damage that voting for this power grab would do to vulnerable union-label politicians in their caucuses. That’s why the Big Labor Democrat leaders lean to the ‘lame duck’ strategy.”

Public-Safety Union-Monopoly Bill Could Also Be on ‘Lame Duck’ Agenda

“And ‘card-check’ forced unionism isn’t the only major rewrite of federal labor policy that may come up in the Big Labor Congress after November 2,” Mr. Mix continued.

“Another strong possibility is H.R.413/S.3194, legislation cynically mislabeled as the ‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.’

“This measure would, at a time when government budget deficits are already sky high, hobble the ability of states and localities to keep their expenditures of taxpayer dollars under control.

“H.R.413/S.3194 would empower Federal Labor Relations Authority bureaucrats to survey all 50 states and identify which have failed to meet ‘core standards.’ And the key ‘core standard’ is mandatory union monopoly bargaining.

“Localities in all 50 states would be denied the option to refuse to grant a single public-safety union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join.

“Monopoly bargaining, euphemistically labeled as ‘exclusive representation,’ would be foisted on police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide. And in most states that already authorize public-safety union monopoly bargaining, H.R.413/S.3194 would widen its scope.”

Right to Work Supporters Must Not Let Their Guard Down — Even After Election Day

Mr. Mix pointed out that, up to now, the Right to Work Committee and its members have led a successful campaign to block the union brass from ramming police/fire monopoly-bargaining legislation through Congress.

However, he added, large majorities of both chambers of Congress, including a number of Republicans as well as practically every Democrat, are on the record in favor of H.R.413/S.3194. Now is certainly not the time to declare victory.

“Right to Work members and supporters nationwide must be prepared to keep turning up the heat on their senators and congressmen, even after Election Day, to ensure that neither a gussied-up version of ‘card check’ nor police/fire monopoly bargaining is enacted late this year,” said Mr. Mix.

“It might be hard for some people to believe that even Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama would be audacious enough to try to grant enormously consequential new special privileges to Big Labor during a ‘lame duck’ congressional session.

“But the grim determination of these politicians to help union bosses corral workers into unions, by hook or crook, cannot be overestimated.

“Forced-unionism opponents can’t afford to let their guard down for one moment. Not now, with crucial elections just a few weeks away. But not after Election Day, either.”

If freedom-loving citizens don’t keep turning up the heat on their senators and congressmen late this fall, a looming “lame duck” session of Congress could end up doing severe damage to the Right to Work.

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Since the beginning of 2009, Big Labor has had a cheerleader in the Oval Office. At the same time, ample majorities of both chambers of the U.S. Congress have been willing to vote for virtually any power grab sought by union officials, as long as they could do so without running into intense, across-the-board constituent opposition.

Consequently, top union bosses have expected to see enacted in the current Congress legislation that would help them sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control.

Their original vehicle for achieving this objective was S.560/H.R.1409, the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Sponsored by union-label Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.), S.560/H.R.1409 would grease the skids for Big Labor workplace takeovers in several ways. Most famously, it would effectively end secret-ballot elections in union organizing drives, replacing them with so-called “card checks.”

That means, if S.560/H.R.1409 became law, union organizers would have far more opportunities than they currently do to intimidate individual workers into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to Big Labor control.

Unfortunately for union bigwigs, the National Right to Work Committee and its allies have mobilized massive public opposition to the measure, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form.

New NLRB Made to Order For Union Hierarchy

In response, for many months now Big Labor lobbyists and union strategists have tried to concoct new, passable legislation that would accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means. But “Plan B” has been slow to emerge.

(Video: Watch this video on the post page)

And now, the Obama Administration appears to be considering another, quicker and easier way of intensifying workplace elections’ bias in favor union organizers. And this method has the advantage, from Big Labor’s perspective, of not requiring any direct congressional involvement.

The powerful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which regulates the labor-management relations of businesses employing well over 90% of America’s private-sector employees, will soon be manned entirely by bureaucrats appointed or reappointed by pro-forced unionism President Barack Obama.

As this month’s Newsletter goes to press, four of the five NLRB members are already Obama appointees or reappointees. And three of these four are veteran union lawyers.

Wilma Liebman, originally appointed to the Board by union-label President Bill Clinton and elevated to the chairmanship early last year by Mr. Obama, is an ex-lawyer for the notorious Teamster union.

Obama appointee Mark Pearce was, until this year, a career union lawyer in private practice in Buffalo, N.Y.

Craig Becker, who for years served as counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO, has been Mr. Obama’s most controversial appointee yet.

While Mr. Becker, Mr. Pierce, and Ms. Liebman will very likely almost always agree on the main issues in NLRB cases, Mr. Becker differs from the other two in having a long “paper trail” that from the time of his nomination made it plain to see just how radical he is.

Craig Becker: Union Monopoly Should Be Mandated, Even if Most Workers Don’t Want It

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:

“Over the years, Craig Becker has publicly acknowledged believing that any employee or employer efforts to resist the unionization of a workplace are unacceptable.

“For example, in one ‘labor studies’ journal article, Mr. Becker dismissed the notion that workers should have any say whatsoever, whether as individuals or collectively by secret ballot or ‘card check,’ over whether or not they are unionized.

“Federal policy should not acknowledge employees’ ‘choice to remain unrepresented,’ contended Mr. Becker.

“Their only choice, he explained, should be over which set of union officials get ‘exclusive’ power to negotiate their wages, benefits and work rules.

“Mr. Becker’s publicly aired views are so extreme that even several normally pro-forced unionism senators refused to approve his nomination. For that reason, he has yet to be confirmed. He nevertheless sits on the NLRB today because, on March 27, President Obama bypassed the Senate and ‘recess’ appointed him.

“It’s likely Mr. Becker will take every opportunity to curtail employees’ freedom to oppose unionization of their workplace.

“Ms. Liebman, Mr. Pierce, and he are all expected to vote in lock-step to increase Big Labor’s monopoly-bargaining and forced-dues powers over the individual employee whenever they get the chance.

“And barely more than two months after President Obama did the union bosses’ bidding by personally installing Mr. Becker, the Board signaled how it might bureaucratically proceed to provide Big Labor with tools of intimidation very similar to those the ‘card check’ bill would have furnished.”

On June 9, the NLRB put out a request for information about “electronic voting services for both remote and on-site elections.”

The request has been widely interpreted as a step toward mandating the routine use of remote Internet or telephone balloting in union organizing campaigns.

Remote Voting Facilitates ‘Vote Selling and Coercion’

Under current law, when a unionization election occurs, employees normally cast their votes in private ballot booths, except when circumstances make the use of ballot booths very difficult or impossible.

If the Obama NLRB dispenses with ballot booths, and instead makes it the norm for workers to cast their votes over unionization from, say, their home computers, that will greatly intensify the process’s bias in favor of union organizers.

“Federal labor policy already authorizes professional union organizers to target individual workers by visiting them at their homes, a privilege of which they regularly take advantage,” Mr. Mix pointed out.

“Forcing employees to vote at home would greatly exacerbate the abuses that already occur during such ‘home visits.’ Union organizers would visit workers’ homes to ‘make sure’ they had voted electronically, and even offer to ‘help’ them cast their votes.

“The NLRB request purports to focus solely on ‘secure’ electronic voting from remote locations, but, as Ms. [Wilma] Liebman, Mr. [Mark] Pierce, and Mr. Becker must surely know, that’s a practical impossibility.

“Remote Internet voting, as a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation and published by the Internet Policy Institute concluded a few years ago, ‘can be observed [by outsiders], opening the door to the possibilities of vote selling and coercion.’”

Right to Work Supporters Will Fight Back in Every Possible Way

On June 23, the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, formally submitted comments to the NLRB urging the agency not to proceed with implementing an abuse-ridden electronic balloting scheme.

Mr. Mix, who heads the Foundation as well as the Committee, acknowledged that Wilma Liebman and her cohorts were unlikely to pay heed, but added that going on the record now would be helpful for a future legal challenge.

“Right to Work supporters will fight back against ‘electronic’ voting, also known as ‘card check light,’ in every possible way,” Mr. Mix vowed.

“If the NLRB goes ahead with its scheme, as now seems all but inevitable, the Right to Work movement will lead legislative as well as legal efforts to thwart it.”

(source: Michael O’Brien, The Hill)