The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) war on states’ rights will not go unchallenged; from the Associated Press:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Wednesday she wants Republican presidential hopefuls, who will be debating in her state shortly, to address how they would deal with unions and a complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board.

The first presidential primary debate is scheduled next week in Greenville. The state Republican Party expects at least four participants: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Haley said candidates should give their opinion on the labor board’s lawsuit against Boeing Co., which is building a $750 million aircraft assembly plant in North Charleston, expected to open this summer.

The lawsuit filed last week accuses Boeing of choosing the right-to-work state in 2009 to retaliate against union workers in Washington state who went on strike in 2008. Most 787s are being assembled in Washington state by members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The labor board requests a court order forcing the aerospace company to build the line in the Pacific Northwest.

Haley, who faces a lawsuit from the machinists union for saying South Carolina would try to keep unions out of Boeing, has said she will not stand for the federal board bullying South Carolina businesses.

 Sign-Up For NRTWC’s Free Once-a-Day Update Summaries

Share

Will Seattle Become ‘The Next Detroit’?

(Source: November 2009  Forced-Unionism Abuses Exposed)

Boeing’s October 28 announcement that it would open a second 787 assembly line in Right to Work South Carolina, rather than in the Seattle suburbs where the company has had a large presence for decades, is still sending shock waves throughout forced-unionism Washington State.

With its new North Charleston production line, Boeing is expected to create 3800 new full-time jobs and make direct and indirect investments of more than $5 billion in South Carolina over the next 15 years. And Boeing has made it clear that a major factor in its location decision was the desire to avoid labor strife like the International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union boss-directed strike last year that cost the company an estimated $5.2 billion, or $100 million a day, in deferred revenue. (more …)

Share

Flying the Forced Unionism Skies

Big labor has their wish list of legislative and administrative items and its growing by the minute. The latest demand is to change the law to make it easier to force thousands of airline workers to pay union dues and join a union.

The Wall Street Journal objects to big labor’s “end around the law to organize Delta” airlines:

No trucks from Mexico, no new trade agreements, a sweet deal for the United Auto Workers at GM and Chrysler, tariffs on Chinese tires, and now Big Labor has another demand of the Obama Administration: Overturn 75 years of labor policy to sandbag Delta Airlines and unionize transportation workers. Will it get that too?

The latest looming political favor features the National Mediation Board, the federal agency established in 1934 under the Railway Labor Act to oversee labor relations in the air and rail industries.  A department of the AFL-CIO last month sent a letter demanding that the board tear up longstanding rules requiring that a majority of all airline or rail workers vote in favor of union representation to win union certification.

The AFL-CIO instead wants a “minority rule,” requiring only a majority of the employees who actually vote. Under current rules, if an airline has 10,000 nonunion flight attendants, 5,001 must vote yes to unionize. Under the union proposal if only 2,000 of 10,000 vote, and 1,001 vote yes, all 10,000 become subject to unionization.

The timing here is nakedly opportunistic. Two of Delta’s unions—the Association of Flight Attendants and the International Association of Machinists—have elections pending in front of the Mediation Board as a result of last year’s Delta acquisition of Northwest Airlines. Northwest was largely unionized but Delta wasn’t. The Delta flight attendants tried to unionize last year but lost that election, and now the AFL-CIO wants the White House to stack the deck in their favor. Beyond Delta, the new rules would make it easier to unionize JetBlue, Continental, FedEx and short-line railroads, among others.

The skids may be greased because President Obama has already remade the three-person Mediation Board with a union-friendly majority. Harry Hoglander, once president of a pilots union, was confirmed in July to another term. The new chairman is Linda Puchala, who was formerly president of . . . the Association of Flight Attendants. A 2-to-1 vote will carry the day.

The union says it merely wants an election governed by the same rules that apply to nontransport industries under the National Labor Relations Act. But the Railway Labor Act was written because the government viewed transportation as economically vital, and one of the law’s purposes is to avoid damaging strikes. Every Mediation Board since 1934 has upheld the majority rule, on grounds that “certification based upon majority participation promotes harmonious labor relations. A union without majority support cannot be as effective in negotiations as a union selected by a process which assures that a majority of employees desire representation.”

The Railway Labor Act also offers no direct way for workers to decertify a union once it is in place, which is why the law provides the initial safeguard of a majority vote. The Supreme Court has twice upheld the majority rule, and the Mediation Board has four times rejected requests to change it, as recently as last year. The majority rule has been used in more than 1,850 elections, and unions have won more than 65% of the time. At least one Board (under the Carter Presidency, note) bluntly said that only Congress could change the voting rules.

Speaking of Congress, we’d note that Democrats are conveniently silent on this proposal. It was only a year ago that Reps. Jim Oberstar and George Miller and Sen. Ted Kennedy sent an outraged letter to the Board (then dominated by Bush appointees) over its proposal to change certain rules in the middle of the Delta-Northwest merger. Mr. Hoglander, still on the Board, complained then that any policy revision in the middle of the merger would “strengthen the perception of bias and sow distrust and suspicion.”

Yet even though the AFL-CIO is demanding that different voting rules be applied to employees affected by the same merger, and even though it would appear the current Board is holding up the two Delta elections until it has time to push a rule-change through (the Board has allowed other elections to proceed), the Democrats have gone mum. At the very least, the Board ought to be following the procedures it has used in the past to consider voting changes, which is to conduct extensive evidentiary hearings.

We’ve long thought the Railway Labor Act should be rewritten for numerous reasons, but that is Congress’s job. The administrative reversal of precedent being sought in the Delta case would invite a legal challenge, and courts look skeptically on agencies that put capricious politicking ahead of statute and decades of case law.

The airline industry is already in enough financial trouble without being strong-armed to bear the additional costs of greater unionization. If unions want to organize Delta, they have every right to do so by persuading a majority of workers. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration’s willingness to twist the law to help its union allies is unlike anything Washington and business have seen in a very long time.

Share

Underfunded Union Pensions

After bashing everyone else for decades regarding pension funding, the Washington Examiner has discovered:

Almost half of the nation’s 20 largest unions have pension funds that federal law classifies as ”endangered” or in “critical” condition due to being underfunded, an Examiner review of federal actuarial reports shows.

Pensions with less than 80 percent of the assets needed to cover present and projected liabilities are considered “endangered,” while those that fall below a 65 percent threshold are classified as “critical” under the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

Unions are required to file 5500 forms that record the financial health of their retirement plans, show that union pension funds have lost their financial footing over the past several years.

Eight of the largest unions have underfunded plans, according to the most recent 5500 reports, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Laborers International Union of Northern America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the National Plumbers Union.

The average union pension has resources to cover only 62 percent of what is owed to participants, according to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). Less than one in every 160 workers is covered by a union pension with required assets.

These figures demonstrate that the liability challenge to the long term of health of union funds is systemic and across the board, said Brett McMahon, vice-president of Miller and Long, a Maryland-based concrete construction company.

Demographics figure prominently in the erosion of pension assets now that a smaller percentage of union workers are available to support an expanded group of retirees, McMahon said. Only 7.6 percent of private sector employees are members of a labor union, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The growing number of local and national union pensions that lack sufficient resources to cover their obligations could threaten the retirement security not just of union members, but also non-union employees if the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check) becomes law as currently written, McMahon said.

The Card Check legislation includes provisions both to abolish secret ballots in union representation elections in the workplace and to require a binding arbitration process that greatly favors unions, McMahon said.

 ”It’s like the Social Security problem on steroids,” McMahon said. “We are talking about a systemic, demographic problem where there are too few people paying in and the plans can’t earn enough returns to make up for the difference.”

McMahon believes “union members are not being told the truth about the condition of their retirement plans. The danger to non-union workers comes in with Card Check because there is nothing in it that prohibits an arbitrator from shoving companies and workers into these underfunded plans.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, is encouraging EFCA critics to focus more attention on the arbitration side of the bill in addition to “card check” for this same reason.

Multi-employer pension plans that are typically negotiated by unions should be of particular concern because they have less federal insurance than single-employer pension funds, McMahon pointed out. The PBGC only guarantees $12,870 in annual payments to a member of the multi-employer plan in contrast to $54,000 for members of a single-employer plan.

If anything, the current 5500 records vastly understate the deteriorating condition of union pensions because they do not include the stock market drop from last year, James Sherk a labor expert with the Heritage Foundation points out. Reports are typically not filed for more than 12 months after the end of a plan year.

 ”There are a lot of red zone notices going out now for funds that fell under the critical percentage for liabilities with the market meltdown,” he said. “This would not be evident under the most recent 5500s because they only cover through 2007.”

Share
Tagged with:
Posted in: Forced Dues, Pension Funds, SEIU

A Pro-Freedom Ruling

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.

Share
Tagged with:
Posted in: Forced-Dues for Politics, RLA