Federal Labor Board to Prosecute Union for Requiring Annual Objections to Forced Union Dues for Politics
**Pensacola, FL (October 2, 2007)** – After nearly a four year delay, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union for requiring employees at Vertex Aerospace, LLC to object annually to prevent union officials from spending their compulsory union dues for political activities.
The case puts in the spotlight a common union tactic used to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in forced union dues spent on Big Labor’s political agenda.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped Robert Prime, an employee at the Naval Air Station, originally file unfair labor practice charges in December 2003 against the IAM union, as well as District Lodge 75 and Local Lodge 2777. The charges allege that union officials violated his rights by forcing him to renew every single year his objection to funding union political advocacy. The NLRB has scheduled a hearing that will take place before an Administrative Law Judge on December 10.
In November 2003, Prime had 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).
In 2000, a U.S. District Court struck down the IAM union’s nationwide policy requiring annual objections from employees seeking a rebate of dues spent for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. However, the ruling technically only applied to employees covered by the RLA. IAM union officials maintain that employees working under the National Labor Relations Act are, therefore, still required to object annually even though the policy is discriminatory and arbitrary, as three federal courts have held.
“Thumbing their noses at a federal court ruling, IAM union officials are forcing employees to jump over hurdles to stymie them from reclaiming their forced union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
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 in order to keep their jobs.
No Middle Ground on Employee Free Choice
Ray Hogler of Colorado State University, an advocate of forced union dues, recently mischaracterized Colorado as a "modified right to work state." He cites a law that simply makes it just a little less easy for union officials in Colorado to impose forced union dues on employees. That law requires a secret ballot election in which a majority of eligible voters or 75 percent of actual voters must favor firing workers if they refuse to pay union dues.
Make no mistake about it, despite this procedural hurdle, union officials can still order workers across Colorado fired for refusal to pay dues once they clear it. All they have to do is quash employee dissent, and with the laws of 28 states mandating compulsory dues, they have plenty of cash to do it.
Hogler continues:
The rhetorical hyperbole about Colorado’s unions does raise issues of labor law reform that are complicated, contentious and of serious consequence.
Actually, it’s not that complicated, employees are either truly free to choose whether to join or pay dues to a union or they’re not. And in Colorado, despite Hogler’s objections, the law still favors coercion over free choice.
No Tea Party
The coercive "card check" union organizing scheme became the law of the land for public sector workers in Massachusetts yesterday.
Bay State employees will undoubtedly find out soon that this abuse ridden scheme is no tea party. See all the latest about the National Right to Work Foundation’s efforts to lessen the abuses suffered by workers under such drives here.
…Speaking of Washington
And speaking of Washington…
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys were instrumental in helping several employees get their jobs back last year after Washington Federation of State Employees union officials unlawfully ordered them fired for refusing to pay union dues without due process. WFSE union spokesman Tim Welch said at the time:
"You can choose to be a member of the union, you can choose to pay a fee. But ultimately, if you do not like that, you can choose to be unemployed."
Despite Welch’s clear hostility to employee rights, he aptly summarizes Washington State law, which authorizes the firing of employees for refusing to pay union dues.
However, several employees did indeed stand on principle and refused to pay dues to the unwanted union, sacrificing their jobs in the process. Among these employees were Pat Woodward and Maxine Dunkelman who decided to file suit against the WFSE union alongside several coworkers with the Foundation’s help. Here is what Pat had to say about being fired for refusing to pay union dues at a press conference announcing the lawsuit:
An All Too Familiar Scene
In an all too familiar scene, Nevada County employees in California are outraged at a recent union election they called "underhanded" and "sneaky," that now means they have to pay union dues or be fired.
"It left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. It was just kind of snuck in," said Mike Sherman, an employee in the welfare department who didn’t hear of the election until after ballots were cast.
Similar groups of frustrated employees have formed grassroots groups opposed to forced union dues in Maine and Washington State in recent years. California, Maine, and Washington State all are without a Right to Work law which would make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.
Teamsters’ Policy Poses ‘Immediate Danger’ to First Amendment Rights
Pennsylvania Turnpike employees should watch the Teamsters union-Turnpike Commission talks closely as another union-ordered statewide strike looms.
Why” Past experience shows that Teamster union bosses tried to block Turnpike employees from exercising their constitutional rights to refrain from formal union membership and cut off compulsory dues unrelated to monopoly bargaining.
In recent months, the National Right to Work Foundation helped 28 Pennsylvania Turnpike employees file separate federal civil rights lawsuits against Teamsters union locals 77 and 250, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and two Turnpike Commission officers for illegally seizing union dues from the employees’ paychecks.
The breakthrough came for the Turnpike employees when a federal judge ruled that Local 77’s union policy prohibiting employees from resigning from membership (so-called "maintenance of membership" clauses) likely violates First Amendment.
The federal judge enjoined the Teamsters union locals and the PTC from seizing the forced dues from the employees’ paychecks. But most importantly, the judge found that union officials’ actions demonstrated a “real or immediate danger to their First Amendment rights.”
Union officials commonly use the "maintenance of membership" clauses to trap workers in union ranks. And you can bet that as Teamsters union officials sit at the table with PTC officials, they’ll be pushing for this clause to stay so that union bosses can thwart any employee effort to reclaim forced dues.
Post Mortem on the UAW Strike
With the strike ordered by UAW officials against GM ending early this morning, it’s important to draw a few lessons.
As Patrick noted Monday, the UAW hierarchy was willing to sell out some rank-and-file workers on wages so long as GM promised union officials the ability to organize its nonunion suppliers to bolster compulsory dues revenues.
Second, despite the misconceptions held by some, the fact that union officials can shut down nationwide employers and industries demonstrates that they are clearly still relevant. The widespread impact and attention the strike attracted is proof positive.
Addtionally, because of their ability to compel dues from workers in the 28 states without Right to Work laws, union officials are major players politically. Why just last friday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to deploy 200,000 union operatives and $200 million to influence the 2008 elections.
Did UAW Officials Order the Strike to Save Face?
Some analysts are suggesting that the when UAW union bosses ordered the strike against GM on Monday it was so that the union officials could look tough for the rank-and-file workers, as opposed to being a negotiating tactic with GM.
Goldman Sachs Analyst Robert Barry, expressed this view in a research note on GM prepared in response to the strike:
In our view, the action is designed to allow UAW leaders to look vigilant in fighting to preserve benefits, members to feel concessions are not being given gratuitously, and GM management to appear to be maximizing shareholder value…
If experts like Barry are correct (and he did correctly predict a short strike) that means that once again, union officials were placing their own well-being and power above what is best for the employees they claim to “represent.”
Michigan Economist Warns Strike Not Helping Economy
In Michigan where the economy is already in ruins, the Grand Rapids Press highlights warnings from University of Michigan economist Don Grimes about the nationwide UAW strike:
“It’s not exactly what the state needs right now,” said University of Michigan economist Don Grimes. “You’ve got a train wreck in Detroit and a train wreck in Lansing. It’s like a perfect storm.”
“The workers will be getting $200 a week in strike pay,” he said. “Before, they were earning $1,500 a week in pay.”
A $1,300 per-week pay cut is an awful lot to ask of these workers who have families to support. Meanwhile, GM looks to lose nearly $100 million per day due to the loss of production.
Looks like UAW bosses are hitting everyone where it hurts the most: their wallets.
Workers Feel the Pinch
As the tensions between United Auto Workers (UAW) officials and General Motors (GM) continue, one day into the strike employees around the nation are already feeling the aftershocks of being ordered off the job.
MLive.com reports that GM employee Dan Donlin of Grand Haven,
“It’s just bad timing for my family.”
Forced dues and a forced strike, seems like union officials are attacking employee free choice on all fronts.
