LA Times Printing Press Workers Slap Teamster Union Bosses with Federal Charges

Teamster union hierarchy continues three-year-long campaign of harassment and intimidation

Los Angeles, CA (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Los Angeles Times newspaper printing press operators have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for violating their rights.

Leon Carey, Jr. and James Clayton filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Wednesday.

Recently, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (GCC/IBT) Local 140-N union and company officials entered into a contract which purports to require all employees to be full-dues-paying union members, even though full membership cannot be enforced under federal law. Moreover, union officials failed to inform workers of their rights, including their right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck case.

Instead, Teamster Local 140-N union officials sent the workers a letter ordering them to join the union and pay full dues or face termination while ignoring the workers' previous letters informing union officials that they were refraining from union membership.

Read the entire release here.

On Tuesday, National Right to Work staff attorneys argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of tens of thousands of California civil servants who were forced to contribute to an SEIU "Political Fight Back Fund" in 2005. The video below gives a overview of what's at stake in the case, including an interview with Foundation staff attorney Jim Young:

You can also read Right to Work President Mark Mix's op-ed on the case in The Washington Times. Here's the key quote:

Forcing civil servants to subsidize the political agenda of an organization to which they don’t belong should offend every American, regardless of political sympathies. Voluntary SEIU members may wish to financially support their organization’s political goals, but nonunion employees - many of whom disagree with the union’s agenda - are under no similar obligation. Freedom of association is a bedrock principle of American democracy, and no one should be compelled to support a group to which they don’t belong.

For more info, check out the Foundation's Knox webpage, which includes links to relevant legal documents, press releases, and media coverage. 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to release its ruling in the case by June.

Healthcare Workers Win Settlement after SEIU Union Officials Demand Personal Information

Worker advocate assists healthcare workers coerced into forced dues union ranks

Sacramento, CA (November 30, 2011) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a Sutter Roseville Medical Center respiratory care practitioner has won a settlement against a statewide union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

Late last year, Mary Massen filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in San Francisco after Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers – West (SEIU-UHW) officials refused to allow her to exercise her rights.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who has exercised her right to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, she cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union's political, lobbying, and member-only activities. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Union officials failed to provide nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires and forced the workers to object annually, a tactic designed to coerce workers into paying full union dues. Additionally, SEIU-UHW union officials required employees to provide their social security numbers to refrain from paying union dues used for union boss political activities, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

Read the entire release here.

California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court

Court to review Ninth Circuit decision requiring California state employees to contribute to union political fund

Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials' political activism.

Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions' special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union's political fund.

Read the entire release here.

Right to Work staff attorneys are helping Carol Jean Badertscher, a California nurse, fight back against California's draconian "strikebreaker" law, which authorizes fines and even jail time for employees who repeatedly refuse to walk off the job during a union boss-ordered strike. Last Friday, the case came before a panel of three judges at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Audio of the oral argument is available online here. Below, Foundation attorney Bill DuRoss, who represented Badertscher in the argument, explains the ins and outs of the case to a group of Right to Work supporters who attended the Ninth Circuit's hearing:

Workers Assert Constitutionally-Protected Rights After Union Officials Demand Personal Information

Right to Work Foundation assists Sacramento healthcare providers coerced into union forced dues ranks

Sacramento, CA (December 20, 2010) – A Sutter Roseville Medical Center healthcare professional has filed federal labor charges against a local union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Massen filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in San Francisco.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who elects to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, she cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers – West union officials refuse to provide the Center’s nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires. SEIU United Healthcare union officials also require the workers to annually object, a tactic designed to force workers into paying full union dues. Foundation attorneys defeated the annual objection requirement of another union before the NLRB earlier this year.

Additionally, this union requires employees who choose not to join the union to provide their social security numbers to refrain from supporting the union officials’ non-bargaining expenses, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

Read the entire release here.

Earlier this week, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, was published in the Washington Examiner warning about the threat the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill (pdf), which just passed the House last week, poses not only public safety workers' rights, but also state and community budgets. As we noted before, public officials across the country are waking up to the fact that public sector forced unionism is behind the financial crises in their communities.

From Mark Mix's commentary:

(I)n 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.

...

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.

Read the entire Washington Examiner guest commentary by Mark Mix here.

From the San Jose Mercury News, here's an excellent op-ed from retired teacher Larry Sand on forced teacher union dues:

So why does CTA not let its members decide if they want to contribute to CTA's various political funds? It is simply because the union knows that if these donations were voluntary, the vast majority of teachers wouldn't contribute a penny.

So does CTA really care about the needs and opinions of its teachers, or does it just see its members as convenient ATMs to further its own political agenda?

Teachers should closely examine whether they want to continue giving their hard-earned money to candidates and causes in which they have no interest or find repellent. And CTA needs to fess up to its arrogant attitude that it knows what's best for teachers, when, in fact, what teachers actually think about various issues is of no concern to it.

As Sand notes, even if teachers opt-out of dues for union political activism, they're still forced to pay over $700 annually in so-called "agency fees" to teacher union bosses. And even that's no guarantee that their money won't be used to fund union political activism - as many Foundation-assisted employees can attest, union officials often funnel forced dues collected for "workplace bargaining" to union-backed political causes. 

The solution, of course, is for California to adopt a Right to Work law, which would make all union dues strictly voluntary. Right to Work laws ensure that union officials only accept voluntary contributions from all employees, including public school teachers. 

At Freedom@Work, we've spent plenty of time documenting the many problems of public sector forced unionism, including the fiscal abyss it is plunging state and local governments into. But even reports of an impending budget crisis don't have quite the same impact as a video of teacher union militants demanding more tax dollars:

As George Will notes in his latest Newsweek column, eventually, the bills come due. California's looming budget crisis is largely the result of public sector union bosses, whose profligate spending risks pushing the entire state into bankruptcy:

California's parlous condition owes much to burdensome health-care and pension promises negotiated with public employees' unions, promises that are suffocating the state's economic growth.

. . .
They [public sector unions] are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself for ever-larger portions of wealth extracted by the taxing power from the private sector.

Unfortunately, this trend threatens to spread other states. For the first time ever, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that public sector unionization outstrips private sector unionization, as Big Labor increasingly turns to government to bolster its forced-dues-paying ranks. The financial consequences of this development could be dire (emphasis mine):

Fred Siegel, a visiting professor of history at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute . . . said, “There were enormous political ramifications” to the fact that public-sector workers are now the majority in organized labor.

“At the same time the country is being squeezed, public-sector unions are a rising political force in the Democratic Party,” he said. “They depend on extra money for the public sector,and that puts the Democrats in a difficult position. In four big states — New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California — the public-sector unions have largely been untouched by the economic downturn. In those states, you have an impending clash between the public-sector unions and the public at large.”

As union operatives become more entrenched at every level of government their immense special privileges allow them to corral more money for extortionate dues payments. As a result, taxes go up and public services become more expensive, leaving over-burdened taxpayers to foot the bill.

The latest Big Labor scheme to accelerate this trend is the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which which would leave state and local public safety employees at the mercy of Big Labor organizing drives. Once Big Labor bosses are firmly in control of public safety organizations, they'll be able to use their influence over firefighters and police departments to further entrench their monopoly bargaining powers. 

National Right to Work staff attorneys have filed a formal amicus curiae brief supporting an appeal in US District Court that challenges a California project labor agreement (PLA) that gives construction union officials new tools to coerce employees and employers who look to bid and perform state-funded construction projects.

Arguing that a PLA between the Rancho Santiago Community College District and a union illegally discriminated against construction workers who exercise their right to refrain from union membership, Foundation attorneys are defending the interests of the vast majority of construction employees in California who have opted against unionization.

Rancho Santiago and the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (CTC) union entered into the PLA in 2004, which effectively precluded nonunion apprentices and contractors from working on over 50 construction projects funded by the public agency worth over $300 million. The Foundation-supported appeal challenges this and similar policies to open up the bidding process to all construction workers and contractors.