Not long ago we anonymously received a copy of the following press release from the National Labor Relations Board Professional Association union dated June 30:

The Battle To Prevent Another September Massacre at the NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board Professional Association, the union representing attorneys at the Board’s D.C. headquarters, is fighting to prevent another September Massacre. The “massacre” that the Union fears isn’t dozens of controversial decisions but a wave of unfair and discriminatory mid-year appraisals and reprisals against its members.

A new performance-appraisal program sparked this battle. Applying a “forced distribution” model like those popular with corporations like General Electric, the Board forced attorney ratings to fit a pre-established distribution. As a result, the Board’s staff attorneys were more or less equally divided into Exceptional, Commendable, and Proficient categories.

To get this predetermined distribution, Board managers unfairly tinkered with individual ratings. The resultant ratings “downgrades,” in many instances of attorneys long rated in the highest category, prompted grievances by more than one third of 45 staff attorneys.

In addition, because the NLRB’s “rank-and-yank” appraisal system had a discriminatory, adverse impact on the Board’s older female and disabled attorneys, the new system generated discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity office and a grievance of the new system’s discriminatory impact on the bargaining unit by the Union.

Board management’s response to the Union’s efforts has been anything but predictable. The NLRB’s lone Democratic member, Wilma Liebman, has not settled a single grievance and threatened reprisals against grievants and a Union officer. Meanwhile, Chairman Peter Schaumber, despite his conservative, pro-employer reputation, has cooperated with the Union to settle most of the appraisal grievances of the attorneys assigned to him.

The Union recently filed grievances against retaliatory conduct by Member Liebman and contacted Congress and the NAACP for help remedying discrimination at the Board.

Where do we begin?

First we chuckle at the notion that every Board attorney fits into one of three categories ("exceptional, commendable, and proficient"), as this ranking system leaves out any possibility that a Board employee does less than "proficient" work. Given the many decisions where the NLRB has been slapped down by appellate courts for faulty logic and abuse of discretion -- particularly in cases involving individual employees dissenting from union activity -- it would seem that a Board attorney could easily earn a ranking of "deficient" or worse.

Still, Liebman's apparent hypocrisy raises eyebrows. After years of carrying Big Labor's water and working to shove forced unionism down the throats of both employers and individual employees (and she apparently also views her quasi-judicial role to essentially include lobbying for Big Labor's coercive card check bill), Liebman suddenly finds the tables turned. The union activist now stands accused of threats, reprisals, and discrimination against employees by the very union officials that she has worked overtime to empower.

Meanwhile, these union bosses praise NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber who Liebman has derisively referred to as a promoter of an "individual rights regime." (An individual rights regime? My lands - how positively awful!)

If we thought the situation would make Liebman more sympathetic to employee free choice and individual rights, the whole experience could be a nice little learning experience for her. But we won't hold our breath.

Last time we wrote about Wilma Liebman -- National Labor Relations Board Member and unabashed promoter of compulsory unionism -- she was trashing freedom of choice for employees during hearings before Congress.

This time the NLRB Member has taken her activism to a new forum to complain about what she considers an over emphasis on individual rights. In an article in the Journal of Labor and Society, Liebman concentrates her shrill rhetoric on what she sees, God forbid, as a shift in favor of an "individual rights regime."

The screed contains much whining about a series of NLRB decisions in which Liebman dissented from the majority, but ultimately only on the last page of her article are her true motivations clearly revealed:

[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could have troubling political and social consequences.Workers may view the employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What institution will speak for working people—indeed for the middle class—as effectively?

So there you have it. Liebman's real motivation is politics pure and simple. Liebman, one of only two members currently on the five-member Board, wants to promote forced unionism over individual rights as a means to a political end (in her case that end would seem to be socialist economic policies).

She believes our nation's labor laws should be further contorted to promote what she claims are employees' "common economic interests." Nevermind that a group of workers for a single employer -- let alone the entire "middle class" -- will never all have the same interests or values, making it impossible for any institution to speak for them all.

All this raises a fundamental issue in that Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents have affirmed the free speech right of employees to refrain from union politics. If, as Liebman asserts, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) collective bargaining scheme is about promoting politics -- or as she calls it "collective action... in the public sphere" -- then the entire NLRA is not compatible with the Constitutional free speech and freedom of association rights of workers (which would certainly explain her disdain for any emphasis on individual rights).

Unfortunately for employees hoping to have their individual rights protected, Liebman will be on the Board at least until 2011.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats held hearings and called on Members of the National Labor Relations Board to speak about their views of the NLRB.

Member Wilma Liebman, one of the most fiercely pro-compulsory unionism members ever to sit on the National Labor Relations Board, testified about what she described as “a loss of confidence in the board and its processes.”

To understand what she means by that, watch the following video clip of her testifying about the NLRB back in December before a House committee. Not long after the four minute mark of the video, Liebman bemoans the fact that, according to her, the currently NLRB seems too preoccupied with “freedom of choice”:

“The Board has said for the first time that freedom of choice – which is to say the freedom to reject unionization – prevails in the statutory scheme over promoting collective bargaining.”

So there you have it: Big Labor’s real problem with recent NLRB decisions is that the Board is protecting freedom of choice too strongly, thus allowing workers to reject unionization.

That's just one of many propsed rule changes being suggested at the National Labor Relations Board. Late last week, the National Right to Work Foundation filed comments opposing the changes which would further undermine employees' freedom to choose whether or not to unionize.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap unionization election even when no employees have expressed any interest. The proposed changes would also severely undermine employees' ability to challenge any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubber stamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

Sounds like the proposed changes a real loser for employee free choice.

Leaders of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe are up in arms because Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America union officials filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board for a representation election of their casino security personnel only to pull the plug at the last minute.

Meanwhile, SPFPA officials told The Morning Sun that they never had any intention of going through with the election:

"...the union simply wanted to get the list of names and addresses of
the casino security and surveillance personnel the union hopes to
organize."

Tribe representatives called the move a "manipulation" of the system, point out that two previous organizing attempts have failed, and question the NLRB's jurisdiction over their employees in the first place.

Most likely, collecting employees' personal information is geared at pressuring them individually to support unionization through a potential "card check" drive. Sadly, this situation shows that many times, when employees reject unionization, it's just the beginning.

Today's regretful passing of commentator William F. Buckley Jr. reminds us of how Mr. Buckley stood up to compulsory unionism with help from the National Right to Work Foundation several decades back. George Leef details the fight in pages 160-162 of Free Choice for Workers: A History of the Right to Work Movement.

After American Federation of Television and Radio Artists union officials told Mr. Buckley to join the union and pay up if he wanted to voice his opinions over the airwaves, he fought back in the form of a Foundation-aided lawsuit.

Though the case was batted between the courts and National Labor Relations Board, it ultimately led the AFTRA union to stop requiring formal membership from employees. (However, it could still compel dues from employees.)

Despite this, Mr. Buckley voiced satisfaction at his case's achievement. Mr. Leef cites:

Summing up his case, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in his sydicated column, 'Thanks to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which funded this case...employees are precisely not bound to obey the union's rules any long, and the First Amendment has won a significant victory.'

The American flag will now fly at election sites where employees vote over whether or not to unionize, according to a recent announcement by the National Labor Relations Board. How ironic, considering that union officials are pressing to eliminate secret ballots over whether to unionize in favor of the coercive "card check" process, where employees are often pressured individually.

Unfortunately, the secret ballot election process is not without fault either. If 1,000 employees vote overall, and 501 vote to unionize, the other 499 must accept unwanted union "representation" over their wages and working conditions, and in 28 states pay dues or be fired. Such tyranny of the majority has no place over such fundamental choices as the Right to Work in a country that prides itself on individual freedom to choose.

Here's a new video detailing how the National Right to Work Foundation is helping a group of nurses in Pomona, California, fight back against a hostile union hierarchy:

In Wisconsin today, a local newspaper reported that employees at Woodman’s Food Stores in Janesville and Beloit will likely be granted a decertification vote to oust the unwanted United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1473 union.

The GazetteXtra reported:

“We’re going to do what the employees tell us to do,” [company president Phil] Woodman said. “We’re going to do what’s in the best interests of the employees.”

The secret ballot election (scheduled for next week) comes after the National Labor Relations Board held hearings on the validity of the employees’ decertification petition.

UFCW Local 1473 officials delayed the workers’ vote after they asked the grocery store chain for records and files on over 2,100 employees at the 11 Woodman’s stores.

Such “blocking” tactics are not unusual for UFCW union officials to use, as recently witnessed by grocery employees in Illinois.

There, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped over 300 Treasure Island grocery workers win a vote to oust the unwanted UFCW union from their workplace, after UFCW union lawyers blocked a decertification election for nearly three years.

As we continue to follow the Foxwoods Casino and Resort story in Connecticut, the National Labor Relations Board has ended its trial over the validity of the unionization drive as of yesterday.

Center to Foxwood’s argument in the case is the harassment and intimidation tactics it says independent-minded employees endured by United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers.

TheDay.com covers the story:

Diane Weaver said she was surrounded in an employee cafeteria by a group of 10 to 15 union supporters, who shouted at her. Weaver, a table game dealer for five years, testified that one person called her “stupid” and another threatened to beat her.

One dealer even testified against Bob Madore, the director of UAW Region 9A, after receiving these intimidating threats:

Debra Beebe, a dual-rate dealer for almost 15 years, said she attended a union meeting held the week before the election at the union hall in Norwich. At it, she said, “Bob” spoke and told those in the crowd the union would know who voted “no” in the election and that if those individuals filed grievances, there would be a way for the union to “retaliate.” Beebe testified that she heard Bob say that if someone who was anti-union filed a grievance, the person's paperwork would be shoved to the bottom of the stack.

Administrative Law Judge Raymond Green will issue a written decision on unionization at the casino in early March.