'Mandatory Union Membership' Is PLA's Purpose

'Mandatory Union Membership' Is PLA's Purpose

Committee President Mark Mix: The Right to Work movement and its allies are challenging President Obama’s 2009 executive order promoting union-only "project labor agreements" on federal taxpayer-funded public works. (Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor/White House Fog  Marietta, which has only about 15,000 residents, but enjoys a place of honor as the oldest city of any size in Ohio, is located more than 230 miles outside the Washington, D.C., Beltway.  And from the vantage point of Marietta's community building at Lookout Park, where the town council considered adoption of a so-called "project labor agreement" (PLA) on May 13, it appears to be far easier to see and state the obvious than it is at the White House or on Capitol Hill.  This spring, building trades union bosses lobbied furiously to convince the council's seven members to impose a Big Labor PLA on employees and firms seeking to participate in the renovation of the town's former Ohio Bureau of Employment Services building into a new municipal court facility.  Parkersburg Marietta Construction and Building Trades Council union President Bill Hutchinson claimed, time and again, that the reason he and his cohorts were twisting arms to get a PLA was to ensure that "local" workers got the jobs.  Finally, at the council's May 13 meeting, Councilman Jon Grimm decided to test building trades union bosses' sincerity.  Mr. Grimm called attention to the provision in the PLA mandating that 50% of any contractor's employees be registered with the union and pay union dues, even if they weren't union members, and didn't want to join.
Forced-Unionism Expansion, by Hook or Crook

Forced-Unionism Expansion, by Hook or Crook

Big Labor 'Organizing' Strategy Reliant on Washington, D.C. (Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Nationwide unemployment hovers near 10%.  (U.S. DOL reports unemployment rate of 9.9% for April 2010) Across America today, there is widespread hardship resulting from most businesses' lingering inability to hire more workers profitably even as the country emerges from the 2008-2009 recession. What is the response of Big Labor politicians in Washington, D.C.? Sadly, they appear determined to make matters worse. Last month, union-label U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) admitted to the Hill, a D.C. Beltway publication, that she and other members of her chamber's Democratic majority were working behind the scenes to concoct an "alternative" version of the mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act" for floor action this year. In its current form, this legislation (S.560/H.R.1409) is designed to help union bosses sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly control by effectively ending secret-ballot elections in union organizing campaigns. However, 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. Monopoly Unionism Negatively Correlated With Private-Sector Job Growth In response, as Ms. McCaskill recently acknowledged, Big Labor politicians and union lobbyists are now concocting new legislation designed to accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means.

Backdoor Card Check

The Craig Becker nomination to the National Labor Relations Board has a bigger impact on forced unionism than most people realize. The Wall Street Journal is an exception -- they know the impact he can have on millions of Americans who do not want to be forced to join a union: Arlen Specter's party switch has renewed the debate over the legislative prospects for "card check," which would effectively eliminate secret ballots in union organizing elections. But Big Labor might not even need card check if Craig Becker has his way. Mr. Becker is one of two recent National Labor Relations Board appointments by President Obama. The five-member NLRB supervises union elections, investigates labor practices and, most important, issues rulings that interpret the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Becker, who is currently the associate general counsel at Andy Stern's Service Employees International Union, is all for giving unions more power over companies in elections. Only he's not sure he needs to wait for Congress. Current law on organizing provides advantages and restrictions for both sides. Employers are required to provide union reps with a list of employees and their addresses. Union organizers can visit employees at home, but companies cannot. Organizers can also make promises to employees (such as obtaining raises), which employers cannot. Companies can argue their position at a work site up to 24 hours before an election, but they are barred from coercing employees. Both sides get a seat at the table during NLRB hearings about the scope of an election or complaints about how it was conducted. Mr. Becker has other ideas. In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, written when he was a UCLA professor, he explained that traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections.
Why Is Big Labor 'Out of Touch' With Workers? Union Officials Making $150,000+ Tripled

Why Is Big Labor 'Out of Touch' With Workers? Union Officials Making $150,000+ Tripled

Forced-Unionism Privileges, Not Fat Paychecks, Are the Root Cause (Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Just between 2000 and 2008 (the last year with complete data), the number of union officials and union staff members "earning more than $100,000 a year" tripled. Over the same period, the number of officers and staff "earning more than $150,000 also tripled." The review of federal union disclosure forms to derive these data, which pointedly challenge the conventional wisdom about union finances today, was performed not by the National Right to Work Committee or by an anti-union pundit, but rather by New York City-based union activist Mark Brenner. Mr. Brenner published his findings in an article appearing in the March issue of Labor Notes, a publication that strongly supports forced unionism, but is independent of the union hierarchy. Data Indicate Unionized Workers' Job Losses Don't Deplete Union Treasuries The fact that the number of union officials and staff earning high salaries "has exploded in recent years," as Mr. Brenner has demonstrated, might surprise people who get their information on labor unions from major media. Many commentators on American labor unions have spun together a myth about declining union finances from what is truly bad news only for union-"represented" workers, who are typically forced to pay union dues or "agency" fees as a condition of employment.
Why Is Big Labor 'Out of Touch' With Workers? Union Officials Making $150,000+ Tripled

Why Is Big Labor 'Out of Touch' With Workers? Union Officials Making $150,000+ Tripled

Forced-Unionism Privileges, Not Fat Paychecks, Are the Root Cause (Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Just between 2000 and 2008 (the last year with complete data), the number of union officials and union staff members "earning more than $100,000 a year" tripled. Over the same period, the number of officers and staff "earning more than $150,000 also tripled." The review of federal union disclosure forms to derive these data, which pointedly challenge the conventional wisdom about union finances today, was performed not by the National Right to Work Committee or by an anti-union pundit, but rather by New York City-based union activist Mark Brenner. Mr. Brenner published his findings in an article appearing in the March issue of Labor Notes, a publication that strongly supports forced unionism, but is independent of the union hierarchy. Data Indicate Unionized Workers' Job Losses Don't Deplete Union Treasuries The fact that the number of union officials and staff earning high salaries "has exploded in recent years," as Mr. Brenner has demonstrated, might surprise people who get their information on labor unions from major media. Many commentators on American labor unions have spun together a myth about declining union finances from what is truly bad news only for union-"represented" workers, who are typically forced to pay union dues or "agency" fees as a condition of employment.