Featured Posts

The Latest

NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

Union policies prevented nonunion employees from finding work on ABC’s Army Wives television show From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Washington, DC (December 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with administering most private sector labor law, has upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision awarding over $55,000 in back pay to a television employee who was discriminated against by Teamster officials. The Board’s ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas Coghill, an ABC driver who received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Teamster Local 509 union officials are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC in Charleston, South Carolina that forces workers to go through the union’s hiring hall to get a job with the studio. Because Local 509 union members were working on other sets when production of Army Wives started, Thomas Coghill – a member of a different Teamster local – was hired as a makeup driver during the show’s first two seasons. As more Local 509 members became available to work on Army Wives, a dispute arose among various Teamster officials over who should be eligible to work on the program. Coghill was eventually removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he did not belong to Local 509 while its members continued to receive preferential access to jobs on the set of Army Wives. Coghill responded to Local 509’s biased hiring procedure by filing unfair labor practice charges against the union on the grounds that federal labor law prohibits union officials from discriminating against nonunion employees. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys subsequently persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to award Coghill over $55,000 in back pay. Union lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the NLRB, which has now affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

Union policies prevented nonunion employees from finding work on ABC’s Army Wives television show From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Washington, DC (December 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with administering most private sector labor law, has upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision awarding over $55,000 in back pay to a television employee who was discriminated against by Teamster officials. The Board’s ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas Coghill, an ABC driver who received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Teamster Local 509 union officials are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC in Charleston, South Carolina that forces workers to go through the union’s hiring hall to get a job with the studio. Because Local 509 union members were working on other sets when production of Army Wives started, Thomas Coghill – a member of a different Teamster local – was hired as a makeup driver during the show’s first two seasons. As more Local 509 members became available to work on Army Wives, a dispute arose among various Teamster officials over who should be eligible to work on the program. Coghill was eventually removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he did not belong to Local 509 while its members continued to receive preferential access to jobs on the set of Army Wives. Coghill responded to Local 509’s biased hiring procedure by filing unfair labor practice charges against the union on the grounds that federal labor law prohibits union officials from discriminating against nonunion employees. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys subsequently persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to award Coghill over $55,000 in back pay. Union lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the NLRB, which has now affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
Right to Work Helps Everyone

Right to Work Helps Everyone

Writing in the Fort Wayne Gazette, David Long, the president of the state Senate and worker rights champion, outlines the benefits of enacting a Right to Work law for Indiana: There is little question what the No. 1 issue is on the minds of Hoosiers today: jobs. It’s all about jobs. Getting a job if you are currently unemployed; keeping your job if you are lucky enough to have one; attracting new jobs if you are involved with economic development. Indiana has seen unprecedented changes in its economic climate the past few years. We are consistently ranked in the top 10 states for doing business as a result of our reasonable cost of living, low taxes, and strong economic incentives and opportunities. And yet, it’s not enough. A quarter of a million Hoosiers remain unemployed, with tens of thousands trapped in an underemployed situation. Our youth unemployment rate is much higher, as it is, sadly, for our returning veterans. Can anyone question that we must do everything possible to bring more high-quality, high-paying jobs to our state? This is the goal of Republican leaders in the state legislature. Last week, we announced that our top priority for the upcoming legislative session is to pass a right-to-work law. There are some very good reasons why this is being proposed. Numerous testimonials by our state’s local economic development specialists show that nearly half of all companies looking to expand or relocate will not consider a state that doesn’t have a right-to-work law. This means that Indiana is losing out on thousands of high-paying jobs and billions of dollars in capital investment. In addition, there is strong research to support the economic case for a right-to-work law. A study from the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that personal income of residents in right-to-work states is higher than in non-right-to-work states. The National Institute for Labor Research found that right-to-work states score better on several key economic indicators, including faster growth and lower unemployment. The concept behind right to work is simple: It makes it illegal for unions to collect dues from employees who choose not to join the union.
Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Writing for the Indianapolis Political Examiner, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz confronts Big Labor's misinformation campaign against Right to Work laws head-on: While at the Statehouse on Organization Day, I took some time to speak to some of the protesters in the hallways about potential ‘Right to Work” (RTW) legislation.  I made it a point to keep an open mind and listen to their arguments against RTW.  After speaking to about half a dozen or so, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments against RTW are not based on logic, but based on emotion; albeit the emotion is fear and it is the most powerful of emotions, but it still a pathos-driven argument. I reached the conclusion that the arguments were emotionally-based, because the “logical” arguments against RTW aren’t very logical at all.  Allow me to walk through the main points. Right to Work is really right to work for less The data shows that when adjusted for costs of living, salaries in right to work states are comparable to non-RTW states. RTW is a way to break the unions Unions still exist under RTW laws, membership just can’t be compelled.  If a union is providing quality service and responding to its members needs, it shouldn’t have to worry about members bolting and leaving their ranks. RTW allow non-union workers to “freeload” off the union. When the employees agree to form a union, they can decide whether the collective bargaining agreement applies only to members or all employees.  So if a union decides to represent people who aren’t members and aren’t paying dues then that sounds like a personal problem to me. RTW interferes with an employer’s right to contract I find this argument the most intriguing.  Primarily since it usually comes from people who have no problem imposing government regulations on business (i.e. smoking bans), but for some reason this regulation they have some concern.