Las Vegas Workers Score a Win Against SPFPA Illegal Dues
Las Vegas workers have won a settlement against SPFPA union officials where they must now pay back $4,200 that was illegally taken through forced dues.
By killing Congress’ attempt to protect the rights of working Americans, President Obama continues to endorse his National Labor Relations Board’s schizophrenic policies. The latest examples are the NLRB’s new Ambush Election Rules and Obama’s “veto” publicly green-lights the NLRB’s changes in union representational elections that favor union bosses over employees.
Meanwhile, the NLRB appears to be bending over-backwards to allow Big Labor Bosses to nullify votes by hardworking Americans who are voting out unwanted union bosses and their monopoly-bargaining contracts. In its comment on the NLRB’s proposed Ambush Election Rules, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation pointed out this hypocrisy.
Or, you could ask the people in Alabama who have been trying to vote out UAW bosses for two years in four NLRB-run decertification elections (see:NLRB’s April Fools Hearing: 5th Vote to Oust UAW?).
The NLRB’s hypocrisy does not stop there.
In another recent example of the NRLB’s Big Labor bias and its “workers be damned” attitude, NLRB Board Member Philip A. Miscimarra highlighted the NLRB’s hypocrisy. The Board voted to prevent people who were card-checked into a union contract from being able to have a vote to get out the union. In yesterday’s publication of the Cox-Americold case, Miscimarra exposed the two-faced actions of the Obama NLRB:
“In doing so [by ruling against a decertification vote], they [the NLRB Board Members] create an upside-down regime under which, if employees elect a union, they cannot have another election for a year, but if the union becomes their representative without an election, they may be barred from casting ballots in a Board election for more than a year.
In this context, it is ironic that the Board recently adopted new, comprehensive regulations that dramatically change our representation-election procedures based in large part on a desire to make elections take place more quickly. Final Election Rule, 79 FR 74308 (Dec. 15, 2014) [NLRB’s new Ambush Election Rules] (referring to the “essential principle” that representation cases “should be resolved quickly”); id. at 74314 (“The Act enshrines a democratic framework for employee choice and . . . charges the Board to ‘promulgate rules . . . in order that employees’ votes may be recorded accurately, efficiently and speedily.’”).
In today’s decision, my colleagues reverse direction from the [Ambush] Election Rule in three ways
Where’s the NLRB’s quick resolution when employees want to be freed from a burdensome monopoly-bargaining contract? Obama’s endorsement of policies that empower Big Labor Bosses at the cost of individual freedoms illustrates why many ACORN-types call Obama the “Organizer in Chief”.
In today’s Deroy Murdock editorial at NewsMax, he writes that the PRO Act (S. 420) will obliterate…
These elections supply added examples and evidence that the PRO Act should be rejected, which should be more than obvious by now that the PRO Act does nothing but take away choice from employees and bestows unconstitutional powers onto union officials and government officials. Under the PRO Act results like these could be overturned by union cronies in government agencies and then they could impose unwanted union control over these employees again even though they just rejected the union officials by a democratic vote.