Illegally Fired at Michigan UAW Dons’ Behest?
Threatening workers with illegal termination is perfectly normal as far as UAW President Shawn Fain is concerned.

New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the final brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their landmark lawsuit asserting that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) violates the U.S. Constitution.
The case, which is being litigated by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, is especially notable after the Trump Administration asserted the very same legal arguments in its efforts to reform the NLRB. President Trump on January 28 fired NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, criticizing the same removal protections that Cortes and Karam’s first-in-the-nation lawsuit targeted for violating the Constitution. […]
“This case demonstrates the direct harm caused to workers rights by unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats that have stifled attempts to remove unwanted union representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB officials may not like it, but federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law in the land, the Constitution.”
All contents from this article were originally published on the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Website.
If you have questions about whether union officials are violating your rights, contact the Foundation for free help. To take action by supporting The National Right to Work Committee and fueling the fight against Forced Unionism, click here to donate now.
Threatening workers with illegal termination is perfectly normal as far as UAW President Shawn Fain is concerned.
Key appointees of Donald Trump have sent clear signals this year that the President continues to understand that standing up for Americans’ Right to Work is good policy and smart politics.
Under the Election Protection Rule issued by NLRB members appointed during the previous Trump Administration, mere allegations of employer misconduct could not block employees from having the decertification vote they requested.