From an extensive Al Jazeera America article about the National Right to Work’s Unite Here Local 355 v. Martin Mulhall and Mardi Gras Gaming ( a case that could end card-check forced unionism as we know it): Mulhall, said…
Ever since California Gov. Gray Davis handed over tens of thousands of parents, grandparents, and other independent personal home-care providers to SEIU union bosses, SEIU, AFSCME, and even the UAW unions have used forced-unionism state laws combined with gubernatorial and…
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Attorney William Messenger filed the Foundation’s brief in the UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 v. MARTIN MULHALL Supreme Court case that is set to end card-check forced unionism as we know it. We have made…
Last week CNBC reported (see the link below) on the mounting controversy over a type of government program that can force a farmer to hand over a portion of his or her annual crop “without getting paid for it.” Such…
National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys lead by W. James Young fought to stop SEIU abuses of Dianne Knox and her fellow employees right not to be compelled to "subsidize a [SEIU] political effort designed to restrict their own rights." The U.S. Supreme Court 7-2 Opinion written by Justice Alito sets back another Big Labor easy political money scheme right before the 2012 elections. This decision should lead to new challenges to Big Labor's compulsory actions in the future. Two of the Justices, Breyer and Kagan, who opposed the right of individuals to voluntarily spend their own money on politics in the Citizen United case, both supported the notation that unions could compel people to unwillingly support politics that they oppose. From the Opinion: .... When a State establishes an “agency shop” that ex- acts compulsory union fees as a condition of public employment, “[t]he dissenting employee is forced to support financially an organization with whose principles and demands he may disagree.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 455. Because a public-sector union takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 48–49, the compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a “significant impingement on First Amendment rights.”
National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys lead by W. James Young fought to stop SEIU abuses of Dianne Knox and her fellow employees right not to be compelled to "subsidize a [SEIU] political effort designed to restrict their own rights." The U.S. Supreme Court 7-2 Opinion written by Justice Alito sets back another Big Labor easy political money scheme right before the 2012 elections. This decision should lead to new challenges to Big Labor's compulsory actions in the future. Two of the Justices, Breyer and Kagan, who opposed the right of individuals to voluntarily spend their own money on politics in the Citizen United case, both supported the notation that unions could compel people to unwillingly support politics that they oppose. From the Opinion: .... When a State establishes an “agency shop” that ex- acts compulsory union fees as a condition of public employment, “[t]he dissenting employee is forced to support financially an organization with whose principles and demands he may disagree.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 455. Because a public-sector union takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 48–49, the compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a “significant impingement on First Amendment rights.”
In a just-published book, Big Labor academic Richard Kahlenberg and union lawyer Moshe Marvit (inset) advocate full protection for the right to join a union, but only nominal protection for the right not to join. Credit: The Century Foundation Carnegie Mellon University Big Labor Academics Oppose Equal Protection For Right Not to Join (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the principal federal law regulating employee-employer relations in America's private sector, purports to uphold the right to "form, join or assist labor organizations" and also "the right to refrain from" forming, joining or assisting such organizations. But the NLRA fails utterly to give equal protection to workers who don't want a union. For example, under the NLRA as interpreted by the courts, workers have only a nominal right not to join. As nonmembers, they don't have the right to refuse to pay dues or fees to a union, and still keep their jobs, whenever union officials can obtain "exclusive" bargaining privileges. On the other hand, the NLRA fully protects the freedom of employees who want a union to join and pay dues; it doesn't matter at all if their employer and the majority of their fellow employees oppose unionization. Pro-union employees cannot legally be fired or otherwise discriminated against for joining or financially supporting a union under any circumstances. 'True Civil Rights Are Two-Way Streets'
In a just-published book, Big Labor academic Richard Kahlenberg and union lawyer Moshe Marvit (inset) advocate full protection for the right to join a union, but only nominal protection for the right not to join. Credit: The Century Foundation Carnegie Mellon University Big Labor Academics Oppose Equal Protection For Right Not to Join (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the principal federal law regulating employee-employer relations in America's private sector, purports to uphold the right to "form, join or assist labor organizations" and also "the right to refrain from" forming, joining or assisting such organizations. But the NLRA fails utterly to give equal protection to workers who don't want a union. For example, under the NLRA as interpreted by the courts, workers have only a nominal right not to join. As nonmembers, they don't have the right to refuse to pay dues or fees to a union, and still keep their jobs, whenever union officials can obtain "exclusive" bargaining privileges. On the other hand, the NLRA fully protects the freedom of employees who want a union to join and pay dues; it doesn't matter at all if their employer and the majority of their fellow employees oppose unionization. Pro-union employees cannot legally be fired or otherwise discriminated against for joining or financially supporting a union under any circumstances. 'True Civil Rights Are Two-Way Streets'
In southwestern Washington last September, overpowered police were unable to prevent bat- and ax handle-wielding union toughs from systematically sabotaging a multi-million-dollar grain terminal. Credit: AP Georgia Congressman Strives to Abolish 'Union-Thug Exemption' (Source: January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) In today's America, prosecutions of Big Labor arson, assaults, death threats, and other serious crimes are extraordinarily difficult. Such prosecutions are frequently hindered because of a loophole in federal law that exempts extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pursuant to so-called "legitimate union objectives." And one objective that federal law clearly deems to be "legitimate" is to expand the number of employees who are forced to accept union representation and pay union dues as a condition of employment. "Time and again, federal prosecutors have amassed extensive evidence that Big Labor bosses have orchestrated, authorized and/or ratified violence, vandalism and threats for union organizing purposes," noted Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee. "Nevertheless, because of the pro-union violence loophole in the federal Hobbs Act, extortion prosecutions of the implicated union officials ultimately fail -- or never even get off the ground." In its controversial 1973 Enmons decision, Mr. Mix explained, a divided U.S. Supreme Court exempted threats, vandalism and violence perpetrated to secure "legitimate" union goals. Union Goons in Buffalo Accused of Sabotage, Assault With a Knife, Rape Threat What this means in practice can be illustrated by a federal criminal case, now before U.S. District Judge William Skretny in New York, against 10 former officers and militants of the Buffalo-based Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.