A recent ruling by a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge upheld the right of employees to sign a union decertification petition in the midst of a debilitating strike. More importantly, the ruling also endorsed the employer’s refusal to hand over non-striking workers’ home addresses and other personal information to union officials bent on harassment and intimidation.

On the advice of Foundation staff attorneys, a substantial majority (77 percent) of non-striking employees at a Tenneco facility in Grass Lakes, Michigan signed a petition in favor of union decertification. Unwilling to relinquish their stranglehold on workplace representation, United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 660 officials filed a complaint with the NLRB, arguing that non-striking employees favored decertification only because of Tenneco’s unfair labor practices. The NLRB judge rejected these claims and concluded that the UAW’s objections to the decertification process were entirely without merit.

More significant, however, was the stern rebuke delivered to UAW officials for demanding Tenneco hand over the non-striking workers’ personal contact information, including home addresses. Union officials claimed they needed the employees’ home addresses to "communicate" the benefits of membership directly, but the judge decided that the threat of union intimidation justified Tenneco’s decision to withold personal information from UAW militants.

The judge noted that the union’s rationale for acquiring the employees’ home addresses was suspect, as " . . . the Union had other viable means of communicating with the replacements short of having access to their homes." He also recognized that union operatives had exhibited a pattern of harassment, having previously " . . . traveled to the personal residence of two members, whose address they certainly had access to, and staged a protest of their stance on the strike." The judge further noted the UAW’s "venomous" and "disrespectful" attitude towards non-striking workers. So much for fair representation.

Full text of the NLRB ruling is available here. It’s a long decision, but you’ll find the judge’s response to union demands for employees’ personal information on pages 62-65. His assesment of the decertification petition’s legality is available on pages 74-79.

Strike-related violence is an under-reported aspect of compulsory unionization, and the UAW has a long history of harassment and abuse. In fact, Freedom@Work recently exposed a similar campaign of intimidation against non-striking workers at a Volvo auto plant in Pulaski County, Virginia.

An article in The New Republic points to the tens of millions of dollars being spent by union officials on politics and specifically focuses on the massive involvement by the so-called "Change to Win" union coalition in politics.

The article calls Change to Win’s decision to endorse Obama an "about-face," citing Change to Win’s early declarations that it would not focus on politics but on organizing. Yet, Change to Win’s emphasis on politics (led by SEIU top boss Andy Stern) really wasn’t that hard to predict.

In fact, back in 2005 when Change to Win union bosses split from the AFL-CIO union hierarchy National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason had this to say:

This political posturing within ultra-elite union hierarchies amounts to nothing more than a shell game by power-hungry union officials bent on control over more than $10 billion in compulsory union dues. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is steering Big Labor’s ship as long as individual workers continue to be strapped to the mast.

Ultimately, it is not Change to Win’s flip-flop on its rhetoric about that political spending that is the real hypocrisy, but the split itself…

Change to Win left the AFL-CIO because Change to Win union officials objected to how dues money was being spent and they didn’t like the representation they were receiving from the AFL-CIO. Yet, everyday individual employees who object to how their dues are being spent and to the representation that they are getting from union bosses are told to just pay up or be fired.

A Foundation Action subscriber recently brought this developing story to our attention. Reports of union-related violence and intimidation have surfaced in Bakersfield, California, where members of the local United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners are accused of physically abusing a project manager at a local construction site. Police have responded to reports of union-related violence by opening an investigation into the incident.

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. intends to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board charging the union with physical violence, coercive behavior, and invasion of a job site. The organization represents non-union contractors nationwide.

This incident is only the most recent example of union members threatening non-striking co-workers with violence and intimidation. In case you missed it, Freedom@Work has been covering a campaign of union-instigated harassment at a Volvo auto plant in Pulaski County, Virginia. Data compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research suggests that these confrontations are symptomatic of a wider problem, as union violence is often under-reported and difficult to prosecute.

As global food prices continue to skyrocket, regulations that entrench union special privileges are delaying critical food shipments from reaching their intended destinations. According to the Center for Global Development and The Los Angeles Times, union-imposed labor requirements have slowed food shipments because aid agencies are forced to rely on U.S.-flagged ships for transportation:

The Center for Global Development also estimates that these regulations increase the cost of foreign assistance by up to 30%, eroding the benefits of aid through massive overhead costs. Union officials support this wasteful policy because it forces ports to rely on a heavily unionized workforce that generates millions of dollars in dues payments each year.

This isn’t a new problem, either. Union-boss-inspired maritime regulations have plagued the delivery of foreign aid consignments for over a decade. With food prices soaring throughout the Third World, however, now is an ideal time to jettison these obstructionist compulsory unionism privileges.

Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman filed official comments with the Department of Labor regarding a proposal to mandate public financial reporting for union trusts.

As yesterday’s post on $25 million that was misused from five union pension funds makes clear, these trust funds can be used to funnel money to things ranging from the Democrat party to strip clubs and horse farms. Any increased disclosure would be a step (though perhaps only a small one) in the right direction.

One area that the Foundation’s comments focus on is the loophole for so-called "sensitive information":

This "sensitive information" exception to full disclosure is simply a loophole allowing union and trust fund officials to unilaterally determine what disclosure must be made public, and then hide a vast array of questionable expenditures. Financial reports of trust fund operations and expenditures can never be considered "confidential" information, because this money is owned by the employees, not the union or trust fund officials. Fiduciary agents have no right to maintain secret record or engage in secret transactions that are purposefully hidden from principals – the employees who are the actual owners of the funds.

Expect Big Labor to fight tooth and nail any proposal that would give employees better access to information about the money they are being forced to hand over to union and trust fund officials.

The Chicago Sun Times reports that $25 million from five union pension funds have been misused by a Chicago firm that specializes in managing union pension funds. Such funds are funded from employees’ paychecks and normally all employees under a union contract – even if they don’t want to be – are forced to pay money in. Often the pension funds are then used as de facto slush funds for union officials.

According to reports, one million dollars were funneled into political organizations including "Citizens for a Greater Detroit" and the Michigan Democrats. Money was also used to buy a Detroit strip club, a Michigan horse farm, and millions were used for "travel and entertainment" for clients including private jets, Vegas nightclubs and Super Bowl tickets.

Since the firm specializes in managing union pension funds, the "clients" being entertained were likely union officials who were effectively ripping off the very employees they claim to represent. It is also unlikely that it is a coincidence that the political money went to the union’s political allies.

The Department of Labor is suing the firm to try and recover the funds, but if unions didn’t have the power to force employees to accept their "representation," employees would not have been compelled to fund these pension plans in the first place.

News today of more squabbling between SEIU and CNA union officials. A dispute over reigning roughly 8,000 Ohio nurses, and their forced union dues, into compulsory unionism led to a fight at a banquet.

As you can watch described below, not only did union operatives throw punches, hit people with signs, and link arms to block out the arriving police, but an elderly woman was also knocked to the ground.

Here is a copy of the indictment of twelve Operating Engineers Local 17 union officials we first discussed last week.

The 62-page indictment details a brutal and sustained campaign by union officials to terrorize employees and employers, in an effort attack employers whose workers haven’t chosen unionization, and to force employees into forced-union dues paying ranks. Included in the indictment is a 33 page list of 75 individual acts of thuggery that includes:

• A stabbing
• A broken windshield that cut an employee’s face
• Hundreds of thousands of dollars in vandalized construction equipment
• Threats against nonunion workers
• Running the license plates of nonunion employees
• Slashed tires
• Threats against going to the police
• Locking employees in and out of their workplace
• Throwing coffee at employees and their vehicles
• Sabotaging construction equipment
• The use of "star nails" to flatten employees’ tires
• Death threats

If a recent article in Variety is any indication, it sounds like Hollywood heavyweight George Clooney may share the late Charlton Heston’s distaste for forced unionism. He told Variety about his recent decision to resign his formal union membership:

"When your own union doesn’t back what you’ve done, the only honorable thing to do is not participate."

However, Clooney must still pay some union dues since California has no Right to Work law banning forced union dues. The article continues:

Clooney says he would have quit the WGA altogether if he could, but
that would have prevented him from working on all WGA-covered
productions.

If George Clooney or anyone else would like more information or request free legal aid, they can click here.

Senator Ted Kennedy responds to the Wall Street Journal’s recent piece that among other things, exposed the coercive nature of "card check" union organizing. He brands the process "simple and fair," but maybe he should watch the video below, which we posted a few weeks back. The only thing simple about such campaigns is how unfair to employees they are. Read more in this letter to the editor from today.