Victory: San Diego Charter School Educators Vote Out Teacher Union Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
SDEA officials stonewalled vote at charter school for years with “blocking charges” and pressure from elected officials
Kristie Chiscano kick-started the first effort at Gompers to remove the SDEA union. She witnessed firsthand that union control was ruining the independent nature of the charter school.
SAN DIEGO, CA – When San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union officials rose to power in 2019 at Gompers Preparatory Academy (GPA), educators and parents were rightfully concerned about what impact it would have on students’ progress and well-being.
Gompers had made an impressive transition to being a union-free charter school in 2005 after years of being plagued by unresponsive union bureaucracies, violence, high teacher turnover, and poor academic achievement. Teachers who feared that union monopoly control would allow such problems to creep back into Gompers quickly began an effort to vote out the union.
“I chose to work at a school that didn’t have a union, and now they’ve come in and they’re running everything about my contract and my work,” Kristie Chiscano, then a Gompers chemistry teacher and proponent of the decertification effort, said at the time.
While union stall tactics derailed Gompers educators’ 2019 effort to oust the union, Gompers educators didn’t give up. A majority of Gompers teachers backed another petition asking the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for a vote to remove the union in 2023. Now, after years of legal maneuvers from union officials, Gompers educators have successfully ousted the SDEA with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
SDEA Officials Used Spurious Charges to Block Earlier Teacher Effort
“There is definitely a lot more joy that’s going to be in classrooms now, instead of a burden with the union,” Cynthia Ornelas, a sixth grade Gompers teacher, told KPBS. “The union was making decisions for us, oh my goodness! We never knew what they were deciding because they didn’t communicate with teachers.”
Gompers teachers’ first effort to eliminate the SDEA union stemmed from an October 2019 petition that had the backing of a significant number of teachers, more than required by state law. However, SDEA union bosses averted the election by filing so-called “blocking charges” containing allegations of employer misconduct.
Union officials often manipulate “blocking charges” at the PERB and other state and federal labor relations agencies to stifle worker attempts to eliminate unpopular union “representation.”
As Foundation attorneys defended Gompers educators’ first petition, they also challenged a regulation requiring PERB agents and attorneys to accept union bosses’ “blocking charge” allegations as true. This regulation almost guarantees union defeat of any worker attempt to vote a union out.
Despite the PERB never holding a hearing into whether SDEA union bosses’ claims had any merit or whether they were related to the workers’ dissatisfaction with the union, PERB officials denied a decertification election to Gompers educators in October 2020.
Aside from legal maneuvers, union officials used intimidation and pressure to avoid being voted out. Chiscano and another Gompers educator filed charges maintaining that SDEA agents targeted them on social media for opposing the union hierarchy. California law makes it illegal for union officials to intimidate or retaliate against employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership. Union-label California legislator Lorena Gonzalez, then an assemblywoman and now a top California AFL-CIO official, even wrote a screed to Gompers management that attacked the National Right to Work Foundation for simply providing legal aid to Gompers educators.
Teachers’ Long Struggle Exposes Massive Power of CA Public Sector Unions
Gompers educators submitted the March 2023 petition at the earliest time permitted by California labor regulations, which immunize union officials from employee-led decertification efforts for all but a tiny window while union contracts are active. Now, nearly four years after their original effort began, Gompers educators are finally free from union control.
“Gompers educators witnessed that SDEA union officials were not acting in the best interests of the students or the school community at large, and they fought courageously to bring back the independent environment that made Gompers a success,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, Gompers teachers shouldn’t have had to fight as long or as hard as they did simply to exercise their rights. No special interest group in California, or in America, should wield this kind of power over teachers and the public education system.
Support Staff at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children Vote to Eject AFSCME Union Officials
Large unit of over 270 medical assistants, office coordinators, and others will now be free of union control
Philadelphia, PA (December 20, 2023) – Support staff at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia have successfully voted American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials out of power at their facility. The victory follows hospital employee Shidiah Jackson’s submission of a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which contained signatures from enough of her coworkers to trigger a union decertification vote under NLRB rules.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys provided Jackson with free legal advice during the decertification process. The approximately 277-person work unit contains medical assistants, office coordinators, medical secretaries, and many other support employees, and the tally of ballots showed nearly 60% of those participating in favor of ousting AFSCME. The vote occurred on November 30, and the NLRB certified the results of the election earlier this month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install or remove unions. Under NLRB rules, a union decertification petition must contain the signatures of at least 30% of the employees at a workplace to trigger a decertification election.
If a majority of workers vote against a union in a decertification vote, the union is removed from the workplace and loses its monopoly bargaining power. Such power permits union officials to dictate the contract provisions of all employees in a unit, even those who oppose or voted against the union.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AFSCME union bosses had the power to enter into contracts with hospital management that forced Jackson and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Healthcare Employees Across the U.S. Reject Union Control
“AFSCME union officials were taking money from many employees’ paychecks but didn’t advocate effectively for me or my colleagues,” Jackson commented. “I’m glad that we were able to exercise our right to remove the AFSCME, and I think we will be able to serve the hospital’s medical staff and patients better with the union gone.”
In Minnesota, support staff at Mayo Clinic in Austin are currently seeking to boot Steelworkers union officials from their facility as well. Foundation staff attorneys earlier this month filed an NLRB union decertification petition for patient care specialist Erin Krulish, which contains signatures from a majority of other support staff at the clinic. Krulish’s effort is the latest in a string of Foundation-backed union decertification efforts in the Gopher State, with nurses and support staff at Mankato’s Mayo Clinic and St. James Mayo Clinic nurses all voting successfully to remove unions in 2022 alone.
“It seems that American medical employees are discovering that union officials’ one-size-fits-all ‘representation’ doesn’t always work to their benefit, nor does it help them take better care of their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s easy to see why healthcare workers would want to avoid compulsory dues payments, or being ordered to strike and abandon their patients during a busy time.”
“Those in the healthcare industry should know that they have a right to petition the NLRB for a vote to remove a union, and that National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys can assist them through this daunting process,” Mix added.
Right to Work Foundation Brief: 2018 Janus Decision Means Union “Release Time” Violates AZ Constitution’s Gift Clause
Brief supports challenge pending at Arizona Supreme Court against Phoenix’s scheme to subsidize inherently political union activities with tax dollars
Phoenix, AZ (December 14, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief in Mark Gilmore v. Kate Gallego, a case currently pending before the Arizona Supreme Court. In the case, Phoenix city employees Mark Gilmore and Mark Harder are suing Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego for engaging in a scheme that redirects taxpayer funds intended for public employees’ compensation toward political advocacy conducted by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Field II agents on so-called “release time.”
Specifically, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit argues the Arizona Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund four full-time positions for union officials for the purpose of conducting union business, in addition to a bank of over 3,000 paid hours to be used by other union officials for union purposes, and multiple other perks for union agents.
The Foundation’s brief argues that the release time scheme violates Arizona’s Gift Clause, which forbids government transactions that bestow benefits on private entities while serving no public purpose. The brief points out that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case demonstrates that, under the First Amendment, all government union activities are a form of lobbying designed to influence public policy for the benefit of the union. That means taxpayer subsidies of such activities inherently violate the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Brief: “Release Time” Funnels Tax Dollars Unconstitutionally to Union Bosses
The policies unions lobby for “often are matters of substantial public concern, such as how much money the government expends on wages and benefits,” the brief reads. “With its release time policy, the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members. The notion that this political advocacy serves a public purpose is untenable.”
In the Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forcing public sector workers to fund any union activities as a condition of employment constitutes forced political speech barred by the First Amendment.
The Foundation’s brief also deconstructs a proposition that the City of Phoenix’s ability to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on entire swaths of employees somehow counts as a “public benefit” that the City receives in exchange for enforcing the release time scheme. Foundation attorneys instead argue that the municipal labor code already imposes this obligation on both the union and the City, and thus isn’t a benefit that union bosses are giving the City.
“Given the code already requires the City and AFSCME to impose uniform terms of employment on unit employees, union member and nonmember alike, it necessarily follows that the City did not need to provide AFSCME agents with release time to comply with its pre-existing legal obligations,” the brief contends.
“Union bosses, who will often screech about ‘corporate welfare,’ are more than happy to arrange so-called ‘release time’ schemes in which taxpayer dollars are funneled toward supporting their massive lobbying efforts,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Janus made it plain and simple that compelling public sector employees to fund union activities constitutes forced political speech, and the Arizona Supreme Court has an obligation to declare unlawful compulsion foisted on taxpayers.”
L’Oréal Employee Hits Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions, Threats for Seeking to Oust Union
According to charge, union agent threatened: “The union is like a big mafia…something bad is going to happen to you”
Piscataway, NJ (December 6, 2023) – Piscataway L’Oréal USA employee Ana Maria Hoyos Lopez has slammed the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU/UFCW) Local 262 with federal charges, which assert that RWDSU made illegal threats against her for opposing the union. She filed the charges at Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
In September, Hoyos Lopez submitted a petition to the NLRB in which she and her coworkers requested a vote to remove the union (or “decertification vote”). She asserts in her charges that union agents targeted her as she was circulating the petition. In particular, Hoyos Lopez stated that a L’Oréal employee told her on September 6, 2023, that “the union is like a big mafia” and “something bad is going to happen to you if the union leaves.”
Hoyos Lopez’s charges also recount a September 22 union meeting in which union officials, including the RWDSU Local 262 President and shop steward, shouted her and other employees down after they brought up shortcomings in the union’s performance. The union officials demanded the pro-decertification employees leave the union’s meeting.
Even after Hoyos Lopez and other employees voluntarily departed the meeting, the charges state, the union president “chased after” Hoyos Lopez and threatened to call the police on her if she did not completely leave the public park in which the meeting took place. The charges also state that union officials approached pro-decertification L’Oreal employee Jarry Moreno at the same meeting and told him to convince Hoyos Lopez to withdraw the petition.
Hoyos Lopez’s charges indicate that she experienced more illegal activity than just intimidation from union agents. RWDSU union officials also refused to honor or respond to emails she sent resigning her union membership and opting out of dues payments for union political expenses. New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, and thus allows union officials and management to enforce contracts in which workers are forced to pay union fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. However, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision guards workers from being forced to pay any dues that go toward union politics or other expenses unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions.
“As such, RWDSU/UFCW Local 262 must honor [Hoyos Lopez’s] resignation request, and given there is no collective bargaining agreement in place, cease all further deductions from [her] paycheck,” the charges state.
Illegal Union Threats Continue After Contested Election
The election to decertify RWDSU, which took place October 19 and 20, is currently the subject of objections from Hoyos Lopez. The objections assert that union officials unlawfully interfered with the election through their intimidating actions during the September 22 meeting, as well as through campaign misrepresentations and racially-charged tactics.
Hoyos Lopez’s federal charges, which she filed after submitting her election objections, state that employees she believed were acting on behalf of the union targeted her after she attempted to defend the integrity of the election. On November 27, “a L’Oréal contractor…intimidated [Hoyos Lopez]” and told her that “people say you have to leave because you have problems with the union.”
The charges argue that all of these actions by RWDSU union officials and alleged union agents are clear violations of Hoyos Lopez’s rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing. Section 7 protects workers’ right to refrain from union activities.
“It appears abundantly clear that RWDSU union officials at the L’Oréal USA plant leveraged threats, intimidation, and a host of other divisive tactics in order to demonize any worker who went against their agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The union’s focus was clearly on maintaining their forced-dues power over L’Oréal employees, even at the expense of steamrolling the rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent’ – they were deprived of a fair election, and couldn’t even voice legitimate concerns about the union without fear of retaliation.”
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight for Ms. Hoyos Lopez and her coworkers until they can exercise their right to vote on whether RWDSU bosses deserve to stay in a free and uncoerced environment,” Mix added.
Buffalo Starbucks Baristas Blast National Labor Relations Board’s Move to Trap Workers in Union at Court of Appeals
NLRB lawyers claim workers’ opposition to union “justifies” union being imposed on unwilling employees
Buffalo, NY (November 28, 2023) – Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, Starbucks partners in the Buffalo area, have just filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals case Leslie v. Starbucks Corp. In the case, NLRB officials are attempting to prosecute Starbucks for misconduct alleged by SEIU-affiliated Workers United union officials. The NLRB cites a petition that Cortes and her coworkers filed seeking a vote to remove the union as a reason why Starbucks management should be subjected to a court-ordered injunction.
Cortes and Karam, who are represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenge this legal maneuver in their brief. The employee’s brief argues that the NLRB’s strategy treats workers as if they have no agency of their own and have no independent reasons for wanting to get rid of a union.
“Given the biases of the current Board, it is disheartening ― but not surprising ― to see the NLRB claim Cortes’ petition is the product of Starbucks’ alleged unfair labor practices,” the brief states. “Its own records show that nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, Cortes collected her petition because of the Union’s anti-employee behavior.”
The employees’ brief also contends that the relief NLRB lawyers are seeking from the Second Circuit – a 10(j) injunction under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that will force Starbucks managers into working with SBWU union bosses to craft a monopoly bargaining contract – is extreme. Such injunctions can only be ordered when the harm done to workers in their absence would be “irreparable.” Foundation attorneys argue that the fact that Cortes and other employees have attempted to decertify does not make any injuries suffered by the union “irreparable.”
“The NLRB’s argument it needs an injunction to suppress decertification efforts already underway―which have already garnered majority support―is a tacit admission it is seeking to alter the status quo, not preserve it,” states the brief.
Cortes is also receiving Foundation legal aid in a case challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. That case, currently pending at the D.C. District Court, argues that the structure of the NLRB is unconstitutional.
Dangerous Precedent Set If Court Grants Anti-Worker Injunction
If the Second Circuit grants the NLRB’s request for an injunction on behalf of SBWU union bosses, it would be the first time that a federal court has ordered a Starbucks store to engage in bargaining with union bosses on the basis of an employee’s decertification petition. This would be a horrendous precedent for independent-minded Starbucks workers across the country.
Starbucks workers all across the country have submitted decertification petitions seeking votes to remove SBWU union bosses, including at least nine groups of employees who are utilizing free Foundation legal aid. The NLRB would be able to use the federal court precedent to make the dubious argument that union bargaining should be mandated simply because employees want a chance to oust the union.
“The NLRB is digging an even deeper grave for employees trying to exercise their rights to remove an unwanted union from their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Board’s attempt to twist employees’ desire to exercise their right to throw out a union into a reason to force a union upon them is a new low.”
“Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam are taking a courageous stand to ensure their coworkers aren’t disenfranchised and trapped under a union hierarchy they oppose, and we’re proud to support them,” Mix added.
Buena Park Medieval Times Employees Request Vote to Banish AGVA Union Bosses from Castle
Performer’s petition contains support from majority of employees at Buena Park location; National Labor Relations Board will now review
Los Angeles, CA (November 27, 2023) – Michelle Dean, a performer at dinner theater concept Medieval Times’ Buena Park location, today filed a petition at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requesting a vote to remove American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union officials from power at her workplace. Her petition, which she filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contains the signatures of a majority of her fellow performers at the “castle.”
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Under NLRB rules, a union decertification petition must contain the signatures of 30 percent or more of the employees at a workplace to trigger a decertification election. If a majority of employees vote against the union, it is removed from the workplace.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AGVA union bosses have the power to enter into contracts with Medieval Times management that force Dean and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Nevada and Arizona, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both non-Right to Work states and Right to Work states, union bosses have the power over the work conditions of every employee in a unionized workplace, including those who don’t support or voted against the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of that monopoly bargaining power.
AGVA Officials Abruptly End Strike Order Just Ahead of Decertification Effort
Just last week, AGVA union officials unconditionally called off a long-running strike order at the Buena Park Medieval Times, meaning a number of employees will return to work after being ordered off the job for roughly nine months. Protracted and divisive strike orders are often a factor workers cite as reasons to send union officials packing.
The performers at the Buena Park Medieval Times are the second group of Medieval Times workers that Foundation staff attorneys are aiding in removing the AGVA union. Lyndhurst, NJ, Medieval Times employee Artemesia Morley submitted a decertification petition earlier this year that also contained signatures from a majority of her coworkers, but NLRB Region 22 in Newark, NJ, blocked the petition based on unproven charges of misconduct AGVA made against Medieval Times management. Foundation attorneys are now defending Morley’s petition before the NLRB in Washington, DC; Morley’s Request for Review notes that AGVA union officials were “secretive, self-interested, and divisive,” and “regularly advocated that the [Medieval Times] employees go on strike, something that had no support among the unit employees.”
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that the AGVA union’s reign over Medieval Times performers resembles a ruthless tyrant more interested in promoting union bosses’ power than what is best for rank-and-file employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “If AGVA union bosses really do have the support they claim they do among Medieval Times employees, they should simply let them exercise their right to vote as opposed to engaging in legal maneuvers to stop it from happening.”
Starbucks Workers Nationwide Rising Up Against Union Representation
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation provides free legal aid to Starbucks employees looking to remove unions
Mark Mix appeared on Newsmax TV this summer to discuss reports that union bosses spent millions to infiltrate Starbucks workforces with union agitators, many of whom hid their affiliations from their coworkers and even Congress.
WASHINGTON, DC – Union bosses and their bought-and-paid-for political allies like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been touting the unionization of some Starbucks locations as a breakthrough for Big Labor. But Starbucks employees under union control are increasingly realizing the drawbacks of having union bosses in the workplace and are banding together to say “NO” to union power.
In the last few months, employees at Starbucks locations in Manhattan and Buffalo, NY, Pittsburgh, PA, Minneapolis, MN, and Salt Lake City, UT, have all filed decertification petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), requesting the agency hold elections at their stores to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union. All have received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.
But SBWU union officials — boosted by operatives from their notorious puppeteer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — are fighting tooth and nail to remain in power at Starbucks locations where workers want them gone.
SBWU union officials are flooding the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with unrelated charges of alleged employer wrongdoing in an attempt to stall these decertification petitions.
Starbucks Worker’s Brief Blasts NLRB Double Standard on Elections
In June, Foundation staff attorneys filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, D.C., as a part of a case for Buffalo Starbucks worker Ariana Cortes. This request asks the Board to reverse an NLRB Regional Director’s order dismissing Cortes and her coworkers’ majority-backed petition for a decertification election on whether to remove SBWU.
The filing emphasizes that the employees want an election to remove a union that lacks the support of a majority of the workers. Employee free choice is a fundamental principle of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and by denying these employees an election, the Board is undermining free choice.
The brief also observes the basis for blocking the vote is contradicted by the NLRB allowing union-backed certification elections to proceed with little or no delay. The result is that the SEIU is like a roach motel, easy to enter but impossible to leave.
Efforts to Boot SBWU Increasing Across Country
“They have treated us like pawns, promising us that we could remove them after a year if we no longer wanted their representation, and are now trying to stop us from exercising our right to vote,” Cortes said of SBWU union bosses. “It’s obvious they care more about power and control than respecting our individual rights.”
Cortes and her coworkers are not the only workers to become disillusioned with SBWU.
Foundation attorneys recently began representing employees at Starbucks branches at Pittsburgh’s Penn Center East, the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN, and Cottonwood Heights in the Salt Lake Valley, UT, who also submitted petitions demanding decertification votes on SBWU union officials.
“SBWU union bosses have not looked out for the interests of me and my fellow employees,” commented Pittsburgh Starbucks employee Elizabeth Gulliford. “We simply want to exercise our right to vote out a union that we don’t believe has done a good job, and both SBWU and Starbucks should respect that right and our final decision.”
The Starbucks employee-led decertification attempts all took place about one year after union power was installed at these stores — meaning workers seized the opportunity to decertify nearly as soon as legally possible. Federal labor law prevents workers from exercising their right to remove an unpopular union for at least one year after the union is installed.
Biden NLRB Propping Up Union Boss Attempts to Squash Votes
“It is becoming increasingly obvious that SBWU officials seek to extend their power over as many Starbucks workers as possible, with little regard for the employees they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “And as we’ve seen in Ms. Cortes’ case in Buffalo, Biden NLRB officials are more than willing to indulge union bosses’ legal maneuvers to cling onto power even when workers have clearly had enough.”
“SBWU officials should not seek to disenfranchise the Starbucks workers they claim to ‘represent’ as those workers try to flee the SBWU’s clutches,” Messenger added. “The union officials’ conduct shows why fundamental changes must be made to the NLRB’s election processes to better protect employee free choice.”
Employee Advocate Blasts Proposed Labor Department Rule Rigging Visa Program in Favor of Union Organizers
National Right to Work Foundation Comments: DOL lacks authority to enforce pro-union boss regulation over temporary agricultural workers
Washington, DC (November 21, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted comments with the Department of Labor opposing the agency’s slated rule misleadingly titled “Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States.” The comments explain that the agency is trying to impose portions of federal labor law favorable to union bosses on temporary agricultural employees, who are under the jurisdiction of state labor laws. The comments argue this agency action defies federal law and is without Congressional authorization.
The proposed rule would assist union bosses with imposing monopoly union representation on swaths of temporary agricultural workers in the United States, including workers who don’t support a union. Among other things, the rule requires that employers fork over employee contact information at union bosses’ request – regardless of whether the union has any employee support. The proposed rule would also cajole employers to enter into so-called “neutrality agreements” with union bosses. “Neutrality agreements” typically require employers to censor information about the union and provide other aid to union bosses in their efforts to collectivize workers.
The comments cite multiple reasons as to why the Department of Labor lacks the legal authority to implement the proposed rule, such as the fact that Congress expressly excluded agricultural workers from federal labor statutes.
“In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the Department admits that it is effectively imposing portions of the National Labor Relations Act (‘NLRA’) on employees that Congress specifically exempted from the NLRA’s terms,” the comments state. “The Department not only lacks Congressional authorization to take this action, it is defying express Congressional intent to not subject these types of employees to provisions of the NLRA.”
DOL Rule Provisions Grant More Power to Union Officials, Don’t Help Workers
The comments also point out that the provisions in the Department of Labor’s rule are unrelated to the rule’s stated purpose of helping agricultural workers avoid exploitation, and rather resemble a list of proposals to empower union officials at workers’ expense.
“The Department fails to explain how allowing unions to access employees’ personal information, to bargain for neutrality agreements, and to prevent employees from accessing information for and against unionization helps to alleviate the concerns identified in the proposed regulations,” the comments argue.
“The Department should not adopt the proposed regulation,” the comments conclude.
Foundation Steps in as Biden Administration Works to Expand Union Control in All Sectors
Foundation attorneys have a track record of providing free legal aid to farmworkers who want to free themselves from the control of union bosses. In 2016, Foundation staff attorneys won a decision upholding Pennsylvania-based Kaolin Mushroom Farms employees’ decisive vote to remove union bosses who had argued in favor of maintaining a seven-year restriction on the workers’ right to vote. Foundation attorneys have also filed amicus briefs in recent years defending California and North Carolina agricultural employees’ Right to Work in various cases.
The Department of Labor’s notice of rulemaking on temporary farmworkers comes as the Biden Administration is making a full court press to expand union boss legal privileges across the country. The Biden National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently in rulemaking devising regulations that will make it more difficult for American private sector workers to exercise their right to remove unwanted unions, while giving union officials more tools to gain power in a workplace without even a vote.
“Despite the Department of Labor’s claims, the true underhanded goal of this rule is clear: handing union bosses more power to corral workers into union ranks, while cutting back on workers’ privacy and rights to resist unwanted unionization,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Temporary agricultural workers should not be used as pawns to expand union bosses’ sphere of control into the agricultural sector. But that’s exactly what the Biden Department of Labor is attempting, in direct contradiction to the choice made by Congress not to subject such workers to federally-imposed monopoly unionism.”
After Janus, Foundation Continues Fight to Expand Freedom for Public Employees
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Building off Janus, CUNY professors’ lawsuit could end forced ‘representation’ powers
The Foundation’s historic Janus victory was a serious blow to public sector union bosses’ coercive power in its own right. But it also opened the door for efforts to free public workers completely from forced dues and forced representation.
NEW YORK, NY – Up until 2018, union bosses had the power to force millions of government workers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. While such an enormous privilege was not only a gross violation of workers’ free association rights, it also provided a steady stream of forced dues to union bosses, which contributed to their outsized influence over the government and our political system.
Union officials’ forced-dues power over public sector workers crumbled on June 27, 2018, when National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys won the landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision at the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the Justices agreed with Foundation attorneys that every American public sector worker has a First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to an unwanted union.
On the fifth anniversary of Janus, its impact can’t be overstated. Between the Janus decision itself and over 50 follow-up cases, Foundation staff attorneys have enforced the rights of over 500,000 employees nationwide. Meanwhile, studies find that independent-minded workers are withholding over $700 million in formerly mandatory dues and fees from public sector union bosses every year as a result of the decision.
Of course, Foundation staff attorneys continue to fight to defend, enforce, and expand on the landmark decision.
New Challenge to Forced ‘Representation’ Reaches Court of Appeals
In an ongoing Foundation-assisted case, Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress (PSC), six City University of New York (CUNY) professors seek to knock down the final pillar of coercive union power in the public sector — union bosses’ power to force their one-size-fits=all “representation” on workers who don’t want it.
A brief recently filed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for the professors argues that PSC union officials are violating the professors’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to accept the union’s monopoly control and “representation.”
Professors’ Lawsuit: Janus Already Noted Dangers of Monopoly Bargaining
The professors have found the actions of PSC union bosses and adherents to be “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” and have even reported union-instigated bullying and threats targeted against them.
The professors’ opening brief at the Second Circuit maintains that the Supreme Court already acknowledged in the Janus decision that public sector monopoly bargaining is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms,” and argues that New York State’s Taylor Law authorizes such bargaining in violation of workers’ rights.
“If the First Amendment prohibits anything, it prohibits the government from dictating who speaks for citizens in their relations with the government,” reads the brief.
The case, which will likely head to the U.S. Supreme Court no matter how the Circuit Court rules, could set a nationwide precedent forbidding public sector monopoly bargaining, just as Janus prohibits forced dues in all public sector workplaces. The combination of both Foundation-won precedents would guard public workers nationwide from both forced dues and forced representation.
Foundation Brief Defends State Law to Fortify Janus
The Janus victory also motivated freedom-loving state legislators to take extra measures to ensure workers’ First Amendment rights under Janus are being enforced.
In Indiana, a reform now forbids public employers from using taxpayer-funded government payroll systems to deduct union dues without a worker’s explicit consent. Public employers must obtain yearly consent from workers who wish to have union dues taken from their paychecks, and must also ensure that workers have notice of their constitutional right not to fund union activities. Unsurprisingly, dues-hungry Anderson Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials sued the state to block these commonsense protections.
Foundation attorneys joined the fight recently to defend Indiana’s laws. A Foundation brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals urges the court to overturn a lower court’s injunction of these reforms, citing Seventh Circuit precedent.
Foundation attorneys helped successfully defend a similar law in West Virginia in 2021, which the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld on the basis that union bosses “have no constitutional entitlement to employees’ money or to the employer’s administration of union dues deduction schemes.”
Federal Courts Must End Union Monopolies
“Janus was a great triumph for American public workers’ freedom, but it was only a step toward the ultimate goal of freeing public workers from all unwanted union coercion,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “No American worker should be forced to associate with union officials and union members that openly oppose their interests, including through attacks on their culture and religion as the plaintiffs in Goldstein have harrowingly experienced.”
“It’s encouraging to see that states like Indiana have stepped up to protect workers’ Janus rights,” Semmens added. “But ultimately, after recognizing in Janus and older precedents that union monopoly bargaining abridges workers’ free association rights, it’s high time for federal courts to end this enormous government-granted power for union bosses once and for all.”
