Know Your Rights This National Employee Freedom Week

Heather Greenaway
August 18, 2015
The Washington Times

Sunday, August 16 marks the beginning of National Employee Freedom Week, an event celebrated by a coalition of 97 groups in 42 states across the country.  Its purpose, as you may very well guess, is to educate union workers on their freedoms and rights to opt out of their collective bargaining units.

According to a recent, nationwide poll released by the Nevada Policy Research Institute, nearly 40 percent of union households polled didn’t know that they had the option to opt-out of union membership and the automatic deductions of dues from their paycheck.  This is a troubling statistic, and American workers should be cognizant of their rights and freedoms.  That’s why National Employee Freedom Week is making a nationwide effort to educate union employees on their options, so that they can make the best individual decision for themselves — without union coercion.

Unions are an outdated relic of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency, when labor laws were enacted in order to protect against workplace abuse.  Today, we have strong laws to protect workers and alternative professional organizations workers can join, at a fraction of the cost.

Lately, workers have been leaving unions by the droves.  Big Labor is struggling to recruit members, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership has hit its lowest rate in 100 years.   Membership has been in steady decline over the past thirty years.  That’s why union bosses who sit on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are getting desperate and doing everything they can to pass anti-competitive rules to pressure employees to unionize.  We see this with the NLRB’s rash ambush election rule, which took effect in April, and has already proven to have its intended effect of helping pad union rolls.  Since its enactment, the number of election petitions has surged 15 percent.

The NLRB’s new recruitment tactics coerce workers into affiliations without adequate time or information to make an informed decision.  The new policy speeds up election times from a previous average of 38 days to now, as few as ten.  Ten days is not adequate time for a workplace to prepare for an election or for employees to gather information on the potential impacts of unionization on their workplace or from their paychecks.  The rule chills employee free speech, limiting what employers can talk to their workers about, while giving union organizers carte blanche to make empty promises and coerce workers into unionizing.

Unions not only use coercion and intimidation to encourage workers to join, but they also continue to intimidate workers who wish to leave and are not forthcoming with the options workers have to opt-out.  And of course they aren’t – all they care about is getting their cut from your paycheck, helping fill their coffers and further boosting their influence.

The ambush election rule has opened the door even wider, granting union bosses access to troves of employees’ personal information, including their home and cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, job classifications, shift info, and home addresses.  Unions have limitless ways to now coerce employees into the collective.

Unions are selling a product few need or want anymore.  Workers would rather keep that additional $1,000 plus a year and use it to help pay off their mortgage or take their family on a vacation – not hand it over to big labor bosses who have a history of misusing funds or spending them on political causes not everyone agrees with.

In fact, a staggering 91 percent of political spending by unions goes to support Democratic candidates, while 43 percent of union households vote Republican.  Why should workers be forced to make political donations to candidates they don’t even believe in?  Many workers are wising up, and realizing that there are much better uses for their money.

That’s why this National Employee Freedom Week, it’s critical that workers educate themselves on their rights.  If you are currently in a union and want out, you have options.  Workers should be free to make the decision that’s right for them, not big labor cronies.  Get the facts; understand the alternatives.

Heather Greenaway is a spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Know Your Rights This National Employee Freedom Week

National Employee Freedom Week

WFI FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                  CONTACT: Ryan Williams August 17, 2015                                                                                     202-677-7060

National Employee Freedom Week Educating Union Employees About Their Rights

Washington, D.C. (August 17, 2015) – The Workforce Fairness Institute issued the following statement in response to National Employee Freedom Week (NEFW), an annual national campaign that informs union members about their workplace rights, specifically their right to leave their union. NEFW runs Sunday, August 16th through Saturday, August 22nd and consists of a record 97 organizations in 42 states.

“According to a recent, nationwide poll released by the Nevada Policy Research Institute, nearly 40 percent of union households polled didn’t know that they had the option to opt-out of union membership and the automatic deductions of dues from their paycheck.  This is a troubling statistic, and American workers should be cognizant of their rights and freedoms,” said Heather Greenaway, spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute.  “That’s why National Employee Freedom Week is making a nationwide effort to educate union employees on their options, so that they can make the best individual decision for themselves — without union coercion.”

View a list of the grassroots coalition that makes up NEFW here.

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit: http://www.workforcefairness.com.

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on National Employee Freedom Week

Union Official Charged With Accepting Bribes From Marijuana Dispensaries

WFI

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                  CONTACT: Ryan Williams
August 14, 2015                                                                                     202-677-7060

 

Union Official Charged With Accepting Bribes From Marijuana Dispensaries

WFI States Need For Employee and Employer Protection from Coercion and Intimidation

Washington, D.C. (August 14, 2015) – Recent articles have exposed court documents unsealed on Wednesday, showing that union official Daniel Rush was charged for allegedly accepting bribes from marijuana dispensaries.

Rush was a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union official and was found to be accepting money in exchange for his role as a UFCW official.  Court documents show that Rush was using his influence and power as a union official in exchange for cash and other benefits for close to four years.

“UFCW is a union that has access to personal employee contact information, thanks to the new NLRB Ambush election rules—which is worrisome since coercion and intimidation are alive and well with unions.  We need laws that will protect employees, employers, and their personal information—not make it easy for them to be harassed,” said Heather Greenaway, spokesperson for Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit: http://www.workforcefairness.com.

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Union Official Charged With Accepting Bribes From Marijuana Dispensaries

Workplace Democracy Gets Ambushed

Peter Schaumber

July 29, 2015

Wall Street Journal

You may have heard of the National Labor Relations Board’s new “ambush election” rule—so-called because it hurriedly schedules union elections within as little as two weeks, depriving employers of the time needed to learn about the union and express their views to employees.

But what you may not know is that the rule requires an employer to provide union organizers with the personal cellphone numbers and email addresses of its employees before they vote in a union election. So much for the right to privacy.

It doesn’t seem to matter to the Obama-era NLRB that a worker may have provided this personal information on condition that it be kept confidential and used only in an emergency. Nor does it matter to the board that union organizers may use the information to bombard the worker with pro-union messages and demands anywhere, anytime.

The NLRB defended its new disclosure requirement by claiming that there has been no evidence of union “abuse of voter lists” in the 50 years that the board has required they be handed over to unions. But that depends on what you mean by “abuse.”

On Oct. 1, 2008, two employees at the Boulder City Hospital in Nevada complained during a union-organizing campaign that they were being harassed to “sign up for the Union.” In response, the hospital posted a reminder of its anti-harassment policy.

Seems reasonable enough. Yet the NLRB—with the current chairman, Mark Gaston Pearce, in the majority—found that the hospital’s posting was an “unfair labor practice.” According to the board, “persistent union solicitation even when it annoys or disturbs the employees” may be considered harassment to some but cannot be interfered with by an employer or its representatives.

The NLRB rejected calls that workers be allowed to opt out of the requirement that their personal contact information be disclosed to the union. Demonstrating a callous disregard for the rights of workers who are not actively pro-union, the board said the new disclosure requirement “maximizes the likelihood that all voters will be exposed [to messages they] may not be predisposed to.”

The rule also transforms what has been a largely informal pre-election process aimed at helping the parties identify and resolve issues into a formal, adversarial one. The rule requires employers to complete a written “Statement of Position” form on all contested election issues within as few as seven to eight days after the employer is served with the union’s election petition. These can include complex, arcane legal issues that most employers are unlikely to know anything about.

The most pernicious impact of this change will be on smaller employers. Without experienced labor counsel, they might unknowingly waive their right to challenge issues important to the workplace, such as whether the union is entitled to file a petition and whether the size of the “bargaining unit”—the group of employees the union seeks to represent—is appropriate. A unit that is too small threatens to have a detrimental impact on non-bargaining-unit workers, involving them in workplace disputes, even work stoppages, in which they have no interest. Making matters even more unfair, employers are not allowed to amend their Statement of Position forms without a showing of “good cause.”

The new rule also guts the significance of the pre-election hearing that the Supreme Court has held was intended by Congress to give all parties “full and adequate opportunity to present their objections.” The rule does this by postponing until after the election consideration of fundamental pre-election issues, such as who is eligible to vote.

This may result in workers voting to be members of a bargaining unit that may be transformed after the election into something very different. This is analogous to workers voting for one candidate but getting another. If, after the election, the unit is certified by the NLRB over the employer’s objections, the employer can continue to contest the issue but only if it refuses to bargain with the union over the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, which will trigger litigation.

The employer may reasonably hesitate before doing so, without regard to the strength of his position. Under decades-old NLRB law, if the employer loses the litigation, the union can require that any changes made in the terms and conditions of employment since the election was certified be undone. This can include far-reaching changes that will be incredibly costly to undo, like requiring the employer to reinstate a production line that was discontinued during the litigation due to market conditions.

For the Obama NLRB, this is the new normal for workplace democracy: disclosure requirements that do not honor worker privacy and election procedures that skew results in favor of unions.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced legislation to protect workers and employers by rolling back the overreaching ambush-election rule. The bills don’t stand a chance of becoming law while President Obama occupies the White House. But with a new president and perhaps less biased NLRB appointments in 2017, change should come.

Mr. Schaumber was a member of the National Labor Relations Board from 2002-10 and chairman in 2008.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Data Shows Ambush Election Ruling Helps Unions

Hector Barreto

July 28, 2015

Washington Examiner

The ambush election ruling is perhaps one of the most egregious National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings to date, significantly speeding up the unionization process while providing no tangible benefit to American workers.  With union membership steadily on the decline—from nearly one-third of workers in the 1960s to one in ten American workers today—it appears as though the union-backed NLRB will stop at nothing to increase union rolls and pad big labor bosses’ pockets.

As expected, since the ambush election rule went into effect in April, the number of petitions for elections to unionize rose dramatically.  In the first three months of the rule taking effect, case filings increased by 15 percent.  According to data provided by the NLRB, from April to July, election filings totaled 773, up from 668 during the same period last year.  Since April 14, 20 ambush elections have been held, taking an average of 25 days.

The shortest election to take place, according to National Law Review, was in Region 22 in Newark, New Jersey, where an election was conducted in just 9 days.  In this instance, employers and employees had just over a week to educate themselves on the facts.

Historically, employers had an average of 38 days—a little over a month—to combat and plan for a union election.  In fact, in 2014, more than 95 percent of these elections occurred within 56 days.  The extra time was important, allowing small companies who don’t have in-house counsel to hire an outside legal expert to ensure they are complying with labor laws and election practices.  Before this rushed ruling, employers had that extra time to speak with their employees and explain what unionization would mean for their individual workplace, and for their paychecks.  But not anymore; the ambush election ruling stifles an employers ability to speak freely with their workers and increases the likelihood that a workplace will unionize.

History shows that the shorter the amount of time an election takes place after the petition is filed, the greater the likelihood that a company will unionize.  From 2004 to 2014, unions won 86 percent of elections that took place in less than 21 days, while they only won 60 percent of those that occurred within 36 to 42 days.

Workers should have the right to make informed choices when casting a ballot in workplace elections, just as they do when they cast a ballot for their government officials.  Ambush elections seek only to benefit union bosses, who often use coercion and misinformation in order to get a favorable vote.  Workers shouldn’t be forced to make rash decisions without having time to gather the facts.

The new rules also violate worker privacy.  Previously, employees were only required to provide names and home addresses.  Now, however, they must provide all contact information they have for their employees, including personal email addresses and both cell and home phone numbers.  Union bosses now have the ability to harass you and your family at home, in hopes of getting a favorable vote.

Fortunately, business-friendly members of Congress included provisions in both the House and Senate appropriations bills earlier in July to defund the NLRB and took action to block the board from implementing these rules.  If these provisions remain in these “must pass” appropriations bills, President Obama may have little choice but to sign them.  I applaud Congress for coming together in a bipartisan way and attempting to roll back this NLRB overreach, and encourage them to keep at it.

Backed by taxpayer dollars, the NLRB was originally created to protect workers, not tip the scales in favor of union membership.  But the Obama administration’s NRLB has proven to be one of the most ideological in America’s history, stifling employers’ free speech, hurting workers’ free choice, and invading employee privacy.  It’s time to rein in the board’s power.  Workplace elections, like all elections in our American democracy, should be fair, impartial, and transparent.  Unfortunately, thanks to this new ruling, they are anything but.

Hector Barreto is the former head of the Small Business Administration.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Data Shows Ambush Election Ruling Helps Unions

For The NLRB, Unionization Is The End That Justifies Any Means

Peter Schaumber
June 30, 2015
The Washington Times

When the NLRB chairman claimed in a press release that the agency’s controversial new election procedures would give “businesses and workers a process they deserve that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays,” the devils in hell must have blushed. The Board’s new “Ambush Election” rule has nothing to do with fairness. It was adopted to limit, if not eviscerate, an employer’s protected speech on the issue of unionization before an election and to stack the deck in favor of a union outcome.

The rule rewrites the Board’s election procedures to shorten the time for a Board election from a median of 38 days with 94% of all elections taking place within 56 days—a time-line considered “remarkable” by the first Obama-appointed Acting General Counsel—to only 13 days.

Although preventing “unnecessary delay” is the principal reason for the rule, the Board does not examine the relatively few elections that have taken too long and the reasons why. Instead, it slashes time from all pre-election procedures and orders that all elections take place “at the earliest date practicable.”

The Board bobs and weaves indecorously with half-truths to explain why the rule provides no time for a debate on the most important workplace decision an employee is likely to make.

For example, the Board informs the public that the “current [now former] rules and regulations do not set forth any such time periods [either].” The former rules did not set aside a specific time for a pre-election campaign, but they allowed time for one. For example, 25–30 days was provided between the order for an election and the election. Claiming that “[t]his delay served little purpose,” the Board summarily removes it, well aware that it gave the parties and the employees time to debate the issues.

And to address the argument that it is interfering with protected employer speech, the Board responds that it does not “change any rules regarding speech,” while failing to acknowledge that it does everything it can to limit the time within which that speech can occur.

The NLRB is controlled by committed members of a labor movement threatened by a continuing loss in union membership. They sincerely believe that unionization is the only avenue available for workers to achieve equal dignity and respect and are determined to turn the decline around.

Union decline in the private sector is the result of a combination of political, social, and economic factors—mostly beyond their control, but Big Labor and movement members ignore that reality and claim that the cause of the decline is intensified employer opposition.

That claim is the unstated reason for the Ambush Election rule, and it is indefensible for two reasons. First, lawful employer opposition benefits the workplace by allowing for a more informed electorate, and it is expressly protected by law that contemplates an “uninhibited, robust and wide-open” debate on labor issues.

If the employer steps over the line, the same law authorizes the Board to set the election aside. Second, the research Big Labor consistently relies on to support its claim of increased unlawful employer opposition is dubious at best—specifically on unreliable anecdotal evidence and unproven allegations of misconduct.

For example, Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner’s conclusions are based on interviews of 562 union agents. Not surprisingly, her conclusions are inconsistent with the Board’s statistics, which show a significant drop in employer unfair labor practices since 1980.

The Board denies that the rule’s goal is to curtail employers’ protected speech. “[T]he dissent acknowledges—as it must—that the final rule expressly disclaims any such purpose.” Translation: It is so because we say it is so.

But the day has long past when representations of the Obama NLRB can be taken at face value. The second reason given by the Board demonstrates why.

According to the Board, just because some commentators—”someone, somewhere”—claim that silencing the employer is the reason for the rule, that does not make it so. But in fact, two commentators are among the principal authors of the Ambush Election rule—former Board members Craig Becker and Nancy Schiffer—both have forcefully advocated for eliminating the employer from the election process, claiming that employer participation intimidates employees and denies them free choice.  Before he was named to the Board, Becker pushed for changes in the Board’s election procedures to achieve that very result.

If the courts look beneath the surface of the Board’s justifications for the Ambush Election rule, they will not be deceived, and the rule will be denied enforcement in whole or in part. This outcome is in the interests of workplace democracy and the nation as a whole.

Peter Schaumber was a former Chairman of the NLRB appointed by President George W. Bush.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on For The NLRB, Unionization Is The End That Justifies Any Means

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Stands Up To The NLRB

WFI

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                   CONTACT: Ryan Williams
June 29, 2015                                                                                              202-677-7060

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Stands Up To The NLRB
WFI Applauds The Efforts By The Senate To Fight Against Big Labor’s Anti-Worker Agenda

Washington, D.C. (June 29, 2015) – The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) issued the following statement in response to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee’s actions to cut the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) budget:

“We applaud the recent efforts by the House and Senate for using the power of the purse to defund pro-union NLRB labor regulations in an effort to protect the rights of American workers and businesses” said Heather Greenaway, spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).   “The ambush election rule unfairly penalizes employers and employees and would have widespread implications for small and large businesses alike.  Employers would be blindsided by these quickie elections and employees would have no time to understand the unintended consequences of joining a union, meanwhile, union organizers, who are trained in this regard, may have spent months canvassing before even filing their election petition.”

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit: http://www.workforcefairness.com.

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.

 

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Stands Up To The NLRB

The House Stood Up To The NLRB, The Senate Should Too

Hector Barreto
June 22, 2015

Fox News Latino

Using the power of the purse, Congress has taken yet another positive step to push back on the anti-business policies of the union-backed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The House Appropriations Subcommittee this week took a stand against NLRB’s newly-enacted ambush election rule, which took effect on April 14, by slashing funding for the rule’s implementation. The subcommittee also took steps to ensure that the rights of workers to make informed, non-coerced decisions in union elections remain intact and that the overall privacy of employees is protected.

The ambush election rule was enacted by the NRLB in order to coerce employees to unionize in a short window of time, springing elections on unsuspecting employers in a little over a week. Previously, the window was, on average, 38 days between when a petition was filed to the election. Under the new ruling, however, the window is as few as 11 days.

NLRB data from past elections show that, from 2004-2014, unions won 86% of elections that took place under 21 days, compared to the only 60% that took place over a longer timeframe (36 to 42 days). The shorter the election window, the greater likelihood of unionization. It’s no wonder the union-driven NLRB wants to speed the process up; since union membership has been steadily sliding into decline.

The first month’s numbers are in, and as the business community warned, elections to unionize workplaces have sprung up at an alarming rate. From April 14 to May 14, there was a 32 percent increase in the number of petitions filed. This trend will likely continue, with the shortened rule encouraging unions to file petitions even when they think their chances of success are small. Employers have less time to hire outside labor counsel or educate their workers on the unintended consequences of unionization, and employees get confused when faced with coercion and misinformation from highly organized union campaigns.

Additionally, the NLRB’s new policy violates workers’ basic right to privacy. The rule gives blanket access to union bosses of everything from an employee’s personal contact information, home address, and job classification, to shift schedules and work locations. Union heads can now camp out on your doorstep, bullying you into the collective.

Fortunately, pro-business members of Congress have been working to stop these unilateral mandates from an unelected board. The House and Senate passed widely-supported, bipartisan legislation in March that would have rolled back the NLRB’s reach and prevented the ambush election rule from taking effect. Unfortunately, the legislation was quickly vetoed by President Obama.

This week’s actions to defund the NLRB’s new mandate represent the second attempt that Congress has made in support of workers’ rights (and they say they can’t get anything done!). Hopefully, Congress will be able to wield the power of the purse to sway the Administration to repeal the NLRB’s misguided policies that serve not to protect the worker, but to pad union rolls.

The efforts by the House Appropriations Subcommittee to defund the NLRB should be applauded, and the Senate should follow suit.  It’s time to stop an unelected board of union bosses and bureaucrats from deciding the fate of millions of small business owners and workers across the country.

 

Hector Barreto is the former administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The House Stood Up To The NLRB, The Senate Should Too