16 minute read
LITIGATING FREEDOM
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM Department of Labor needs to start regulating unions’ ‘worker centers’
By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Advertisement
August 21, 2020
Much has been written in recent years about the growth and legal status of nontraditional labor organizations, often referred to as “worker centers,” “alt-labor” groups, or “union front organizations.” But other than some congressional hearings, little has been done.
A new complaint filed with the Department of Labor by the Freedom Foundation and Center for Union Facts against Seattle-based labor group Working Washington provides an opportunity to apply federal regulations properly to these organizations.
No matter the organization, accountability is essential to succeed and thrive in the long term. In business, the market provides accountability via customer demands and competition from rivals. Make a lousy product or provide substandard service and watch your customers disappear.
Though often thought of as the opposite of corporations, labor unions and similar organizations exist to provide a service — workplace representation — and collect dues to do so, just like any business.
Whitmer builds security wall around governor’s mansion despite history criticizing Trump for border wall
However, labor laws insulate unions from competition. Unions are exempt from antitrust laws, changing or removing an unwanted union is exceedingly difficult, and many states permit unions to force employees to pay union fees to keep their jobs.
Consequently, federal regulations, such as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, provide the primary means of promoting unions’ accountability to their members.
Congress passed the LMRDA in 1959 following a lengthy investigation into abuses of power, financial mismanagement, and other malfeasance perpetrated by labor union officials.
The law, administered by the Labor Department, seeks to protect employees’ interests by regulating labor organizations’ internal affairs. Among other things, the LMRDA requires that labor organizations make their governing documents and annual financial reports publicly available, create a “Bill of Rights” for members, and abide by basic democratic standards when electing officers.
The ongoing federal corruption investigation into the United Auto Workers involves, in part, LMRDA violations.
To evade such regulations, traditional unions back a growing network of nonprofit organizations that, although not formally labor unions, provide many similar functions.
Worker centers have so far managed to avoid LMRDA com
pliance, meaning employees involved in these organizations lack even basic protections and accountability mechanisms.
The complaint against Working Washington, however, offers the agency an opportunity to address this compliance gap.
The complaint says that Working Washington, a Seattle-based nonprofit organization with strong ties to the Service Employees International Union, satisfies the LMRDA’s definition of “labor organization” and should, therefore, comply with the act.
To be considered a labor organization, an entity must be “engaged in an industry affecting commerce,” involve the participation of employees, and exist, at least in part, for the purpose of “dealing with employers” regarding terms or conditions of employment. While this definition encompasses traditional unions, it covers other entities as well.
In Working Washington’s case, the organization may be best known for its advocacy for job-killing employment regulations in the Pacific Northwest, but as thoroughly documented in the nearly 600-pages of material submitted to the Labor Department, its stated purpose is to change employees’ “wages and working conditions.”
Further, it has “members” who “contribute” monthly amounts to the organization in exchange for specific services and resources related to their employment. These member employees also participate in the organization as leaders.
And the employers with whom it has dealt, such as Amazon, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and Subway, are indisputably involved in “industries affecting commerce,” a broad definition excluding little other than the public sector.
One of Working Washington’s recent campaigns, for example, involved pressuring Starbucks to make changes to the company’s parental leave policy for baristas.
Working Washington has even coordinated formal organizing drives for traditional unions.
In a free country, this is all well and good. But if organizations, such as Working Washington, provide workplace representation services to employees, then those employees deserve the same protections their counterparts in traditional unions have benefited from for 60 years.
For their part, labor partisans are crossing their fingers that a Democratic victory in November will save union front groups from federal scrutiny.
While certainly possible, the issue isn’t a matter of administrative policy preferences but rather of faithful application of the law to specific organizations. Either an entity satisfies the statutory definition of “labor organization” or it doesn’t.
At least in Working Washington’s case, the extensive factual record should satisfy officials in any administration acting in good faith of its status as a labor organization. To reach any other conclusion for political reasons would make for both bad law and poor policy.
Maxford Nelsen is the director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation
Harris personifies the corrupt marriage of labor and the Left
By AARON WITHE Reprinted from the CALIFORNIA GLOBE July 28, 2020
In early August, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza — self-described “trained Marxist” and author of a list of political demands that includes reparations, defunding police and eliminating capitalism — issued a gentle hint to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden that he’d be well-advised to name a black female, preferably California Sen. Kamala Harris, as his running mate.
Scarcely two weeks later, Biden followed her orders to the letter, which ought to give you a far clearer picture of which direction — and how far — the country would move in the event of a Biden victory in November.
As for Harris, there’s little question she sees eye to eye with the most radical wing of her party. And if it’s fair to divine Biden’s intentions from the company he’s been ordered to keep, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume his would-be running mate is joined at the hip with her closest and most trusted advisor.
And that would be Laphonza Butler, former head of SEIU 2015 and, according to several reports, poised to become manager of Harris’ presidential campaign before it ran out of steam last December.
That Harris should choose the leader of her closest confidant is totally consistent
with her history. The senator is a longtime shill for organized labor in general and public-sector unions in particular.
As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, then-California AG Kamala Harris blew up an acquisition deal that would have helped struggling Catholic hospitals, because the hospital buyer didn’t agree to let SEIU organize all their employees.
Her intervention on behalf of SEIU cost the hospital workers, patients and taxpayers dearly when the hospital chain went bankrupt.
Simply put, government unions have wreaked havoc in California. Wherever there are public employees, there will always be unions that want to organize them in hopes of getting their hands on billions of dollars in member dues every year.
These dollars, in turn, are “invested” in the campaigns of leftist politicians, who pass legislation that both protects unions and grows the size of government, adding even more dues-paying public employees.
Nowhere is this cycle as endless — or profitable for those in power — as in California.
Businesses have been abandoning the state at an alarming pace for decades, incensed by its sky-high taxes, wacky social engineering, environmental excess, immigration policies, homelessness and sanctuary cities.
But the stream became a flood this spring when the COVID-19 pandemic emboldened California’s political leaders to seize “emergency powers” they can exercise to create even greater chaos.
And as always, labor has its hands on the spigot. In Los Angeles, for example, the union representing thousands of teachers is currently negotiating what it would take to return to the classroom. But the discussions aren’t limited to the availability of face masks, plastic shields and hand sanitizers.
The union’s demands directly mirror the Black Lives Matter agenda, right down to defunding law enforcement, forcing property owners to forgive unpaid rent and mortgages and seeking redress for a litany of perceived offenses.
It comes full circle. The militants burning our cities and plundering our businesses in the name of “social justice” aren’t on the fringes of the left. They and the unions that fund much of the enterprise are two halves of the same corrupt coin.
And Kamala Harris, who could well be sitting a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land three months from now, is well represented on both.
LITIGATING FREEDOM California parents say COVID regs deny students a quality education
Sept. 14, 2020
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to limit in-person schooling in response to the COVID-19 virus is already hurting California’s students. Depending on the outcome of a newly filed lawsuit, it has the potential to hurt the state, too.
The suit was filed in Shasta County Superior Court by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of three local parents who are suing on behalf of their children. The Complaint alleges the school policy of having students in class parttime denies students their constitutional right to a quality education as enshrined in the California Constitution.
“All three of my children have experienced adverse effects from the current distance learning model that has been mandated by our local schools,” explained Beth Watt, one of the parents Freedom Foundation is representing. Aug. 18, 2020
Concluding a yearlong process, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in July adopted a Freedom Foundation-supported regulation making it easier for union-represented federal employees to cancel unwanted union dues deductions from their wages.
At issue was the proper interpretation of a provision in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute which requires federal agencies to deduct union dues from the paychecks of any employee who authorizes such deductions in writing.
The law specifies that, once authorized, the deductions “may not be revoked for a period of one year.”
In a 1981 decision, the FLRA wrote that the law “…must be interpreted to mean that authorized dues allotments may be revoked only at intervals of 1 year.”
In practice, this has meant federal employees can only cancel dues deductions from their wages during short, annual window periods.
However, in July 2019, the FLRA announced its intent to revisit its prior interpretation via a “general statement of policy or guidance.”
During the ensuing public comment period, the Freedom Foundation filed written comments with the FLRA arguing that its prior view of the law was legally indefensible for multiple reasons and that, properly understood, the law simply meant that a union dues deduction authorization could not be rescinded for one year after its execution, but could be revoked any time thereafter.
After processing comments received, the FLRA released its policy guidance on the subject in February 2020, adopting the view advocated by the Freedom Foundation and noting that the change “would assure employees the fullest freedom in the exercise of their rights.”
The guidance also announced the FLRA’s intention to promulgate new regulations implementing it’s view that dues deductions can be cancelled at any point after the first year following their authorization.
The proposed regulations were released the following month and underwent an additional public comment period during which the Freedom Foundation again filed written comments in support.
The final rule — which was announced in July and took effect on August 10 — provides that,
By BOB WICKERS, California Director
“All of my children were straight-A students before distance learning began. This spring my children received a “P” for all subjects, causing them to lose all motivation and desire to excel in school.”
“Governor Newsom has repeatedly told us to ‘trust the science’,” said Mariah Gondeiro, attorney for the Freedom Foundation. “It is time for Newsom to take his own advice.” Gondeiro pointed to numerous studies conducted worldwide that reveal children are not COVID-19 transmitters.
In fact, when proper precautions are followed, the rate of infection among young chi dren, and from students to teachers, has been
Federal Labor Relations Authority adopts Freedom Foundation-backed regulation
Major relief has finally arrived for a number of Ohio’s public employees, and it couldn’t come at a better time.
low.
By SYDNEY PHILLIPS, Litigation Counsel
Looks Like someone miscalculated his opt-out window.
“…after the expiration of the one-year period during which an assignment may not be revoked under 5 U.S.C. 7115(a), an employee may initiate the revocation of a previously authorized assignment at any time that the employee chooses.”
Unions objected to the change on various grounds, while several employees commented in support, pointing out that,
“…it was difficult to determine their anniversary dates, as well as the window periods during which they were permitted to submit an SF1188, in order to be able to revoke their previously authorized dues assignments.
In addition, they explained that, in their experiences, the unions that represented them were not helpful in determining the applicable anniversary dates or form-submission window periods.”
And, as the FLRA pointed out in its response to union comments, if the unions object to the way the federal government collects dues on their behalf, “…nothing prevents unions from developing dues-payment arrangements outside the federal payroll system that would provide them a greater measure of funding predictability.”
While still short of an ideal dues deduction process for federal employees, the new regulation maximizes employee rights under the existing statute, advances the spirit of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision, and sets a positive example for state government officials administering similar dues collection practices for non-federal public employees.
What They What They &
What she said: “Do Freedom Foundation employees get sick leave, I wonder.”
What she meant: “Like most full-time employees everywhere, of course they do. The benefit is provided voluntarily by an employer who knows if it wants to compete for MINDY CHAMBERS Olympia, Wash., Facebook post, Aug. 8, 2020 the best workers, it must offer a quality compensation package. No one opposes a voluntary benefit. What the Freedom Foundation opposes is making sick leave mandatory, which only serves to eliminate the possibility of an employee understanding that accepting a job from an employer who can’t afford sick pay is better than not having a job at all. Unions, of course, only care about people who already have a job — and pay dues. They couldn’t care less about people struggling to find one.”
n n n
What she said: “Down with the Freedom Foundation. They’re not for workers. Unions all the way.”
What she meant: “After all, what could be more pro-worker than denying him or her the right to decide Beverly Rice Monroe, Wash. Facebook post, for themselves whether to Aug. 8, 2020 support a particular political candidate or cause and, instead, confiscating a portion of their paycheck to support only the agenda the union does?”
n n n
What he said: “The Freedom Foundation is exactly the opposite. Nasty people.”
What he meant: “Never having met a soul who works there, I nevertheless feel comfortable making this blanket statement about them because they hold different CONRAD TJEMSLAND Eugene, Ore. Facebook post views than I do. Aug. 1, 2020 When someone disagrees with the union and its objectives, we don’t debate. We destroy.”
What do we honor on Labor Day?
Pay tribute to workers, not the unions that exploit them
By JEFF RHODES Reprinted from FOXNEWS.com
Sept. 7, 2020
The U.S. Congress first voted in 1894 to set aside a Labor Day holiday on the first Monday of every September. And according to the federal Department of Labor’s own website, the holiday is “… dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.”
You’ll notice nowhere in that verbiage, however, does it suggest Americans owe any debt of gratitude to, nor would it be appropriate to celebrate, organized labor. And if that was evident 126 years ago, it’s only been reinforced in the decades since.
Union leaders are fond of taking credit for the introduction of the 40-hour work week, weekends, vacation pay, child labor laws and other positive labor developments — none of which, it’s true, existed at the dawn of the last century, when the American Industrial Revolution and the labor movement were both in their infancy. But while unions certainly helped the process along, renowned Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises — a firsthand observer during the era — insisted the nation’s prosperity under capitalism was the root cause of these reforms.
“In the capitalist society,” he explained, “there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested … Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wage earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually.”
But even if unions had done all they claim for your great, great grandfather, those are laurels on which they’re no longer entitled to rest. Modern workers are increasingly asking their dues-collectors, “What have you done for me lately?”
And the answer is, very little — unless you happen to be a leftist politician or enjoy having your paychecks skimmed to support them.
Workers in the private sector, of course, have been voting with their feet for years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, currently only 6.2 percent of non-governmental employees belong to a union, with the numbers continuing to dwindle every year. While nonaffiliated workers may earn somewhat less than their
