Labor Pains: Because Being in a Union can be Painful

  1. Another Obama-Era Roll Back at the NLRB

    In yet another effort to roll back Obama-era labor policy, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has proposed a joint-employer rule that would undo the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris.

    The proposed rule would reinstate 30 years of precedent that required “direct” and “immediate” control over employees’ working conditions to qualify for joint-employer status.

    The 2015 decision defines “joint-employer” as when a business has “potential and indirect control” of employees. This is problematic for franchise owners–such as large scale fast-food companies like McDonald’s. They typically have little interaction with employees on a day to day basis. Yet, this standard holds them accountable for labor violations committed by their franchisees or contractors.

    It also means companies could be required to enter into collective bargaining agreements– providing unions with additional leverage. For example, a union representing one of Microsoft’s suppliers demanded the company collectively bargain with them– even though Microsoft had little to do with the employees’ day-to-day.

    The “indirect control” standard of Browning-Ferris makes it difficult to define which parties should be held accountable– often leading to more convoluted litigation than practical protection for employees.

    In fact, a 2016 study authored by the Counsel for Coalition for a Democratic Workplace found that “in each case where the Obama [NLRB] Board changed the law, the resulting new law became more favorable to labor interests than it did under previous Board rulings—frequently at the expense of promoting stable bargaining and economic growth and without regard for balancing the interests of business, labor, and employees under the Act.”

    A win for both employers and workers, this new rule would mitigate against unwarranted litigation while providing employees with a clear avenue for holding their employers accountable.

     

    Categories: NLRB
  2. CUF Launches “Ask Gary Why” Campaign in NYC

    Last week in New York City, the Center for Union Facts (CUF) launched the second-phase of a campaign surrounding union boss Gary LaBarbera, President of the Building and Construction Trades Council (BCTC).

    The campaign encourages New Yorkers to “Ask Gary Why” much-needed subway and public housing repairs have been ignored, and why the unions Gary LaBarbera represents have a history of racial discrimination.

    CUF has released three versions of advertisements (1,2,3) on food trucks across the city, a video featuring a fictional game show titled “Ask Gary Why,” city-wide radio advertisements and a campaign website.

    Under LaBarbera’s watch, transit construction costs are often seven times the global average, with construction staffed by as many as four times more workers than in other countries.

    Black unionized construction workers in New York City also face a 23% pay penalty compared to their white counterparts. Meanwhile, the construction unions’ Project Labor Agreement has inundated the city’s housing authority with “costly union benefits.”

    To learn more about the campaign, visit www.AskGaryWhy.com or check out our video.

    Categories: Building and Construction Trades CouncilCenter for Union Facts
  3. New Survey Shows Public-Sector Union Members Approve Janus Decision

    This week marks the 6th annual National Employee Freedom Week (NEFW)— a week dedicated to educating public-sector union members about their opt out rights.

    In honor of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the NEFW coalition is highlighting the results of a new study by Dr. Lloyd Corder of CorCom Inc. The study surveyed public-sector union members on their opinions of Janus, and the results are telling.

    The findings show that half of public-sector members see the decision as a positive, and one-third plan to stop (or have already stopped) paying union dues following Janus. Additionally, nearly 40 percent of public-sector union employees who see the Court’s ruling as a positive development said the Janus ruling protects their personal rights and freedoms.

    One public-sector worker who participated in the survey summed it up by saying: “The union does not represent me. I think we should vote with our money, and if a union doesn’t do its job, it shouldn’t get paid by me.”

    Post-Janus, more workers are second-guessing their representation. Union officials should take notice.

    Categories: Janus v. AFSCMENational Employee Freedom WeekSEIU
  4. High Ranking Union Officials Accused of Corruption

    When it rains, it pours. For union corruption scandals, it’s been downpouring all summer.

    In Detroit, allegations in the ongoing corruption case between Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and the United Autoworkers (UAW) have gone all the way up to the top. Several high ranking union officials have been charged with misusing funds that were intended for the UWA training facility.

    For over eight years, FCA funneled more than $9 million through UAW training centers. The automakers are charged with corrupting contract negotiations by bribing union officials– who accepted gifts including expensive jewelry, vacations, and “a $30,000 party for a UAW official, complete with ultra-premium booze, $7,000 worth of cigars and $3,000 in wine with custom labels honoring the union boss.” A recent plea agreement made by Nancy Adams Johnson– the second highest ranking official in the union’s Fiat Chrysler Department– implicated retired UAW President Dennis Williams in the scandal.

    Subtly is clearly not a strong suit of these labor bosses.

    This case takes place just as another ranking union official– former president of the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association Norman Seabrook– was found guilty of conspiracy and of accepting a bribe from Platinum Partners hedge fund in New York City.

    Seabrook agreed to put $20 million of union money into the hedge fund in exchange for $60,000. The union eventually lost $19 million of that investment, and Platinum Partners is now bankrupt.

    Who knows when the next scandal will be uncovered but one thing is for sure: dues-paying union members deserve better representation than this.

    Categories: Crime & CorruptionUAW
  5. Unions Spend Big to Curtail Worker Freedom

    The AFL-CIO— along with other major labor unions— recently poured money into an anti-right-to-work campaign led by advocacy group We Are Missouri. The group spent about $16.3 million on their campaign to vote “No” on Proposition A. The vote— which took place last week— removed Missouri as the 28th right-to-work state in the country.

    Unions spared no expense in overturning this law, despite the fact that employees in right-to-work states are reportedly more satisfied with their union than employees in other states. A higher percentage of these employees said their union was more helpful in protecting them against employer actions. In terms of representation, 80 percent reported being pleased with the results of their local union elections.

    Right-to-work laws allow employees to choose whether or not they want to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Vinnie Vernuccio, senior fellow at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, highlighted the silliness of unions spending millions to curtail this freedom: “It is sad but not surprising that unions are spending millions of dollars to have the ability to get workers fired for not paying them.”

    This campaign demonstrates that unions will go to any length to keep their coffers full.

    Categories: AFL-CIORight-to-Work
  6. In Killing Obama-era Rule, A Victory For Workplace Privacy

    It’s been an eventful summer for unions. Following up on a win for workforce freedom in Janus, a final rule handed down by the Department of Labor (DOL) on July 17 will end an Obama-era ruling known as the “Persuader Rule.”

    The “Persuader Rule” was added to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) in 2016. Prior to the rule, employers were required to file a report explaining any labor-relations consulting they participated in– but only if the consultant communicated directly with workers.

    Under Obama, the DOL implemented the “Persuader Rule,” favoring union interests over employer rights. The rule required employers to report all acts of guidance, even if the consultants had not contacted employees directly. It didn’t take long after the “Persuader Rule” was installed for over 50 businesses to file suit against it– citing a clear violation of attorney-client privilege.

    In fact, the immense backlash prevented the rule from ever being enforced. A Federal Judge in Texas called for a permanent national injunction against it.

    The right to seek advice without fear of retribution is essential for workplace freedom. Officially removing this defunct law is a win for both employers and workers alike.

    Categories: DOLLegal
  7. DC Metro Union Workers Don’t Realize They Work For Taxpayers

    Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689– which represents the employees of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA)–made headlines by voting to authorize a strike a few days before the MLB All-Star Game.

    The threat follows a recent “late out” where over 500 employees showed up late to work and severely interfered with the morning commute for thousands of Metro riders.

    Local 689 President Jackie Jeter urged any angry, inconvenienced customers to remember that it wasn’t about them.

    “This is about the person that we work for. This is about the company.”

    One tiny detail she forgot: Because WMATA is a government agency, the employees Jeter represents ultimately work for taxpayers.

    It’s technically illegal for WMATA employees to strike, and the threat seems all the more silly given the source of the union’s grievance– WMATA’s decision to reassign a few dozen janitors to a different job site and replace them with contractors.

    More than just an inconvenience, late-outs and strikes hurt commuters the most.

    The self-serving actions of Jeter and her union bring to mind why none other than President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was opposed to public sector unions: When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

    Categories: AFL-CIO
  8. Supreme Court Backlash Highlights Union Hypocrisy

    President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has incensed union officials, who cite the nominee’s “pro-business stance” as cause for concern. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently warned that Kavanaugh “too often sides with employers in denying employees relief from discrimination in the workplace.” He even claimed the nominee has a “dangerous track record of protecting the privileges of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working people.”

    Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), followed suit. In her words: “President Trump has doubled down on his rhetoric and policies that tilt our country further towards billionaires and greedy CEOs, and away from all working people.”

    Hypocrisy personified. Last year, four SEIU executives were fired or resigned amid allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct. Caleb Jennings, the leader of the union’s Fight for $15 campaign in Illinois, reportedly grew violent and shoved a female subordinate against a door frame. More than a dozen current and former staff members claimed the union’s culture of sexual harassment was an “open secret,” and that union leadership ignored their concerns until public pressure from the #MeToo movement became too much to ignore.

    Around the same time, the AFL-CIO’s chief budget officer, Terry Stapleton, resigned after the “lewd” messages he sent a secretary became public knowledge. So much for protecting workers’ rights.

    And don’t forget the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, which has been linked to sexual harassment in the workplace by a group of female employees at a Ford plant in Illinois. Tonya Exum, a UAW member and one of the victims, put it bluntly: “Such harassment was not an isolated experience; it was pervasive behavior afflicting every corner of the plant.” Even worse, Exum’s union “representative” stopped at nothing to keep her silent—from slashing her tires to threatening her at home.

    The bottom line is this: Before union officials judge Brett Kavanaugh, they better take a long, hard look at the skeletons stacked in their own closets.

    Categories: AFL-CIOAFSCMESEIUViolence