LaborPains.org

The latest news from America’s neighbor to the north is that right-to-work may be coming to Ontario. Labor Notes reports that the Canadian province’s Conservative Party—which recently surged ahead of the union-backed New Democratic Party and the ruling Liberal Party in the polls—may push for the legislation in the coming year.

Ontario’s Conservative Leader Tim Hudak has tried to introduce right-to-work in the past. Earlier this year, he argued that right-to-work “is a debate we need to have in this country because I’m worried about the jobs we’re losing and I’m worried about a decline into Rust Belt status.” He also stated that “in many cases union leaders have become so powerful that many employees in effect have two bosses—their actual employer and the people who run their union.”

Michigan’s sudden decision to go right-to-work last month has brought this issue to the fore once again. Within days of the state’s decision, General Motors announced that it would move its Ontario-based Camaro production line to Michigan. This follows Caterpillar’s decision in February 2012 to move some of its Canadian jobs to Indiana—which had also just passed a right-to-work bill.

The Conservative Party sees which way the winds are blowing. At a time when Ontario’s U.S. competitors are going right-to-work, similar legislation may be the province’s best hope of recapturing lost business and stimulating economic growth. But without it, Ontario might start looking more and more like the Michigan of yesteryear.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has officially made the “naughty list” for 2012. Earlier this month, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report criticizing the NLRB for abandoning its role as an “independent regulator” and becoming a “dysfunctional union advocate.”

The report, which runs to 33 pages, “documents a pattern of behavior at the NLRB that undermines its integrity and creates an impression that the NLRB has morphed into a rogue agency plagued by systemic problems.”

The overview of the NLRB’s questionable rulings and activities includes:

• •A “pro-union bias,” including “an extreme lack of impartiality” in the recent Boeing case and “jubilance and excitement” at news of the union’s agreement with Boeing.
• •Multiple instances of NLRB officials “undermining the separation principle,” particularly between the Board and the Office of the General Counsel during the Boeing case.
• Evidence that NLRB officials “thwarted Congressional oversight” on several occasions, including delays in handing over documents and “flippant” reactions to congressional requests.
• Fostering “uncertainty and instability” in the workplace through its rulemaking and its lawsuit against Boeing.

The report also highlights the NLRB’s reversal of precedent in its Specialty Healthcare decision. The decision’s legalization of “minority unions,” the report notes, allows unions to organize businesses regardless of whether a majority of employees support unionization.

Another example of the NLRB’s naughtiness is the “regulatory overreach” it has undertaken in the form of two new hyper-partisan substantive rules. The rules in question are the “quickie election” rule and the “notice posting” rule—two overtly partisan rules which have been reviewed by federal courts.

Rounding out the list are complaints about President Obama’s questionable use of “recess appointments” to appoint controversial Board members and allegations of “ethical and criminal misconduct” by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, most notably in a case in which he had a financial interest.

Final decisions on the legality of many of these issues have not yet been reached, most notably with the faux-recess appointments. Yet the abundance of evidence still points to an NLRB that has abandoned its neutrality and taken up the union cause as its own. All that remains is to see what the NLRB gets in its stocking this year. Hopefully it won’t be card check.

As unions are finding out, there’s nothing quite like being on the unpopular side of an election year issue. A fresh round of polls shows that, unlike unions, right-to-work legislation is very favorable in the Midwest.

Credit: A. Michael Simms

In Ohio, a new report by the Buckeye Institute shows that “[i]ncome, job numbers and capital investment is growing faster in states that have enacted right-to-work laws than in those that haven’t.” The Institute fingered mandatory union membership and dues payments as a culprit.

In the traditional union stronghold of Michigan, meanwhile, a new poll shows voters broadly support measures unions oppose. As Michael Barone notes, Michigan voters support right-to-work legislation by a wide, 58-to-37-percent margin.

Furthermore, voters “support the state’s Emergency Financial Management law which authorizes the governor to appoint an emergency financial manager to take over bankrupt local governments with the power to void union contracts,” by a 52-to-35 percent margin.

“EFMs, have been appointed in four cities and two school districts, including Detroit, so far; Snyder has tried to get Detroit Mayor Dave Bing to take actions that will avoid an EFM for the city government, so far unsuccessfully.” (The Washington Examiner, 3/30/12)

Unions have argued in court that Gov. Snyder’s move would violate their collective bargaining rights. But now, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow has thrown out the unions’ request for a temporary restraining order, clearing the way for Snyder and Detroit to resolve the city’s crisis. With union obstructionism on such prominent display, it’s not shocking that union popularity is on the downturn even in Michigan.

In Minnesota, however, the disorganized state GOP is backing away from right-to-work legislation out of fear of a Democratic backlash. Politico reports that “[n]o state party may be in worse shape” than the Minnesota Republican party—and the trouble shows in its unwillingness to risk a fight with unions even when other factors are on its side.

Still, at the state level, unions seem to recognize that protests and demonstrations can only go so far in cowing legislators who lack confidence. They’re pouring an unprecedented amount of money and energy into influencing the 2012 race for the White House:

Unions spent over $400 million on elections in 2008, and nearly every penny went to Democrats. They spent over $200 million in 2010, and the single largest donor in that election was the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which spent $87.5 million. AFSCME has already pledged $100 million for the upcoming election. As AFSCME is a public employee union, that means the largest funder of Democratic campaigns is you, the taxpayer. Once upon a time Democrats—and even the AFL-CIO’s former president John Sweeney—opposed this kind of public sector union campaigning on principle. (The Weekly Standard, 3/26/12)

Faced with the rise of principled, practical right-to-work legislation, unions won’t change their tune anytime soon. At this rate, 2012 could be their make-or-break year.

Earlier this month, a judge ruled that private businesses are required to display posters showing workers how to unionize. With the ruling going into effect on April 30, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has plans for a big campaign around the change.

Notably, the mandated poster doesn’t explain how to decertify a union—a right which many workers also might like to know. But details like that don’t trouble the NLRB. Apparently, it’s busy concentrating on getting nonunionized workers to think like union members:

The National Labor Relations Board will focus on workers’ rights to engage in ‘protected concerted activity,’ which allow two or more employees to take action for their mutual aid or protection […]. In the next two weeks, the NLRB is set to roll out a Web page explaining ‘concerted activity’ and highlighting cases involving unlawful punishment for it. It also plans pamphlets in English and Spanish that will be distributed through worker-advocacy groups and sister federal agencies, such as the Labor Department. NLRB officials will address the issue in speeches and appearances on radio and television. (The Wall Street Journal, 3/22/12)

These developments come on the heels of the NLRB’s controversial “quickie elections” rule, which the Retail Industry Leaders Association calls a blow not only to “employers’ free speech and due process rights” but also “American business’ ability to grow jobs.”

The NLRB has had no difficulty making these moves despite the Obama administration’s recent order to avoid overly burdensome requirements. While the White House denies that it’s encouraging overregulation, the NLRB is swinging into action—an institution with a very particular idea of what labor relations should be, and unafraid to tip the scales in order to make it reality.

During AT&T’s recent attempt to acquire T-Mobile, its cooperation with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) was considered a model of how businesses and unions could proactively work together. So much for all that: “Two months after the $39 billion deal collapsed,” The Wall Street Journal reports, “some union leaders say the carrier doesn’t seem very grateful.”

Why the discontent? Perhaps it’s because the CWA is in the habit of holding business deals for ransom to get what they want out of contract negotiations. Now, the CWA is squaring off with Verizon, trying to grind its deal with Comcast to a halt. In what The Hill calls part of a “swarm” by unions, the CWA “descended on Capitol Hill Tuesday to urge lawmakers to oppose” the deal.

Meanwhile, union rallies have not-so-coincidentally hit Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York. As WKBW News said of the New York action, the “event was planned in coordination with national actions led by community groups and unionized Verizon workers that are taking place in cities across the country during the week of March 19th.”

It’s certainly not the first time a union has drummed up public protests to pressure legislators into protecting its agenda. But this election season, with the President’s numbers suffering from some decisions unpopular with certain factions of the AFL-CIO, some politicians may be especially prone to making a few big concessions to unions in the hopes of keeping a broader narrative from taking hold.

In the meantime, Americans from coast to coast will find themselves facing rising prices in yet another important area of everyday life. If you’re wondering why your cell phone bill is so high, you might look for the union label.

Late last year, House lawmakers in the Granite State failed to override Gov. John Lynch’s veto of legislation barring unions from imposing “a share of costs” on non-members, also known as “right-to-work.” The House fell 12 votes short of the two-thirds necessary to put the option before New Hampshire’s Senate.

Now, however, similar legislation is back and was passed in the NH House. In addition to the proposal ensuring that non-union members need not pay fees to unions, legislators will consider new measures aimed at reforming collective bargaining among public sector unions.

Another contentious debate is on the way. Critics of the legislation see New Hampshire falling under the sway of a national anti-union political agenda. Supporters counter that the political power of unions, including public-sector unions, is far out of bounds even by the standards of Democratic heroes like Franklin Roosevelt.

“House Bill 1677 is about freedom. Freedom to choose or not to choose to join a union,” said Rep. Will Smith, the Republican who introduced the bill.

What’s revealed by a clear-eyed look at New Hampshire’s legislation and similar bills around the country? Rather than an anti-union animus, the legislation reflects a broad, popular understanding that labor laws need reform—not to destroy unions, but to ensure that they work the way workers expect them to.

The reappearance of labor reform legislation in New Hampshire and its spread throughout the Midwest suggests that increasing numbers of legislators and voters believe that encouraging unions to accurately and faithfully represent the interests of those who choose to be their members should be a priority in today’s economy.

What’s true in Nevada is all too true around the country – employees often can’t vote by secret ballot on basic issues such as whether to recertify their unions, or to unionize in the first place. They have almost no control over whether their dues money is funneled into political campaigns or the pockets of unions’ political allies. The SEIU, for instance, recently spent $86,000 on radio ads in Nevada and Florida to criticize Mitt Romney.

That’s why the Center for Union Facts (CUF) has launched a new Las Vegas ad campaign promoting the Employee Rights Act in print and on television. CUF’s full-page ad comparing the lack of representation in unions and in North Korea ran in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. And CUF’s “Repair Shop” and “Class Elections” commercials have been on the air.

The Vegas blitz continues CUF’s $10 million campaign in support of the ERA. CUF executive director was invited on “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” last week to discuss the campaign and the merits of the Employee Rights Act.

(Jump to 9:10 for interview)

Union leaders and their Democratic allies may oppose the bill, but momentum and the public mood is on the ERA’s side. The status quo is beginning to crumble even in our nation’s capital.

For too long, the labor reform debate has been bogged down in a big business versus big labor mindset. The ERA isn’t about attacking unions, but rather ensuring that they function the way their dues paying members want them to. More democracy in the workplace is an idea that protects workers, squares with America’s values and promises real economic benefits – in Nevada and across the country.

We’ve written previously on how much money labor unions are raising to compete in local, state and national elections this presidential cycle, but now we have a better idea of how much unions are planning to spend to maintain their political clout – $400 million.

“People are digging deeper,” Larry Scanlon, political director of the country’s largest public workers union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told the Associated Press. “If Republicans take over the presidency, Congress and enough state legislatures, unions will be out of business, pure and simple.”

What Scanlon should have said is that unions are digging deeper into their members’ paychecks to fund their counter-assault on labor reform.

While labor leaders may be tapping their own bank accounts, a substantial amount of union political cash will come from hard-working, dues-paying members.

Last year, at the National Education Association’s annual convention, delegates passed a motion to assess a $10 per member fee to fund the union’s “Ballot Measure/Legislative Crisis Fund.”

In 2010, exit polls showed that 42 percent of union households voted for Republican candidates, but over 93 percent of union political support went to Democratic candidates.

Terry Bowman, a member of the United Auto Workers union, testified before the House Oversight Committee about union leaders taking his dues to fund political candidates he doesn’t support and policy positions he doesn’t share.

Considering that unions spent over $40 million last year to repeal an Ohio law that restricted collective bargaining rights and to recall Wisconsin lawmakers who backed a similar measure in their state, the financial toll on individual union members has not been insubstantial.

In addition to general election spending, unions are pouring millions more into Wisconsin for yet another recall election, this time to oust Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

“Part of the Republican strategy is to try to bleed us,” Mike Podhorzer, political director of the AFL-CIO, told the Associated Press.

One wonders how much unions can bleed their membership before workers fight back.