Today’s Labor Updates:

Time for Supreme Court to end compulsory union dues?

Court backs labor board on speedy election rule

United States: Someone’s Knocking: If It’s The Union, Don’t Let Them In

Time for Supreme Court to end compulsory union dues?

By Erik Telford | 5:45 p.m. July 29, 2015

With just over six percent of private-sector workers unionized – down from a historic high of almost 40 percent in the 1950s – these are dark days for organized labor, and thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a mortal blow is within sight.

Labor unions’ last stronghold lies with unions for public-sector workers, which maintain a solid 36 percent membership rate. But if the court decides against the California Teachers Association, which I hope it will, public-sector unions could see their ranks tumble – and with no hard feelings on the part of workers.

The case hinges on the principle of right-to-work, which is not particularly complex and needn’t be as polarizing as some of the court’s recent decisions.

At stake is the question of whether workers should be forced to pay fees to a union to represent their alleged interests. Right-to-work simply says this: “If you like your union, you can keep it, but if you don’t, you don’t have to have any part in it.”

The court’s decision to hear the case shouldn’t come as a surprise given how often the issue has become a brutal battleground in many states.

About half of all states now have right-to-work laws that prevent public-sector unions from forcibly collecting dues or fees to fund their collective bargaining and other political activities.

The 10 nonunion teachers on Friedrich’s side of the case against agency-shop fees are correct in their argument that these “fair share fees” infringe on their freedom of speech.

Essentially the fees represent a condition of employment, but the teachers have no say in how these funds are funneled into collective bargaining. Friedrich, for example, didn’t want any of her money going to a union that she disagreed with politically, so she gave up her membership in the California Teachers Association. But even though she is a nonmember, she still has $1,000 taken out of her paycheck every year.

Her reservations are understandable. The California Teachers Association is a political powerhouse, having spent nearly $200 million over the past 18 years on overwhelmingly liberal candidates and causes. As the Los Angeles Times once noted about their chief lobbyist, Joe Nuñez, “few major financial decisions in California are made without Nuñez, who represents what is arguably the most potent force in state politics.”

When news broke that the court was going to hear Friedrichs, a group of powerful labor leaders came together to denounce the decision, writing in a joint statement that it “threatens the fundamental promise of America – that if you work hard and play by the rules you should be able to provide for your family and live a decent life.”

No one in favor of right-to-work is against working hard and playing by the rules – just the opposite. The whole point of right-to-work is that yes, you should be able to work hard and provide for a family without having that income siphoned off to a union against your will. Hardworking, principled Americans do not stand to lose anything in Friedrichs v. California Teachers, but the entrenched special interests of politicized unions do. Anytime the unions funded by these forcibly collected fees promote causes that these “nonmembers” disagree with, they are restricting the American Dream because they are violating their right to spend their hard-earned money on what they believe in – their free speech.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns in the wake of Harris v. Quinn likewise don’t stand up to scrutiny. In her dissent, she worried about a precedent that could lead to the decline of public-sector unions, writing that “the petitioners in this case asked this Court to end that discussion for the entire public sector, by overruling Abood and thus imposing a right-to-work regime for all government employees.”

“Impose” and “regime” are scary words, but Justice Kagan is using them to talk about the wrong side. In the current system, it’s the status quo “regime” of public-sector unions that is imposing on workers. Right-to-work, in contrast, doesn’t force anything on the worker; it liberates, striking a blow for the constitutional principles of freedom and individual choice. Now is the time for the court to continue building a proper precedent, choose the common good and protect the free speech of the public servants who labor for that common good.

Telford is president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

Court backs labor board on speedy election rule

By Sean Higgins • 7/30/15 2:45 PM

Friday | July 31, 2015

The D.C. District Court rejected business groups’ challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s new rule speeding up union workplace organizing elections, saying the board was acting within its authority. The ruling was a big win for organized labor, which will find it easier to win workplace elections as a consequence.

“Plaintiffs’ policy objections may very well be sincere and legitimately based, but in the end, this case comes down to a disagreement with choices made by the agency entrusted by Congress with broad discretion to implement the provisions of the [National Labor Relations Act] and to craft appropriate procedures,” the court ruled late Wednesday.

The policy shortens the timespan from when the board approves a union’s request for a workplace organizing election to when that election is held to as little as 11 days. Previously, the process often took one to two months. The board formally announced the rule in December and it went into effect April 14.

Employers often use the interim period to make the case against having a union to their workers. The rule change in effect gives them far less time to do that, in theory giving unions an edge when the workers vote. Business trade associations dubbed it the “ambush election” rule. Union leaders, who had long argued that businesses often use delaying tactics to undermine elections, applauded the rule.

Read more.

 

United States: Someone’s Knocking: If It’s The Union, Don’t Let Them In

Last Updated: July 28 2015

Article by Kamran Mirrafat

The National Labor Relations Act protects employee solicitation of other employees and distribution of literature to form or join a union or to engage in other “concerted” activities. However, employers have the ability to regulate such solicitation and distribution in the workplace under certain circumstances. In general, employers can permissibly have policies that prohibit the following:

• Prohibit employees from soliciting other employees in the workplace or distributing literature during “working time.” Working time includes the time when both the employee doing the solicitation and the employee being solicited should be working. Working time cannot include scheduled breaks, times before or after a shift, or other times when an employee is not working or is not supposed to be working.
• Prohibit employee distribution of literature in “working areas” at all times. Working areas would not include employee break rooms/lounges or parking areas.
• Prohibit employee solicitation and distribution at any time in the health care industry in “immediate patient care areas” such as patient rooms and lounges, as well as examination and operating rooms.
• Prohibit solicitation and distribution altogether from non-employees and prohibit non-employees from coming onto the property.

While all the foregoing policies are permissible, they can immediately become impermissible if adopted but not rigidly enforced. A solicitation and distribution policy that is inconsistently or discriminatorily enforced, or which allows non-employees to engage in such activities on a selective or discriminatory basis, could give non-employees, such as union organizers, the legal right to claim that they should also be allowed to engage in such activity at the workplace. For example, if an employer allows employees to sell Girl Scout cookies during working time, it is potentially weakening its ability to enforce its solicitation and distribution prohibitions when union or employee concerted activity is involved. Similarly, if an employer allows non-employees to come onto its property to solicit its employees for non-work related causes (except for limited charitable causes), the employer may not legally be able to reject an access request from a union organizer.

An employer that allows non-employees and outside groups to use its facilities (such as an auditorium or cafeteria) should monitor the activities of such non-employee groups so that they are consistent with its solicitation and distribution policy. The mere fact that an employer allows non-employees to use a public space for certain events does not mean that employees or non-employee groups can use the space to solicit support for a union or for other concerted activity. However, an employer that allows a group to conduct a fundraiser for some political or social cause on its property may face a union request for similar access to its property to conduct employee solicitation during a union organizing drive.

In order to avoid unwittingly giving unions an open invitation to their facilities, employers must be mindful of the following takeaways:

• Implement a lawful solicitation and distribution policy
• Consistently enforce the policy among employees
• Consistently enforce the policy against non-employees and outside groups
• Ensure that third-party use of facilities are administered consistently with policy
• Ensure that any solicitation by charitable groups are limited in number, relate to the business purposes of the employer, and are carried out by the employer’s employees during non-work time and in non-work areas with minimal involvement of outside individuals

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.