« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Union-Backed Democrat Urges an End to Right-to-Work States

Elections have consequences.

In 28 states across the U.S., unionized workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. If workers refuse to pay the union, the union can order them to be fired from their jobs.

However, since 1947, the so-called Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (passed over Pres. Harry Truman’s veto) enabled state legislatures to enact “Right-to-Work” laws which outlaw forced unionism. Currently, there are 22 “right-to-work” states…Unless Congressman Brad Sherman gets his way

It’s not the first time he’s pushed it.  In 2008, he actually introduced a bill that went nowhere.  However, this time union-bought backed Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman’s effort to end Right-to-Work laws must be take a little more seriously.

On Monday, Rep. Sherman sent a letter to colleagues encouraging them to join his efforts to force workers to pay union dues by ending Right-to-Work laws.

BradShermanRTW

With nearly $700,000 pumped into his campaign coffers over his career by Big Labor (12 out of his top 20 contributors are unions), there’s little wonder why the California Congressman would want to reward his backers.  After all, California, (with all its fiscal issues) owes a lot to its unions.

Note: California is not a right to work state but its neighbors Arizona and Nevada are.

Contributor ↓ Total ↓ Indivs ↓ PACs ↓
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $75,000 $0 $75,000
American Assn for Justice $73,000 $0 $73,000
Credit Union National Assn $71,819 $6,250 $65,569
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $71,500 $0 $71,500
Teamsters Union $68,000 $0 $68,000
National Assn of Realtors $67,750 $1,000 $66,750
Carpenters & Joiners Union $67,500 $0 $67,500
United Auto Workers $66,000 $0 $66,000
American Institute of CPAs $62,500 $0 $62,500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $59,000 $0 $59,000
Operating Engineers Union $58,000 $0 $58,000
Laborers Union $55,000 $0 $55,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $52,500 $0 $52,500
Time Warner $51,400 $38,900 $12,500
Specialty Merchandise Corp $48,200 $48,200 $0
American Federation of Teachers $44,031 $0 $44,031
Grobstein, Horwath & Co $43,533 $43,533 $0
Deloitte & Touche $41,750 $750 $41,000
National Education Assn $40,000 $0 $40,000
Service Employees International Union $37,200 $0 $37,200
Download: CSV CSV CSVAbout OpenSecrets.org's download options

If Sherman and his colleagues succeed in getting a bill passed that ends workers’ right to work, President Obama would likely sign it and millions of Americans could be forced to pay a union or be fired if they become unionized.

This is why….

Elections have consequences

Get out and vote in November.

hat-tip: Alliance for Worker Freedom
__________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Cross-posted.

For more news and views on today’s unions, go to LaborUnionReport.com.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Texas will lose the right-to-work status over my dead body.

    This stuff is criminal. Any legislator that votes for such a thing is manifestly, directly against freedom. And this monster, this Brad Sherman…..9th ring of hell is reserved for traitors such as he.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Judging from the donors list, he seems to be treating his benefactors quite well.

    Then again, what is more significant is the lodgings rather than the particular room. And he does seem to be heading towards a rather warm reception.

  • http://jakespeaks.wordpress.com/ Jake W

    His name is Mark Reed. Check him out here:

    http://www.markreedforcongress.com/

    You can donate money to his campaign here:

    http://www.markreedforcongress.com/contribute.cfm

    /channeling Moe Lane.

  • JadedByPolitics

    because the bottom line is Cuccinelli is already willing to FIGHT these Socialist tools on everything they pass and this will just be one more!

    • Achance

      ruled on by the USSC and they held the Congress had the power to enact legislation that permitted compelled dues. What gets overlooked here is that even in a state that allows compelled dues, the compulsion in the form of a union security clause is a creature of contract, not of the law. If the employer doesn’t want compulsory dues or a dues checkoff, it doesn’t have to agree to it. If the employees don’t want it, they don’t have to ratify the contract.

      • http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

        Achance is right. I did not get into “union security clauses” and the collective bargaining process…[in NRTW states, it's rare you see contracts without forced dues].

        Either way, it is a payback to union bosses.

        Also, employees who currently work for airlines or railroad (which are covered by the Railway Labor Act), even though thye may live and work in a Right to Work state CAN be forced to pay dues today, because the Taft Hartley applies to the National Labor Relations Act-covered employees, not RLA.

        • Achance

          around my workplaces trying to get people to join or to sign check-offs. I didn’t want them to have ANY excuse to be on State property. So, if you got more or less what you wanted in the contract you gave them the union security clause and the checkoff. In a Democrat government, the first thing that gets TA’d is the union security clause, in a Republican government, it is the last thing to get TA’d.

  • tngal

    To be a RTW state, we’re stuck with too many unions as it is. Most in the public sector, but a few private sector ones that come in back door. Like when Saturn came in.

    That ninth ring is getting pretty full E Pluribus. I ‘ve sent a few well deserving politicians there myself.

  • davenj1

    While it may be statistically true that wages are snaller in RTW states, people DO have jobs and they probably take home more money without paying union dues to politically connected unions. And by politically connected, I mean Democratic unions.

  • JamesSmith130

    There is no way that this kind of legislation will even get a majority of votes in the House and the Senate.

    This makes EFCA look reasonable in comparison.

    • Achance

      language in Taft-Hartley and there is no more, I think less, political risk. EFCA and a repeal of RTW effectively establishes a Democrat/Labor socialist party with the power to compel contributions to that party and when in office to stifle all meaningful opposition. In reality, the only way the current ruling cabal can stay in power beyond ’12, maybe even beyond ’10, is to pass EFCA at minimum and, as I said, if they can pass EFCA, they can repeal Right to Work.

      • JamesSmith130

        who is against EFCA support repeal the state’s advantage in luring business?

        • Achance

          The Senators from the 28 union states with only a couple of exceptions, maybe, could be expected to both vote for EFCA and a RTW repeal.

          • JamesSmith130

            Few, if any Democrats in a RTW state will vote for RTW repeal.

            That adds up to well more than 41 votes to block it in the Senate. I doubt it would pass in the House either. OTOH, Dems from RTW states may vote for EFCA.

            The only way that RTW can pass is if Repubs in the forced union states vote for it repeal, which won’t happen. I guess that maybe one or two RINOs in a state like Michigan might vote for RTW repeal to “level the playing field” for attracting business by harming the RTW states. But not nearly enough to matter.

  • avgjo

    the republicans when they get majorities back should ram thru a national right to work law.

    even if the supreme court doesn’t like it,…look at the dems with their attempt today at a ‘disclosure’ law.

    I never thought i’d say this, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. when our courts are not doing their duty, it is ours to, through our legislators, limit their jurisdiction. it is also our duty to neuter people such as the union thugs through the legal and political institutions.

    • IJB

      And I’m not sure the current Supreme Court would rule such an action unconstitutional.

      But even more urgent than that is a law *BANNING* public sector unions – I also think that could pass Constitutional muster.

      • Achance

        In Hudson for the public sector and Beck for the private sector, the USSC has held on 1st Am. grounds that a person who objects cannot be compelled to support the social, political, and fraternal activities of a union. It’s just that very, very few object. That is partly because unions and often complicit employers make it hard to object and second, the state of the law is such that even though you are compelled to pay for true collective bargaining activities, if you are an objecting “fee payer,” you cannot vote on contract ratifications and contract modifications.

        As I’ve said here many times before, there is hardly a union dues scheme in the Country that would pass Constitutional muster; they just don’t keep the kind of records necessary to distinguish “social, political, and fraternal” activities from true collective bargaining; in Blue states they don’t even make a pretense and they hardly try in Red states because they’re usually safe from any challenge even in Red states. Even though compelled membership has been un-Constitutional in the public sector since ’86, about half of Alaska’s State labor agreements still had compelled membership provisions when I took over in ’03. I made them all change to at least facially legal “agency shop” language, but I’ll admit that we had better things to do than peek under their skirts, so nothing changed but the contract language. And in those agreements where we did change to authorize agency fees rather than membership dues for objectors, nobody objected that I ever heard of.

        If any Republican governor or AG wanted to really make a public sector union gasp for breath, all s/he would have to do is challenge the constitutionality of their dues under the freedom of speech and association provisions of their state constituion. The private sector unions and the blends like SEIU would move straight to the federal courts where the USDOJ would pile in on their side and play for time until the next election in which they could try to get themselves a Democrat to give them their dues back. But, if you did it early in a four year term, you could get it to your state SC and even through a federal appeal in one term. I had our AFSCME unit racked and stacked for decertification and had their dues cut off back in the early ’90s but we didn’t get it going until the third year of the gubernatorial term. They were able to hold out, with a lot of help from the National, and elect the Democrat, Knowles, in ’94 who immediately gave them a contract restoring their dues and saved them. Sure wouldn’t mind another go at that beginning in a first year.

        I think it is a state question whether public employees in that state can bargain. Outside the Postal Service where you have both bad management and bad unions, I don’t think unionized federal employees are that much of an issue except when you have a Congress that tries to buy them with unjustified wage increases. Federal employees have VERY limited bargaining rights compared to most state employees in states that allow public employee bargaining.

      • JamesSmith130

        Banning state and local public sector unions, as much as I would like to see it, would violate the 10th Amendment if done through Congress IMO.

        We have to uphold the Constitution, even when we don’t like it.

        I’m not sure whether a national RTW would violate the 10th Amendment, however. It might pass muster.

    • cwilson

      because the Bamster will veto, and we won’t have 67 Senators. But in the 113th…