The Friedrichs Free Rider Fraud

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Friedrichs case has the unions in a tizzy.

On June 30th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association et al, a case that could seriously change the way the public employee unions (PEUs) do business. If the plaintiffs are victorious, teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, etc. would be able to work without the financial burden of paying union dues. The responses to the Court’s decision from the teachers unions and their friends have ranged from silly to contradictory to blatantly dishonest.

In a rare event, leaders of the NEA, AFT, CTA, AFSCME and SEIU released a joint statement explaining that worker freedom would be a catastrophe for the Republic. Clutching their hankies, they told us that, “big corporations and the wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American families and our entire economy off-balance.” And then, with an obvious attempt at eliciting a gasp, “…the Supreme Court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America.” (Perhaps the labor bosses misunderstood the wording of the preamble to the Constitution, “In order to form a more perfect union….” No, this was not an attempt to organize workers.) While the U.S. is not without its problems, removing forced unionism will hardly dent the “fundamental promise of America.”

The California Federation of Teachers, which typically is at the forefront of any class warfare sorties, didn’t disappoint. The union claims on its website that the activity of union foes “has resulted in a sharp decline in median wages for working people and the decline of the middle class alongside the increasing concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the one per cent.” But wait a minute – the unions are the most potent political force in the country today and have been for a while. According to Open Secrets, between 1989-2014, the much maligned one-percenter Koch Brothers ranked 59th in political donations behind 18 different unions. The National Education Association was #4 at $53,594,488 and the American Federation of Teachers was 12th at $36,713,325, while the Kochs spent a measly $18,083,948 during that time period. Also, as Mike Antonucci reports, the two national teachers unions, NEA and AFT, spend more on politics than AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, General Electric, Chevron, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, FedEx, Boeing, Merrill Lynch, Exxon Mobil, Lehman Brothers, and the Walt Disney Corporation, combined.”

So the question to the unions becomes, “With your extraordinary political clout and assertion that working people’s wages and membership in the middle class are declining, just what good have you done?”

Apparently very little. In fact, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research reports that when disposable personal income – personal income minus taxes – is adjusted for differences in living costs, the seven states with the lowest incomes per capita (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia) are forced-union states. “Of the nine states with the highest cost of living-adjusted disposable incomes in 2011, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming all have Right to Work laws.” Overall, the cost of living-adjusted disposable income per capita for Right to Work states in 2011 “was more than $36,800, or roughly $2200 higher than the average for forced-unionism states.”

But the most galling and downright fraudulent union allegations about Friedrichs concern the “free rider” issue. If the case is successful, public employees will have a choice whether or not they have to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. (There are 25 states where workers now have this choice, but in the other 25 they are forced to pay to play.) The unions claim that since they are forced to represent all workers, that those who don’t pay their “fair share” are “freeloaders” or “free riders.” The unions would have a point if someone was sticking a gun to their collective heads and said, “Like it or not, you must represent all workers.” But as I wrote recently, the forced representation claim is a big fat lie. Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst James Sherk explains,

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows unions that demonstrate majority support to negotiate as exclusive representatives. If they do so they must negotiate fairly on behalf of all employees, including those who do not pay dues. However unions may disavow (or not obtain) exclusive representative status and negotiate only for their members. Nothing in the National Labor Relations Act forces exclusive representation on unwilling unions. (Emphasis added.)

Mike Antonucci adds,

The very first thing any new union wants is exclusivity. No other unions are allowed to negotiate on behalf of people in the bargaining unit. Unit members cannot hire their own agent, nor can they represent themselves. Making people pay for services they neither asked for nor want is a ‘privilege’ we reserve for government, not for private organizations. Unions are freeloading on those additional dues.

If there are still any doubters, George Meany, the first president of the AFL-CIO, whose rein began in 1955 and continued for 24 years, told Congress,

When a union has exclusive recognition with a federal activity or agency, that union is required to represent all workers in that unit, whether or not those workers are members of the union. We do not contest this requirement. We support it for federal service, just as we support it in private industry labor-management relations.

While the NLRA applies only to private employee unions, the same types of rules invariably govern PEUs. Passed in 1976, California’s Rodda Act allows for exclusive representation and it’s up to each school district and its local union whether or not they want to roll that way. However, it is clearly in the best interest of the union to be the only representative for teachers because it then gets to collect dues from every teacher in the district. It’s also easier on school boards as they only have to deal with one bargaining entity. So it is really a corrupt bargain; there is no law foisting exclusivity on any teachers union in the state.

So exclusive representation is good for the unions and simplifies life for the school boards, but very bad for teachers who want nothing to do with organized labor. It is also important to keep in mind that the Friedrichs case is not an attempt to “bust unions.” This silly mantra is a diversionary tactic; the case in no way suggests a desire to do away with unions. So when organized labor besieges us with histrionics about “the promise of America,” the dying middle class, free riders etc., please remind them (with a nod to President Obama), “If you like your union, you can keep your union.” In this case, it’s the truth.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Sodexo Abandons RICO Suit Against SEIU

Sodexo, a major player in the food service and janitorial industries, filed a RICO lawsuit against the SEIU in March of this year, because of the SEIU’s use of corporate campaign tactics to enforce “Card Check” on unprotected employees. Evidently, the SEIU’s failed attempt to have Sodexo’s suit dismissed and Sodexo’s intent to move to trial has motivated the SEIU to end their campaign against Sodexo (see SEIU to End Sodexo Campaign).  Consequently, Sodexo elected to settle with the SEIU out of court.

While Sodexo will characterize this as a victory, I find the result very disappointing, as Sodexo had the opportunity to take this case through the legal system, and had an excellent chance of winning and thereby setting a legal precedent that would have benefited employees and employers across the country. Many experts believe this case may restrict corporate campaigns in the future, however I believe the experts and Sodexo are naive. Based on the terms that have been made public, both sides appear to be agreeing to do what they are required to do all along under the National Labor Relations Act “NLRA” (see Facing RICO Suit, SEIU Ends Two-Year Corporate Campaign Against Sodexo).

Big labor will now just find another way to intimidate employees and employers and process corporate campaigns just as has happened when others such as Wackenhut have settled, or when suits such as Cintas’s have been dismissed. Make no mistake, big labor is not only crafty and understands how to misconstrue and misrepresent the message to circumvent NLRA law, it actually views these agreements through a different prism. Sodexo may have provided itself some breathing room, but the SEIU and other big labor bosses understand they have the NLRB on their side and new regulatory changes are in the pipeline designed to shorten election times, thereby eliminating the ability of the employer to effectively communicate their message to employees (see Plan to Ease Way for Unions and Employers Criticize Proposal to Speed Union Votes).

This is no more than an effort to mask corporate campaigns and ‘Card Check”  under the guise of  Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review  as related in my prior blogs: A Death Penalty for Employees and EmployersRule by Fiat and Card Check through Regulation vs. Legislation. Recently, the NLRB demonstrated its willingness to implement its pro-labor agenda by forcing businesses to post notices of employee rights under the NLRA in their workplace (see Labor Relations Board Rule Would Require Businesses to Alert Workers to Union Rights and Make Organizing Rights Posting Available for Downloading and prior blog Political Aspirations & Payback Ahead of American Jobs).  To be sure, shortened elections, just as required postings will be pushed through next by the rogue NLRB and Sodexo and all employers and employees will have to face a new form of corporate campaign designed to achieve “card check”.

The extremely sad part about all of this is employees are the ones who will truly suffer. A current poll shows that more employees do not see the value in unions than those that do (see 48% See No Further Need for Labor Unions, 30% Disagree). Perhaps more telling, however, is the following short e-mail from a Sodexo employee who has corresponded with me regularly during the SEIU” corporate campaign against Sodexo:

“Wow, I don’t know how I feel about today’s announcement. I will be curious to see if the “group” of “unhappy” workers will leave it alone now. I can’t believe they would just give up. This whole thing has been so upsetting to so many people at my workplace that I doubt we will ever get back to the way we were before the SEIU came calling.”

I believe the e-mail says it all.

The Sodexo/SEIU truce is truly a missed opportunity to protect employees, employers and American freedoms through legal precedent.  The Gasping Dinosaurs are not going down without a fight. Wake up Americans: Beware of Rogue NLRB.

About the author: David A. Bego is the President and CEO of EMS, an industry leader in the field of environmental workplace maintenance, employing nearly 5000 workers in thirty-three states. Bego is the author of “The Devil at My Doorstep,” based on his experiences fighting back against one of the most powerful unions in existence today.