Author Archives: employeerightsact

1. Supreme Court Ruling on Janus a Victory for American Workers’ First Amendment Rights

   July 2, 2018 9:46 am Leave a Comment

   This op-ed column was originally published at TheHill.com

   By Todd Rokita

   Unions have opposed right-to-work for years, forcing workers to pay dues regardless of their desire to be members of the unionized organization. This overreach of power has unlawfully stripped many Americans of their First Amendment rights. Indiana, and 27 other states, have recognized that forced unionization as unconstitutional and have passed laws against it.

   We must act to protect all Americans. Americans like Mark Janus, a Child Support Specialist for the state of Illinois, who decided to take action and challenge the status quo. The state of Illinois was forcing him to pay dues to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) to keep his job. Mark Janus filed a lawsuit that he has fought all the way up to the Supreme Court. This week, the Supreme Court ruled for Mark Janus in the case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus challenged a 1977 precedent set in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that gave state and local governments the power to force employees to pay union fees.

   This challenge rings true with what Hoosiers already know, that unions should defend workers’ rights, not threaten their job security. In 2012, Indiana took action to protect government employees from being forced to pay financial dues to a union. Since passing our right-to-work law in Indiana, more Hoosiers are working than ever in our 200 year history and our state’s economy continues to grow.

   Still, many Americans have been mandated into unions by liberal elites who want to spread their message on someone else’s dime.  Unions are strong players in the political field and nearly all of them support liberal candidates and causes. According to the Center for Union Facts, labor unions have sent more than $1.3 billion in member dues to liberal advocacy groups, without prior member approval. That is 99 percent of all union political contributions. These groups include the Democratic Governors Association, Clinton Foundation and Planned Parenthood.

   Forcing Americans to pay for the political activism and propaganda of unions violates the beliefs of many American workers. Many unions take advantage of their unfettered power bestowed on them by the government and advocate for liberal politicians, instead of the hard-working men and women they represent. As they engage in politics with government mandated support, they do so at the expense of worker’s First Amendment rights.

   Such blatant disregard of free speech cannot be tolerated in a nation founded on diversity of thought. That is why I co-sponsored H.R. 785, the National Right to Work Act, which would repeal the provisions in federal law that make “forced dues” the default labor law of the country. This position has been validated by the fruitful results of Indiana’s economic policy and the Supreme Court ruling in Janus v AFSCME.

   Our American workforce is the foundation of a strong and healthy economy, nation and people. We must never give up the fight to protect their freedoms. I will continue to support all American workers and their First Amendment rights.

   Todd Rokita represents Indiana’s 4^th District and is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

2. New Video Highlights Union Political Advocacy Spending

   June 26, 2018 10:29 am Leave a Comment

   Today, the Center for Union Facts released a new video, illustrating the scale of union political advocacy spending and explaining the Employee Rights Act’s (ERA) paycheck protection provision.

   Since 2010, labor unions have sent more than $1.3 billion in member dues to liberal advocacy groups—without prior member approval. The liberal groups include the Democratic Governors Association, Clinton Foundation, and Planned Parenthood, even though 40 percent of union household members vote Republican in any given election cycle. As the video explains, the ERA would protect union members by requiring union officials to receive opt-in approval before spending dues money on political advocacy.

   You can see the video here:

3. Unions Give $1.3 billion to Democrats, Liberal Groups Since 2010

   May 17, 2018 10:24 am Leave a Comment

   This news article was originally published at WashingtonExaminer.com

   By Sean Higgins

   Organized labor has given more than $1.3 billion to Democratic Party organizations and liberal nonprofit and activist groups since 2010, while 1 percent went to conservative groups or causes, according to a survey of federal data.

   The giving is starkly different from the beliefs of most rank-and-file union members, many of whom lean Republican.

   The report was compiled by the Center for Union Facts, a conservative watchdog organization, and was based on annual financial disclosure reports filed with the Labor Department. The “LM-2” reports were filed by union groups including the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, and individual unions such as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union.

   The largest recipient of the union money was America Votes, a nonprofit liberal get-out-the-vote organization, which has received $15 million over the last seven years. The Democratic Governors Association was the next largest with $14.5 million. Overall, about $400 million went to groups directly involved in supporting Democratic officeholders and candidates. The rest went to a broad range of activist groups, nonprofits, and media organizations.

   Union leaders admit that their giving doesn’t necessarily reflect their members’ viewpoints. “In the last election, President Trump got 3 percentage points more of our members than Mitt Romney did. Unfortunately, Hillary [Clinton] got 10 percent of our members less than Barack Obama did. They either didn’t vote, or they voted for a third-party candidate,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters last year.

   Center for Union Facts spokesman Luka Ladan said the numbers showed that union officials have “exploited” their members. “Union leadership provides a reliable ATM for the Democratic Party and liberal special interest groups across the country, whether employees agree or not. Union members are right to support the Employee Rights Act, which would protect their paychecks and hold union officials accountable,” Ladan said.

   The Employee Rights Act, introduced by Republican lawmakers last year, would require unions to get written permission from members before using their dues for political purposes. It also would mandate recertification votes following significant turnover at a workplace to determine if the union still has majority support of workers, among other changes.

4. Newt Gingrich: Pass the ERA

   April 3, 2018 9:57 am Leave a Comment

   In a recent FoxNews.com op-ed column, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich praised the Employee Rights Act’s (ERA) reforms, noting their popularity across party lines. Gingrich urged Congress to pass the ERA this year. Here’s what he wrote:

   Another good legislative goal for Republicans would be passing the Employee Rights Act. This is a no-brainer for GOP candidates running in union-controlled states because–among other things–it guarantees most employees’ rights to have secret paper ballot elections, prevents unions from pressuring employers against such elections, and requires routine secret ballot referendums to let employees decide if they want to remain unionized.

   Nationally, a poll by the Opinion Research Corporation found that protecting secret-ballot elections is supported by 79 percent of union households and 81 percent of non-union households. Even 81 percent of Democrats polled agreed that most employees should have the right to secret ballot elections. The ORC poll also found that 71 percent of union households supported periodic elections to recertify unions, and 83 percent of non-union households supported these referendums.

   Importantly, these ideas polled high in some important states–Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Seventy-two percent of union households in these states supported secret ballots, and 68 percent approved of routine recertification elections.

   Republicans in right-to-work states should also support the Employee Rights Act. According to the Center for Union Facts, unions directed more than $1.1 billion in union dues to liberal political groups from 2010 to 2016. The Democratic Governors Association and Planned Parenthood were among the top ten recipients. Much of this money is being spent to strengthen union influence and bring more and more states under union control.

   The Employee Rights Act would require unions to get prior permission from workers before union dues are spent on anything other than collective bargaining. This political protection provision has resounding support–81 percent in union households, 85 percent in non-union households, and 79 percent in union homes in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

5. Why Should Unions Have Eternal Life?

   March 14, 2018 9:41 am Leave a Comment

   This op-ed column was originally published at WSJ.com

   By Akash Chougule

   When Donald Trump quipped last week that he’d like to be “president for life,” his detractors accused him of unsettling democratic norms. A single electoral mandate can’t last forever, right?

   Yet that’s how labor unions work. Once a union wins a certification election, it hardly ever has to stand for recertification, no matter how much employee turnover takes place. Entire workforces have inherited union representation from predecessors decades earlier. The United Federation of Teachers organized New York City public school teachers in 1961, meaning no current teacher voted for the union. Just 1% of teachers in Florida’s 10 largest districts were on the job when their schools unionized, according to a 2012 Heritage Foundation study.

   That’s about to change. This week, Florida became the third state to enact a law requiring teachers unions to stand for recertification. Specifically, if less than half of the bargaining unit chooses to maintain membership, the certification process starts over. The union must collect signatures from 30% of the unit and then win a secret-ballot election.

   Iowa passed an even broader measure last year. All government unions there must now win recertification before each new contract negotiation, typically every two or three years. Wisconsin’s Act 10 accomplished much the same in 2011 by requiring annual recertification elections. Michigan, Missouri and Oklahoma are considering similar measures.

   The problem is equally bad in the private economy. As of 2015, only 6% of unionized private employees had ever voted to organize, according to National Labor Relations Board data analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. The other 94% either voted against the union or, more commonly, inherited it. The United Auto Workers organized Detroit’s Ford, General Motors and Chrysler plants between 1936 and 1941. The UAW has never had to win new employees’ support.

   Congress can solve this problem by passing the Employee Rights Act, which would require private-sector unions to hold a recertification election every three years, or each time the workforce turns over by at least 50% at the end of a collective-bargaining agreement, whichever comes first. It would also require workers to “opt in” before unions can spend their dues on anything other than bargaining.

   This bill would create accountability while shining a light on the union complaint about “free riders” in right-to-work states. The claim is that unions are forced to represent nonmembers who pay no dues. In Florida, as of 2015, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees represented 47,653 workers, but only 1,369 dues-paying members, according to state data.

   Recertification elections would make clear whether these workers truly are free riders—if they vote to recertify a union that they refuse to join—or whether they are actually “forced riders” who never wanted the union in the first place. Wisconsin’s experience suggests the latter. After Act 10, more than 100 government unions chose not to seek recertification because they lacked sufficient support. Membership in Afscme fell 54% in just a year.

   Although unions complain incessantly about the free-rider problem, it isn’t clear they want it gone. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that unions are free to represent only dues-paying members. Yet most insist on negotiating as the exclusive representative of all employees. This increases their bargaining power, while providing a nice talking point against right-to-work laws.

   But last month an Illinois union sued Gov. Bruce Rauner, seeking to undo its “duty of fair representation” under state law to speak for all workers. Such a solution could please both sides, since it would give state employees like Mark Janus, whose case challenging forced unionism is now before the Supreme Court, a way to cut ties completely.

   Since 2012, six states have passed right-to-work laws—more than in the previous 50 years. The Janus case could extend this protection to all public employees nationwide. But recertification laws are still needed if today’s workers are to have the same right to vote on unionization that their predecessors had decades ago.

   Akash Chougule is director of policy at Americans for Prosperity.

6. Remember Freedom of Association? Union Membership Should Not be Forced

   February 20, 2018 9:27 am Leave a Comment

   This editorial was originally published at WashingtonExaminer.com

   By the Washington Examiner editorial board

   Can state governments use their public workforce to funnel money from taxpayers to their political allies against the will of public employees? That question will be argued before the Supreme Court this week.

   The case is Janus v. AFSCME, and the question is whether governments can compel public employees who aren’t union members to pay dues or fees to the union. This is important for Democrats because public-employee unions are key allies and the involuntary dues fund these unions to push more public employees into joining.

   A correct ruling in this case would expand the rights of public employees. Congress could follow suit with federal laws further protecting workers from unions who demand the right to slip a grasping hand into their pockets and take out some of their hard-earned wages.

   Here’s the background:

   In 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito signaled that they were ready to end compulsory union dues and fee payments for government workers everywhere, overturning a precedent set decades earlier. Now Justice Neil Gorsuch has been added to the Supreme Court, and a similar case has made its way to the top.

   Janus v. AFSCME, brought by government workers in Illinois, offers the Court an opportunity to follow through, reverse the precedent, and stop states operating closed union shops. No longer would governments be the handmaidens and dues-collectors for public employee unions, which give their political donations overwhelmingly to Democrats, who return the favor with anti-freedom, pro-union laws and regulations.

   Union membership would finally be voluntary in the public sector, with each clerk, fireman, prison guard, bus driver, sanitation worker, and public school teacher free to choose for himself. This case is a very big deal, in that it could effectively establish universal Right-to-Work for all government employees, shutting off a massive unearned stream of income for politically active left-wing groups.

   Unions are an important part of our society and economy, and, properly limited in their actions, can be beneficial. But they should earn their money and membership the way most institutions do, by convincing people that they are worth joining and funding. Let the market decide whether they are worth the money and build a base of voluntary members. A proper ruling in Janus would bring us a step in that direction.

   Whatever the court decides, Congress can build on it to make 2018 a true year of worker freedom. The federal Employee Rights Act would extend new freedoms to private-sector workers by requiring periodic workplace votes to re-certify their unions.

   This would guarantee that those unions are still serving the interests of the workers, not just living on and collecting their dues through inertia because a completely separate group of workers happened to choose that union in the 1960s.

   Just as a favorable ruling in Janus could free all government workers from compulsory union membership, the ERA would give private-sector employees a realistic chance of getting rid of unwanted, inefficient, or poor union representation.

   Labor unions played a large role in creating the modern workplace. But having decades ago fought for and obtained a regulatory structure that makes modern workplaces safe and humane, unions have become a lot less necessary to today’s workers.

7. Republicans Should Score a Big Win for Employee Rights

   January 8, 2018 10:04 am Leave a Comment

   This editorial was originally published at WashingtonExaminer.com

   By Washington Examiner editorial board

   This winter, Republicans accomplished something that hadn’t been done in more than three decades. They reformed the tax code, restoring American businesses to tax competitiveness with businesses aboard and, one hopes, paving the way toward a period of broad-based prosperity.

   That’s quite an achievement. But if one such 30-year milestone is impressive, imagine how much more impressed voters will find it if Republicans reform laws governing unions and workplace representation, which hasn’t been done for three generations.

   Republicans have introduced the Employee Rights Act in recent Congresses, a bill that would do just that. Its most important accomplishment would be to restore workplace democracy with regular and periodic secret-ballot workplace elections. For the first time in 80 years — let’s repeat that, 80 years — workers would be guaranteed a say in their representation at work, rather than being stuck with whichever union was chosen by workers at their companies decades earlier.

   The bill would allow workers to choose whether their private information is given to union organizers by their employers, or withheld from them. Under current law, the employers must hand such information over to unions that are trying to organize their employees, regardless of whether workers want that.

   The Employee Rights Act has 140 GOP sponsors in the House. Ever since its original proposal, its common-sense provisions have been extremely popular, enjoying 75 to 80 percent support from the public. Contrast that with tax reform, which may yet prove popular but had only 30 percent approval when it passed. You’d think that the Republican Party would seize on the chance to do something manifestly and hugely popular in an election year. But the party is adept at self-inflicting public relations black eyes.

   The Employee Rights Act also has all the right enemies. Big Labor strongly disapproves, because its coffers would not be filled from the pay packets of workers finally given the choice of denying them the money. Big corporations, too, are hesitant, because they’d rather deal with the reliable union devil they know than be forced to negotiate pay with employees individually.

   But that’s no reason for Republicans to ignore the rights of the workers, who are too often forced into one-size-fits-all arrangements, or end up in them by default or through inertia, rather than through any desire of their own or positive choice.

   President Trump’s party may face an electoral tsunami in 10 months’ time unless they rack up popular achievements and pursue other popular ideas, whether or not they actually pass Congress. Given public sentiment and the lack of coherent Democratic opposition, the ERA is an ideal vehicle for doing the latter.

   The election year is already underway. It won’t be long before the midterms are too close for Congress to get any serious legislating done. It would be unfortunate if congressional Republican leaders chose not to rest on their laurels and missed the chance to move a bill like this one.

8. ERA Enjoys Unprecedented Support

   December 18, 2017 10:18 am Leave a Comment

   Labor reform is gaining steam. The Employee Rights Act (ERA) is currently supported by more than 160 members of Congress, including 25 U.S. senators. Co-sponsors are adding their names weekly, and the total number of ERA supporters is expected to hit a record high by early 2018.

   According to national and regional polls, roughly 80 percent of Americans—including those in union households—support the bill’s key provisions. And more than 50 free-market organizations, including the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity, have endorsed the ERA. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board is also supportive, claiming the ERA will “protect worker rights from union coercion.”

   The Employee Rights Act is an idea whose time has come.

9. Pass the Employee Rights Act

   November 1, 2017 11:23 am Leave a Comment

   This editorial was originally published at Gazette.com

   By The Gazette editorial board

   Lost in news of scandals, faux scandals, potential tax reform and all variety of partisan bickering is a congressional bill that would put workers in control of their unions.

   The Employee Rights Act, or Senate Bill 1874, is steadily gaining support in Congress, as President Donald Trump would likely sign it into law. Two Colorado Republican members of Congress, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, are among 105 House co-sponsors who are all Republicans.

   Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., might sign on with 19 Senate Republican sponsors, and the list is destined to grow.

   “Senator Gardner was a cosponsor of this legislation last Congress. He is currently reviewing this version and remains supportive of the concept,” explains an email from Gardner’s office to The Gazette.

   The bill could win bipartisan support, if better understood. Introduced in September by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the bill would:

   • Guarantee private ballots in elections
   • Mandate scheduled union recertification by vote of union members
   • Require permission of union members before spending their dues on political races
   • Establish “majority vote” as the threshold for deciding election outcomes
   • Enhance personal privacy of union members from union leaders
   • Prevent coercion by union leaders
   • Ensure ballot privacy in strike elections
   • Criminalize threats against union members by union leaders

   Labor unions have been, and remain, a vital component of the checks and balances that maintain constructive labor/management relations. Unions have increased compensation and protected workers’ interests for generations.

   Just like poorly regulated employers sometimes abuse their authority, so do poorly regulated union leaders. Congress has not substantially updated union regulations in 70 years. Meanwhile, union tactics and workplaces have changed substantially.

   A survey found four of five Americans support the concept of the Employee Rights Act.

   The bill is not anti-union. It is pro-worker, by making unions more responsive to the needs and wishes of union members.

   By requiring routine recertification elections, the law would cause union bosses to work only in the interests of members. If union membership is not worth the dues, members will vote to decertify. If the union is helping workers, members will gladly vote to recertify and continue paying dues.

   By ensuring private ballots, the law would liberate workers to vote without fear. The law would prevent spending of union dues on candidates a majority of members may not like. This is common sense.

   Every detail of the Employee Rights Act would make unions more supportive of the members who fund them.

   Unions are important but should represent only the interests of members who voluntarily join. Republicans and Democrats who care about workers should support this bill.

10. Will Big Labor Dare to Listen to What its Members Want?

    October 30, 2017 9:34 am Leave a Comment

    This op-ed column was originally published at NYPost.com

    By Akash Chougule

    The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in America, made headlines this week when it broke from past protocol and declined to invite any federal lawmakers to its quadrennial convention.

    The decision comes as unions seek to display more political independence, following an election in which 43 percent of union households voted Republican for president, despite 88 percent of direct union political spending going to support Democrats.

    As a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal, “Today’s political environment and the needs of our members demand a departure from business as usual.”

    Clearly, labor leaders have recognized the massive disconnect with their membership, but it remains to be seen if they’ll actually create more responsive unions.

    The proposals contained in the Employee Rights Act, reintroduced in Congress this year by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would be a good first step toward more democratic unions.

    The bill would require unions to: stand for periodic recertification elections to determine if workers wish to remain represented by that union; hold certification and recertification referendums by secret ballot instead of open “card-check” votes; and receive written permission from workers before spending their dues on anything other than collective bargaining, such as supporting organizations that engage in political advocacy.

    According to 2015 polling by Opinion Research Corp., each of these provisions enjoys at least 71 percent support from union households. This year, ORC found similarly overwhelming support specifically among union households in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio — key industrial states that union-backed Hillary Clinton lost last year.

    Nationwide, just 6 percent of union members have ever voted for the union that represents them, according to a 2016 Heritage Foundation report. The rest either voted against the union or, more commonly, inherited a union that was voted on years or even decades ago.

    Recertification elections would allow workers to vote whether they wish to remain represented by that union, giving many workers a voice for the first time in their careers.

    Secret-ballot elections would free workers from the harassment and intimidation that comes with card-check elections, in which workers must vote in front of a union organizer. Card-check is the preferred method of labor leaders and their political allies because it results in higher rates of unionization, but it deprives workers of a basic protection that all Americans are guaranteed when they vote for their own elected representatives.

    Finally, a report this month from the Center for Union Facts revealed that unions sent nearly $765 million in workers’ dues from 2012 through 2016 to left-wing organizations, from Planned Parenthood to the Democratic Governors Association.

    Recertification elections, secret ballots and paycheck protection would require unions to be more responsive and ensure workers aren’t forced to support causes they oppose.

    Take, for example, Charlene Carter, who last month sued her ex-employer and union officials, alleging she’d been fired for criticizing her union and voicing pro-life views. Carter objected to her dues being used to send union leaders to the Washington, DC, “Women’s March,” which supported several causes she opposes.

    Had the union’s participation in the Women’s March required her permission, this problem could’ve been avoided. Instead, Carter must now resort to suing the very organization that was supposed to represent her.

    This summer, the president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO said of his union’s members, “we were speaking too much at them, rather than having conversations with them.” Now the AFL-CIO has a chance to show workers they’re serious about giving them a voice. The Employee Rights Act would do that — and will test whether President Richard Trumka and other labor leaders are willing to give up their coercive status quo to save their unions.

    Akash Chougule is director of policy at Americans for Prosperity.