Posts tagged First Amendment
Labor Board Goes After Amazon CEO for Suggesting Workers Might Be ‘Better Off’ Without Unions
May 14, 2024 // "Reasonable people may disagree about the line between permissible and impermissible speech" within the bounds of federal labor laws, said Edwin Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, in a statement. "However, if Judge Gee's decision is left to stand, the effect would be to erase this line entirely. Employers would rightly wonder whether they can speak about unionization at all, despite their legally protected right to do so." Gee's ruling in the Amazon case sits awkwardly alongside other recent rulings by the NLRB that gave wide leeway to employees' speech about similar topics. As the Washington Examiner noted, the NLRB in January forced Amazon to rehire an employee who had been sacked after directing an expletive-laden tirade at a fellow worker.
Commentary: Biden sacrifices workplace free speech to satisfy labor unions
May 8, 2024 // This attack on workplace speech is part and parcel of Mr. Biden’s ultimate goal — legalizing union harassment of workers. Mr. Biden reiterated his support for the Protecting the Right to Organize Act in his State of the Union address, legislation that would rewrite U.S. labor law to the unions’ benefit. One little-known PRO Act provision would force employers to hand over sensitive employee contact information — including phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses and shift times — to union bosses during organizing drives. If the act became legal, workers on the fence about unionization could get a 3 a.m. knock on the door from organizers attempting to “help” them make up their minds. Mr. Biden’s devotion to labor unions has come at a significant cost — the chilling of workplace speech. If Democrats are serious about being pro-worker, they should stand up and oppose Mr. Biden’s anti-speech crusade. But as long as labor unions continue to spend billions to elect Democrats, don’t hold your breath.
VIDEO: Former Union Vice President Fights for right to Resign Membership
April 30, 2024 // Amber is a self-proclaimed problem solver, so when she noticed these issues with her union, she decided to join the leadership team. She applied for and was approved as the union vice president, hoping to be able to address the issues that were being ignored. But her hopes didn’t last long. Her fellow union officials soon started withholding information from her and even holding meetings without her.
Commentary: SEIU 1000 SECURITY BREACH EXPOSES UNION HYPOCRISY ON GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
April 30, 2024 // Imagine our shock when news broke recently that SEIU 1000, one of the largest unions in California, had been the target of a ransomware attack that led to more than 308 gigabytes of union data being captured by the hackers. This included membership information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers and birthdates. Where did SEIU 1000 get this information to have it leaked in the first place? Much of the data was included on lists given to it by the state of California, per the union’s bargaining agreement, on a regular basis.
OHIO: STATE SEES 68 PERCENT BUMP IN OPT-OUTS
April 29, 2024 // The spike in opt-outs in March was led by Ohio Association of Public School Employees, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 8 members. All three of these unions saw more than 20 members choose to halt their dues deductions. The bump from 2023 was due entirely to the hard work of the Ohio’s outreach team, which sent out thousands of pieces of mail and emails to union members’ homes and inboxes.
OPINION: L.A. Teacher’s Fight With Union Appealed To Supreme Court
April 23, 2024 // Laird refused to dismiss his lawsuit, and with good reason. Because his case is about more than the return of his money. In fact, Laird is donating the entire amount he received from UTLA to a nonprofit group that helps disadvantaged students in the Los Angeles area. When judges at both the lower court level and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the union, the Freedom Foundation filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. Glenn Laird’s case is about a judicial acknowledgment and vindication of his First Amendment rights by a federal judge. As long as unions can cut checks using their members’ dues dollars to make lawsuits disappear, judges will never have the opportunity to rule on the actual constitutional issues, rendering the First Amendment and Janus decision meaningless. “Hopefully the Supreme Court will find my case worthy of making a ruling,” concluded Laird. “Janus set the stage, but now we need to build on that precedent so unions and lower court judges don’t continue to ignore the Supremes.”
UNION PRESIDENT APOLOGIZES TO FREEDOM FOUNDATION CLIENT
April 23, 2024 // The Washington State Supreme Court, in Allen v. Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, made clear that the right to fair representation is not dependent on a worker’s membership status. Nor is it lawful for an exclusive bargaining representative to “restrain or coerce an employee” in the exercise of their right to not join a union.” “I needed something I would be able point to the next time I need representation,” Fix said. “This letter gives me security and lets others know the union can’t discriminate against them.” The irony is that Fix isn’t anti-union per se, and had even negotiated on behalf of WFSE in the past. Fix went out of his way to aid the union in its collective bargaining functions and was mistreated just because he exercised his First Amendment right to opt out. Mike Yestramski,
The Liberty Justice Center Sues Union for Forcing Jewish Lawyers to Support Speech They Consider Antisemitic
April 12, 2024 // Congress recently launched an investigation into the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys due to whistleblower reports of antisemitism by union members. The Liberty Justice Center is suing the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, Legal Aid Society, and the City of New York on behalf of Mr. Levine and Mr. Popper, alleging that these defendants are violating the attorneys’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to subsidize political speech as a condition of employment. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling a person to subsidize a union’s speech. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court held that a government could not force its employees to pay a union as a condition of their employment. And in Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that a government could not compel recipients of government funds, through a state program to provide services to other private individuals, to pay money to a union.
Labor employees show up to protest for more telework
April 3, 2024 // Ernst and Franklin wrote to Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su seeking more details about what the protest cost the department. “Clearly, these employees know how much more effective they can be when they show up in person. We just wish they had the same level of dedication to serving Americans that they do to serving themselves,” the lawmakers wrote. “As White House Chief of Staff [Jeff] Zients said in January, agencies are still ‘not where they need to be’ on returning employees to the office. If your employees can show up to the office to protest, they can show up to the office to work.” Ernst and Franklin want Su to respond to answers to three questions by April 10: How much taxpayer-funded union time did representatives of AFGE Local 948 log with the Department of Labor (DOL) in the four weeks preceding their rally on March 19, 2024? Were the DOL employees paid—either through taxpayer-funded union time reimbursements or otherwise—for their protest against returning to the office, which they staged at their office? If so, what is the cost to the DOL including but not limited to labor and resources—of this protest?
FREEDOM FOUNDATION TAKES ON UNIONS AT 9TH CIRCUIT
March 22, 2024 // But the U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that a public employee, and only a public employee, can waive their First Amendment rights and agree to fund a union’s speech. Otherwise, when a union uses state law to take an employee’s money and force them to fund its politics, the employee’s speech is compelled, and the employee may seek remedies against the union. Under these clear and plain rules, the applicable unions compelled Craine, Morejon, and Bourque’s speech. Let’s hope the 9th Circuit agrees.