Bargaining Bill Would Trampling Public Employee Rights

Tuesday’s column discussed some of the reasons Governor Spanberger should amend or veto the public employee collective bargaining bill headed to her desk:  the local and state taxpayer costs, the creation of new bureaucracies, the opposition of local Democrats and a majority of local government and school board leaders and, perhaps most persuasively, the use of a “dues skimming” scheme that would put the union between family members providing help to their relatives.

But there are other concerns, as well … starting with the bill’s revocation of Virginia’s Secret Ballot Protection Act, which declares “the right of an individual employee to vote by secret ballot in such a procedure is a fundamental right that shall be guaranteed from infringement.”

By eliminating that language the legislation ends protections for employees by allowing a new “Public Employee Relations Board” to declare a winner on the basis of union claims that more than half of employees have signed up with a union.

It’s a conscious effort to avoid the democratic process of elections.  As Bruce Raynor, once president of a Service Employees International Union declared “There’s no reason to subject the workers to an election.”  Mike Fishman, when he was president of Local 32BJ of SEIU, echoed the sentiment, saying  “we don’t do elections.”

Instead public employees – whose home address, phone and email will be provided to union organizers – will be subject to repeated pressure from union organizers anxious to sign them up to collect thousands in union dues.

State and local governments will be required to provide the union, “in an editable electronic format,” not only each employee’s work information (even if they are not union members) but also home address, home telephone number, personal cell phone number and personal email address.  The only thing missing is “mother’s maiden name,” but the message is clear that their privacy is no longer theirs, even if an employee wants nothing to do with the union.

Without secrecy, this practice of “card check” has been subject to well-documented union abuse, including friendly little visits to employee homes from union organizers (now that they know where you live). 

Noted former Steelworkers Union organizer Ricardo Torres, “Visits to the homes of employees who didn’t support the union were used to frustrate them and put them in fear of what might happen to them … if they didn’t change their minds about the union. In most cases, constant pressure at work and home was enough to make workers break and at least stop talking against the union—neutralizing them, so to speak.”

Torres, who left the Steelworkers because he was “revolted” by their tactics, was told by superiors to threaten migrant workers by telling them he would report them to federal immigration officials if they refused to sign.

Don’t doubt that it happens.  After all, if unions are willing to harass a bride with no connection to the union or the workplace, they’ll certainly do worse to prospective union members.

Agreements to sign the cards often came in exchange for promises from the union that can’t be kept.  But once the card is signed, it constitutes a “yes” vote, without a secret ballot.  Such organizing under card check is much easier than a secret ballot election.  Even if a worker decides not to sign the card, organizers are permitted to come back again and again to pressure him or her to change his mind. 

To ensure new employees get the point, the bill requires mandatory orientation sessions at which anyone other than the union representative is excluded.  Call it a “Timeshare meeting on steroids.”

That pressure has often taken a pernicious turn.  

According to the Star Tribune, a community college employee reported that a union representative for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council (AFSCME) “pulled her out of a workplace training session and pressured her into signing a dues-authorization form without telling her how much membership would cost or informing her of her right not to join …. She found later that the dues would cost about $700 a year and reached out to the union the day after signing, saying she could not afford to pay because of expenses for cancer treatment she was undergoing. She says she was told she was locked in for the following year.”

A year would be short.  Like Hotel California, once you’re in “you can check out anytime you want but you can never leave.”

While public employees may sign up to join online, by mail, or by completing a form in person, cancelling is a different story. For example, the boilerplate for collective bargaining agreements with the Service Employees International Union or the Teamsters typically reads something along the lines of:

An employee may withdraw such consent in accordance with the terms of the membership and dues deduction agreement (emphasis mine) between the employee and the Union. The Union will notify the City when it is appropriate to stop dues deduction in accordance with the terms of the membership and dues deduction agreement between the employee and the Union.

But read the terms of the typical “membership and dues agreement” and employees will discover that they can only revoke their membership by mail and only within a short window — typically “within 15 days before or after (1) the annual anniversary date of this agreement or (2) the termination of the applicable collective bargaining agreement between my employer and union …” or in the 30 days prior to the CBA’s anniversary date.

Still keeping track?  Some unions, notably the Teamsters, won’t permit a member to stop paying until 30 days before the expiration of even a three-year CBA – which means public employees can pay $1,000 a year or more for three years … for services they don’t want or need. And frequently, the union can choose a period of irrevocability making it impossible to revoke a membership in the first year.

In other words: If a public employee is dissatisfied with their representation or feels they’re treated unfairly by the people they’re paying — perhaps even if their union engages in gross financial mismanagement — they have to keep shelling out, making it harder to leave a public employee labor union than to cancel a cable streaming service.

All of this is why Governor Spanberger’s decision whether or not to sign the new collective bargaining legislation is more than just deciding whether she casts her lot with local Democrats who oppose the bill or national unions with visions of dues dancing in their heads.

It is a question of whether she casts her lot with the state’s workers, ensuring they have privacy with strong secret ballot protections, or with union leaders who seek to take it away in order to gain dues money and political influence.

Chris Braunlich is Senior Advisor and former President of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.  He is also a former member of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) in New York.  He may be reached at chris@thomasjeffersoninst.org.