Foundation Action - September/October 2013

FoundationActionFoundationAction

2

3

4

6

7

IN THIS ISSUE

Vol. XXXIII, No. 5 8001 Braddock Road • Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org September/October 2013

The bi-monthly newsletter of the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

DALLAS, TX – Six airline workers havefiled a federal class-action lawsuit thatseeks to end forced unionism inAmerica. Following last year’s NationalRight to Work Foundation-wonSupreme Court decision in Knox v.SEIU, it is the first lawsuit that aims toend union bosses’ special powers underthe Railway Labor Act to compel non-member railway and airline workers topay union dues as a condition ofemployment, even in Right to Workstates.

With free legal assistance fromNational Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys, the five American EagleAirlines baggage handlers from Texasand one Southwest Airlines flight atten-dant from Baltimore, Maryland filed thelawsuit in U.S. District Court in Dallas.

“This case is a real game changer,”explained Ray LaJeunesse, VicePresident and Legal Director of theNational Right to Work Foundation. “Itseeks to change the current ‘default’ ofrequiring nonmember workers to affir-matively object to a new ‘default’ inwhich workers don’t pay dues unlessthey voluntarily join a union.”

The six workers must accept theTransport Workers Union of America(TWUA) hierarchy as their monopolybargaining representative even thoughthey are not union members. As non-members, they are prohibited from vot-ing on the union’s bargaining agreementwith their employers or participating inunion meetings. Federal labor law also

empowers union officials to extractunion dues and fees from the workersfor their so-called “representation.” Ifworkers refuse to pay the union, they’lllose their jobs.

Supreme Court opens doorfor worker freedom

Millions more workers across thecountry face the same dilemma. In 26states without Right to Work laws, otherprivate sector nonunion workers can beforced to pay union officials to keeptheir jobs. But a Foundation SupremeCourt victory could change that.

In 2005, the California StateEmployees Association (CSEA) union, a

Air Traffic Controller Hits Union, FAA with Discrimination Charges

Union “Card Check” DriveTargets Auto Workers in Rightto Work States

USA TODAY Op-Ed: “Big Labor, Big Spender”

See AIRLINE LAWSUIT page 8

local affiliate of the Service EmployeesInternational Union (SEIU), imposed a“special assessment” on every civil ser-vant in its bargaining unit to pay for acampaign to defeat several Californiaballot initiatives.

CSEA officials seized money from allemployees to pay for union politicalactivism, including those who were notunion members. Last year, Foundationattorneys convinced the Supreme Courtto strike down that scheme in theirprecedent-setting Knox ruling. TheCourt ruled for the first time that unionofficials must obtain affirmative consentfrom workers before using workers’forced dues for politics.

In the Knox ruling, the SupremeCourt suggested that it was ready to

Foundation-assisted IKEAEmployees Win Dues Refundsfrom IAM Union

Foundation Attorneys SubmitBrief, Prep for Arguments atSupreme Court

Airline Workers’ Lawsuit Seeks to End Unions’ Forced-Dues PowersWorkers rely on Foundation’s landmark Knox Supreme Court victory to push for voluntary dues

Why do union bosses have suchextraordinary powers to collectforced dues from unwilling workers?The Supreme Court has hinted itwants to revisit that very question.

2 Foundation Action September/October 2013

Rev. Fred Fowler Chairman, Board of TrusteesPatrick Semmens Vice President and Editor-in-ChiefRay LaJeunesse, Jr. Vice President and Legal DirectorMark Mix President

The Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employeeswhose human or civil rights have been violated by abuses of compulsory unionism. All contributions

to the Foundation are tax deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Distributed by theNational Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160www.nrtw.org • 1-800-336-3600

Foundation Action

CHATTANOOGA, TN – The veryunion bosses that helped bring theDetroit automotive industry to bank-ruptcy are now vying to export theirDetroit-style monopoly powers in a des-perate attempt to gain a foothold inRight to Work states. Right to Workstates have experienced an increase inauto manufacturing production (largelydue to foreign automakers expandingproduction in those states) over the lastseveral years.

United Auto Workers (UAW) bossesare pulling out all the stops to becomethe monopoly bargaining agent forautoworkers in Chattanooga, Tennesseewho work for German-based auto com-pany Volkswagen. The UAW unionhierarchy is reportedly using coercive“card check” unionization tactics in alast-ditch effort to expand its grasp overworkers after 75 percent of their mem-bers have fled the union since 1980.

UAW targets Carolinas

This not the first time UAW unionbosses have sought to expand into Rightto Work states using card check. In

2002, UAW union officials struck abackroom deal with German-based automanufacturer Daimler to strong-armFreightliner Custom ChassisCorporation workers in Right to Workstates North Carolina and SouthCarolina into the union.

Union organizers were given fullaccess to Freightliner workers’ personalinformation (including their homeaddresses) and company facilities forthe purposes of unionization. Unionorganizers then made “home visits,”went about unfettered on the shop floor,

and browbeat workers into signing“cards” that later were counted as votesto install the union in the workplace.

The company even allowed unionorganizers to hold captive audiencemeetings to pressure workers into sign-ing union cards on company property.Freightliner managers and supervisorswere forbidden from saying anythingnegative about the UAW during theorganizing drive.

In exchange, the UAW union hierar-chy secretly made concessions at theworkers’ expense, including concessionsover wages and benefits. And UAWofficials did their best to keep thearrangement hidden from workers untilafter they were already unionized.

UAW officials test propa-ganda in Chattanooga

Perhaps UAW bosses learned a lessonfrom 2002 after National Right to WorkFoundation staff attorneys challengedthe legality of the Freightliner/UAW“neutrality agreement.”

For the first time, UAW union offi-cials are touting German-style “workscouncils” as a new way of unionizationto help sell themselves to ChattanoogaVolkswagen workers. Ironically, the“collaborative model” with a “German-style labor board” UAW union bossesseek is the same model they previouslyopposed. Big Labor aggressively lobbiedPresident Bill Clinton to veto the TEAMAct, which would have allowed employ-ee labor committees to negotiate with anonunion company without a union’sinvolvement.

UAW union bosses denounced thebill, stating that it “would underminethe rights of workers to organize andbargain collectively” and “legalize com-pany dominated unions in which man-agement could pick who would serve as

UAW President Bob King launchedseveral aggressive organizing cam-paigns in Right to Work states.

Union “Card Check” Drive Targets Auto Workers in Right to Work StatesReeling UAW hierarchy seeks to export failed Detroit-style forced unionization

See CHATTANOOGA AUTO WORKERS page 6

Over the years, National Right to WorkFoundation attorneys have helped manyreligious workers like Gray fight backagainst union boss abuses.

Union-instigated religiousdiscrimination widespread

In a similar case, Carol Katter, a 21-year teaching veteran from Ohio, chal-lenged a law that denied public employ-ees their right to religious accommoda-tions regarding the use of their uniondues unless the objecting employeesbelonged to certain state-approved reli-gions.

Katter, a lifelong Catholic with reli-gious objections to the union hierarchy’sposition on hot-button political issuessuch as abortion, was denied her right todivert her forced union dues to a mutu-ally-agreed-upon charity. Ohio teacherunion officials used the state law to denyKatter’s request to an accommodation.The union’s lawyer added insult toinjury by telling her she must “changereligions” to receive a religious accom-modation.

With the help of Foundation attor-neys, Katter successfully sued to havethe law struck down.

Fortunately, workers with strong reli-gious convictions like Gray and Katterhave the National Right to WorkFoundation to turn to.

“It's unconscionable that an inde-pendent-minded worker was punishedfor attempting to exercise his deeply-held religious beliefs,” said PatrickSemmens, Vice President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“Workers shouldn’t face retaliation forexercising their right not to join or affil-iate with a labor union. The Foundationwill continue to do everything possibleto defend employees’ freedom of con-science in the workplace.”

September/October 2013 Foundation Action 3

POTOMAC, VA – A Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) employee hasfiled charges against the FAA and theNational Air Traffic ControllersAssociation (NATCA) union, allegingthat union and FAA officials used hisreligious beliefs to punish him after heresigned from the union.

With the help of National Right toWork Foundation staff attorneys,Matthew Gray, a Subject Matter Expertfor Airspace and Procedures at thePotomac, Virginia TRACON facility,filed the charges with the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) and the Federal LaborRelations Authority.

Employee punished forleaving union

Gray, a Seventh-day Adventist,resigned his union membership inNATCA because he believes unionmembership is contrary to his faith.

“My Church has a historic teachingthat members of the Church should notbe members of labor unions,” statedGray. “I decided that I should be obedi-ent to Church teaching on union mem-bership, therefore I resigned from theunion.”

After Gray resigned his union mem-bership, he was informed by a unionofficial that he was being removed fromhis detail and transferred to another aspunishment for leaving the union.

“The union representative at myfacility met with me at my cubicle andinformed me that because I resignedfrom the union, the union would punishme by having me removed from mydetail and sent back to the operationsfacility,” recalled Gray.

Gray told union officials that he onlyresigned because of his religious beliefs

and the transfer would cause a schedul-ing conflict with his religious obliga-tions. A central doctrine of Gray’schurch is weekly worship, and not work-ing, on Saturday. Gray’s old positionallowed him to avoid any schedulingconflict between his work and religiousobligations but the new position doesnot.

Worker forced to choosebetween job and faith

NATCA officials ignored his objec-tions and went through with the transferrequest. Instead of standing up to theunion, Gray’s manager told him that hewas complying with the union's transferrequest because he “no longer repre-sent[s] the best interests of NATCA.” Inother words, Gray’s manager acknowl-edged that Gray was being punishedsimply because he resigned his unionmembership.

Religious workers who dare to exer-cise their rights and refuse to toe theunion-boss line are often bombardedwith threats, harassment, or retaliation.

A Virginia air traffic controller facesretaliation for adhering to his faith inthe face of union pressure.

Air Traffic Controller Hits Union, FAA with Discrimination ChargesEmployee says that union officials violated his religious beliefs and threatened his livelihood

4 Foundation Action September/October 2013

$1.7 billion. That's how much labor unions spent on the 2011-2012 election cycle, according to a new analysis from theNational Institute for Labor Relations Research that talliesFederal Election Commission, IRS and state campaign financereports and self-reported union disclosure forms from theDepartment of Labor.

To put that in context: If Big Labor was running as a presi-dential candidate, he or she would have outspent the Obamacampaign (the most expensive in history) more than two toone. In fact, the unions' $1.7 billion political blitz is roughlyequal to the combined spending of the Obama and Romneycampaigns ($1.17 billion) and both national parties ($678 mil-lion) for the 2012 elections.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Labor unions have long beeninfluential players in national politics, but over the past fewyears, their political spending has reached astronomical pro-portions. According to the Wall Street Journal, three of the fivebiggest spending groups in the 2010 midterms were laborunions. From 2005 to 2011, unions are estimated to have spent$4.4 billion on electioneering.

Individual donors, business groups, and outside organiza-tions of all ideological stripes also spend big on politics. Sowhy single labor unions out for special criticism?

Unlike other organizations, labor unions can forcenonunion employees to fill their coffers. In states withoutRight to Work protections, workers can be forced to pay uniondues just to get or keep a job.

Nonunion employees technically have the right to abstainfrom paying dues for political activism. However, workers areoften unaware (or deliberately kept in the dark) of these rights.Many unions have adopted complicated bureaucratic proce-dures to discourage workers from opting out. Others simplyignore employees' requests to cut off political spending unlessthey're taken to court.

How many nonunion workers are routinely forced to subsi-dize union politics? Numbers are hard to come by (union offi-cials don't exactly advertise their illegal practices) but the out-come of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case from California istelling. In Knox v. SEIU, the High Court determined that near-ly 40,000 nonunion civil servants out of a bargaining unit ofjust under 100,000 employees were eligible to reclaim illegally-seized union dues spent on an SEIU political campaign. In

other words, four out of 10 workers in one of the largest SEIUbargaining units in the country aren't voluntary members, andnearly all of them were forced to pay into a union politicalfund without their express consent.

Moreover, the legal protections that safeguard workers'rights to abstain from supporting Big Labor's agenda are beingsteadily eroded by a federal labor bureaucracy that seems moreinterested in enabling unions than protecting employee rights.

Last December, the National Labor Relations Board – theagency responsible for administering private sector labor law –issued a ruling that undermines longstanding Supreme Courtprecedents protecting workers' rights.

In United Nurses v. Geary, the NLRB ruled that union offi-cials can force nonunion employees to pay for political lobby-ing as long as the lobbying "may ultimately inure to the bene-fit" of those employees.

Under this elastic standard, union officials can make out-landish claims about the supposed benefits nonunion workersreceive from being forced to financially support Big Labor'sagenda. The Geary case itself, involving a nonunion RhodeIsland nurse who was charged for union lobbying in Vermont,demonstrates the absurdity of this arrangement. If out-of-statelobbying qualifies as chargeable under the NLRB's new stan-dard, what union political activities won't be billed tononunion workers?

Right now, union politicos funnel forced-dues cash to sym-pathetic politicians, who then make appointments and enactpolicies that further entrench Big Labor's forced-dues privi-leges. It's no accident that the three NLRB members responsi-ble for the Geary decision included Richard Griffin, a formerunion lawyer who was appointed by President Obama. Obamais perhaps the most visible beneficiary of Big Labor's politicallargess.

Spending money in the political arena is no crime, butunion activism shouldn't be subsidized by unwilling partici-pants. If Big Labor's agenda has merit, union officials shouldhave no trouble getting contributions from voluntary unionmembers and other supporters. If not, they shouldn't beallowed to prop up their political agenda on the backs ofnonunion employees.

This article appeared in USA TODAY on Labor Day.

Big Labor, Big SpenderLabor unions are forcing employees to fill their coffers, and alot of that money goes toward political spendingBy Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation

September/October 2013 Foundation Action 5

Labor Day 2013: National Right to Work in the News

The question is do you forcesomeone who never wanted,never voted for, and never askedfor a union into that collectiveand then force them to pay duesto keep their job?” - Right toWork President Mark Mix on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal”

Over Labor Day weekend, Right to Work spokespeople appeared in print, television, and radio to speakout against forced unionism. Here are highlights from Right to Work op-eds and television appearances:

“Poll after poll shows the American people, and evenunion members, overwhelmingly oppose forced uniondues and affiliation.”

“Perhaps the reason why more workers are refusing to affiliatewith a union now than any other time in almost a century isbecause union boss political activism takes precedence overprotecting worker rights.”

“The NLRB . . . has worked zealously to administratively enact powergrabs Big Labor has failed to obtain through the legislative process.”

reclaim their cards,” said Mark Mix,President of the National Right to WorkFoundation. “This case demonstrates howcard check unionization makes it ‘easy tocheck in, but impossible to check out.’”

The charges ask the NLRB to orderUAW union officials to cease and desistfrom demanding recognition based uponthe tainted cards.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen workers inChattanooga are circulating petitionsagainst the UAW’s presence in their work-place.

6 Foundation Action September/October 2013

porting the IAM’s political activities, hewas told by union officials that he hadno such rights. What little materialunion officials provided to IKEAemployees about their rights was delib-erately obscured. Union officials printedinformation on employees’ right torefrain from full dues-paying member-ship on the back of a pink piece of paperin tan ink, making it virtually invisible.

The settlement requires union offi-cials to return illegally-seized dues tothree of the IKEA employees who filedcharges and post workplace noticesexplaining workers’ rights to refrainfrom union membership and the pay-ment of full union dues. The union isalso obligated to refund any dues unre-lated to workplace bargaining collectedsince September 1, 2012 to employeeswho resign.

“IAM bosses have finally acknowl-edged that it is illegal to requirenonunion employees to subsidize unionpolitical activism,” said PatrickSemmens, Vice President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“We hope this settlement will encourageother Elkton-based IKEA employees torecoup some of their hard-earned duesspent on union politics.”

ELKTON, MD – Thanks in part to theefforts of National Right to WorkFoundation staff attorneys, four Elkton,Maryland IKEA employees reached aclass-wide settlement with theiremployer and the InternationalAssociation of Machinists (IAM) unionin early August. The settlement allowsIKEA workers to retroactively resignfrom the union and receive refunds forany union dues spent on politicalactivism since September 1, 2012.

So far, several other IKEA employeeshave followed the lead of their threecoworkers and used the settlement toreclaim union dues that were unlawfullydeducted from their paychecks.

The settlement is the result of unfairlabor practice charges filed by fourIKEA employees with the help ofFoundation staff attorneys in Januaryand February 2013. The charges allegedthat union officials failed to informIKEA employees of their rights torefrain from union membership and thepayment of full union dues. Many work-ers were threatened with termination byunion officials for refusing to join theIAM or pay full dues.

In Maryland and other states withoutRight to Work laws, employees can be

required to pay union dues or fees just tokeep a job. However, workers have theright to refrain from formally joining aunion and opt out of paying for unionactivities unrelated to workplace bar-gaining, such as members-only eventsand political activism.

Union bosses misledworkers about their rights

Not only did IAM officials and IKEAfail to notify workers of their rights, theyactively misled employees about theirobligations to the union. IAM officialsclaimed that joining the union and pay-ing full dues were required as a condi-tion of employment.

When one worker asked about hisright to refrain from financially sup-

Foundation-Assisted IKEA Employees Win Dues Refunds from IAM UnionUnion officials went to great lengths to mislead workers about their rights

Several Maryland IKEA workers wereable to reclaim dues used by IAMunion officials for political activism.

Chattanooga Auto Workers File Charges to Counter UAW Card Check Drivethe representatives for workers.” NowUAW union officials are all forVolkswagen choosing UAW agents toserve as workers’ representatives.

In response to media reports aboutthe UAW’s card check campaign, theFoundation announced that it wouldprovide free legal aid to workers whofeel unfairly pressured by UAW officials.

Eight Volkswagen workers took upthe Foundation’s offer and filed chargesagainst the UAW union for misleadingand coercing them and other workers to

forfeit their rights in what is now a cardcheck unionization drive by the UAW.

Union organizers misrepresentedthat the cards were for a secret ballotelection. UAW officials also told work-ers that they had to physically appear atthe union office if they wanted to revoketheir signatures and have their cardsreturned to them.

“Despite making it so easy to signunion cards, UAW union officials arenow demanding workers go to theunion office to exercise their right to

continued from page 2

September/October 2013 Foundation Action 7

Estate Planning - You Can Make a Difference!You can make planned giving decisions thatwill offer tax savings today – and help thefuture of the Right to Work movement.

In previous issues of Foundation Action,we have explained how loyal supporters canbenefit from an estate plan while helping theNational Right to Work Legal Defense andEducation Foundation, Inc.

Making your will and estate plans can be asimple and rewarding process – and it givesyou the opportunity to set aside part of yourestate for your favorite charities like the Rightto Work Foundation.

One such example of a planned gift idea isthe Charitable Lead Trust. This estate planis most commonly referred to as “the gift thatcomes back to you.” A donor can set up atrust fund that makes annual gift payments tothe Foundation for a certain number of

years. At the end of this period, the assetsused to fund the gift can be returned to youor your heirs.

Another popular trust instrument is theCharitable Remainder Trust, which is thereverse of a Charitable Lead Trust describedabove. This trust allows you to make a tax-deductible gift to the Foundation now whileensuring a future income stream.

This is how a Charitable Remainder Trustworks: You transfer assets into a trust to beheld and invested by a trustee you desig-nate. Income is paid to you (or a designatedbeneficiary) over the course of a time periodyou designate, perhaps even for life, with theremainder of the trust going to a charity likethe National Right to Work Foundation.

As the donor, you receive an immediatecharitable deduction for income tax purpos-

es for the value of the projected charitableremainder interest. This particular trust maydisburse either a fixed amount or a fixed per-centage of the net value of the trust assets,which are valued each year (making pay-ments dependent on the investment per-formance of the trust).

At the end of the income interests, theFoundation receives the remainder of thetrust assets, thereby completing the donor’sgift.

In the case of all planned gifts, we encour-age you to consult your tax advisor or anestate planning attorney to discuss theseoptions.

If you would like more information aboutmaking a planned gift to the Foundation,please contact Ginny Smith at 1-800-336-3600.

Foundation Attorneys Submit Brief, Prep for Arguments at Supreme CourtUpcoming case will determine the legality of certain backroom “card check” organizing dealsWASHINGTON, DC – On September20, Foundation staff attorneys submit-ted a brief stating their arguments inMulhall v. UNITE HERE, a SupremeCourt case that could determinewhether companies are allowed to handover workers’ personal information tounion organizers in exchange for unionconcessions.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys arealso preparing for the oral argument inMulhall, which is scheduled to takeplace on November 13. The case marksthe sixteenth time Foundation attorneyshave argued before the highest court inthe land.

In 2004, UNITE HERE Local 355 andMartin Mulhall’s employer, Mardi GrasGaming, agreed to a backroom deal inwhich union officials agreed to devoteover $100,000 to pass a gambling ballotinitiative and guaranteed not to picket,boycott, or strike against Mardi Gras.

In return, Mardi Gras agreed to giveunion operatives employees’ personalcontact information (including homeaddresses), grant access to companyfacilities during a coercive “card check”organizing campaign, refrain frominforming workers about the downsidesof unionization, and refrain fromrequesting a federally-supervised secretballot election.

With the help of Foundation staffattorneys, Mulhall filed a lawsuit chal-lenging this organizing pact in 2008.Under the Labor Management RelationsAct, employers are prohibited fromhanding over “any money or other thingof value” to union organizers, a provi-sion that is supposed to prevent unionofficials from selling out workers’ rightsin exchange for corporate concessions.

Mulhall won a significant victory lastspring, when the Eleventh Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled that the company’s

organizing assistance could constitute “athing of value,” but UNITE HERElawyers appealed that decision to theSupreme Court.

The Foundation’s brief argues thatstrong prohibitions on managementhanding over things of value to unionorganizers – such as workers’ personalinformation – are necessary to preventunscrupulous employers and aggressiveunion organizers from agreeing to back-room deals that undermine workerrights.

“Foundation attorneys are preparingfor oral arguments in a Supreme Courtcase that will have a profound impact onemployee rights,” said Ray LaJeunesse,Vice President and Legal Director of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“We hope the High Court will take thisopportunity to protect workers frombackroom organizing deals that under-mine their rights.”

reassess whether union bosses’ extraor-dinary forced dues powers, which itcalled “something of an anomaly,” vio-late workers’ First Amendment rights.

Responding to the Court’s suggestionin Knox, the airline workers’ lawsuitseeks to expand that precedent to applyto all instances in which airline, railway,and public employees refrain fromunion membership.

Workers also challengedues used for politics

Even if the federal court fails to strikedown forced unionism in totality, thelawsuit could still have a meaningfulimpact on American labor law.

In their suit, the airline workers alsoseek to expand the Knox ruling to allunion forced fees allocated to politicsand other non-bargaining activities. Inother words, the airline workers’ lawsuitseeks to reverse federal law that empow-ers union bosses to collect dues used forunion politicking unless the employeesaffirmatively object. If the suit is suc-cessful, union bosses would be requiredto get workers’ consent before they col-lect dues for politics.

The workers are also challenging theTWUA union bosses’ burdensomerequirement that workers must annuallyopt out of paying full union dues.

“Union bosses have abused theirextraordinary government-grantedpower to compel workers to fund theirpolitical activities unless workers object– a power granted to no other privateorganization in our country – for far toolong,” said Mark Mix, President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“Recognizing the First Amendmentright of workers who refrain from unionmembership to automatically refrainfrom paying union dues, and especiallydues for politics, is long overdue.”

Dear Foundation Supporter:

Imagine a snowball rolling down a hill. At first, it’s almost insignificant. But then it gainsmomentum. The snowball gets bigger. Pretty soon, that snowball is an avalanche,hurtling downhill at a breakneck pace.

This is a great metaphore for the National Right to Work Foundation’s strategic litigationprogram. When the Foundation was founded in 1968, the legal landscape was prettybleak for independent-minded workers. But over the years, we’ve slowly but steadilyexpanded employee rights while pushing back against union bosses’ forced dues privi-leges. And now the pace is picking up considerably.

It started with Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents like Abood, Ellis, Hudson, andBeck. These decisions established workers’ rights to refrain from union membership andopt out of dues for union politics in both the private and public sectors.

Last year, the Foundation’s landmark Supreme Court victory in Knox was another stepforward. For the first time, the Supreme Court held that workers must affirmatively con-sent to having their dues used for politics. In other words, you have to “opt-in” instead ofhaving to “op-out.”

Our lead story in this issue of Foundation AAccttiioonn is about a group of courageous airlineemployees who are seeking to apply the standard established in Knox to the air and rail-way industries. Their lawsuit challenges the very essence of union bosses’ forced duespowers by arguing that workers should have to consent to all union dues, not just duesspent on politics.

Once again, the Foundation is on the cutting edge of legal work that expands employeerights and diminishes the curse of forced unionism.

With the strength of your continuing support and the courage of individual employeeswilling to stand up, we’re making a difference.

It’s now possible that one day, the Supreme Court will rule that union bosses’ forced-duespowers are unconstitutional. We couldn’t have gotten to this point without Right to Worksupporters like you. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

8 Foundation Action September/October 2013

Message from Mark Mix

PresidentNational Right to WorkLegal Defense Foundation

Airline Lawsuitcontinued from page 1