Series On Confronting Antisemitism From Big Labor Unions; Episode 2 Laws & Solutions

Far too long the unions have subverted the Pro-Palestine movement often violating federal and state statutes; subsequently Jewish people and Pro-Israel members have been discriminated against.

The House Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing this past week to highlight the rising numbers of organized labor unions who are openly participating in Pro-Hamas protests where the rhetoric has been decisively antisemitic, hateful and discriminatory towards the Jewish population and the Pro-Israel public. My series is meant to highlight the anti-American, ant-Zionist death to Israel and death to America Marxist mob rule we have been watching unfold unabated in America. It is about time action and remedy takes place to stop this mob role mentality from growing, stop it in its place, and to reverse this dark and dangerous path our country has traveled since October 7, 2023. I will highlight the written statements from the esteemed guests at the hearing House Education and Workforce Committee as they chronicle with solid evidence the indifference and at times outright failure of organized unions to adequately extinguish the Jewish hatred and discriminatory practices. At times you will learn, the unions have actually retaliated when union members brought legally sound grievances through the appropriate procedures.

Episode 2 discusses the written testimony of Anne Marie Lofaso, a Professor of Law at the West Virginia University College of Law teaching labor and employment law, and serving as the Faculty Advisor for the Labor and Employment Law Certificate Program at the university. The background of Ms. Lofaso includes membership on the bipartisan College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and a former Senior Attorney at the National Labor Relations Board, serving for ten years in the Appellate and Supreme Court Branches.

The 1935 National Labor Relations Act purpose is "five-fold: (1) eliminate obstructions to interstate commerce;2 (2) enhance worker voice through a system of workplace democracy;3 (3) augment workplace justice by providing for collective-bargaining rights,4 which will almost always result in a grievance-arbitration process;5 (4) increase equality of bargaining power by collectivizing the labor market to match the collective strength of the capital market;6 and (5) promote workplace peace by promoting workplace democracy and justice, thereby eliminating most of the reasons for strikes. The NLRA is, therefore, a civil rights act that embodies the economic policy of making the labor market run more efficiently—a free market solution to a free market problem, as my labor law professor, the legendary Clyde Summers, used to say."

Before continuing with the testimony, its important to highlight the rise and strength of union favorability over recent years. Ms. Lofaso points out the "In 2022, union approval reached a near-record high of 71%—the highest level since 1965." This is part of a solid upward trend since 2009, when union support reached a record low of 48%. Historically, Unions represent "employees by bargaining for living wages, hours of work, holidays, vacation time, health and welfare benefits, pensions, safety and health requirements, seniority rights, and job security."

Labor Union Laws

Under the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments, Congress added Section 8(c) to clarify that the Board could not use employers’ speech as evidence of an unfair labor practice so long as “such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. In 1959, Congress passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA or Landrum-Griffin Act). This act tightened the secondary boycott provisions and added a section to limit unions’ freedom to engage in recognitional picketing. Furthermore, the LMRDA , unions must inform their members of their LMRDA Title I rights. Under LMRDA, no worker can be compelled by an employer, a union, or the government to become a union member. No public-sector worker can be forced to pay union dues. No employee can be compelled to pay for a union’s political activities. "Under the NLRA, employees in non-right-to-work states may opt to pay only agency fees—their fair share of the cost of collective bargaining, contract enforcement, and representation. Employees in right-to-work states cannot be compelled to pay union dues—even their fair share for services provided—unless they agree." Furthermore, nothing in the Act, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization, the Supreme Court explained that “the burdens of membership upon which employment may be conditioned are expressly limited to the payment of initiation fees and monthly dues.

Under the Taft-Hartley amended the NLRA allows individual states to adopt right-to-work rules, which makes unlawful any union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement. "In right-to-work states, workers are not required to join the union or pay union dues or fees. Today, 26 states have passed right-to-work rules as explained above. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled “financial core membership” does not “include the obligation to support union activities beyond those attached to collective bargaining regarding wage, benefits, employment policies and representation. The public sector contains the same rules as private sector collective bargaining units. Furthermore, all public employees are covered by right-to-work policies whether or not their state is right-to-work as the Court decided in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. In the Beck Rights, the Supreme Court held that employees in non-right-to-work states need only pay agency fees. Again, in right-to-work states, non-member union-represented employees do not have to pay any fees. However, as discussed above, the union still must represent non-paying union due employees.

RIghts of Religious Objectors

Religious rights of objectors to union activities based on personal beliefs has an alternative to paying union dues by committing an equal sum of the union fees to a nonreligious, nonlabor charitable organization fund exempt from taxation under [26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Furthermore, during an organizing campaign," if a union or the employer tries to inflame the passions of the employees by dividing them using inflammatory remarks or conduct—such as the union’s or employer’s public position on the Israel-Hamas War—any party can file objections to the conduct of the election." This avenue is significant based on multiple unions have adopted resolutions supporting the Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement across many universities and entities.

The Education and Workforce Committee has introduced “Union Members Right to Know Act.” but laws already exist to address the issues at hand but has not been effectively adjudicated through the union grievance process nor some Courts jurisdictions. In Ms. Lofaso opinion, the United States already has effective statutes in place whereby the law already requires unions to inform members. "First, unions must inform their members about their rights under Title I of the LMRDA and their Beck Rights. Second, unions are legally obligated to accommodate workers’ religious objections under the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, Title VII, state human rights laws, and the NLRA. Third, the only rights under the NLRA that unions must affirmatively disclose to workers are their Beck rights. By contrast, the law does not require employers to inform workers of their labor rights under the NLRA."

Recommendations To Enforce Existing Labor Rules

Workers should be informed of all their rights under labor laws—not only LMRDA Title I rights, Beck Rights, and their legal right to religious accommodations. Just like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires employers to post notices in the workplace that describe federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, in high traffic areas.

Ms. Lofaso encourages the passage of The PRO Act. "The PRO Act would strengthen remedies and require the agency to seek injunctive relief to reinstate employees whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that the employee’s job termination was unlawful under the Act. The PRO Act would also create a private cause of action, giving workers access to courts rather than relying on the NLRB’s General Counsel to enforce their rights. The PRO Act would also make mandatory captive audience speeches unlawful, thereby diminishing the power of employers to interfere with employee free choice."