| Type | 501(c)3 organization |
|---|---|
| 59-1588825 | |
| Purpose | Advancing right-to-work laws in the U.S. |
| Headquarters | 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160 |
President | Mark A. Mix |
| Website | www |
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, established in 1968, is a nonprofit organization that seeks to advance right-to-work laws in the United States. [1]
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) was founded in 1968 to provide legal aid to employees who sought to fight compulsory union membership. [2] The Foundation says it has represented "the rights of more than 20,000 employees in more than 2,500 cases" since its inception, including multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases. [2] The legal activities of the Foundation are funded by charitable donations. The organization qualifies as a tax-exempt charitable foundation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. [3]
The Foundation is headed by President Mark Mix. The legal activities are headed by Vice President and Legal Director, Raymond J. LaJeunesse Jr. [4]
The National Right to Work Committee is a separate grassroots organization which advocates for right-to-work legislation and rallies public opposition to compulsory union membership. [5] [6]
The mission of the NRTW is "to eliminate coercive union power and compulsory unionism abuses through strategic litigation, public information, and education programs." [1] The Foundation believes workers should have the right to refuse to join a union and the right to refuse to pay dues to a union the worker does not support. The Foundation's legal strategy includes "enforc[ing] employees' existing legal rights against forced unionism abuses; and [winning] new legal precedents expanding these rights and protections." [1]
As of 2019, right-to-work laws are in effect and enforced in twenty-seven U.S. states and territories. [7] This means workers in these states cannot be compelled to join a union or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. [8] Proponents of right to work laws argue they provide employees with freedom to choose whether to join a union or not and the right to refuse to pay dues to a union they do not support, while opponents argue they allow non-union members to "free load" on the work of the union, which is required to represent workers whether they are members of a union or not. [9] [10]
The Foundation has been involved in several landmark cases regarding the right to work, compulsory unionism, and union dues. [11]
The Foundation is representing public-sector workers across the country in multiple lawsuits seeking to protect the right to refuse to financially support a union secured by Janus. Some states enacted legislation making it difficult for workers to leave a union by limiting opt-out windows and making it difficult for workers to learn of or assert their Janus rights. This spurred dozens of post-Janus lawsuits. [23] [24] [25] The Foundation is representing workers in various lawsuits seeking refund of pre-Janus fees paid, challenging exclusive representation, and seeking to extend the above rights to private sector workers. [26] [27] [28] [29]
The Foundation has represented employees in the following cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: [11]
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.
In the context of labor law in the United States, the term right-to-work laws refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Such agreements can be incorporated into union contracts to require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation. Unlike the right to work definition as a human right in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from being a member of a labor union.
A pre-entry closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to hire union members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times to remain employed. This is different from a post-entry closed shop, which is an agreement requiring all employees to join the union if they are not already members. In a union shop, the union must accept as a member any person hired by the employer. By comparison, an open shop does not require union membership of potential and current employees.
In labor law, a union shop, also known as a post-entry closed shop, is a form of a union security clause. Under this, the employer agrees to either only hire labor union members or to require that any new employees who are not already union members become members within a certain amount of time. Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general.
A union security agreement is a contractual agreement, usually part of a union collective bargaining agreement, in which an employer and a trade or labor union agree on the extent to which the union may compel employees to join the union, and/or whether the employer will collect dues, fees, and assessments on behalf of the union.
An open shop is a place of employment at which one is not required to join or financially support a union as a condition of hiring or continued employment.
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, operating as the Freedom Foundation, is a free market conservative think tank founded in the state of Washington. Freedom Foundation has offices in Washington, Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In 2021, they announced their national expansion into all 50 states. The organization is registered with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Financial Core refers to a legal carve-out that permits workers opposed to participating in a labor union to be employed under the benefits of a union's contracts without compelling them to be a member of that union.
Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991), deals with First Amendment rights and unions in public employment.
The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) is an American labor union which represents about 100,000 public employees in the federal government.
Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.
Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities.
Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207 (2009), is a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Constitution permits the local chapter of a labor union to charge a "service fee" to non-members to cover non-local litigation expenses if (a) the expenses are "appropriately related to collective bargaining" and (b) there is a reciprocal relationship between the local chapter and the national union. The case expanded on and clarified the earlier Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which permitted such service fees for non-political activities but did not reach a consensus on whether "national" expenses were chargeable.
Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights", and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.
The California Policy Center(CPC) is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank located in California. Based in Tustin, the organization specializes in union policy, pension reform, spending reform, and school choice. CPC was founded in 2010 by Marc Bucher and Edward Ring. It is a member of the State Policy Network, an association of state-based conservative and libertarian think tanks.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |