Public Employee Press

Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
The right wing's war on labor

By GREGORY N. HEIRES

"As I see it, their work amounts to an assault on our democracy." — DC 37 Assoc. Director Henry Garrido

The Right has stepped up its war on labor.

And one of their most vicious attack dogs is the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, which aims to eliminate unions from the American political and economic landscape, according to Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, DC 37's parent union.

"If they win, you can say goodbye to the worker protections and benefits that the labor movement has built up for all workers, union and nonunion, over decades," Saunders warned.

"This organization's mission is to crush the fundamental right of workers to organize unions and bargain collectively," DC 37 Associate Director Henry Garrido said. "As I see it, their work amounts to an assault on our democracy."

Since it was set up in 1968, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has steadily chipped away at the legal basis of unionism as part of an ongoing campaign of conservative interests to undercut the power of unions, noted Christopher Maisano of the DC 37 Research and Negotiations Dept. The right-wing group has taken nearly 20 cases aimed at undermining the right of unions to represent workers and to collect dues to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The foundation is the legal arm of the National Right to Work Committee, whose website says its agenda is combating "compulsory unionism" by mobilizing public opposition to and enlisting public support for right to work legislation, which gives the benefits of union contracts withough paying dues. Recently, the Right to Work Committee played a leading role in defeating the United Auto Workers' drive to organize employees at a Volks-wagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.

A big war chest

The anti-labor legal foundation is well funded, with revenue of $16 million listed in its 2012 tax filing, and it is open about its views. Its website says, "No force is inflicting more damage on our economy, citizens, and cherished democracy than the union bosses."

Between 1991 and 2005, the foundation received 85 grants totaling almost $5 million from conservative foundations, including the Castle Rock Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. and the Walton Family Foundation, according to Media Transparency. The foundation also has links to the billionaire Koch brothers, who are bankrolling attacks on public-employee unions and government servies around the country.

Currently, the foundation is involved in nearly 300 legal actions nationwide in the courts and administrative agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, according to its website. It has a full-time staff of 11 attorneys working with hundreds of local attorneys nationwide.

"The Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is part of a network of anti-labor groups and institutions," said Lee Cokorinos, an expert on right-wing interests and president of Democracy Strategies LLC.

Over the past five years, the right-wing network - which includes think tanks and union-busting consultants and attorneys - has stepped up its attack on unions, particularly public-employee unions, said Cokorinos. Its goal is to defund unions and by doing so, weaken the Democratic Party, he said.

The courts are emerging as a crucial battleground in the conservatives' campaign to destroy public employee unions.

The National Right to Work Legal Foundation is behind Harris v. Quinn, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that aims to cripple public employees financially and undermine their political activity.

In the case, foundation attorneys argue that Illinois did not have the right to grant collective bargaining rights to thousands of home-care workers and that the workers should not have to pay dues to get collective bargaining services.

If the court accepts that argument, the ability of public-employee unions to participate in politics to advocate for their members would be dealt a huge blow. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Pamela Harris, a worker who objects to paying union dues, could undermine the long-standing legal principal of "fair share," which requires workers to pay a fee for union services, said Ximena Naranjo, an assistant general counsel in the DC 37 Legal Dept.

Such a ruling would deliver a big financial hit to unions, severely cutting functions such as contract negotiations, workplace protections, political lobbying and legal help for members. The service employees union, which represents the home-care workers, has strong support from AFSCME and the AFL-CIO.

In its argument earlier this year, the foundation also tried to convince the court to eliminate the right of public employee unions to get involved in politics to carry out collective bargaining agreements.

"Crippling unions' ability to organize is a strategic goal" of the Right to Work Committee and the Foundation, said Paul Booth, assistant to Saunders. "Harris v. Quinn is just another part of that strategy. They want a union-free America."