SABOTAGE, STALKING & STEALTH EXEMPTIONS:

SPECIAL STATE LAWS FOR LABOR UNIONS

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

SABOTAGE, STALKING & STEALTH EXEMPTIONS:

SPECIAL STATE LAWS FOR LABOR UNIONS

3

Introduction ..........................................................................................4

The “Labor Union Exemption” for Committing Crimes ...6

• Stalking........................................................................................................6• Trespassing....................................................................................................8• HomeisWheretheHeartis.........................................................................10

• OntheSubwayorBus.................................................................................11

• Sabotage.......................................................................................................12

• ThreatsofBodilyInjury...............................................................................13

• RighttoViolence?........................................................................................14

Systemic Favoritism ..............................................................................15

• HamstringingCourts....................................................................................15• Reading,Writing,and...Unions?...................................................................16

• ConscriptingChildCareandPersonalCareProviders..................................17

Conclusion ................................................................................................20

Endnotes .....................................................................................................21

Sabotage, Stalking & Stealth Exemptions: special state laws for labor unions

4

Introduction

Formorethanacentury,laborlawintheUnitedStateshasbeenthesourceofnumerousandoftenpassionatedebatesabouttheroleofunionsintheworkforce.Overtheyears,thishasresultedinseveralsignificantchangesinfederalpolicy.TheNationalLaborRelationsActof1935,theTaft-Hartleyactof1947,andtheLabor-ManagementReportingandDisclosureActof1959representsignificantfederallegislationthathasshapedthelandscapeforinteractionsamongworkers,employers,andunions.

Whilethefederalgovernmentplaystheleadingroleintherelationshipsamongthethreeaforementionedgroups,stategovernmentsalsohavethepowertoestablishcertaingroundrules.Thisisparticularlytrueforpublicemployees,butstategovernmentscanalsosetlaborpoliciesintheprivatesectoraslongastheydonotinterferewiththeschemeestablishedbyfederallawsandregulations.Oneofthemostobviousexamplesistheabilityofthestatestopassright-to-worklaws,which23statesnowhavedone.

However,manystatelawswithregardtounionsarenotaswellknownorpublicizedasaright-to-workstatute.Someofthesestatelawscarveouta“labor”exemptionfromlawsregulatingconductthatwouldotherwisebeconsideredcriminalactivity.Forexample,invadingthehomeofauniversityprofessorwouldnormallybeconsideredtrespassing,butremarkably,suchbehaviorisnotacrimeinCaliforniaifthetrespasserisinvolvedinunionactivities.

StatecarveoutsfromthecriminalcodearelikelyanoutgrowthofaUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionfrom1973[United States v. Enmons,410U.S.396],inwhichthecourtruledthatviolenceinpursuitofuniondemandscannotbeprosecutedunderfederallaw.IntheEnmonscase,workersonstrike

Some of these state laws carve out a “labor” exemption from laws regulating conduct that would otherwise be considered criminal activity.

5

atGulfStatesUtilitiesCompanywerechargedwith“firinghighpoweredriflesatthreeCompanytransformers,drainingtheoilfromaCompanytransformer,andblowingupatransformersubstationownedbytheCompany.”1Incredibly,theSupremeCourtfoundthattheseactivitieswerenot“wrongful,”anelementneededtoconvictinafederalextortioncase.Federallegislationhasrepeatedlybeenintroducedtoreversetheeffectsofthisruling,butithasneverbeenpassed.2Thus,theresultremainsthatprosecutionforviolentactionsisleftuptothestatesbasedontheirindividuallaws,andsomeofthesestatelawsseemoverlyprotectiveofunions.

Otherstatelawsseemtoprovideexpressfavoritismtowardsunions.Forexample,insomestates,officialshaveattemptedtogiveunionsaclearpathtoorganizingparticularcategoriesofworkers,suchaschildcareandpersonalcareproviders.Inotherstates,thegovernmenthaspassedlawsthatseemdesignedsolelytoprotectunionsfrompoliciesthatapplytoeveryothercitizenbutmightnegativelyimpactunionmembers.Whilefewlawmakersormembersofthepublicaregenerallyawareofthesespecialprovisions,theyseemclearlyintendedtotilttheplayingfieldinfavorofunions—withpotentiallysignificantimpactsonworkers,employers,individualcitizens,andtheoveralleconomicandpoliticalclimateinastate.

Thisstudylooksatunion-friendlylawsonthebooksinseveralstates,focusingonthosewiththelargestuniondensity.Itisbynomeansacomprehensiveanalysisofeveryprovisionofstatelawthatcouldbeconstruedasfavoringunions,butithighlightscertainprovisionsthatseemglaringlyatoddswithcommonsense.Somearesimplyperplexing.Otherswouldseemtoexcusemalfeasance,orworse,violence.

Thisstudydoesnotattempttotracethelegislativehistoryofhowthehighlightedprovisionsfoundtheirwayontothebooks.Nordoesitattempttoassignblamefortheirexistence.Rather,theintentissimplytoeducatethepublicaboutanumberofunusualunion-relatedlegalregimesthatuntilnowhaveremainedoutofthespotlight.

6

The “Labor Union Exemption” for Committing Crimes

Themostglaringexamplesofunionfavoritismunderstatelawstendtooccurincriminalstatutesandallowindividualswhoengageintrulyobjectionablebehaviortoavoidprosecutionsolelybecausetheyareparticipatinginsomeformoflaboractivity.Theseexemptionsexistinlawscoveringsimplyobnoxiousbehavioraswellasthosethatregulatepotentiallyseriousthreatstothesafetyofthepublic.

Unionrepresentativesoftenengageinunsavorybehavioraimedpurelyatharassingindividualswithwhomtheydisagree.Thesetypesofactivities,likestalking,areunsettlingtojustaboutanybodywhoexperiencesthem,butsurprisingly,unionsoftendefendthesetacticsasjustpartoftheirrighttoairgrievances.Incredibly,unionsalsoenjoyexemptionsfromcriminallawsinvolvingviolenceandintimidation.Theseexemptionscangivelicensetobadactorstoharassothersorcommitactionsthatinanyothercircumstancewouldbegroundsforjailtime.

Stalking

EverystateinAmericahasdeclaredstalkingtobeacrime.Andforgoodreason.Fewthingsaremoreunsettlingthanbeingfollowedormaliciouslyharassed,threatenedorintimidated.Manystateshaveclassifiedthecrimeasafelonyandimposesignificantpenalties,withevenmoreseverepenaltiesforrepeatoffenses.Insomestates,thoseconvictedofstalkingcanbeorderedtoundergomentalhealthevaluations.Yet,despitethefrighteningeffectthatstalkingcanhaveonitsvictims—andindeedthatfrighteningeffectisoftentheverypurposefortheperpetrator’sactions—severalstateshavecarvedoutanexemptionfromthecrimewhenitiscommittedbysomeoneengagedinlabororganizingactivities.

Forexample,thestateofPennsylvaniadefinesstalkingasengaginginacourseofconductorrepeatedlycommittingactstowardanotherundercircumstancesthatdemonstrateintenttocausesubstantialemotionaldistresstotheperson.ButPennsylvania,andotherstateswithasignificantunionpresence(e.g.,CaliforniaandNevada),carveoutanexemptionfromthecrimeofstalking,inthecaseofPennsylvaniabynotingtheprohibitiononstalking“shallnotapplytoconductbyapartytoalabordispute.”3Illinoishascreatedanevenarguably

7

broaderexceptiontostalkingwhentheactionisrelatedto“anycontroversyconcerningwages,salaries,hours,workingconditionsorbenefits...themakingormaintainingofcollectivebargainingagreements,andthetermstobeincludedinthoseagreements.”4Ironically,theveryexistenceoftheseexemptionscallsattentiontothefactthatthetacticsemployedbyunionsintheirorganizingactivitiescaninflictthesamelevelofemotionaldistressandintimidationcausedbyastalker.

Harassmentofopponentsisoftenpartofaunion’sefforttoconfrontadversariesandpressurethemtogiveintoitsdemands,andstalkingisoneaspectofthis

behavior.Unionshavebeenknowntoemploythistacticevenagainstotherunions.Forexample,in2008,theCaliforniaNurses’Association(CNA)obtainedatemporaryrestrainingorderagainsttheServiceEmployeesInternationalUnion(SEIU)becausetheSEIUrepeatedlysentactiviststothehomesofCNAboardmembersduringalong,acrimoniousdisputebetweenthetworivalunions.5

Sometimes,though,theharassmentgoesevenfurtherandcrossesintothetrulyscary.Theownerofanon-unionelectricalservicesbusinessinOhio,forexample,wastherepeatedvictimofstalkingandotheractsofviolenceagainsthimduringabitterunion

organizingeffort.Inadditiontohavingrocksthrownthroughthewindowsathisplaceofbusiness,hiscar’stirespuncturedmultipletimes,andanassaultononeofhisemployees,thisbusinessownerwasactuallyshotinthearmbyanintruderheconfrontedinhisfrontyardafterhediscoveredthepersonvandalizinghiscar.6

Otherownersandemployeesofopenshopcontractingcompanieshavecomplainedthatstalkingandotherintimidationtacticsarecommonplaceandthattheyfrequentlyfeelthreatenedbythepresenceofunionrepresentativeswhofollowthemconstantlyandsitoutsidetheirhomesintheircars.FollowingtheOhioshooting,theAssociatedBuildersandContractorsofthePacificNorthwestcalledonunionstoendthistypeofharassmentagainstitsmembers.Amazingly,unionsrespondedbysayingtheir“monitoring”tacticsarecompletelylegal.7

8

Trespassing

Therightofapropertyownertoexcludeothersfromthatpropertyisalegalprinciplethathasexistedaslongastherehasbeenprivateownershipofproperty.Privateownershipofpropertyisafoundationalelementofcapitalismandafreemarketeconomy,andvirtuallyeveryoneisfamiliarwiththeubiquitous“notrespassing”signthatwarnsagainsttheentryontoanother’slandwithoutpermission.Thelegalprincipleisanimportantonethathelpsensurelandownerscanmaintaintheirpropertyfortheirownuseandenjoyment.Butunioninterestsaroundthecountryevidentlyseeprivatepropertyrightsasahindrancetotheirlabororganizingobjectivesandhavesecuredanumberofexemptionsfromcrimesrelatingtotrespassing.California,inparticular,providesseveralrelevantexamplesinitsPenalCode.

Inanefforttoenablepropertyownerstoprotecttheirlandfromunwantedintruders,Californiahasadoptedinthe“MaliciousMischief ”titleofthePenalCodeanextensivedescriptionofthevariousactsthatconstitutethecrimeoftrespass.Theseactsincludetherefusaltoleavepropertybelongingtoanotherthatisnotopentothepublicafterbeingrequestedtoleavebytheowner,theowner’sagent,orapeaceofficer.Significantly,however,Californiaexplicitlyexcludespersonsengagedinlaborunionactivitiesfrombeingsubjecttothecrimeoftrespassingforrefusingtoleavesomeoneelse’sproperty.8

Thestatealsohasaseparatetrespassingprovisionfocusedonagriculture,declaringthatanypersonwhowillfullyenterslandsundercultivationorenclosedbyafenceorwhoenterswheresignsforbiddingtrespassaredisplayedcanbeguiltyoftrespassing.Butagain,thestatealsoexemptspersonsengagedinlaborunionactivities.9

Inadditiontoprohibitingentryontoland,Californiaalsoprohibitsanyonefromwillfullypreventing,hindering,orobstructinganotherpersonfromenteringorleavinglandinwhichthatpersonhasaninterestandprovidesafineofupto$500forviolators.Butonceagain,thestatealsoprovidesanexemptionfromthiscrimeiftheoffenderisengagedinlaborunionactivities.10

Incredibly, while prohibiting everyone else from interfering with a business, California has given labor unions carte blanche under state law to obstruct or intimidate businesses and their customers.

9

Californiaseems,atleastatfirstblush,torecognizethatbusinessesrelyonthefreeflowofcommerceandinteractionwithcustomersinordertosucceed.Afterall,thestatehasdeclaredthatapersonwhointentionallyinterfereswithanylawfulbusinessbyobstructingorintimidatingthoseattemptingtocarryonbusiness,ortheircustomers,isguiltyofamisdemeanorpunishablebyafineandimprisonmentinthecountyjailforupto90days.11Thisappearstobejustthetypeoflawintendedtohelpbusinessownersprotectthemselvesfromharassmentandinterferencewiththeirabilitytomakealiving.Butjustasitdoeswithsomanyothertrespass-relatedprovisions,thestatehascreatedaspecialexemptionsothatthislawisnotappliedagainsttheonegroupwhereitpresumablywouldfrequentlyapply:laborunions.12Incredibly,whileprohibitingeveryoneelsefrominterferingwithabusiness,thestatehasgivenlaborunionscarte blancheunderstatelawtoobstructorintimidatebusinessesandtheircustomers.

Amongotherspecialtytrespasslaws,Californiaevenhascreatedaspecificviolationfortrespassingorloiteringnearindustrialproperty.13Giventhestate’snumerousotherexemptionsforlaborunions,itisperhapsnosurprisethatthestatealsodecidedthatanyactivitiesrelatingtounionorganizingeffortsortheinvestigationofworkingconditionsonbehalfofalaborunionarenotcoveredbytheprohibitionagainsttrespassingonindustrialproperty.14

Protectingone’spropertyfromunwantedintrusiongoeshandinhandwiththeconceptofprivateproperty,asanyhomeownerwouldunderstand.Unfortunatelyforbusinesses,California’strespassexemptionsforlaborunionshaveturnedthisnotionupsidedown,asthegrocerychainRalphslearnedwhenitopenedastoreinFresnothatdidnotemployunionizedworkers.

BeginninginOctober2008,representativesoftheUnitedFoodandCommercialWorkersUnion(UFCW)Local8begantopicketoutsideaRalphsstoreonasidewalkownedbyRalphs.Accordingtocourtdocuments,theserepresentativescarriedplacardsandhandedoutleaflets,whichisallstandardfareatapicketline.15However,thepicketersalsoprovokedconfrontationswithstoreemployeesandharassedcustomerscomingtoshop,sostoreemployeescalledthepolice.UnfortunatelyforRalphs,thepolicerefusedtoremovetheprotesters,eventhoughthedisruptivebehaviorandconfrontationswereoccurringonthestore’sownproperty.

Inresponsetothissituation,Ralphsfiledalawsuitagainsttheunionseekinganinjunctiontoendtheuniontactics.Thetrialcourtdeclinedtoissuethe

10

injunctionclaimingthatitwaspreventedfromdoingsobecauseofanotherCaliforniastatelawprohibitinginjunctionsagainstunions.Anappealscourt,

however,ruledinRalphs’favorafterfindingthestatelawcitedbythetrialcourtwasunconstitutionalbecauseitgrantedgreaterrightstounionsthantoothers.AsofJuly2012,thecasewaspendingappealintheCaliforniaSupremeCourt.

Overall,Californiagivesunionsnumerousavenuestointerferewithbusinessowners’privatepropertyrights.Notonlyisthisdeprivationofpropertyrightshardtojustifyintellectually,itmakesdoingbusinessthatmuchharder,whichmaybe

onereasonstateswithsuchonerouslawsandpolicieshaveseenbusinessesandindividualsmoveelsewhere.16

Home is Where the Heart is

Californiaalsohassomeotherpeculiarandspecifictrespass-relatedlaws.Recently,thestatedecideditsgeneraltrespasslawprovidedinsufficientprotectiontothepropertyinterestsofcollegestudents,teachersandemployees.Asaresult,thestatepassedthe“ResearcherProtectionAct”establishingamisdemeanorcrimeoftrespassforanypersonenteringtheresidenceofanacademicresearcherwiththeintenttointerferewiththeresearcher’sacademicfreedom.17Notsurprisingly,thestatelegislatureincludedaloopholeforunionintereststoensurethatanyperson“engagedinlaborunionactivities”couldnotbechargedwithatrespassingviolationshouldtheyhappentoinvadeanacademic’shouse.18

Unfortunately,historyshowsthatunionstargetprivatehomesfordisruptiveprotestsinordertointimidatetheirtargets.Take,forexample,thecaseofthedeputygeneralcounselofBankofAmerica,whobecamethetargetoftheSEIUin2010.WhilethisfatherwasoutwithoneofhiskidsataLittleLeaguegame,approximately500SEIUprotestors—14schoolbuses’worth—showedupoutsideofhishousetoprotestBankofAmerica’spolicies.19Thoughthegentlemanwasnotathome,hisyoungteenagesonwasinsidebyhimself,petrifiedbythethrongsofprotestorswhosurroundedthehouseandcameupontothefrontporch.Waitinguntilhisfatherreturnedhome,theyoungmanbarricadedhimselfina

Not surprisingly, the California legislature included a loophole for union interests to ensure that any person “engaged in labor union activities” could not be charged with a trespassing violation should they happen to invade an academic’s house.

11

bathroom.Whenthefatherarrived,hewasgreetedwithjeersandtauntsbytheunrulyunionmobashetriedtoextricatehissonfromthescenewhilewaitingforpolicetoarrive.

Thisincidentwasreportedbyoneofthevictim’sneighbors,aFortunemagazinereporter,whodescribedthewholelamentablescene.Sheaccuratelytermedthiskindofprotestoutsideone’shomeasthe“politicsofpersonalintimidation.”20

On the Subway or Bus

TheCalifornialegislature’seffortstoexemptlaborunionpersonnelfrombeingchargedwithcrimesapplicabletoeveryoneelseevenextendstopublictransportation.Inthe“MiscellaneousCrimes”titleofthePenalCode,thestatehasdeclaredthat“willfullyblockingthefreemovementofanotherperson”inapublictransitsystemfacilityorvehicleispunishablebyafineofupto$400and90daysimprisonmentinthecountyjail.21Thatis,unlesstheoffender’sactionscanbesaidtoberelatedtocollectivebargaining.Inthatcase,thestatelegislaturehascreatedanexemptionfromthecrime,andsolongastheoffenderispursuingunionobjectives,itispermissibletoblockthefreemovementofcommutersinthetransitsystem,peoplewhoareinvariablyjusttryingtogettoworkoranappointmentontime.22

Astate’sadoptionofavarietyofprohibitionsagainsttrespassingishardlyremarkable,anditreflectsthecommonsentimentthataprivatelandownershouldbeabletocontrolaccesstohisproperty.Whatisremarkable,however,isthatCaliforniainparticularhascreatedmultipleunionexemptionsfromthesetrespassing-relatedcrimes.Theseexemptionsexclusivelyforunionsareevenmoresurprisingconsideringthatthestate’strespassinglawshavebeenbroadlyinterpretedbytheAttorneyGeneraltoenableevenapartmentcomplexownersandhomeownerassociationstoprohibitpoliticalcandidatesfromdistributingcampaignmaterials.23Ashortvisitbyapoliticalcandidatedistributingliteraturecouldhardlybesaidtobeasdisruptivetohomeowners’rightsashundredsofunionorganizersoccupyingthepremises,butthestatenonethelessgivesmoreprotectiontoheavy-handeduniontacticsthantopoliticiansrunningforoffice.

12

Sabotage

Whensettingstatepolicywithregardtotreasonanddisloyalacts,theWisconsinlegislature,notsurprisingly,declaredsabotagetobeafelony.24AnyoneinWisconsinwhointentionallydamages,interfereswith,ortamperswithpropertybelievingthattheiractionwillhinder,delay,orinterferewiththeprosecution

ofmilitaryactionorthepreparationfordefensebytheUnitedStatesoritsalliesisguiltyofthecrimeofsabotage.

Whatissurprisingisthatinthesamestatutoryprovision,theWisconsinlegislaturefounditnecessarytoexplicitlyprovidethatthecrimeofsabotagecannotbeconstruedinanywaythatwouldimpairorcurtailanylabororganizingactivities.Presumably,thechancesareslim

thatsomeoneintentondisruptingamilitaryactioncouldsuccessfullymountan“Iwasjusttryingtoimproveourpositioninunioncontractnegotiations”defense.Nonetheless,thefactthatsuchanexemptionevenexistsindicatestheextremelengthstheunionmovementwillgotoinordertoshieldtheirmembersfromaccountabilityfortheiractions—andtheextenttowhichlegislatorsinsomestateshaveaccommodatedsuchefforts.

Inaddition,Wisconsinstatutesalsospecifytheeffortspropertyownersandpublicutilitiescantaketoguardagainstsabotage,includingtheabilitytoexcludeothersfromtheirproperty.25Thestatehasastatutethatspecificallydescribesthepowerofsecurityguardsandpeaceofficerstostop,interrogate,andarrestthosesuspectedofviolatingapropertyowner’srighttoexcludeothers.Butagain,thestatuteincludesasignificantexemptionfromthelawforthoseengagedinlabororganizingactivities.Ineffect,thelawexemptsanyoneinvolvedinlaborrelationsactivityfromthecrimeofunlawfullyenteringproperty.

WhileWisconsin’sstatutesdealwithsabotageintherarecontextofmilitaryaction,incidentsofsabotageinlabordisputesare,regrettably,asadrealityinmanyothersituations.TherecertainlywasnoshortageofangerduringthecontentiousdebateoverunionreformsinWisconsinin2011,andregrettably,unionmemberswereallegedtohavesabotagedequipmentbelongingtosupportersofGov.ScottWalker.26

The Wisconsin legislature found it necessary to explicitly provide that the crime of sabotage cannot be construed in any way that would impair or curtail any labor organizing activities.

13

BeyondWisconsin,unionshaveengagedinoutrageousactsofsabotageintheirfightsagainstemployers.In2011,VerizonwaslockedinabitterdisputewiththeCommunicationsWorkersofAmerica(CWA)andtheUnitedBrotherhoodofElectricalWorkers(IBEW).Verizonoutlinedatleastadozenactsofsabotageagainstitsfacilities,includingseveredfiberopticlines,stolenequipment,andtamperingwithaheatingsystematanofficebuilding.27

Similarly,inWashingtonStatein2011,theInternationalLongshoreandWarehouseUnion(ILWU)stagedalengthyprotestagainstanemployerforhiringworkerswhobelongedtoadifferentunion.MembersoftheILWUallegedlydumpedgrainonrailroadtracksandvandalizedotherpropertybelongingtotheemployer,evenafterafederaljudgeorderedthemtostoptheirdestructivebehavior.28

Ventingfrustrationinadisputebypicketingorchantingiswidelyrecognizedasanappropriatemeansofexpression,butactsofsabotageunderanycircumstancesshouldnotbeconsideredlegallypermissiblesimplybecausethemotivationisunion-related.

Threats of Bodily Injury

Californiastatelawestablishesanoffensepunishablebyimprisonmentofuptooneyearandafineofupto$2,000formakinga“crediblethreattocauseseriousbodilyinjury”toanother,andthenwithin30daysthereafterenteringtheresidenceorworkplaceofthetargettocarryoutthethreat.29Thestateevidentlytakesthiscrimeseriously,consideringtheheightenedpenalty—uptoayearinjail—thatapplieswhencomparedwithothertrespassing-relatedoffenses.Butifthestateisseriousaboutpunishingthiscrime,onewonderswhyCaliforniahasalsocreatedaspecialexemptionallowingapersonengagedinlaborunionactivitiestogetawaywithsuchbehavior.30

Unionactivistssometimesturnablindeyetoviolenceinlabordisputes,andsomeevendefendsuchtransgressions.Asoneleaderputitwithregardtoaunion’sviolentactions,“I’msayingifyoustrikeamatchandputyourfingerin,commonsensetellsyouyou’regoingtoburnyourfinger.”31Theimplicationissimple:ifyoucrossaunion,youcanexpecttobesubjectedtoexactlythesekindsofthreatsandphysicalreprisals.

14

Storiesaboutthreatsofviolenceandactualassaultsaboundand,indeed,theyaresoplentifulitisdifficulttoknowwhichonestohighlight.OneunfortunateexampleoccurredinCalifornia,wherealabordisputebetweentheUnionofNeedletrades,IndustrialandTextileEmployees(UNITE)Local482andHollanderHomeFashionsresultedinastrike,duringwhichUNITErepresentativesallegedlythreatenedandassaultednumerousindividuals.Duringthestrike,HollanderhiredapersonnelplacementagencytofindandescortworkerstothelocationofHollander’sfacility.Theofficemanagerandseveralotheremployeesoftheplacementfirmwereonthereceivingendofmultiplethreatsagainstthemfortwomonths,accordingtoalawsuitthemanagerfiledagainsttheunion(themanagerhimselfreceivedheadwoundsfromanassaultbyseveralunionmilitants).32Thepublicmayneverknowtheoutcomeofthatsuitduetoanon-disclosureagreementthatapparentlywaspartofasettlement,butsufficetosaythatbeingbeatenduringanydispute,evenonerelatedtounions,shouldnotbetolerated.

Right to Violence?

WestVirginiadeclaresthatallpersonsinthestate“havetherighttobefreefromanyviolence,orintimidationbythreatofviolence”committedagainstthemortheirpropertybasedonrace,color,religion,ancestry,nationalorigin,politicalaffiliationorsex.33ThesebroadprotectionsforcivilrightsarecommonlyfoundatthestatelevelandevenexceedtheprotectionsaffordedbyfederallawandtheU.S.Constitution.WhatisunusualisthatinthecaseofWestVirginia,thelegislaturefounditnecessarytoessentiallyallowsomeonetoviolateanother’scivilrightsiftheviolationoccursinthecourseofconductinglaborunion

activity.Remarkably,thestate’scivilrightsprotectionsprovideanexemptionthatsaysthelawcannotbeconstruedinsuchawayasto“impedeortointerferewithanypersonconductinglaborunionorlaborunionorganizingactivities.”34

AnyonefamiliarwithlaborhistoryinWestVirginiaknowsthatunionviolenceintheMountainStatehasastoriedpastindeed.Forinstance,in1991,SteelworkersLocal5668engagedinawidespreadpatternofviolenceduringacontentious

labordisputewithRavenswoodAluminumCorporation.Unionmembersandrepresentativesallegedlycommittedover700actsofviolenceandintimidationagainstreplacementworkers,includingbombings,shootings,arson,anddeath

Remarkably, West Virginia’s civil rights protections provide an exemption that says the law cannot be construed in such a way as to “impede or to interfere with any person conducting labor union or labor union organizing activities.”

15

threats.35In1993,anotherdisputeinvolvingtheUnitedMineWorkersresultedinaworkerbeingshotintheheadbecausehewasanon-unioncontractor.36

Givingalegalcarveoutforlaborunionstothreatenandharassothersleavesvictimslikethesewithlimitedoptionstoprotecttheirsafety.Allofwhichmakesithardtosayjusticeisbeingservedbytheseexemptions.

Systemic Favoritism

Legalfavoritismtowardsorganizedlabordoesnotstopwiththeuniverseoflawsthatpermitunionstogetawaywiththreateningordisruptivebehavior.Otherlawsonthebooksofferthemdifferenttypesofadvantagesorprotections.

Hamstringing Courts

Formorethan75years,Pennsylvaniahashadsomeunusualprovisionsinstatelawprotectingquestionablebehaviorinthecourseofalabordispute.Thestate’sLaborAnti-InjunctionAct,whichwaspassedin1937,imposesanumberofrestrictionsonstatecourtsandgenerallypreventsthemfromissuinginjunctionsinalabordispute.Notably,theActstripsfromcourtsthepowertoissueaninjunctioninmostcases,evenwhenthoseparticipatinginthelabordisputeareengagedinanunlawfulconspiracy.Moreover,itpreventsjudgesfromgrantinginjunctionswhenillegalactshavebeencommittedorthreatenedandwhentheendssoughtinthelabordisputeareillegal.37

16

The Labor Anti-Injunction Act has been used to prevent companies from obtaining injunctions when union representatives disrupt business by, for example, coming into stores to distribute literature despite a company’s stated No Solicitation/No Distribution policy.38 Under normal circumstances those actions would constitute criminal trespassing, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that absent physical damage to a store or other gross misconduct, the courts were precluded from issuing injunctive relief to a property owner who simply does not want individuals trespassing on his or her property to hand out labor-related material.39 Likewise, Pennsylvania courts have refused to intervene in labor disputes, even when union representatives blocked delivery trucks from entering a company’s premises, tampered with locks, flattened tires, and followed people home from work during a strike.40

Reading, Writing, and…Unions?

Some states require that students be introduced to the concept of labor unions as part of the public school curriculum. For example, a Board of Education may include in the required course of study in high school a mandate that students be taught about unions as part of “social studies.” Certainly there is a benefit to teaching students about various economic actors and the role different groups have played in the history of the United States. But at a time when there are

concerns that children are not grasping the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, some states seem to have placed an outsized emphasis on learning about unions in particular.

In Nevada, where labor unions have long been an important political constituency, the state had taken an unusually comprehensive approach to education about unions. Until recently, the officials who set educational policy in the Silver State seemed intent on ensuring the state’s schoolchildren learned about the importance of labor unions from a very early age. The State Board of Education in Nevada mandated, as part of the required course of study, that children learn about the

role of labor unions beginning in the second and third grade.41 By fifth grade, in addition to knowing about the role of unions, students were expected to name

17

specific labor unions.42 By eighth grade, children in Nevada had to describe the goals and accomplishments of labor unions in the state and in the U.S., as well as describe the services a union provides to its members.43 Incidentally, in a recent education evaluation by the U.S. Department of Education, 42% of all fourth

graders and 31% of eighth graders in Nevada scored “Below Basic” in reading, ranking it behind almost 40 other states/jurisdictions surveyed.44

Wisconsin legislators have required by statute that the state’s teachers “incorporate the history of organized labor and the collective bargaining process” into the teaching of social studies.45 In Illinois, the legislature mandates that the teaching of history “shall include a study of the role of labor unions and their interaction with government in achieving the goals of a mixed free enterprise system.”46 The State Board of Education in Illinois has also included the statutory requirement in

its regulations. Amazingly, neither the Illinois statute nor the Board regulations specifically require teaching anything about the American Revolution.47

Conscripting Child Care and Personal Care Providers

Child care and personal care providers who are in some way compensated through state funds are not typically thought of as “state employees.” However, unions see them as a large pool of individuals from whom they can collect dues without having to do much, if anything, in return. Unfortunately, state governments have facilitated such dues collections in a glaring example of government taking the side of unions.

In recent years, several states have taken steps to facilitate unionization of child care and personal care providers. As of early 2012, fourteen states had authorized child care providers to unionize and bargain with the state, often in state-wide units, and nearly as many have done the same for personal care providers.48 Almost every state that has taken this action has done so by an executive order utilizing virtually identical language, a practice that has been challenged in state and federal courts.49

The State Board of Education in Nevada mandated, as part of the required course of study, that children learn about the role of labor unions beginning in the second and third grades. By fifth grade, in addition to knowing about the role of unions, students were expected to name specific labor unions.

18

Thelegalgymnasticsrequiredtounionizechildcareandpersonalcareprovidersaresubstantialconsideringthatmostoftheseworkersareself-employedandarenotlegallydefinedas“employees.”Rather,theyareprimarilyindependentcontractorswhoworkontheirowntermsforindividualclients,and,assuch,aretypicallynoteligibletounionize.50

Thus,inordertocreatean“employer”withwhichbargainingcanbeconducted,manyofthesestatesdesignatesomesortofstateagencyorboardastheemployerofrecordforchildcareandpersonalcareproviders.Othersseizeonthefactthatmanychildcareandpersonalcareprovidersservelow-incomefamiliesthatreceivesubsidiesfromthestate,and,basedonthatfundingstream,claimtheworkersarepublicemployees.Thestate-providedsubsidiesalsoofferaconvenientmechanismbywhichthestatecandeductmandatoryunionduesanddivertthemtotheunionthatpurportstorepresentindividualchildcareandpersonalcareproviders.Notsurprisingly,theseproviderstendtoberepresentedbyaunionthatalreadyrepresentsgovernmentemployees,andanalystsestimatethisforcedunionizationschemehasgeneratedmillionsofdollarsinannualuniondues,whichunionscanthenusetofundpoliticalandotheractivities.51

InIllinois,thenow-infamousgovernor,RodBlagojevich,becametheposterchildforthiskindofschemewhenheissuedanexecutiveorderopeningthedoorfor20,000homehealthcareproviderstojoinaunionin2003,followedbyasimilarordercovering50,000childcareworkersin2005.52Amazingly,eventheexecutiveordersthemselvesexplicitlystatethattheseworkersarenotreallystateemployees,sayingtheseproviders“arenotStateemployeesforpurposesofeligibilitytoreceivestatutorilymandatedbenefitsbecausetheStatedoesnothire,superviseorterminate”them.53Nevertheless,theSEIUultimatelygarneredthesenew“members”afteraheatedbattlewiththeAmericanFederationofState,County,andMunicipalEmployees(AFSCME).Incidentally,theSEIUreportedlyprovidedapproximately$1.8milliontothedisgracedgovernor’selectioncampaigns.54

In Michigan, this type of policy covering home health care providers forced two parents with disabled children, along with thousands of other Michiganders providing similar services, into a union against their will.

19

InMichigan,thistypeofpolicycoveringhomehealthcareprovidersforcedtwoparentswithdisabledchildren,alongwiththousandsofotherMichigandersprovidingsimilarservices,intoaunionagainsttheirwill.Theseparentsspendmanyhourseachdaytakingcareoftheirtwochildren,whoarecompletelydisabledbycerebralpalsy.TheStateofMichiganprovidesthemfinancialassistancethroughMedicaidtohelpcoverthecostofprovidingthefull-timecaretheirchildrenneed.Thisarrangementactuallysavestaxpayersmoneybecausethepaymentforthishomecareislessthanitwouldcosttoputthechildreninastate-fundedhealthcarefacility.55

CourtesyofapolicyestablishedunderformerGov.JenniferGranholm,however,thatmoneycamewithacatch—theseparentsdiscoveredin2006thattheysomehowbelongedtotheSEIU,whichforcedthemtoturnover$30amonthinunionduespayments.Makingmattersworse,thesepaymentswereautomaticallydeductedfromtheirMedicaidcheck.Astheir“employers”are,infact,theirchildren,thefamilyreceivednoservicesofanykindinexchangefortheirforceddues.TheSEIU’swillingpartnersinstategovernmenthadsimplyriggedthesystemaspartofaschemetobolstertheunion’sduesrevenues.

Thankfully,underanewgovernorandlegislature,Michiganreversedthispolicy.InMarchof2011,Michigandisbandedthegovernmentagencythathadclaimedto“employ”thousandsofchildcareprovidersinthestate,andinApril2012,thegovernorsignedlegislationtoendtheforcedunionizationofthousandsofhomehealthcareproviders.However,despitethewillofthelegislatureandgovernor,theSEIUisstillinlinetocollectmillionsmorefromunwillingunion“members.”InJune2012,afederaljudgeorderedthestateofMichigantocontinueitspaymentstotheSEIUonbehalfofhomehealthcareworkers.56

Connecticuthasalsotakenstepstounionizechildcareandpersonalcareproviders.In2011,GovernorDannelMalloysignedapairofexecutiveordersthatdirectedthestategovernmenttofacilitateunionelectionsamongtheseworkers—amail-inballotinwhichonlyafractionofindividualsvoted(notsurprisingly,fortheSEIU).57Fullcollectivebargaining,however,wouldonlybeestablishedoncethestatelegislaturepassedalawpermittingit,whichitdidinMay2012.Courtesyofthisaction,thousandsofworkerswillbecomeunionduespayers,whethertheywishtoornot.58

20

Conclusion

Fromexemptionstothecrimeofstalkingtoimmunityfromtrespassingstatutes,laborunionshavesuccessfullyengineeredavarietyofstatelawstoservetheirends.Asmanyworkersandemployersknowalltoowell,aggressivecorporatecampaignsoftenrelyontacticssuchastrespassing,intimidation,andevenstalking—actionsthatwouldbeillegalunderanyothercircumstances.

Itgoeswithoutsayingthat,formostpeople,itishardtocondonehundredsofprotestorsterrorizingachildaloneinhishouse,ortoacceptthatstalkingandpropertydestructionarelegitimatemeanstowardanyend.Likewise,itishardtorationalizeastatepolicythatwoulddeductunionduesfromMedicaidfundsafamilyusestotakecareoftheirdisabledchildren.Yetthesetypesofpoliciesareenshrinedinthelegalregimesofnumerousstates.

UnionshaveplayedanimportantroleinthehistoryoftheUnitedStatesbothpoliticallyandeconomically.Atthesametime,itisdifficulttojustifylawsthatplacetheirconcernsaboveallothers.

21

Endnotes

1UnitedStatesv.Enmons,410U.S.396.2Seee.g.,S.3178,FreedomFromUnionViolenceActof2012,112thCong.(2012).318Pa.Cons.Stat.§2709.1.4720Ill.Comp.Stat.5/12-7.3.5“LisaVorderbrueggen,“CNAwinsrestrainingorder,”ContraCostaTimes,April16,2008.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/04/16/cna-wins-restraining-order/.6“Rewardisofferedinshootingofbusinessman,”ToledoBlade,August23,2011,

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2011/08/23/Reward-is-offered-in-shooting-of-businessman.html7NickBjork,“Open-shopcontractorscomplainofunionintimidation,”DailyJournalofCommerce,

August24,2011.8Cal.PenalCode§602(o).9Id.§602.8(a),(c).10Id.§420.1.11Id.§602.1(a),(c)(1).12Id.13Id.§552.1.14Id.15Ralph’sGroceryCo.v.UnitedFoodandCommercialWorkersUnionLocal8,192Cal.App.4th200(2011).16See e.g.,JanNorman,“Report:254companiesleftCaliforniain2011,”Orange County Register,March2,

2012;“SmallBusinessSurvivalIndex2011:RankingThePolicyEnvironmentForEntrepreneurshipAcrossThe

Nation,”SmallBusiness&EntrepreneurshipCouncil,November2011.http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/

SBSI2011%5B1%5D.pdf.17Cal.PenalCode§602.12(a),(c).18Id.19Ironically,theSEIUowedBankofAmericanearly$80millionforamortgageandlineofcreditin2011

accordingtotheunion’s2011FormLM-2LaborOrganizationAnnualReportfiledwiththeU.S.Department

ofLabor.Seewww.unionreports.gov.20NinaEaston,“What’sreallybehindSEIU’sBankofAmericaprotests?,”Fortune,May19,2010.21Cal.PenalCode§640.22Id.2381Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.71.24Wis.Stat.§946.02.25Wis.Stat.§175.05.26JimHoft,“UnionProtesterArrestedforTryingtoSabotageMadisonTeaPartySoundSystem,”FoxNews.com,

February20,2011,http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/02/20/union-protester-arrested-trying-sabotage-

madison-tea-party-sound-system.

22

27VerizonNewsRelease,August8,2011,http://newscenter.verizon.com/assets/wrapper/2011-bargaining/

Verizon-update-release.pdf.28BillMongelluzzo,“ILWUDefiesCourtOrderinLongview,Wash.,Picketing,”The Journal of Commerce;

September7,2011;“NationalLaborRelationsBoardInvestigatesLongshoremenUnionforStrikeGone

Wrong,”FoxNews.com;September9,2011.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/nlrb-investigates-

longshoremen-union-for-strike-gone-wrong/.29Cal.PenalCode§601.30Id.31JohnPowell,“HeJustSaidWhat?!,”Freedom@Workblog,December6,2007.See

http://www.nrtw.org/es/blog/he-just-said-what.32“InternationalUnionSuedForViciousAssault,”Foundation Action,July/August2002,

http://www.nrtw.org/foundation-action/julaug02.pdf.33W.Va.Code§61-6-21.34Id.35MariaMallory,“ACompanyTownTormentedandTorn,”Businessweek;December8,1991.36MattHarvey,“Non-unionWorkerShottoDeath,”Spartanburg Herald-Journal,July24,1993.3743Pa.Cons.Stat.§206g.38SeePhar-Mor,Inc.v.UnitedFoodandCommercialWorkersUnionLocal1776,541Pa.49,660A.2d583

(1995).39Id.40SeeSolventMachineryv.TeamstersLocal115,343Pa.Super.505,495A.2d579(1985).41Nev.Admin.Code§389.2437and389.254.42Id.§389.2942.43Id.§389.372.44“TheNation’sReportCard:Reading,2011StateSnapshotReport,”NationalCenterforEducation

Statistics,2011.http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2011/2012454NV4.pdfandhttp://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2011/2012454NV8.pdf.See also“LeadersandLaggards:AState-by-StateReport

23

CardonEducationalEffectiveness,”U.S.ChamberofCommerce,2007.http://www.uschamber.com/

reportcard/2007.45Wis.Stat.§115.28(55).46105Ill.Comp.Stat.5/27-21.47Id.;23Ill.Admin.Code§1.420.48Conn.Exec.OrderNo.9(2011);Minn.Exec.OrderNo.11-31(2011);Kan.Exec.OrderNo.07-21

(2007);Pa.Exec.OrderNo.2007-06(2007);Md.Exec.OrderNo.01.01.2007.14(2007);N.Y.Exec.Order

No.12(2007);Wis.Exec.OrderNo.172(2006);IowaExec.OrderNos.45and46(2006);Me.Rev.Stattit.

22§8308;N.J.Exec.OrderNo.23(2006);N.M.Stat.§50-4-33;OhioExec.Order2008-02S(2008);Or.

Exec.Order06-04(2006),Or.Rev.Stat.657A.430;Wash.Rev.Code§41.56.028;Ill.Exec.Order2005-1

(2005).49See e.g.,Harrisv.Quinn,656F.3d692(7thCir.2011).50PeggieR.Smith,The Publicization of Home-Based Care Work in State Labor Law,92Minn.L.Rev.1390,

1400-03(describingthelackofanecessaryemploymentrelationshipasahurdletounionizationefforts).51PatrickJ.WrightandMichaelD.Jahr,“MichiganForcesBusinessOwnersIntoPublicSectorUnions,”Wall

Street Journal,December25,2009.52BrettMcNeil,“Homehealthcareworkerstogetunionrights:Blagojevichorderwillaffectasmanyas20,000

instate,”ChicagoTribune,February17,2003.BarbaraRose,“Unionforchild-careworkers:Votemeans

coveragefor50,000providers,”Chicago Tribune,April8,2005.53Ill.Exec.Orders2003-8(2003)and2005-1(2005)54KrisMaherandDavidKesmodel,“IllinoisScandalSpotlightsSEIU’sUseofPoliticalTactics,”Wall Street

Journal,December20,2008.55JoelGehrke,“SEIUSiphons‘Dues’fromMich.MedicaidPayments,”The Washington Examiner,September

10,2011.56JackSpencer,“DespiteLaw,SEIUGetsToContinueTakingMedicaidCheckMoney,”Michigan Capitol

Confidential;June20,2012.http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/1711557Conn.Exec.Orders9&10.(Sept.21,2011).58Conn.Pub.ActsNo.12-33.

1615 H Street, NWWashington DC 20062www.uschamber.com