_v - . .. 0? ORK State Solutions. National Impact. ?23? o' . Now is the Time for Union Reform in Your State. Learn Why and Discover How to Make it Happen. PO CY Trevor Bragdon NETWORK Senior Policy Advisor. State Policy Network bragdon@spn.org State Solutions. National Impact. State Workplace Freedom Toolkit ABLE oF'cohiTEi-irsf Overview/How to Use This Toolkit 4 Landscape: Where and How Unions Have Gained and Lost In?uence 5 Strategy: Blue and Red State Strategies: Determining the Right Strategy for Successful Reform in Your State 6 Tactics: Four Policy Prescriptions for Effective Union Reform . . . . . . . . . . . 8 WorkerVotingRights Union 11 RighttoWork. . 14 Worker's Choice . 16 Appendix A: Worker Voting Rights Model Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix B: Right to Work Model Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix C: Worker Choice Model Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 I Overview/How . . . to Use This Toolkit THIS GUIDE IS DIVIDED INTO SECTIONS: 0 and How Unions Have Gained and Lost in?uence 0 STRATEGY -Biue and Red State Strategies: Determin- ing the Best Reform Tactics for Your State 0 Policy Prescriptions for Effective Union Reform Model Legislation WHY UNION REFORM NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW Public sector unions consistently create his obstacles to job creation, Innovation, workplace freedom, and ef?- cient use of taxpayer dollars. Public sector unions thwart state-based programs and pro-worker reforms at almost every turn. Union chiefs can do this thanks to nearly inexhaustible ?nancial and political resources gained via unfettered access to millions 4 - State Policy Network of workers? paychecks. According to the National institute for Labor Relations Research, unions spent more than $1.7 billion of workers? money in the 2012 election cycle to push big-gov- ernment agendas and promote progressive candidates in every state} Most of the workers who provided that $1.7 billion had no say in how the money was spent. Union reform is not only necessary but is the ?rst step toward creating an environment where state lawmakers can effective- ly advance responsible, limited government reforms that truly help their constituents. INCLUDED IN THIS TOOLKIT This Toolkit outlines four key reform ideas?both defensive and offensive plays?that have the best chance of achieving meaningful state-based reforms: worker voting righs, union opt-out campaigns, righbto-work (RTW), and worker's choice. This guide will help you select the best reform based on your state's political and cultural environment. Additionally, SPN and state think tank subject matter experts are available to help advise your reform choice and tailor it to the unique requirements of your state. 0 0 Landscape . . Where and How Unions Have Gained and Lost In?uence . ARE, (a SummaryRevuew . . . 'St'ewar'dfs Corner; March Pinion .- a ui. Insertions; M?5t ?mm ""ms were mauled the m" ?Unions were starting to ask the uncomfortable question to five decades to provide workers with fair representation in - why do so many workers jump ship when they get the their workplace. Traditionally, public sector workers accepted chance? lower pay than they might get in the private sector in return A hard look in the mirror reveals the deep disconnect for the security of a government job. Union leaders saw this between most members and their unions. as a disparity and went to work to change it. They succeeded. That's the underlying problem labor must solve if we hope to tackle the enormous challenges of our While union organin?ons? power and political in?uence have grown exponentially, their accountability and commitment to dues-paying union members have greatly diminished. ever, do not consider impartial representation of members? best interests as a mandatory requirement in return. Nor do in non-Right to Work states, joining the established union is a union leaders respect the wide range of political differences of non-negotiable condition of employment. Union leaders, how- their members. instead, the union hierarchy spends its time and membersmoneyto promote policies that increase the size and cost of 'l It T. UNIONS - 7 government, and to support progressive state-level policy- I. i makerswhofavorsuchgrowth. Private sector union membership has declined, but public sec- Mg ?5"th $051 tor unions have been a growth industry. In fact, according to government data aggregated at UnlonStats.oom, from 2010 ju/y 1' 2015 to 2015, public sector unions have seen some of their largest growth in conservative, Right to Work states "i think we took things for granted. We stopped communicating with people, because we didn?t feel like we needed to. that was the wrong approach, and we don't want to fall back into that trap," said AFSCME President Lee Saunders. State Workplace Freedom Toolkit 0 5 Strategy Determining the Best Reform Tactics for Your State 0 . Blue and Red State Strategies: 0 Persuasive Language: Matching Effective Messaging with Your Audience No lawmaker wants to invest time and resources to pass short- lived reforms. This toolkit provides state lawmakers with a path to long-term success. This toolkit intentionally does not include "Band-Aid" reforms that unions can easily circumvent or quickly re-adapt. That said, some of these short-term mea- sures may be useful tactics as part of a larger strategy. Union reform needs to be meaningful, measurable, and most of all, lasting. We have selected and refined these four key public sector union policy prescriptions for real, long-term re- form nationwide. 6 - State Policy Network Messaging that Resonates: Effective Language From analysis of polling data, we?ve identi?ed ?ve key messaging principles to use when discussing public sector union reform. m. Messaging Do?s and Don'ts Guide - Be pro-worker, not anti-union. Fairness and ac- . Use everyday language. Use words and phrases in- countabillty are the key bene?ts for individual union mem- bers. Frame union reform from the point of view of the members and how the reform helps them have a greater voice in their union. Remember the messenger matters (some- times even more so than the message). Work with union members-past and present?to talk about reform. These individuals bene?t the most from re- forms. are the most in?uential and credible to both union and non-union households, and they help convey actual union member desire and demand for union reform. Highlight choice, fairness. and trust. Effective arguments and messages that convey these key elements resonate with voters and should be used to communicated the benefits of reform laws. Rant against unions. We've all been frustrated by the actions of public sector unions to block profreedom reforms, but publicly venting these feelings is counterpro- ductive. Overcomplicate the issue or lose focus. The weakest messaging involves discussion of union leaders or complicated language and jargon. tended for iaypeople, not legislators and policy wonks. The more clearly people understand your union reform, the easier it is to sell these ideas. For example, avoid the clunky term ?union recerti?cation"?which no one understands. Instead, use "worker voting rights,? a phrase that immedi- ately frames what the law does for union members. Communicate broadly. While reform laws are more relevant to current union members, most non-union audiences respond to the same messaging themes. ?ibis provides an opportunity for clear, consistent messaging across the board on reform Issues. Most people don't think about union issues but do sympathize with the need for pro-worker reforms. - Use heated, hyperbolic rhetoric. Using terms like "union fat cats,? "corrupt union bosses," and other overly negative language reduces support for reform. To pass reform, focus on gathering broad public support, not appealing to a narrow base. State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 7 Tactics Four Policy Prescriptions for Effective Union Reform: Proven Union Reform Policies and Model Legislation ARE SAYING Worker Voting Rights ?bc New ?ork Elimcs With Fewer Members, at Diminished Political Role for Wisconsin Unions What It Does Worker voting rights is a policy also known as ?union reoerti?- cation." First passed in Wisconsin in 2011, worker voting rights gives union members the right to vote every one to three years on whether they want to maintain or replace their current union. mum Dave Eisner, an APSCME leader here, has battled with Mr. Walker for decades, since the governor was the Milwaukee County executive. "Do we have less boots on the ground? Yeah.? Mr. Eisner saidpublic sector unions were voted into existence we give the same amounts of money to the can drdates? No.? years ago. This means nearly every current union member has never had the right to vote for their union. These workers are living with the consequences of a single vote cast decades earlier. Worker voting rights creates a new check and balance for the union. it allows members the ability to periodically re?ect and decide if their union is providing value for the significant dues the members pay. it also allows union leadership to be more accountable and responsive to members? needs when they know a union recerti?cation election is in the future. Where this policy has been enacted, the workers? choice is clear. Hundreds of unions have been decertified and ceased to exist because members felt they did not receive enough value from their union for the dues they paid. The general public also widely supports this policy. Muitistate polling SPN conducted In late 2015 found more than 7 out of to voters supported requiring unions to run for re-election every two years. In some states the support was as high as 84 percent. 8 0 State Policy Network Worker Voting Rights Highlights Requires government unions to allow union members to vote every two to three years on whether they want to maintain or replace their current union. In these elections, union members have the option to renew their current representation, choose new representation, or choose to have no exclusive representation. Government unions failing reoerti?cation are decerti?ed and may not recertify for a set peri- od of time, at least one year. This does not pre- vent other unions from attempting to organize employees. Best Suited for States 0 Worker voting rights reforms are viable in states that are both RTW and non-RTW. it is not recom- mended for states (such as Virginia and North Carolina) that do not have collective bargaining rights for public sector unions 0 States with legislative majorities and executive branches that support union reform are the ideal candidates for this legislation. The Research: Polling/Messaging That Resonates Based on recent multistate SPN polling, the following data were found regarding worker voting rights: 1. Support for the recerti?cation is initially high, and higher when positioned as a benefit to union members. To gauge voter support, pollsters defined the proposed law in two ways: it would require unions to run for re-election and seek the support of their members every two years, or it would provide union members the ability to vote to maintain or replace their union. 0 Nearly 8 in 10 voters in each state inib?ally support the proposed law regardless of its definition. 0 Eight in 10 voters Initially agree union members deserve a voice in choosing their union and that empowering them with a vote will help to ensure their concerns are addressed and the union remains ?scally responsible. 2. Support for recertification remains strong and increases in intensity after these supportive messages: Financial Ready Toolkit . 9 0 Union members deserve the right to vote for their union representation, just as the general public has the right to vote for their representation in government. 0 Reforming union will give workers a say in deciding who best represents their interests. 0 While it is important to protect the culture and heritage of unions in the United States, the best interests of union leaders should never be placed above the best interests of union members. Common Arguments: What the Other Side Says and How to Counter - "Worker voting rights or recertification is nothing more than an attack on the rights oiworkers to have a voice." 0 False: Worker voting rights allows union members the opportunity to vote for their union representa. tion Just like voters have the opportunity to vote to elect lawmakers. - ?Recerti?cation sets an impossible election standard that denies representation to members even if a major- ity of voters approve of a representative organization.? 0 False: To maintain the union and prevent low elec- tion turnout, worker voting rights legislation re- quires 50 percent plus 1 of those covered to vote to recertify the union. if half of those covered don't vote to continue, then the union is deoerti?ed. 0 "Union elections are expensive and put an unnecessary burden on unions." 0 False: Research shows unions can host elections for less than $2 a vote using third-party phone and online voting services. These systems are run by objective third parties and are secured using mill- tarry-grade to maintain election integrity.? State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 9 Ifh What This Could Look Like in Your State I Marketing examples used In otherstares ??tvirtl?t WORKER VOTING RIGHTS ae-eeveeF-?wtm Starting a new job, most public workers in have no choice as to which union will negotiate their pay and benefits. Join rig the estao'islred un?cr 's 0? er. a mandatory term of with no available :lm ce -rs to dec'c'e would truly work =n their best micro-st Over 9 9?9 of union members have never had the opportunity to vote for their union representation.1 When most publ-c sectu' were voted In. often over 30 year: Tt established that O'Qanrzazion to rerrnaszr-t workers has! rrite'y. This means that newer members have never had a say in their union representation. Deceit in 13-1 is techrica l1; an option. but the process is restrictive and rtrrai?y Union recertification elections provides public workers a voice and more equitable representation for current members as well as new hires. Purpose What It would do .. . 0 Most workers have never had the Unions would be required to be rocortified - 3050""? a opportunity to vote on or certify their union every two years by members. Workers would worm:- '3 Cl?d 3 who '95: representation. have the option to renew their current represents toe/r . 0 Once a union has been certi?ed as the representation, chem new representation, exclusive representative, there are limited or choose to have no exclusive options for changing representation. representation. .?nr ??wr Member support Worker Verified Voting Rights in Action 3) Recertification Elections ?bnm Wad um YMMH DIG-HBO Mounts Choose um Down-mun} Mum N: am Noon 5% loot-git. 1h!? hm?uuo- My Nun I Show". On 7. am 10 - State Policy Network ?x Union Opt-Out Campaign Harris v. Quinn is a favorable Supreme Court decision that allows ?partial-public employees" like state-subsidized home care aides and family childcare providers to opt-out of union membership and cease paying dues. in right-to?work states, traditional public employees like state workers and teachers already have this ability. However, to get employees to opt-out of their union, they ?rst need to know they have a choice. A direct marketing campaign to union represented public employees that combines mail and digital outreach helps raise awareness and increase opt- out rates. Well run opt-out campaigns can cause public-sector unions to experience 5-2096 declines ln membership, costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in dues money. Public-sector unions generally spend a high percent- age of their budget on political and ideological activity - as much as 5096 for some partial-public employees? unions. To combat opt-out campaigns, public-sector unions must work to prevent their members from resigning and attempt to per- suade members that opt out to re-sign up for union member- ship, causing thern to devote additional staff and resources to organizing. This can affect the resources and attention avail- able for union leaders to devote to political acdon campaigns. Best Suited for States 0 Opt-out campaigns can be run in any state, since they do not require the passage of any legisla- tion. 0 ideal states for this effort have active SPN af?li- ate think tanks with a strong litigation arm. 0 Access to lists of union members is essential to this project. Obtaining lists is a state-speci?c process. The most common means of obtaining lists is through requests made under state pub- lic records laws. Common Arguements: What the Other Side Says and How to Counter 0 Opt-out marketing efforts are Just attacks on the union by anti-union groups. 0 False: Opt-out efforts simply inform union members of their rights to not participate in a union if they don't feel they are currently getting value equal to the cost of their dues. No one is forcing employees to opt out of their union, Just informing them of their ability to do so. If a union is providing value to its members, it shouldn?t have anything to worry about. State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 11 ?x What This Could Look Like in Your State Washinston Freedom Foundation Knit";? . 2' on - ?55.5- UNIUN TRANSPARENCY AND REFORM PROJECT: SEIU UUT $8 LLIUN Thanks to Freedom Foundation's Union Transparency and Reform Project. thousands of home providers and family childcare workers have learned about their Constitutional right to leave the Service Employees international Union (SEIU). SEIU's loss of members as well as its ongoing battle with the Freedom Foundation to keep its captive members from learning the truth is taking a tremendous ?nancial toll on the union. The overall cost to 775 and 925 from January to August 2016 is $8.7 million. 12 - State Policy Network 4-1 ?I?l II low I, 30 333? I. IN -- 2 000 Homo I eaitn Care ProvideIs Dotted Dot .2018 5 000 Childcare Providers Dotted 0ut? 2015 legal fees ?ghting eedom Fo 3nd:tion INITIATIVE-1501 SEIUS IJaIIotme aso to muzzl; Fr?edom Foundation NortiII ?as LALCUIi?labliiU/Pi?j at sckinn vn ed II Foonciaton Looming cos '3 to oppose oFreedonI Foundnton Fines TOT carno iaon ?nance violations iUrro/Iexourcos l. DSHS Union Membership Report 2. DSHS Union Membership Report- Loss to SEIU for each opt out is $500 per year 3. Department of labor reports 4 Public Disclosure Commission- Campaign Finance Disclosure 5. Estimated costs from 1000's of mailings. phone calls. videos. website development. protests, staff salaries consulting fees 6. Public Disclosure Comisaion- Lobbying Disclosure 7 Washington State Attorney General - Legal Action Against SEIU a Estimate based on interviews with former SEIU staff State Workplace Ftoedom Toolkit - 13 {a Right to Work What It Does Right to Work (RTW) legislation is the most well-known union reform policy. Menty-eight states currently operate under RTW laws. In the past seven years, six states have passed RTW: Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. RTW legislation does not outlaw or prohibit unions but simply allows that workers are not forced to Join a union as a condi- tion of their employment. Right to Work Highlights 0 Forbids unions from getting a worker ?red for not paying them union dues. 0 Does not change collective bargaining In any other way. 0 Could be seen by job creators as a message that the state is not bound to special inter- ests, consequently fostering job and econom- ic growth. Recent states that have passed RTW have actually seen union membership increase. Best Suited for States 0 Ideal states are current non-RTW states with supportive executive branch or supportive legis- lative bodies with veto-proof levels of support. 14 - State Policy Network The Research: Polling/Messaging That Resonates National polling conducted by Gallup in 2014 found that 71 percent of people support RTW.I This corresponds with more recent state polling that showed 60 percent support In West Virginia before RTW's passage In 2016.? Common Arguments: What the Other Side Says and How to Counter - I?Rigl'rt to work is Just the 'Rightto work for less! Right-to- work laws cause wages to decreae and harm workers." 0 False: According to research by the Heritage Foun- dation, RTW laws have little effect on overall wages.? Most RTW states are located In the south, where the average cost of living ls much lower than many non- RTW states. 0 ?The phrase 'right to worIr' is a misnomer due to the fact that no current law exists that deprives anyone of the right to work." 0 False: In states without RTW laws, you can be ?red for not joining a union. This deprives an individual of their right to work. 0 "Right-to-work laws impose a burden on labor unions in representing free riders and non-paying members." 0 This Is true, but laws like worker's choice (covered in the next section) ?x the free rider problem and allow non~paying members to represent themselves for contract negotiations. Marketing examples from Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions ?x What This Could Look Like in Your State INN KENT UCKY 5:3375' GOOD FOR WORKERS AND UNIONS Anti-worker rights activists like to refer to Right-to-Work laws as 'Right-to-Work (For Lessi.? in their attempt to scare union members and lawmakers. But Right-to-Work actually brings more - not less to states that pass these laws: more jobs. more union members. more workplace freedom. and more unions providing value to members. ENHANCED STRONGER, UNIONS IMPROVED MEMBERSHIP CHOICE UNIONS UNCHANCED Workers can freely choose either Union leaders say that mw makes RTW doesn't diminish a union's a union to negotiate their wages. unions stronger. To gain and keep ability to organize a workplace or a bene?ts and working conditions members. unions are more attentive worker?s ability to become a union or do so themselves and responsive to worker needs. member and pay dues - RIGHT-TO-WORK HELPS, NOT HURTS, GOOD UNIONS IO 5 Wm - In 2015. unions in 25 right-to-work states A increased members vs non-right-to-work states 6 of the to states with A the biggest increases in union membership were right-towerk in 2015.l RIGHT-TO-WOR MW - Between 2005 and 20i5. union membership ?l've always believed that ifyou do your job grew in right-to-worlt states by about 1.3 percent but fell around 996 In representing people. that people will be states. there to support you. Dennis Williams. UAWPresident 67,000+ NEW JOBS IN WARREN COUNTY AFTER RIG HT-TO-WORK I?ve never understood that people think right-to- I hurts union 5.. To me. n, helps ALREADYAT WORK IN KY UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURTS YOU don't have to 1391009 ifyou Since Warren County used its home~ruie authority to pass a local right-to-work law don went ?3.1 can tell these workers. If In 2014. twelve Kentucky counties have moved to protect workers' freedom. One of you don like this arrangement. you don?t those counties. Hardin County. was sued following passage of its local ordinance. hate to belong.? Versus. if we get 50 However. its ordinance was recently upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. percent dwu. then all 00'0? have: ?0 Right-bo-worlt has had an almost immediate economic impact in these counties. b91009 whether you ?k9 ?0 0? Within six months. Warren County received to? economic?development project inquiries representing about 5.000 potential Jobs. Within the ?rst year. $943 million worth ofoepital investment committed to ocabe in the county. which Saw mte:'? UAW matched economic growth of the entire previous decade, ecretary- reasurer since passing right-to-work. Warren County has attracted more than $1 billion in total capital investment Currently. there are 55.000 Job openings within a radius of Bowling Green. KY. with the prospect of another 12.00010!) I availabilities in the very near future. - A Rescue": memnum i1 Pitta/WW [Mahatma t- .. WW3 mun-neweuzaJ-a-aoomin ?4.4:th A Is? ?1min" In? Wall State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 15 {a Worker?s Choice What it Does in states that have passed RTW laws, unions still bargain and negotiate contracts that cover both union and non-union members. This has been called a ?free rider? problem, where people who have opted out of the union still bene?t from its collective bargaining. Worker's choice ?xes this sc-caiied free rider issue and allows non-union members to negotiate their salary and working conditions packages independently and on their own behalf. 0 Builds upon BTW laws and allows workers under a coiiec~ tive bargaining agreement to opt out of their union and represent themselves individually. Allows individual contracts to have merit pay and other individual worker bene?ts and protections included. 0 Permits managers to give bonuses and other recognition to employees without union consent. 0 Makes no major changes in collective bargaining. One union in a worksite still represents all union members, but nomunion members represent themselves. 0 Renders the union ?free rider" or "forced rider? argu- ment against RTW laws null. Protects against union legal arguments which could over- turn RTW throughout the country. 16 0 State Policy Network Best Suited for States 0 Worker's choice is best suited for RTW states looking to further expand worker freedom, as well as states on the cusp of passing W. The Research: Polling/Messaging That Resonates Based on a 30 state poll released in August 2016, shows 66.9% of union members and union households would support Worker Choice.? While most union members surveyed said they would stay in their union, they believed it was important to have the option to opt-out of a union contract. Common Arguments: What the Other Side Says and How to Counter 0 "Worker Choice will create chaos for employers and lower wages for employees with multiple employees negotiating their own compensation contracts.? 0 False: Workers in the private sector right now ne- gotiate their own compensation packages. Worker Choice simply treats former union members as the 87% of workers in America who do not have union representation or a union contract. What This Could Look Like in Your State Marketing examples from Mackinac Center for Public Policy 329THE PROBLEM Where there?s a unionized workplace, there?s forced representation. That's true regardless of whether a state is right-to-work or not. Even if a union can't get a worker ?red for not paying dues. the worker is still bound by union representation. Unions call these workers - trapped by collective bargaining agreements - "free riders." But unions have actually lobbied for this requirement and use it to claim the moral high ground They say. ?We are not given what is ours: the right to be paid for the work we are required to perform.? Building on this argument. unions have recently brought several court cases challenging right- to-work. Having to represent workers who don't pay them. they say. is a violation of constitutional takings clauses. Depending on the makeup of the US. Supreme Court. unions could use this argument to overturn seven decades of precedent, killing right-to-work for the entire nation. THE SOLUTION Worker's Choice would end the issue of free or forced riders.? Worker?s Choice would let workers who opt out of a union in a right-to-work state represent themselves before employers. It would also free unions from having to represent nonpaying workersWorker's Choice gives unionized employees the choice of two options: 1. Be a union member and accept the working conditions negotiated by the union.- 2. Leave union membership behind. negotiate fol-compensation and working independently, and provide your own representation in grievances and other dealings. That's what over 8.2 those without union representation - do already. With Worker's Choice, each worker can stay in the union that is in the workplace. Alternately, they can negotiate for salary, bene?ts and working conditions independently. With Worker's Choice, unions are freed from having to represent workers who are not paying them and workers are freed from accepting forced union representation. SAFEGUARDS - One-ornone - Worker?s Choice does not change collective bargaining for unionized workers in any way. If there's a union presence in a workplace, it?s one union that will still represent all the unionized employees there. The one-or-none provision Congress can amend the National Labor Relations Act to enact Worker's Choice for private sector employees. States can amend their own labor laws to enact Worker's Choice for public sector employees. State Workplace Freedom Toolkit . 17 ?x What This Could Look Like in Your State Marketing examples from Mackinac Centerfor Public Policy safeguards against having multiple unions at a worksite. - It imposes no new duty to bargain on employers Workers who wish to exercise Worker?s Choice are treated as nonunion and the employer is under no duty to negotiate with them. mirroring the job creators who employ over 87 percent of nonunion workers in the rest of the economy. An employer may. if he or she wishes. negotiate individually with these employees as a way to attract and retain top talent. - Unions cannot affect individual contracts - Worker?s Choice prevents unions from basing their contract off the independent employees? contracts. For example. unions cannot say that the highest paid independent employee must be paid lower than the lowest paid union employee. BENEFITS OF CHOICE 1. Addresses the main union objection to right-tumult: Worker?s Choice eliminates the free/forced rider issue, one of union's most powerful objections to right-to-work. . Rewards employee productivity: Under Worker?s Choice, employers can reward higher performing employees without being limited to a collective bargaining agreement. . Advances personal ?exibility: Worker's Choice lets workers represent themselves and negotiate their own contracts, which are driven by personal needs rather than collective ones. . Makes unions more responsive: Worker's Choice will require unions to be more responsive to the needs of their members or risk losing them. . Provides the above bene?ts to employers without imposing new obligations: Worker's Choice does not create any new burdens on employers: its one-or-none provision safeguards against multiple unions. The employer does not have any more increased obligation to employees exercising Worker's Choice than employers in a nonunionized worksite. ie. no duty to bargain. CHOICE WOULD LET WORKERS SAY TO UNION REPRESENTATION AND LET UNIONS SAY TO PROVIDING SERVICES TO 2. Protects legal challenges to right-to- work: Worker?s Choice would negate the main legal argument for overturning right-to-work. the argument of violating the takings clause. ROI IDLICY The Mackinac Center lor Public Policy is dedloated to improving the understanding of economic and political principles among citizens. public of?cials. policymakers and opinion leaders. The Center has emerged as one at the largest and most prolific of the more than 50 statebssed tree-market "think tanks" in America. For more lnlormatlon about the Mackinac Center and its publications. cell 988-831-0900. or see our website. 18 - State Policy Network - - - Conclusion This toolkit builds on the extensive research and countless les~ sons learned by SPN and the state think tank network over the last several yea rs. We?ve seen ?rsthand the Way public sector unions block free-market policies and ?ght workplace freedom reform. But lt doesn?t have to be that way. Government Union reform should be a goal for every state. It's time for lawmakers to free themselves and union members in their state from the undue in?uence of government unions. SPN ls ready to help. But it can't happen in your state without you. Give us a call and see how union reform could look in your state. State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 19 - - Endnotes "Big Labor Spent 1.7 Billion on Electioneerlng Lobbying 2011-2012". Madam! lnslitutelbr labor Relations Research. August 29, 2013. John Wright. ?The low Cost oi Labor Relormf Show-Me Institute. Last modi?ed October 22. 2015. Jeffery Jones. "Americans Approve of Union: but Support Right to Work". Gallup. Lea modified August 28, 2017. Shauna Johnson. 'MetroNows for West Virginia Pol ?nds solid support for laws". MetroNews of West Virginia. Last modified September 8, 2015. James Sherlr. 'Rtht to Work Increases Jobs and Was". The Heritage Foundation. last modified November 9, 2011. "2016 Survey Results.? National Employee Freedom Week. Accuses, September 19. 2016. 20 - State Policy Network . Appendix/Supporting Links Worker Voting Rights Model Legislation Right to Work Model Legislation Worker Choice Model Legislation State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 21 ?x APPENDIX A Worker Voting Rights Model Legislation Union Recertlfication No existing [collective bargaining representative] exclusive representative] as de?ned in [labor statute] shall continue to represent [public employees] in a unit without the concurrence of a majority of all [public employees] In the unit. 1. The [board/ commission] shall direct a secret ballot election to certify the existing [collective bargaining representative exclusive representative] retains support of a ma]ority of all [public employees] in the unit. a. The [board/ commission] shall promulgate rules to preserve the purity of elections and to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. l. The [board/ commission] shall determine whether elections shall be conducted in-person. by mail, by telephone, by lntemet-based systems, or by any other means determined by the [board] commission] to be fair, con?dential, and reliable. The board shall allow represented [public employees] to cast ballots for a period of [seven days] time prescribed in labor statute.) ii. The [board] commission] may establish a fee schedule from [collective bargaining representative I exclusive representative] participating in elections conducted under this section for the purpose of funding of the elections. b. Should the existing [collective bargaining representative exclusive representative] receive affirmative votes from a majority of all [public employees] employed in the unit the pre-existing certification shall continue. if the existing [collective bargaining representative exclusive representative] fails to receive affirmative votes from a majority of all [public employees] employed in the unit, the [board] commission] shall decartify the [collective bargaining representative I exclusive representative] and the [public employees] shall be unrepresented. c. in the event of a termination of certification, the terms of any pro-existing contract between the [collective bargaining representative exclusive representative] and the [public employer] shall continue and remain in effect for the remaining contract term except for any provisions involving, in any manner, the [collective bargaining representative [exclusive representative] including but not limited to union security, dues and fees, and grievance and arbitration. 2. Following the decerti?catlon of a [collective bargaining representative I exclusive representative] [Public employees] may certify a new [collective bargaining representative exclusive representative] in accordance with [labor statute] so long as the [public employees] are not included with a substantially similar or af?liated [labor organization or bargaining representative] to the decerti?ed [labor organization or bargaining representative] for 12 months from the date of decertlfication. 3. The [board] commission] shall start directing elections to certify majority support of existing [collective bargaining representative exclusive representative] not less than two and not more than three years after the effective date of this act and every even numbered year thereafter; elections shall occur no earlier than August 1" and no later than December Model Legislation horn collaboration with State Policy Network and the Mackinac Center/or Public Policy 22 . State Policy Network Int APPENDIX 1 Right to Work Model Legislation Right to Work Act Summary ALEC's model Right to Work Act provides that no employee need join or pay dues to a union. or refrain from joining a union. as a condition of employment. 1he Act establishes penalties and remedies for violations of the Act?s provisions. Model Policy (Title. enacting clause. etc.) Section 1. i Title} This Act may be cited as the Right to Work Act. Section 2. {Declaration of public policy.) It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the State of (state), in order to maximize individual freedom of choice in the pursuit of employment and to encourage an employment climate conducive to economic growth. that the right to work shall not be subject to undue restraint or coercion. The right to work shall not be infringed or re- stricted in any way based on membership in. with. or ?nancial support of a labor organization. Section 3. Labor organization.) The term ?labor organization' means any organization of any kind. or agency or employee repre- sentation committee or union. that exists for the purpose. in whole or in part. of dealing with employers concerning wages. rates of pay. hours of work. other conditions of employment. or other forms of compensation. Section 4. {Freedom of choice guaranteed. discrimination prohibited} No person shall be required. as a condition of employment or continuation of employment: (A) to resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary ai?liation with. or voluntary ?nancial support of a labor organi- ution; (B) to become or remain a member of a labor organization; (C) to pay any dues. fees. assessments. or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; (D) to pay to any charity or other third party. in lieu of such payments. any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues. fees. assessments. or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or (E) to be recommended. approved. referred. or cleared by or through a labor organization Section 5. {Voluntary deductions protected.) it shall be unlawful to deduct from the wages. earnings. or compensation of an employee any union dues. fees. assessments, or other charges to be held for. transferred to. or paid over to a labor organization. unless the employee has ?rst presented. and the employer has received. a signed written authorization of such deductions. which authorization may be revoked by the employee at any time by giving written notice of such revocation to the employer. Section 6. {Agreements in violation. and actions to induce such agreements. declared illegal] Any agreement. understanding. or practice. written or oral. implied or exprewed. between any labor organization and employer that violates the rights ofempioy- ees as guaranteed by provisions of this chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful. null and void. and of no legal effect. Any strike. picketing. boycott. or other action by a labor organization for the sole purpose of inducing or attempting to induce an employer to enter into any agreement prohibited under this chapter is hereby declared to be for an illegal purpose and is a violation of the pro-visions of this chapter. Mode! Legislation from American legislative Emhonge Council State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 23 Si APPENDIX Right to Work Model Legislation (Continued) Section 7. {Coercion and intimidation prohibited] It shall be unlawful for any person. labor organization. or of?cer. agent or member thereof. or employer. or officer thereof. by any threatened or actual intimidation of an employee or prospective employee. or an employee's or prospective employee's parents. spouse. children. grand-children, or any other persons residing in the employ- ee?s or prospective employee's home. or by any damage or threatened damage to an employee's or prowectiVe employee?s property. to compel or attempt to compel such employee to join. af?liate with. or ?nancially support a labor organization or to refrain from doing so. or otherwise forfeit any rights as guaranteed by provisions of this chapter. It shall also be unlawful to cause or attempt to cause an employee to be denied employment or discharged from employment because of support or nonsupport of a labor orga- nization by inducing or attempting to induce any other person to refuse to work with such employees. Section 8. {Penalties} Any person who directly or indirectly violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not exceeding (insert amount) or imprisonment for a period of not more than (insert time period). or both such fine and imprisonment. Section 9. [Civil remedies.) Any employee harmed as a result of any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be entitled to injunctive relief against any and all violators or persons threatening violations and may in addition thereto recover any and all damages. including costs and reasonable attorney fees, of any character resulting from such violation or threatened violation. Such remedies shall be independent of and in addition to the penalties and remedies prescribed in other provisions of this chapter. Section 10. [Duty to investigate} It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorneys of each county (or the attorney general of this state) to investigate complaints of violation or threatened violations of this chapter and to prosecute all persons violating any of its provisions, and to take all means at their command to ensure its effective enforcement. Section 11.(Prospective application} The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all contracts entered into alter the effective date of this chapter and shall apply to any renewal or extension of any existing contract. Section 12. An emergency existing therefore. which emergency is hereby declared to exist. this Act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval Section 13. {Severability clause] Section is. {Repealer clause] Section 15. {Eifective date] Approved by the ALBC Board of Directors in January 1995. Reapproved by the ALEC Legislative Board. January 28. 2013. Model Legislation from Amer-Icon Legislative Exchange Candi 24 0 State Policy Network A'h APPENDIX Worker Choice Model Legislation Appendix A: Worker?s Choice Model Legislation' De?nitions: (A) 'lndependent bargaining? or ?to bargain independently? means to bargain between a public employer and a public employee with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, adjustment of grievances or other terms and conditions of employment without the intervention of an employee organization, bargaining agent, or exclusive bargaining representative. (1) independent bargaining does not grant any greater or lesser rights or privileges to public employees who have chosen to represent themselves in a unit with an exclusive representative than those public employees in a unit without an exclusive bargaining representative. (ii) indep endent bargaining does not grant any greater or lesser duties or obligations for a public employer to public employees who have chosen to represent themselves in a unit with an exclusive bargaining representative than those duties or obligations the public employer owe to public employees in a unit without an exclusive bargaining representative. (B) 'Bmployee organization" means any association or organization of employees, and any agency, employee representation committee, or plan in which employees participate that exists, in whole or in part, to advocate on behalf of employees about grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work. (C) ?Public employee" means a person holding a position by appointment or employment in the government of this State, or any of its political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, public schools. and any authority, commission or board, or in any other branch of public service. (D) "Public employer? means any state or local government, government agency, government instrumentality, special district, joint powers authority, public school board or special purpose organization that employs one or more persons in any capacity. (13) 'Collective bargaining' means the performance of the mutual obligation of the representatives of the public employer and the employee organization designated as an exclusive bargaining representative to meet and bargain in good faith in an e??ort to reach written agreement with respect to wages, hours, and terms and conditions ot?empioyment. (F) ?Exclusive bargaining representative" means any employee organization that has been certi?ed or designated by the [state agency] pursuant to the provisions of [insert applicable state labor law] as the representative of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit to represent the employees in their employment relations with employers. Public employee choice guaranteed. (A) Public employees shall have the right to independently bargain in their relations with the public employer. Model Legislation ?um Mackinac Center for Public Policy State Workplace Freedom Toolkit - 25 ?x APPENDIX Worker Choice Model Legislation (Continued) (B) No provision of any agreement between an employee organization and a public employer, or any other public policy, shall impose representation by an employee organization on public employees who are not members of that organization and have chosen to bargain independently. Nothing in any collective bargaining agreement shall limit a public employee's ability to negotiate with his public employer or adjust his grievances directly with his public employer, nor shall a resolution ofanysuch negotiation or grievance be controlled or limited by the terms of: collective bargaining agreement. (C) There shall be not more than one exclusive bargaining representative designated by the [state agency] pursuant to the provisions of [state labor law] as the representative of the public employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit. (D) No provision of any agreement between an employee organization and a public employer, or any other public policy, shall impose any wages or conditions of employment for members of an employee organization which are linked or contingent upon wages or conditions of employment to public employees who are not members of an employee organization. Model Legislation from Mackinac Centerfor Public Policy 26 - State Policy Network 13-1! Li: 7" How to Respond to Leftist Attacks NETWORK on State Think Tanks State Solutions. National impact. Conservative organizations must defend like-minded groups that are under threat. Dozens of liberal organizations with hundreds of billions of investors? dollars at their disposal are using their considerable in?uence to co-opt corporate America. On issues ranging from the environment to healthcare to religious freedom, many American companies now take public positions in line with the Bernie Sanders crowd to appease this liberal mob. Despite this tremendous pressure on corporations, there is a deafening silence from conservatives. This silence comes at our peril. Leveraging tools such as shareholder activism and corporate indexes, the liberal network is now leaning on corporate America to help achieve one of its ultimate goals?defunding the conservative movement. Liberal shareholder proposals were part of the strategy that saw more than 100 corporations disassociate from the American Legislative Exchange Council. Liberal corporate indexes from groups such as the Human Rights Campaign are now punishing companies that donate to groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and The Heritage Foundation. This network has created a sound business model that can be deployed to defund any conservative group at a moment?s notice. The Free Enterprise Project is using shareholder activism to ?ght back. But it's not enough. Corporations need to hear from conservatives as much as they hear from liberals. Our network must do more to defend those who ?nd themselves in the leit?s crosshairs. Justin Danhafdirecb; the Free Ente/pn?se iject (PEP) which exposes e?'orls by left-wing Interest groups to divert businesses away #007 best practices. Focus and determination can decrease the influence of public?sector unions. Four years ago, the Freedom Foundation reinvented itself, and what had been a traditional think tank morphed into an ?action tank" whose primary focus is on reversing the stranglehold public-sector unions have over our government. Thanks to the Freedom Foundation?s aggressive outreach program in Washington and Oregon, 21,000 home healthcare and family childcare providers have opted out of SEIU in the past year alone, costing SEIU a staggering $11 million in lost dues revenue. From the outset, we knew the unions wouldn?t take our success lying down. Every worker who opts out costs SEIU hundreds of dollars a year. And money, not U18 welfare of its members, is the union's top priority. SEIU and its minions quickly created a C4 to spread lies, intimidate and 1 @pm bully staff and board members, protest our events, and engage in coordinated litigation (?iawfare?) to bury the Freedom Foundation in legal fees. The Freedom Foundation consider these attacks a badge of honor. If you're being ignored by the unions, you aren?t doing your job. They only ?ght when they fear losing to you. Never let the attacks divert your attention. Instead, double down on your efforts and show your supporters what success looks like. Brian Minn/ch Is the executive vice president the Freedom Foundation. Media outreach and public engagement helps manage totalitarian attacks. Typically, those on our side simply want to be left alone?but we don't have that option with the left. Totalitarians cannot win in the arena of ideas, so they ?name, shame, and defame" to make their opponent too toxic to support. We see this tactic play out on college campuses, and we?ve experienced their intimidation game against little-known organizations in lhe freedom movement. When the opportunity presented itself to attack an organization on the basis of gun legislation, the left didn?t go after me National Ri?e Association instead they chose the American Legislative Exchange Council, a little-known think tank with no public-facing infrastructure. Leftist groups executed a two-pronged approach to ruin ALEC: overwhelm lawmakers with hateful messages in their email and hometown media, and threaten corporate executives with nationwide boycott campaigns. Having no communications department to respond to the threats and attacks, ALEC was left unable to defend its members, many of whom decided they had litde choice but to disassociate with the offending entity. ALEC was the canary in the coal mine, but it can also serve as a great educator. Realizing its weakness, ALEC built a communications and membership team to provide rapid-response help during attacks and focus on outward-facing messaging to the public. It took a couple years to change the nature of the conversation surrounding ALEC, but with a dedicated focus on media outreach and public engagement, ALEC emerged stronger and better able to manage attacks from the totalitarians. Ashley Varner directs the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) 501(6)? advocacy startup, ALEC/lotion. .