BECK RIGHTS 2001:

ARE WORKERS BEING HEARD?

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 10, 2001 

Serial No. 107-15 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

 77-906 pdf WASHINGTON : 2002

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chairman MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

RIC KELLER, Florida HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
iii

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents...........................................................................................................iii

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES . 2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, MAJOR R. 

OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES.................................................................................................... 7 

STATEMENT OF WENDY FIELDS-JACOBS, ADMINISRATIVE ASSISTANT, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO WORKERS, DETROIT, MICHIGAN

....................................................................................................................................... 10 

STATEMENT OF JANET COPE, GREAT FALLS, VIRGINIA ............................... 13 

STATEMENT OF HARRY BECK, PORTLAND, OREGON.................................... 16 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PENROD, BARTLOW, CALIFORNIA....................... 18 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG SICKLER, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA .......... 21 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. CORSON, ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND 

AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, UPPER MARLBORO, MARYLAND.......... 25 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND J. LaJEUNESSE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT AND 

STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE 

FOUNDATION, INC, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA.................................................... 29 

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE 

NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES.................................................................................................. 59 

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF THE RANKING 

MINORITY MEMBER, MAJOR R. OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .......................................... 81 

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WENDY FIELDS-JACOBS, 

ADMINISRATIVE ASSISTANT, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO 

WORKERS, DETROIT, MICHIGAN ......................................................................... 87
iv

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JANET COPE, GREAT FALLS, 

VIRGINIA .................................................................................................................... 97 

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF HARRY BECK, PORTLAND, 

OREGON.................................................................................................................... 105 

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROBERT PENROD, BARTLOW, 

CALIFORNIA ............................................................................................................ 125 

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CRAIG SICKLER, CHARLOTTE, 

NORTH CAROLINA ................................................................................................. 157 

APPENDIX H - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. CORSON, 

ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, UPPER MARLBORO, 

MARYLAND ............................................................................................................. 205 

APPENDIX I - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RAYMOND J. LaJEUNESSE, JR., 

VICE PRESIDENT AND STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK 

LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA................. 217 

APPENDIX J – LETTER FROM ANNE BRADBURY, WASHINGTON 

REPRESENTATIVE, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., 

ROSSLYN, VIRGINIA .............................................................................................. 269 

APPENDIX K – SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROBERT 

PENROD, BARTLOW, CALIFORNIA..................................................................... 273 

APPENDIX L – LETTERS FROM VARIOUS UNIONS CONCERNING 

OBLIGATORY MEMBERSHIP AND PAYMENT OF DUES................................ 277 

APPENDIX M – LETTER OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 

TEAMSTERS: DEAR SCAB..................................................................................... 301 

APPENDIX N – LETTER FROM INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED 

AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT OF WORKERS 

OF AMERICA – UAW: NLRB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ............................. 305 

APPENDIX O – NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY: INTERNATIONAL UNION, 

UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA....................... 311 

APPENDIX P – SEVEN-DAY TERMINATION NOTICE: UNITED FOOD AND 

COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1036................................................ 315 

APPENDIX Q – LETTER REGARDING DISCHARGE FOR FAILURE TO 

BECOME MEMBER OF UNION AND RESPONSE............................................... 319
v

APPENDIX R - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT............................................................................................................ 325 

APPENDIX S – NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER WITH 

ALLEGATIONS LISTED.......................................................................................... 331 

APPENDIX T – UAW PUBLISHED LIST OF “DISHONORABLE” UNION 

WITHDRAWLS ......................................................................................................... 341 

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................... 345
1

HEARING ON BECK RIGHTS 2001: 

ARE WORKERS BEING HEARD? 

_____________

Thursday, May 10, 2001 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn 

House Office Building, Honorable Charlie Norwood, Chairman of the Subcommittee 

presiding.

 Present: Representatives Norwood, Biggert, Ballenger, Isakson, Culberson, 

Owens, Kucinich, Mink, Woolsey, Sanchez, and Solis. 

 Also present: Representative Andrews. 

 Staff present: Stephen Settle, Professional Staff Member; Heather Oellermann, 

Legislative Assistant; Peter Gunas, Director of Workforce Policy; Patrick Lyden, 

Professional Staff Member; Michael Reynard, Deputy Press Secretary; Deborah L. 

Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; 

Peter Rutledge, Minority Staff; Maria Cuprill, Minority Staff; Brian Compagnone, 

Minority Staff. 

Chairman Norwood. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

 Good morning to one and all. Under Rule 12(b) of our committee rules, any oral 

opening statement at this hearing is limited to the chairman and ranking minority 

members. This allows us to focus on hearings from our fine panel of witnesses much 

sooner and helps members to keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other members have 

statements, they will be included in the record upon request. 

 I would like to make an opening statement, after which I will ask Mr. Owens or 
2

his designee to do the same. 

Mr. Owens. Point of order. 

Chairman Norwood. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. Owens. I understand there is a camera recording this hearing, and that is not allowed 

under the rules. I would like to note that I don't mind your extension and expansion of 

the rules, as long as you're willing to establish that as a pattern for the committee so that 

either side may utilize a camera at their discretion. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Owens, thank you very much for your statement. I recognize 

your concern. I have been informed that, actually, it is permissible under the rules to 

have the camera. It's not permissible to have television cameras. But we have a great 

precedent set in this Congress, and other Congresses, of having cameras in our hearing 

rooms, but I want you to understand, and in the spirit of good fellowship, I believe either 

side should be able to have a camera at our hearings any time they're requested. And that 

means to me, when you request one, I'm certainly not going to object and I would 

appreciate it if you would withdraw your objection this morning. 

Mr. Owens. I agree with the Chairman, and I hope that that's clearly stated on the record. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Chairman Norwood. Well, unless he missed it over there, it's memorialized in the 

transcript. 

 Once again, good morning, and welcome to you all, especially our fine panel of 

witnesses who have volunteered their time to help us understand what appears to be a 

serious problem. 

 With the objective of investigating the severity of alleged problems, the 

Subcommittee has assembled today in exercise of its authority to oversee the operation of 

certain aspects of this nation's labor and employment laws. The potential problems that 

we will examine today are alleged abuses of our system of laws in the aftermath of the 

Supreme Court's 1988 holding in the case of Communication Workers v. Beck. 

 This is not the first time that this Committee has been called upon to examine the 

alleged abuses in this area of law. Since the Beck case was decided over a dozen years 

ago, this committee has, on several occasions, found it appropriate to examine issues 

relating to allegations of a lack of enforcement and/or allegations of organized labor's 

disregard of the individual rights discussed in the Beck decision. Today we find it 

necessary to revisit these issues and, hopefully, update and expand our understanding. 

 To begin our inquiry, I want to outline the subcommittee's intended approach for 

today. Our oversight objective is very narrow and very clear. Quite simply, it is alleged 
3

that the statutory limitations placed upon labor unions are being disregarded. We want to 

find out whether these allegations are true, and, if so, whether these abuses are 

widespread or systemic. 

 Let me attempt to frame the context of the abuses that we are here to question 

today. In the 1930s, Congress developed a master plan for the nation's labor laws. Under 

that master plan, unions were empowered to assess dues to those who would directly 

benefit from their collective bargaining activities. The scope of that empowerment 

included levies upon some that found the payment of these dues objectionable. 

 This master plan was not perfect. The fact that Congress found it necessary to 

seriously modify the plan on two previous occasions seems to indicate that serious flaws 

have been uncovered since 1930. And not surprisingly, the debate over legal flaws and 

abuse of law has been ongoing since the 1930s. 

 Today we are merely carrying forward this debate with a surgical examination of 

particular flaws alleged to exist in this system. At issue is whether some union officials 

have gone over the line and thereby unjustifiably infringed upon the individual rights of 

workers. Personally, what amazes me about the question of where union power abruptly 

stops and must defer to inalienable, individual rights is that the complaints of abuse come 

from the union movements' own rank and file. 

 Now what are these workers complaining about? Simply, they claim that the 

unions are over-reaching. They say some unions disregard the limitations placed upon 

their conduct. The complaints are that the unions are deaf to the demands of workers to 

remain within the boundaries of the law. I have heard these complaints and in response to 

them want to add some personal observations about these allegations of abuse. 

 Based on the evidence I have seen, I am convinced that some union locals do, in 

fact, regularly trample on the rights of individuals in far excess of the scope of their 

permissible authority. It is difficult to look at the extensive record that this committee 

has compiled and conclude otherwise. What I am wondering, however, is whether these 

practices of deception and misconduct are more than isolated incidents of abuse. 

 So to kick off our investigation, I just want to share some of the questions in my 

mind that actually led up to this hearing, and I would like to use the overhead system to 

help explain why I've come to suspect this abuse of our laws is real and systemic. And if 

we could go to the first overhead? 

 Well, I guess we can see that one. 

 What troubles me most about the inalienable rights discussed by the Supreme 

Court in the Beck Case is the abstract nature of these rights in contrast to the very 

practical and actionable nature of the unions' statutory empowerment by Congress. 

 What so disturbs me is that I perceive as a disconnect between the abstract rights 

of an individual under natural law and the violation of individuals' rights by union under 

color of statute. It is this disconnect, I believe, that has seemed to create a system very 
4

ripe for and even tolerant of union abuse. 

 To be clear, what I am talking about are instances where the unions' exercise of 

power appears to be clearly outside of the scope of their statutory authority, but 

nevertheless seems to trump the fundamental rights of individuals. After being trumped, 

individual rights are placed in a position analogous to David going up against Goliath and 

individual rights are constructively negated. 

 And if we could have Overhead 2 now, please? 

Mr. Owens. A point of order? 

Chairman Norwood. Point of order recognized. 

Mr. Owens. Is it possible to position that so I can see it? 

Chairman Norwood. Well, I don't know how easily that is moved, and I can't see those 

on the side, either. 

 That particular overhead simply says, ``Independent pollster John Zogby reports 

that 57 percent of all Americans now support President Bush's proposed tax cut. Zogby 

also reports that 55 percent of all union members support the proposed tax cut, as well.'' 

Mr. Owens, can you see that better? 

Mr. Owens. I can see it now. 

Chairman Norwood. Okay. 

 Here is why I think all of this has occurred. The harsh reality of the environment 

in which Beck rights operate is one where hard, cold cash for unions is of paramount 

concern. This hard, cold cash translates into very real functional political powers for 

unions. In fact, what is at stake here is roughly $6 billion each year that unions take in 

from their rank and file. 

 Of course, not all of this money is used to support political causes. But what we 

learned from the Supreme Court in the Beck case is that often more than 70 percent of 

these moneys are used for purposes not associated with the unions' collective bargainingrelated functions. These collective bargaining functions, in general, constitute illegal 

boundary lines of the union's empowerment to compel payment of union dues over an 

individual's strong objections. When this line is crossed, inalienable rights originating 

directly from our God and supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution are then violated. 

 And, certainly, the intent of the master plan of Congress for our nation's labor 

laws in terms of statutory limits seems ignored. The fact is we really do not know exactly 

how much money unions spend on political causes and ideologies. Needless to say, they 

don't seem willing to volunteer that information. But we do know for sure that it is a very 

substantial amount of money. 

 And if we could go to the third overhead, please? 
5

Can everybody see that? I won't read it if you can see it. 

 Zogby reports that only 33 percent of the American public said that they opposed 

the President's proposed cuts. Opposition is about the same for all union members. Only 

34 percent said that they opposed the President. 

 Now here is just one example of money being spent in areas potentially outside 

the union's permissible boundaries. This example is important because it points out an 

obvious disconnect between the spending habits of some unions and what seems to be the 

true preferences of the union's rank and file. This example strongly suggests why a 

worker might want to stop money from being taken and used for a political cause that is 

contrary to their individual belief. 

 Specifically, a recent poll conducted by John Zogby's organization caught my 

attention. Most agree that the Zogby organization has a reputation for independence and 

accuracy, and I am not suggesting that my use of this poll data be associated with 

anything other than what the data says on its face. Unmistakably, however, the Zogby 

poll found that 57 percent of all Americans supported President Bush's proposed tax 

package, and, specifically, the tax cuts in that package. 

 Here is what is remarkable about this poll and on point for our discussion today.

Fifty-five percent of all union members clearly said they supported the President's 

proposed tax cuts, as well. Fifty-five percent of the union members polled said they 

supported the President's proposed tax cuts. It is difficult to misinterpret this fact. 

 Please go to Overhead Number 4. 

 The data also suggests that only 33 percent of all Americans oppose the 

President's plan and that only 34 percent of all union members said that they opposed the 

tax cut package; 55 percent of the union members supported, 34 percent opposed, and 11 

percent were not sure exactly how they felt about these tax cuts. 

 Even when we factor in the legal small print and all the mumbo jumbo about plus 

and minuses, clearly, it seems to me, a majority of union members said that they support 

tax cuts and a small minority said that they opposed them. 

 Overhead 5, please. 

 A few weeks ago, however, most of us heard claims that the unions around the 

nation would mobilize to ensure defeat of the President's tax cut package. Now a 

mobilization of this magnitude is not going to come cheaply, so I wonder, before 

promising to make a very significant financial commitment of this size, did anyone in the 

union movement consider that only a third of their rank and file seemed to be in 

agreement with such an expensive course of action. 

 If you'll go to Slide 6, please? 

 Now, obviously, any massive union mobilization is going to be funded from the 

paychecks of all union households, ironically, including those who said that they support
6

the tax cuts. 

 As an aside, perhaps these rank and file workers who support the tax cuts believe 

that these cuts will mean more take home pay in their checks. The joke is that instead of 

adding more money to their paychecks, those waiting for tax relief could find even more 

taken out of their paychecks, and what is not funny about this joke is that all union dues 

payers will have no choice but to financially support a cause that only one-third of the 

rank and file seem to support. There's no wonder we hear some complaints. Something is 

very wrong with this picture. 

 Please go to the next overhead. 

 Let me bring this back into context of our oversight inquiry for today. 

 At least in theory, our Supreme Court has instructed us that union members have 

a right to object to the use of their money to support causes that they disagree with and 

find distasteful. The Supreme Court has said that a union's use of this money over the 

objections of workers is a clear violation of the authority Congress gave to the unions.

So we are then compelled to ask: have the unions taken liberties that they are not entitled 

to take? Have any of these unions crossed the line, and, in doing so, did they squash the 

individual rights that we hold so sacred in this country? That is what is at issue, ladies 

and gentlemen, as is what happens when individuals attempt to exercise the rights that are 

their own and should never, never be taken from them. 

 Once again, are individuals who attempt to exercise their rights put in the place of 

David standing before Goliath? 

 Slide 8. 

 If history is a guide, based upon what we are hearing from far too many workers 

who have tried to exercise their rights, workers who choose to exercise their Beck rights 

do face a Herculean task. Too many workers seem to get the runaround when they try to 

exercise their rights. It sounds so easy in concept. The union honestly calculates the 

amount attributable to a pro rata share of its financial core cost and thereafter stops 

charging or even trying to charge an objecting member anything more. 

 But that does not seem to be the way it works, and, instead, we get claims from 

some workers that they are given false and misleading information by their union, and 

other workers say even when they know what they are due, they are subjugated to 

procedural roadblocks and delays that seem to be intentionally crafted to avoid what is a 

legal right. No wonder these workers turn to Congress and ask, ``Why are unions being 

liable to or allowed to squash my individual rights?'' Today, we will try yet again to learn 

what answer we should give to these workers. 

 I would ask that the PowerPoint system be cut off now, please? And, at this time, 

I now yield to the ranking minority member, Mr. Owens, for whatever statement he 

might wish to make. 
7

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – 

SEE APPENDIX A 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, MAJOR R. 

OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chairman Norwood. 

 As this is the first hearing by this Subcommittee under your leadership, let me 

congratulate you on your selection as chairman. We also appreciate your innovations 

with respect to technology, but I think, on behalf of some of the members of my 

Subcommittee, on our side, we would like to have the technology improved so that all 

members can clearly see what's being discussed, I don't think we've reached that point 

yet, it will be corrected for here. The people on the side couldn't see, and maybe we can 

make some further innovations and improve on that. 

 Your predecessor, Mr. Ballenger, and I were able to work together to achieve 

enactment of some important legislation, such as the needlestick bill, which greatly 

improves the protection afforded to healthcare workers against accidental needlesticks. I 

am hopeful that you and I will be able to work together as effectively to improve 

protections for American workers. 

 Today's hearing, which, you know, at some point I thought maybe it was a ways 

and means hearing, but I guess all things are germane. Today's hearing concerns the right 

to refrain from paying union dues, a subject much discussed. We don't talk about the 

right to refrain from paying church dues or the right to question corporations and how 

they spend their money, the money of their stockholders, a lot of parallel situations that 

never get questioned. But we are here again to question the right to refrain from paying 

union dues. 

 This is the first time this subcommittee has held a hearing on this issue, but it is 

hardly a new subject. Another subcommittee held two hearings on the issue in 1996. The 

Full Committee held an additional hearing in 1997, and also marked up related 

legislation. Last year, you had another subcommittee held hearing on so-called right to 

work laws. Numerous other hearings related to union dues and the Beck decision have 

been held both by Senate committees and by at least one other committee in the House. 

In addition, legislation related to the Beck decision has been regularly defeated, both as 

free standing bills and as amendments to campaign finance reform legislation over the 

last several congresses. 

 So we are hardly examining an issue for the first time today. Rather, this hearing 

comes considerably closer to beating a dead horse. I should also add that this is only an 

oversight hearing. This subcommittee does not have legislative jurisdiction for the 

National Labor Relations Act, and this is not even a committee that has jurisdiction for 
8

the Railway Labor Act. 

 In the past, opponents of the labor movement have attempted to distort the nature 

of unions. It may be useful, at the outset, to summarize the state of the law today. 

 I have a slight cold and the rises and falls of my voice are not due to anger, I 

assure you. It's just the cold. 

 By law, unions are democratic organizations whose officers and policies are 

determined by the majority will of their members. By law, unions are already under 

more extensive reporting and disclosure requirements than virtually all other institutions 

in the country, and are required to report all of the income and expenditures to the 

government and the public. 

 No employee, including those who are covered by an agency fee contract, is 

required to join a union. Unions are required to inform all employees who are subject to 

an agency fee contract that they are not required to pay full union dues. Unions must 

inform such employees of the percentage of union dues that are used for purposes other 

than those directly related to the provision of representational services. Unions must 

establish procedures to ensure that those employees who choose not to, do not pay any 

part of the union dues that are not used for purposes reasonably related to the union's role 

as a bargaining agent. Fair, independent and inexpensive procedures exist by which 

employees may challenge or contest the union's assessment of its expenditures. 

 Bargaining unit members may have a statutory right to either nullify the agency 

fee provision of a contract or decertify the union if a majority feels that the agency fee 

provision or the union is no longer in their best interest. Union members have a statutory 

right to inspect their union's books and to vote on the amount of dues the union will 

charge its members. 

 Finally, employees who believe that a union is not in compliance with the law 

may act to protect their rights simply by filing a charge with the National Labor Relations 

Board. It is the government, not the employee, who undertakes the cost of investigation 

and prosecution. Alternatively, unlike the worker who has been fired in violation for 

anti-union animus by an employer, agency fee objectors may also sue their union directly 

for failure to provide fair representation. 

 If the concern of my colleagues is that worker rights are not adequately protected 

by the National Labor Relations Board Act, I fully agree. However, my concern extends 

to the right to form and join a union. Beck was decided in 1988. Since that decision, 

there have been less than 100 cases total pending at the NLRB concerning Beck rights.

In a single year, the NLRB issues more than 1,000 complaints alleging unlawful 

discharge of a worker by an employer, yet a worker has more protection to refuse to pay a 

few dollars a month to a union than the worker gets when he or she is fired for supporting 

the union, and his or her entire livelihood is at stake. 

 I think that it is a measure of concern Republicans have for the rights of workers 

that this is the fifth hearing held in this committee on the right of workers to refuse to join 

a union since the Republicans have been in control of the Committee, but we have not yet 
9

held a single hearing on the thousands of workers who are unlawfully discharged for 

trying to join or form a union. 

 I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, 

MAJOR R. OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES- SEE APPENDIX B

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Owens, and I appreciate your kind 

words and willingness to work together, and I look forward to that. 

 Before I introduce our panel of witnesses, let me remind each that they have been 

invited to speak for approximately five minutes. And I'd like to say to the Committee 

that my view is these people have come a long way, and I'm going to be liberal with all of 

them in a fair and equal manner. I will be less liberal with us as we ask questions. So 

everyone may be able to ask their questions, but we need to give these folks as much 

leeway as we can. 

 As I mentioned earlier, each of the panelists may submit additional copy or 

information for the record up to 10 days after this hearing if they see fit to do so. 

 We have assembled here today a group of individuals who have played a 

significant role in the development of our nation's labor laws. In my mind, the strength, 

courage and patience that these individuals displayed in their quest for justice has helped 

protect the freedom that we enjoy in this country. Accordingly, I believe that each of us 

owes to these individuals a debt of gratitude for the personal sacrifices that they have 

made. 

 Let me begin, ladies and gentlemen, by recognizing each individual on our panel. 

 First we have Ms. Wendy Fields-Jacobs, and I'm grateful very much for you being 

here.

 Can I have something about each one of them? 

 Yes. Ms. Jacobs is administrative assistant to Vice President Bob King, 

International Union, United Auto Workers, and we are thankful for your presence. 

 We have Mr. Harry Beck from Portland, Oregon. We're delighted you're here. 

We are grateful for you making that long trip across the country. 

 We have Ms. Janet Cope from Great Falls, Virginia. 

 We have Robert Penrod from California. You've come a long way, too. Thank 

you.
10

Craig Sickler from Charlotte, North Carolina, thank you so much for being here. 

 Christopher Corson, who is associate general counsel, International Association 

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, from Upper Marlboro, Maryland, thank you so 

much.

 And Ray, let's get your right name right. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. LaJeunesse. 

Chairman Norwood. Ray LaJeunesse. How did I do? Well, if you'll answer to that, I'll 

try to get closer next time. 

 Ray is with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, from 

Springfield, Virginia. And, again, just on a personal level, I truly appreciate people like 

you who are willing to come to Washington and take your time to try to enlighten 

Congress. It needs all the enlightenment it can get. So thank you very much for that. 

 And, Ms. Jacobs, if we could, I'd like to recognize you first for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY FIELDS-JACOBS, ADMINISRATIVE ASSISTANT, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO WORKERS, DETROIT, MICHIGAN 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Good morning. I'm happy to be here. I'm Wendy Fields-Jacobs. 

Chairman Norwood. Would you pull that microphone just a little closer? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. I'm Wendy Fields-Jacobs and I work in the organizing department of 

the United Auto Workers Union. I have about 10 years experience helping working 

organize in healthcare and industrial workplaces. 

 For almost 30 years, the UAW's constitution has allowed members who do not 

agree with the union's political and legislative activities to receive a rebate of the portion 

of their dues used for these purposes. To receive this rebate, which amounts to only a 

small percentage of total dues, a member only has to send a letter to the union's secretary 

treasurer. 

 Historically, only a tiny number of members have objected to the use of their dues 

for political purposes and requested the rebate. This is because the vast majority of UAW 

members strongly support the participation of the union in the political/legislative 

agenda. Members recognize that what the union is able to achieve through collective 

bargaining is profoundly affected by decisions made in Washington and in state capitals 

across the country. Our wages, healthcare and pension benefits, and the very existence of 

our jobs are directly affected by governmental policies. Thus, to truly protect and 

advance the well-being of UAW members. The union must be involved in advocating 

their interests in the legislative and political process. 
11

I note that the question today is: ``Are workers being heard?'' There are workers 

testifying who represent the tiny minority of union members who do not want the union 

to speak for them on Capitol Hill. I respectfully submit there are millions more who do, 

those whose voice at work are silenced, those that Mr. Owens has talked about, the 

workers who want to form a union, the workers who want to address the concerns in the 

workplace, the workers who want a pension, the workers who want affordable healthcare, 

the workers who want to end the scarring and want to address health and safety concerns. 

 The National Labor Relations Act says that workers have the right to form a 

union, freedom of harassment, intimidation or termination. But this right has been 

rendered meaningless by an army of union-busting consultants with an arsenal of union 

tactics at a cost-benefit analysis that makes it cheaper for employees to risk violating the 

law rather than complying and risk facing workers at work. 

 I have witnessed firsthand the tremendous courage it takes for workers to 

withstand the anti-union assault daily launched by those companies when they want to 

unionize. And make no mistake, it is an assault. They harass, use surveillance, 

discipline, and, yes, the ultimate plant closing threat to lose your job. 

 Among the tactics I see routinely, and I just want to name a few because it's all 

pretty detailed in my testimony, and it's sad to say, as I sit before you, it didn't take me 

long to think about all the injustices and what the employers do to break the law. 

 Discharging of union supporters: ZF Industries, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 70 

percent of the workers signed up, joined together, and wanted a union. After an antiunion offensive, they fired five key union supporters and threatened to close the plant.

These five employees were out of work for more than a year before being reinstated with 

their back pay. When the workers undertook a subsequent organizing drive, the company 

decided not to run its anti-union campaign. And last year these employees voted by a 

two to one margin to form their union. 

 Singling out of union supporters by management for unfair or unequal application 

of work rules is an often more commonplace, written disciplines for minor infractions 

happens daily. Better yet, the promise of economic incentives is equally used, employers 

using the carrot rather than stick. A recent example, organizing campaign just this very 

last week at Johnson Controls in Toledo, Ohio. After those workers decided to talk, 

come together, form their union, the employer held a meeting and gave a four dollar 

wage increase promised one over a two year period. That was a 40-cent increase in pay 

clearly designed to undermine the organizing drive. 

 Psychological terrorism, one on one meetings it is common for employers to take 

workers in a room, ask them over and over again why they want to make these decisions, 

make them feel disloyal to their companies. 

 Again, another very, very powerful one I talked about earlier was this use of plant 

closings, the job threats. MTD, ``Wall of Shame,'' a very common occurrence we see in 

organizing campaigns, where the employer will put up on the wall, in Willard, Ohio, 

plants that closed, moved to Mexico. Do they ever say that some of those plants were not 

unionized? And the majority were not. Do they ever say, we're just giving you an 
12

example? No, the implication is clear: unionize, this could be you, your plant will close, 

you will lose your livelihood. 

 If this subcommittee truly wants to assure that workers' voices are heard, I 

respectfully suggest that it needs to strengthen the rights of workers' rights to organize 

instead of posting Beck notices at the workplaces of all federal contractors, as President 

Bush recently required by executive order. It should also post notices for informing 

employees of their legal right to organize and make that right have meaning. Congress 

should amend the NLRA to stiffen penalties for Section 8(a)(1) and (3) violations and to 

balance the rights of employers with those of unions during organizing campaigns. 

 The right to organize is a civil right in the United States, just like the right to vote.

The freedoms of speech and self-expression are rights honored in this country, except in 

the workplace. Our nation trusts these workers that I know and see and have to look in 

the eye daily to make the right decisions to elect you as leaders to run our country. 

Shouldn't we also trust workers to make meaningful, thoughtful decisions about 

maintaining and improving the quality of their work life for themselves and their family? 

We need you to stand by your constituents when they want to have their voice at work 

being heard. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WENDY FIELDS-JACOBS, ADMINISRATIVE 

ASSISTANT, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO WORKERS, DETROIT, 

MICHIGAN – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Ms. Jacobs, and we appreciate your advice 

on what the Committee should do, but I'll remind all the witnesses, this is a surgical 

hearing and the subject today is about the Beck decision. 

 Now I'd like to tell my colleagues that we have a rule vote and then we should be 

free for the next couple of hours. So if everybody will try to go vote and come back 

immediately, maybe we can begin again in 15 minutes and not be interrupted. 

 So the Committee is adjourned for 15 minutes. Thank you. 

 [Recess.] 

Chairman Norwood. Would the witnesses please take their seats? 

 The Committee will now reconvene, and I'm looking for Mr. Beck. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Beck went to the men's room. 

Chairman Norwood. That's a legitimate reason to wait. 

 The lady on our subcommittee was back on time. The rest of them should have, 

too, shouldn't they, Patsy? 
13

Mrs. Mink. We're following in your footsteps. 

Chairman Norwood. Absolutely. 

 If I hear no objection, we'll go ahead and ask to hear from Ms. Cope, please, until 

Mr. Beck gets back. 

STATEMENT OF JANET COPE, GREAT FALLS, VIRGINIA 

Ms. Cope. Honorable Members of the House of Representatives, good morning, my 

name is Janet Cope. 

Chairman Norwood. Ms. Cope, move that microphone pretty close, please, ma'am. A 

little more than that, maybe. 

Ms. Cope. Pull it? 

Chairman Norwood. Yeah, just pull it to you. 

Ms. Cope. Honorable Members of the House of Representatives, good morning, my 

name is Janet Cope. I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before you today 

to share my experiences with you. 

 I'm a sales and reservation agent with United Airlines and I have been employed 

in this capacity since 1991. My duties require communication with customers to promote, 

develop, and finalize the sale of our company's worldwide product and services. As you 

can see, my co-workers and I find ourselves on the front line of dealing with customers 

and the problems they face. The efficiency with which we work and the attitude we 

display in our dealings with customers is crucial to the overall perception by the flying 

public and ultimately to its success or failure. 

 In 1999, an election was held among the public contacts at United Airlines. The 

question was whether we wanted to be represented by the International Association of 

Machinists and Aerospace Workers, also known as the IAM. The IAM narrowly won the 

election, receiving 51 percent of the votes. I voted against the IAM because I believed it 

would not materially improve conditions for a group of United workers to which I 

belonged, but could interfere with the accomplishment of the service mission that we 

have.

 But we are not here today to debate the pros and cons of union representation.

Instead, I believe the key issue today is one of individual rights. What are the rights of an 

individual who, for whatever reasons, opposes union representation? What are the rights 

of an individual whose political views are not consistent with those so widely and 

expensively proclaimed by the union? And, finally, what additional safeguards do we 

need to protect these individual rights, especially in a right to work state? 
14

These are the issues that I can talk about from personal experience. I am not a lawyer, 

nor an economist or a political scientist, but I do know what my own experience has been 

and I would like to share some of it with you. 

 I will first share with you my experience with the issue of compulsory 

membership. I felt very strongly that I did not want to join the union, but I also felt 

strongly that I did not want to lose my job. Shortly after the election, the IAM assigned 

shop stewards to set up a table and have every employee sign two forms, a membership 

form and an authorization for check-off dues. As can be seen from Attachment 1, the 

IAM placed a notice and distributed clearly stated that failure to obtain union 

membership could cause one to lose employment with United Airlines. 

 At this time, I contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 

for assistance. Foundation attorney Ray LaJeunesse explained to me that despite what 

the contract might say, I could not be required to join the union and I could insist on 

paying less than full dues if I notified the IAM that I objected to paying for more than 

collective bargaining and contract administration. I know Mr. Owens mentioned 

something about not wanting to pay dues at all, but that wasn't the case, because, as I 

mentioned earlier to Mr. Corson, that shop stewards don't pay any dues whatsoever. So 

that was not my intention of not wanting to join this union. 

 But neither the IAM or, for that matter, the management of United Airlines, told 

me that I had those rights, and even though I had addressed inquiries to them through 

letters and phone calls. And, to this day, this practice is still exercised with all new hires 

at United Airlines Reservation Center and at Dulles Airport. 

 In addition, I received notes from the secretary of the local lodge, Mr. John 

Kennedy, as well as from a shop steward, Mr. Frank Contendo, from United, stating they 

would not accept the dues check-off form without the membership form being signed. 

These are my Attachments 2 and 3. 

 At that time, I became really concerned that I might lose my job. I had received 

two highly conflicting versions of what I could be required to do. Finally, I had to send 

my dues check-off form directly to the district lodge by way of Federal Express, because 

the local lodge refused to process it. 

 Next, relying on the assurance that I had independently received that I could not 

be forced to join the union or lose my job because I did not join, I mailed my objection 

letter to the IAM. I then learned that I would be required to do this, to renew my 

objection every November. This struck me as unfair since members are not required to 

affirm their membership each year. It was at this time that I offered to be a plaintiff in a 

class action lawsuit called Lutz v. Machinists, which eventually resulted in an injunction 

requiring the IAM to honor continuing objections. So the outcome was favorable, but 

there remains a question of why individuals must resort to the courts to obtain elementary 

fairness.

 In addition to the issue of membership, I have experienced an ongoing struggle 

over dues. Before the election, we were never given a satisfactory answer to the most 

elementary question: what will our dues be? Since the election, our dues have gone up
15

each year and we have not had any new contract or pay raise to offset or justify the 

increase. These increases occur without notice. You notice your paycheck is getting 

smaller and there's no answers. 

 Another problem I have encountered is that United Airlines refuses to deduct 

anything less than full dues. I had to choose between paying the full dues by payroll 

deduction with subsequent refunds by the union or paying the reduced amount directly to 

the union by personal check. I chose payroll deduction because it is more convenient and 

also avoids a possibility that I might inadvertently miss payments and be fired for 

nonpayment. If union dues are missed for two consecutive months, any employee can be 

fired. However, I have to wait three to four months before I receive my rebate check, and 

that occurs after several phone calls to the local lodge. 

 To this day, I have not received my rebate check for four months and I am tired of 

calling. My rebate check is only $8.27 a month and the monthly dues are $34.67 a 

month. it is hard to fathom that for only $26.40 for a non-member per month, or basically 

$700,000 a month the IAM collects, it's spent only for contract negotiations and 

administration. 

 Another key issue regarding dues for our purposes today is the issue of that 

portion of dues that goes to finance political activity. Once I objected, it is true that I've 

been allowed to reduce my dues payment by the percent that is alleged to have gone to 

support political activity, or to look at it from the other side, my dues are alleged to 

consist of only that percent that is necessary for collective bargaining and contract 

administration. 

 But who determines what percent is spent for collective bargaining and contract 

administration and what percent is utilized to support the union's political agenda? The 

answer is that it is the union itself that does this. The IAM conducts its own audit to 

determine what portion of the dues is chargeable and what portion is non-chargeable to 

non-members under the Supreme Court decision. 

 These two issues, membership and dues, are among the most important ones that I 

believe you should address, though there are others. Ultimately, I believe that the 

Railway Labor Act is antiquated and unfair and needs a thorough overhaul. 

 Once again, I appreciate your attention and the opportunity you have given me to 

participate in this process. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JANET COPE, GREAT FALLS, VIRGINIA – SEE 

APPENDIX D 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Ms. Cope. We appreciate you, too. 

Mr. Beck, you're up for five or so minutes. Pull the microphone close to you so 

we can hear you well, please, sir. 
16

STATEMENT OF HARRY BECK, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Mr. Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honored members of this dias. 

Ms. Jacobs and I agreed at least on one thing this week. We sat next to each other 

on the plane from Chicago and never recognized each other. So we've at least agreed 

upon one thing. 

 I thank you for the opportunity to give a little history of my case and the efforts 

that I made to not only get my rights, but also the rights of all workers. I've waited for 

over 12 years for someone to finally address the inconsistency of having won the war, but 

continuing to have to fight the battles. 

 I want to go on record as stating, I believe anyone who wishes to join a labor 

union should have the unfettered right to do so. I believe union workers must be allowed 

to give unions political activity dollars as an example of this country's belief in freedom 

of speech. However, the freedom of speech carries with it the freedom to express speech 

which it disagrees with and stand against union dogma. Herein lies the problem resulting 

from Beck v. CWA. A part of this free speech concept must also allow for no speech. I 

further hold no person should be forced to pay servitude to any organization whose 

ideology is contrary to their beliefs just in order to feed their family. 

 In 1966, my free right of choice was taken from me when I was grandfathered 

into a union contract, forcing me to pay confiscatory dues to a union I no longer wanted 

to represent me. I was told, as a condition of employment, I must accept their 

representation, the very least of which meant paying union dues. Finding CWA using my 

union dues to purchase political favor from politicians to whom I'm opposed, I filed suit 

to have the courts uphold my right of no speech. Twelve years later, the United States 

Supreme Court agreed, in part, with this right, stating I did not have to pay for union 

political speech. The Court determined I must pay for only the part of union 

representation mandated by the Taft-Hartley Act-bargaining, arbitration, and grievance 

support. The Court reduced the amount I must pay from 100 percent to only 21 percent 

of full union dues. 

Mr. Owens, Representative Owens, mentioned a list of things that union members 

have the right for, but another court upheld the union's right to force me from 

membership in order to get my reduced dues allocation. This laughs in the face of logic.

I must pay for bargaining, arbitration, and grievance support, but have no voice in the 

activities contributing to these events. I have no voice in putting forth my own defense in 

grievance hearings. I have no vote in the leadership of the union who represents me in 

issues dealing with my company. Workers are still under this constraint today. 

 Twenty-one states have dealt with this legal inconsistency and freed workers for 

making a free choice. The Right to work states saw the incongruity of the federal laws 

and attempted to set the enslaved worker free. But even in these states, union bosses are 

openly ignoring and attempting to still force the worker into their union in order to feed 

their family, which causes the worker to have to, again, file more litigation and the union 
17

hopes to withstand all of that simply because it has the money to outlast most of the 

workers.

 In an attempt to defend my rights, I joined with Governor Pete Wilson and 

Secretary Chao in winning freedom for California public workers. Prop 226 was heavily 

fought by big unions to the tune of $14 million, all of those dollars coming from union 

dues, many taken from hardworking teachers and public workers in California and spent 

against their will. 

 In 1992, President George Bush signed into law an executive order demanding all 

companies receiving government contracts must notify their workers of their Beck rights. 

But, again, union bosses united to spit in the face of both the executive and judicial 

branches of the United States government. AFL-CIO president, John Sweeny, on the 

very weekend that President Bush signed the executive order codifying Beck v. CWA, 

announced he was immediately raising each worker's union dues by a 25 percent or 25 

cent amount in order to raise $25 million to defeat President Bush and Republican 

Members of congress. Many of those dollars came from Beck supporters. 

 Seeking help from the Justice Department to defend Supreme Court decisions was 

a total waste of time. Lacking the courage to take up the cause of the little man against 

big labor, Justice would defer to the National Labor Relations Board. This is laughable.

The NLRB was established to provide a defender for the hard worker being mistreated by 

big labor. But this group of union cronies locked up over 300 cases--not 100, sir, but 

over 300 cases are related to Beck. The seats on the board became a haven for union 

counselors appointed by Presidents trying to pacify union bosses. This becomes the 

proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. Again, the worker loses. Big labor continues its 

nose-thumbing at our system of government. 

 For over 30 years I have watched union thugs ignore the law, union gangsters' 

tactics of fear and mayhem against those they purportedly represent, union bosses 

becoming privileged occupants aboard Air Force One, while snubbing their collective 

noses at the executive and judicial branches of government. How long will it take before 

the little guy gets an even break in this hard-fought battle? 

 Honored members of this committee, you can make a difference now. Before the 

House of Representatives again this year is a bill which can go a long way to freeing us 

from these abuses. The National Right to Work Act finally will codify Beck. 

Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and other bold members of the House 

understand our cause. History shows state law fails. Executive orders fail. The Justice 

Department has failed us. It is left to this honored body to step forward with legislative 

integrity to release hard-working men and women from ever again being forced to pay 

servitude to union bosses in order to feed and clothe their families. We need your 

protection, and we need it now. 

 Unions fearing the passage of the National Right to Work Act are already 

scheming to ignore this bill when passed. Don't let this happen. Don't let this bill be 

watered down by liberal political correctness. In fact, the only amendment I would 

suggest to this bill would be one severely punishing anyone who chooses to spit in your
18

faces. How much longer will we have to wait? It's now up to you. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF HARRY BECK, PORTLAND, OREGON – SEE 

APPENDIX E

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Beck. We appreciate you being here. 

Mr. Penrod, we'd like to hear from you now, please. 

 Pull it up close. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PENROD, BARTLOW, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Penrod. Okay. Honorable Members of the House of Representatives, my name is 

Robert Penrod. I want to sincerely thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to 

appear here and provide a short summary of my 10-year legal battle with the Teamsters 

Union and the NLRB. 

 For over 18 years I have worked at Fort Irwin, California, for various military 

contractors. Throughout my employment, I have been forced to accept representation by 

Teamsters Local 166, a union that I neither chose nor voted on. I originally became a 

member of the Teamsters Local 166 because I was told that union membership was a 

requirement of my employment, and the union gave me no choice in the matter. 

 Indeed, Local 166 never provided me with any initial Beck notice concerning my 

right to remain a non-member or pay only reduced dues or my right to object to receive 

audited financial disclosure concerning the union's activities. 

 When I learned of my right to be a non-member, under CWA v. Beck, I promptly 

resigned my membership in the Teamsters' Union and objected to supporting its political 

and ideological activities. The union's response was one of stonewalling and delay. 

Months went by with no reduction in dues or acknowledgement of my rights. My fellow 

employees who had also resigned from union membership and I were stymied in our 

efforts until we called the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. 

 In 1990 and 1991, with the help of the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, 

several of my co-workers and I filed a series of three unfair labor practice charges against 

Teamsters Local 166, alleging various failures to comply with Beck. 

 On April 29, 1992, Local 166 entered into a settlement with the regional director 

of the NLRB, Region 31, promising to provide all non-members with adequate and 

timely notice of their rights and to provide all objecting employees with adequate and 

independently audited financial disclosure. 
19

But almost before the ink was dry on the settlement agreement, the union was 

already violating it. The Teamsters local demanded that my fellow employees and I pay 

almost 94 percent of dues or be fired, and the union failed to provide adequate and 

audited financial disclosure for each level of the union hierarchy that received a portion 

of the employees' dues money. The union gave me what it called a statement of 

expenses. This document was only a single, handwritten page of numbers, which 

contained no explanations of the union's activities, nor any explanations of the 

methodology used by the union to arrive at its 94 percent calculation. 

 None of the schedules or breakdowns that were mentioned were provided to me 

and this statement of expenses was not accompanied by any notes or other written 

explanations of the criteria used by the union to arrive at the chargeable and nonchargeable allocation. Among the unexplained line items were entries such as ``other 

expenses,'' ``other refunds,'' and ``other professional fees.'' 

 Moreover, the statement of expenses provided no clue as to the identity of any of 

Local 166's affiliated unions which received part of the dues, even though the payments 

to these unnamed affiliates, presumably the per capita line item, make up 24.4 percent of 

Local 166's total expenditures. None of the objecting employees were given an iota of 

disclosure to explain or justify the expenditures and allocations for the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters or any other affiliates of Local 166. 

 Based only upon this single page of financial disclosure, the union demanded that 

my fellow employees and I begin immediately paying, as a condition of continued 

employment, 93.67 percent of its full monthly dues. 

 In 1992, after receiving these demands, we filed another unfair labor practice 

charge alleging that new violations of the Beck ruling and also asking that the prior 

settlement agreement be set aside because the union failed to comply with it. In 1993, the 

NLRB regional director revoked the prior settlement agreement, and, in 1995, the case 

was transferred to the full NLRB in Washington for decision. 

 At this point the case was frozen. For over 4 years, until 1999, no action 

whatsoever was taken by the 5 member NLRB in Washington. Our case sat, along with 

dozens of others, while we faced the constant prospect of discharge for failing to pay the 

dues that the union demanded. 

 Finally, in 1999, the NLRB ruled. Amazingly, after its inexplicable five year 

delay, a unanimous NLRB upheld the union's single handwritten page of numbers as 

adequate financial disclosure. That was under International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 

Local 166, DynCorp Support Services Operations. 

 Anyway, that--citing its concern for the union's time and expense, needed to make 

such disclosures and explaining that the union was entitled to a wide range of 

reasonableness, the Board concluded that the union had made a proper judgment call 

within its discretion. Not a single word was said about the plight of us individual 

employees about our constitutional rights to refrain from supporting political activities 

we oppose or about the fact that for almost 10 years we were forced to work knowing that
20

we could face discharge if we failed to pay what the union demanded. 

 Again, with the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, we 

filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. It goes without saying that we could have never afforded this battle, nor would 

we ever have undertaken it, without the help of the National Right to Work Foundation. 

 In Penrod v. NLRB, the Court of Appeals granted our petition for review and 

reversed the NLRB decision, finding that ``the Board's decision [was] unsupported by 

reasoned decision-making and in conflict with Supreme Court and circuit precedent.'' 

The Court of Appeals found that ``the Board's decision reflects a classic case of lack of 

reasoned decision-making.'' 

 Indeed, because the NLRB's decision was so lacking in legal support, the NLRB 

paid $17,016.30 in taxpayers' money under the Equal Access to Justice Act to cover legal 

fees and expenses that were incurred on my behalf. That the NLRB went to 

extraordinary limits and lengths to diminish my rights under Beck and refuse to follow 

that decision is highlighted by the fact that legal fees are rarely awarded under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act and can only be awarded when the NLRB's position is not 

substantially justified. Obviously, the NLRB's ruling against me was not substantially 

justified under any scenario. 

 Now, after more than a decade in litigation, I have a Court of Appeals victory, but 

my case is back before the NLRB. After the Court of Appeals decision, it took the 

NLRB over 15 months just to issue an order accepting that decision as the law of the case 

and beginning the process of forcing the union to comply. 

 I now begin a new chapter of monitoring the union's compliance. My co-workers 

and I have yet to ever see a shred of properly audited financial disclosure about what 

Teamsters Local 166 and its affiliates do with the dues money that they forcibly extract 

from employees. 

 I'm sure I speak for a large group of American workers when I ask you to 

investigate the information given to you, formulate a solution to correct the injustices and 

initiate a plan of rapid action to ensure our inalienable right to work without threats, 

duress or harassment. 

 Ensure, through your efforts, that thousands of dollars of litigation and years of 

legal maneuvers are no longer needed for employees to receive the rights that are 

supposed to be honored on day one. 

 In conclusion, I say to this honorable House that in a free country like America, 

employees should not have to run a decade-long legal gauntlet like this in order to protect 

their cherished right to refrain from supporting causes they oppose. If I was forced to pay 

money to a specific church or religious group in order to keep my job, this would not for 

a minute be permitted in this great country. By the same token, no one for a minute 

should assume that it is fair or proper for me or my fellow employees to support, with our 

hard-earned money, a Teamsters union that we vehemently oppose. For this reason, I say 
21

that the only solution is full freedom in the workplace via a national right to work law. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROBERT PENROD, BARTLOW, CALIFORNIA – SEE 

APPENDIX F 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Penrod. 

 And I'll remind the members of the Committee that I'm giving the witnesses a 

great deal of leeway. Mr. Penrod came all the way from California. I won't be so nice to 

us, but I'd like to give them as much time as is possible. 

Mr. Sickler, we'd like to hear from you now. Please pull that mike up close. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG SICKLER, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. Sickler. Thank you. 

 I'd like to thank the honorable members of the Committee for inviting me here to 

tell you how I came to be fired from my job at U.S. Airways at the request of the union. 

 I started working as an aircraft mechanic in 1978 for a nonunion airline. In 1980, 

I left that airline and I took a job with Eastern Airlines, in Miami, and when I got there I 

was told that as a condition of employment, I had to join and pay dues to the International 

Association of Machinists. I was given a card to sign that would allow them to deduct 

my dues from my paycheck. I was never told there was any option. I was never told I 

could become an objector or I could be a non-member agency fee payer. I had to learn 

that on my own. 

 It didn't take me long--as a member I started receiving publications and literature 

from the union and I found out that their political positions were exactly opposite of my 

own. I also learned that the then international president of the union, one William W. 

Winpisinger, was an avowed socialist. 

 In 1988, I left Eastern. I took a job with Piedmont Airlines, in North Carolina, 

also represented by the IAM. Piedmont ultimately merged with U.S. Airways. Again, I 

was still represented by the IAM. Since 1980, throughout my employment, I've been 

forced to accept representation by the IAM, a union that I disagreed with politically, that 

I neither chose nor voted on. 

 Over the years I managed to learn about my right to object under the Beck and 

other Supreme Court decisions, and found out that I didn't need to pay to support political 

candidates and causes that I opposed. Part of this discovery was through a notice 

published yearly in the IAM's quarterly International Journal, under the deceptive title of 

``Notice to Employees Subject to Union Security Clauses.'' This was deceptive to me. 
22

It's a page of fine print. It appears to apply to employees of the union and no one that I 

know of, and myself at the time, didn't know what a union security clause was. 

 After a particularly blatant bit of political activity on U.S. Air property in 1994, I 

read through the fine print of that page and discovered I could become a dues objector. If 

filed an objection. My specific objection was to paying for union political activities. 

 As a result of the objection, I was thrown out of the union. This is the policy of 

the union. Regardless of your motivation for being an objector or for what part of your 

dues you object, you're thrown out of the union. You can't vote on shop stewards. You 

can't vote on the contracts you have work under. You can't vote on union bylaws. You 

can't vote on the expenditures of money for new union halls. You can't attend social 

activities. You're thrown out. You're a non-member. 

 The local that I belonged to in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, basically chose to 

ignore that IAM policy. They let me continue to vote, continue to go to the union 

picnics. I went out on strike with them. I walked the picket line. I didn't really know I 

was a non-member. 

 In 1998, U.S. Airways closed the maintenance base in Winston-Salem and I 

moved to Charlotte, North Carolina. My representation with the IAM changed only in I 

was now under the jurisdiction of a new local. Now this new local did enforce that 

policy. They didn't let me vote, they didn't let me attend union activities, and they posted 

my name on the bulletin board. 

 And I think we have an Exhibit 1 of that. This is prior to my name being posted 

on here. They still maintain this policy. Each year they post a list of people who are 

dues objectors, the implication being an objection to paying anything for representation.

Many dues objectors object, as I do, only to the political expenditures. 

 Once I had become an objector, I finally received what they called financial 

disclosure. It's not financial disclosure. I'm getting a little ahead of myself here. But not 

really. What they called financial disclosure and what I had seen of the way the union 

was operating and what they were doing led me to believe that they were not, in fact, 

telling me how they were spending my money, that there was very little I could tell about 

what they were doing with my money. 

 Do we have Exhibit 3? 

Chairman Norwood. Leave that up a little longer, please. 

Mr. Sickler. Yes, this is a page of what they sent me, and still send out on a yearly basis, 

called ``financial disclosure.'' And from this, you're supposed to be able to tell how 

they're spending your money and how much of it is chargeable to you as a non-member 

agency fee payer and how much of it is not. Not all of the pages they sent me were 

legible. Very few of them pertained to anything that had anything to do with me. My 

particular local union never sent out any financial information for that local, the reason 

being that they had never audited the books of that local, and I don't think anybody knew 

how that local was spending its money. They claimed to keep books, but they were never 
23

audited.

 Because of these problems with this financial disclosure and the continued 

politicking of the union that I opposed, I, in 1998, filed a challenge to their calculation of 

my reduced reduction of dues. When I filed this challenged, I requested additional 

financial information from the union. I requested something that was legible. I requested 

the notes and schedules. I asked them, in several instances, how they calculated these 

numbers. 

 I was notified that they accepted my challenge and that they would schedule 

arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. I did a little bit of research on the 

Internet. I found out that the AAA has a Web site. I read through their rules to see how 

this arbitration would be conducted. Included in these rules was a statement that an 

escrow account would be established at the request of the union, and I could place the 

disputed amounts of money into that escrow account until the arbitration was concluded. 

 I waited. I never got any additional financial disclosure. I never heard anything 

about any arbitration. I was never informed that an escrow account had been established.

Instead, I was notified, after three months, that I was arrears in my union dues and if I 

didn't pay within 15 days, all of the back dues, plus $125 into a union which I had been 

thrown out of, that I would be fired. The union would demand that I would be fired from 

my job. 

 I replied to that notice. I told them I was waiting for arbitration, I was waiting for 

the establishment of an escrow account, I was waiting for the financial information I had 

requested. I was ignored. No one responded to any of those issues. 

 In 1999, in May of 1999, with no response, no further information, no compliance 

under Hudson or Beck, the union demanded that I be fired. 

 I went through a little internal appeals procedure with the company. The 

company stated that the issues I raised, the constitutional issues under Ellis and Hudson 

and Beck, were just not germane to this discharge, and I was fired. The dead horse that 

Mr. Owens spoke of rose up and kicked me pretty hard. 

 In November of 1999, almost a year after I had filed my challenge, and five 

months after I had been fired, the American Arbitration Association was finally contacted 

by the union to schedule arbitration over my challenge--a little too late for me. 

 Interestingly, the arbitrator chosen for this case that I wouldn't really participate in 

was one Gladys W. Gruenberg, who teaches social economics at St. Louis University. 

She's listed, interestingly enough, on Teamsters Union Local 1187's Web site as an ally 

of that union. So much for the impartial arbitration that I was going to receive. 

 Needless to say, my discharge had a rather devastating effect on my life. I was 50 

years old, I was looking forward to retiring from U.S. Airways, as I had originally looked 

forward to retiring from Eastern Airlines. I had had to start over. I thought I'd have to 

start over again. 
24

Starting over in the airline business is basically something you do on your own. 

No one pays to move you to a new city. No one gives any regard to the fact that you may 

have 20 years experience in your work field. You start again at the bottom of the 

seniority list, at the bottom of the pay scale, as if you'd never done it before in your life.

This is regardless of whether you moved to an airline represented by the same union or 

no union or a different union. This is what I faced. 

 With the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, I didn't 

have to do that. I filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and the Machinists Union. I 

couldn't have afforded to do this on my own. I would have been lucky to find a lawyer to 

hire who knew enough about this area of law that he could have helped me at all. 

 The IAM spared no expense to fight me. They used their own lawyers. They 

hired lawyers from the Washington, D.C. law firm of Bredhoff & Kaiser. They battled 

every step of the way to make my discharge stick. 

 It didn't. On September 14, the District Court in Charlotte, North Carolina, ruled 

my discharge was unlawful. The Machinists, according to the Court, had failed to meet 

many of the pre-collection obligations that it owes to non-members. The Court ruled the 

union had forced my firing on a ``flimsy and indefensible basis.'' The court said that the 

union had ``untimely and inadequate practices and procedures.'' It called the union's 

officials ``downright arrogant'' and their procedures ``maddening nonfeasance.'' U.S. Air 

has rehired me. The union settled. I feel vindicated, but not really compensated for a 

year-and-a-half that was stolen out of my life. 

 I have never yet received any financial disclosure from the Machinists Union. I 

doubt that I ever will, other than something like this. In order to keep my job, I will 

likely have to continue paying fees to this union, without ever knowing how they really 

spend my money. 

 In conclusion, I say to this honorable House, in a free country like America, 

employees shouldn't have to be fired and face economic and emotional ruin and run a 

two-year legal gauntlet to protect their right to refrain from supporting causes they 

oppose.

 Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CRAIG SICKLER, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 

– SEE APPENDIX G 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Sickler. 

 And, Mr. Corson, we'd love to hear from you now, please. 

Mr. Corson. All right. 

Chairman Norwood. Pull it close. 
25

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. CORSON, ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND 

AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, UPPER MARLBORO, MARYLAND 

Mr. Corson. My name is Christopher Corson. I'm associate general counsel to the 

Machinists Union. I would like to thank the Chairman and other members of this 

subcommittee for the opportunity to address Beck rights on behalf of the Machinists 

Union.

 I will summarize my prepared statement, but I also do want to make sure that all 

the Subcommittee members know that it is the Machinists Union that represents Ms. 

Cope and Mr. Sickler and we will be glad to respond to any questions that any 

Committee members have about their particular situations and our practices. 

 The rights of fee objectors are based on the freedoms of speech and association in 

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. These principles are 

fundamentally important to labor unions, which are America's most vibrant, private mass 

democratic institutions. That democracy is in the establishment of any collective 

bargaining relationship, which must be done by the collective will of a majority of 

employees and appropriate bargaining unit, often through a secret ballot election.

Thereafter, unions are required by federal law, the Labor-Management Reporting and 

Disclosure Act, to continue to operate on voluntary and democratic principles. 

 Local officers must be elected at least every three years by secret ballot. 

International officers must be elected at least every five years, either by secret ballot or 

by a convention of delegates, themselves chosen by secret ballot. 

 In the Machinists Union, our international level officers, our highest-level 

officers, are elected by popular referendum among the membership. Member dues may 

only be increased by the same methods, and all union members have an equal right to 

nominate candidates, vote in union elections and exercise the freedoms of speech in 

association within their unions without fear of discrimination. We operate by those 

values in the Machinists Union. 

 Turning to objector rights, the specific rights we're talking about today, the first is 

called the General Motors right. Under the General Motors right, and it's named for a 

Supreme Court case, all union-membership in the United States must be and is voluntary. 

Employees covered by a union security clause have the right to remain non-members and 

they may satisfy the clause by paying a representation fee to the union instead of dues. 

 The second right is the Beck right. One could also call it after a number of other 

Supreme Court cases that have upheld this right, Hudson, Ellis, Lehnert, Abrams, Abood. 

Under the Beck right, fee payers are further protected because unions are required to 

afford them a notice and a procedure for withholding a percentage of their fees equal to 

the percentage of union activities that are not germane to collective bargaining. 
26

The Beck compliance program of the Machinists Union, it's one of the areas of 

responsibility that I have within our legal department was originally developed by a 

distinguished professor of law from Catholic University of America, Roger C. Hartley, 

who originally formulated the legal bases of our program, our record-keeping 

requirements, and our calculation methodologies. Most aspects have proven durable 

since initiation in 1986, although we have made refinements in response to further 

direction from the courts and our own efforts to anticipate the development of fee 

objector law. 

 For example, we recently responded to the litigation where Mr. Sickler was one of 

the plaintiffs, it is noted in my testimony, by moving from international level auditors for 

our subordinate affiliates to independent certified public accountants. Now I do want to 

note we have used independent certified public accountants for our international level 

auditing since the beginning. We had used trained auditors from our international to 

audit our subordinates and we no longer do that. 

 We also have modified our escrow procedure and we have shortened the time 

between objection and arbitration. For example, the arbitrator brief that covers this year's 

fee objectors' challenges was just filed and it is here. This is what we file and give to 

anyone who challenges our system to fully explain our system, and provide all the 

documentation. 

 Let me describe how the program works at the present time. 

 When we first seek to sign up a bargaining unit employee as a union member or a 

fee payor, we are now using a preprinted three-part form. The top of the form asks for 

basic identification information. Next is a membership application that the employee can 

sign or not, and there is a box which clearly indicates that this is an option. Thus an 

employee's General Motors right is protected. 

 The following section is to check off authorization. It is also optional. At the 

bottom is an important notice that tells the employee to read the detailed explanation of 

Beck rights and procedures, which is printed on the back of the third sheet. The 

employee keeps that third sheet, therefore guaranteeing that he or she has notice. 

 We also, as Mr. Sickler noted, publish our Beck notice each year in the year-end 

issue of our magazine called the IAM Journal. We use a special computer program to 

generate the subscription list for that issue to ensure that anyone who was laid off or 

lapsed during that year receives that issue. This is to make sure that everyone who could 

possibly have a right and a need to get our Beck notice does, in fact, receive it. And our 

magazine is sent to anyone who was covered by a union security clause, not just 

members. 

 A copy of our Beck notice is attached to my testimony. If you review it, you will 

see that it explains objector rights. It explains the reductions that objectors will receive 

the following year, and in our cycle this notice is published in our year-end issue, 

announcing the reductions that will be available to objectors the following years, and 

those reductions are set out. 
27

The notice also explains the time periods and the procedures for becoming an 

objector, the time periods and procedures for challenging our reductions in the 

arbitration, and the procedures for arbitration. Any employee who requests objector 

status is sent the audited financial information that we used in calculating the advanced 

reductions set out in the notice. I do want to note, I do not agree any more than Mr. 

Sickler that the copy that he received of that financial information was adequate. In fact, 

I have responded to requests for better copies and, of course, people should have clear 

copies of the financial information that they deserve, and I've sent them out. 

 We maintain an escrow account at our international level to protect against any 

possibility that we may have the improper use of objector moneys pending the arbitrator's 

award. Currently the amount in that escrow is $180,000, which is far larger than any 

amount that could possibly be in dispute with all of our objectors combined. 

 In the arbitration of challenges we receive, we bear the burden of proof and we 

furnish each challenger with an independent certified public accountant audit of each 

entity to which that challenger's fees go. That is the International District Lodge, if 

appropriate, and the local lodge. 

 As I said, our brief, exceeds 100 pages of detailed explanation about 

methodologies, our record keeping and our calculations, and we attach about two inches 

of exhibits. 

 Now I do want to focus on, obviously, the specific question that, Mr. Chairman, 

you have posed, and that is: are workers being heard here? The Machinists Union is 

proud to have about 500,000 members. Our yearly number of objectors is about 500 to 

700, or a bit more than 1/10th of 1 percent. This year, 13 of those objectors invoked 

arbitration. Last year, the number was only eight. In these arbitrations, only one or two 

challengers will ever actually make a submission to the arbitrator. Given our efforts at 

notice, this low level of response suggests to us that the vast majority of employees who 

pay dues or fees do not object to the activities of our union that the courts have deemed 

nonrepresentational.

 When I talk to objectors or potential objectors directly on the telephone, the 

common complaint is that an employee does not want his or her fees used for campaign 

contributions, but they are not. Campaign contributions must come from voluntary 

contributions to a PAC. They cannot come and do not come from dues or fees. 

 When an objector does withhold a portion of fees from those activities that the 

courts have said are non-germane to collective bargaining, those activities are mostly 

nonpolitical. They include organizing new units, providing services to our retired 

employees, working on our communities to support groups such as little leagues and the 

Boy Scouts, working with our nonprofit affiliates that furnish health and safety training 

and dislocated worker retraining, working for the advancement of civil rights and 

maintaining relations with other labor unions. 

 Some of these non-chargeable activities are politically oriented, but most of them 

involve legislation that is important to working families or they are spent on nonpartisan 

efforts such as voter registration drives or get out the vote drives, which are conducted
28

without regard to party affiliation. All of these efforts strengthen our ability to negotiate 

good contracts, and we actually think they could be recognized as germane to collective 

bargaining, although the courts currently disagree. 

 If an objector's concerns relate to the small portion of partisan political 

expenditures that do take place at election time, such as issue ads, the Beck process is 

truly a bludgeon for that purpose. It is not a scalpel. 

 It also often appears to us that Beck objections are spurred by concerns other than 

the freedoms of speech and association that we're talking about here. By filing an 

objection, employees simply have a way to pay less to the union for the representation 

they are receiving, while retaining full rights to equal representation. Other employees 

may be dissatisfied with the union's germane activities. 

 We did have a challenger last year who submitted to the arbitrator a list of 

subjects on which he disagreed with the way we were administering the contract and 

representing his unit. Now, of course, all of those subjects are clearly germane to 

collective bargaining. He was not a legitimate Beck type objector at all, but we are 

required to treat as Beck type objectors anyone who invokes our procedures. 

 Before leaving the freedoms of speech and association, I would like to request the 

Subcommittee's attention to other important employee rights grounded in these values, 

namely: the right to organize in a union for mutual protection; the right to engage in 

protected, concerted activity; and the right to communicate with the public on issues of 

concern to employees. 

 Employers violate these rights regularly and systematically. The remedies 

available under the federal labor laws take too long and are grossly inadequate. When 

President Bush recently ordered federal contractors to post notices of Beck rights, he 

omitted any mention of these other rights that concern a far greater number of employees 

and desperately need protection. A level playing field is called for here. 

 In closing, I want to emphasize my initial statement: the General Motors right 

and the Beck rights are important. The freedoms of speech and association are 

fundamental values for the labor movement. Even though our evidence shows that 

relatively few employees wish to invoke these rights and our cost of compliance is very 

high, the Machinists Union will continue to honor these values as they apply to objectors, 

but we would also ask employers to honor these values as they apply to our members and 

our potential members. 

 On behalf of the Machinists Union, I would like to thank the Chairman and the 

Subcommittee members for this opportunity, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. CORSON, ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND 

AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, UPPER MARLBORO, MARYLAND – SEE 

APPENDIX H
29

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Corson. We appreciate you taking time 

and your remarks. 

 Now we will conclude with Mr. Ray LaJeunesse. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. LaJeunesse. 

Chairman Norwood. LaJeunesse, okay. 

 Pull that mike close. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND J. LaJEUNESSE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT AND 

STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE 

FOUNDATION, INC, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Chairman Norwood and distinguished members of the Committee, I am 

staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Since the 

foundation was established in 1968, it has provided free legal aid to the plaintiffs in 

almost every case litigated about the right of workers not to subsidize union political and 

other non-bargaining activities. The most famous of these cases is Communications 

Workers v. Beck. 

 I have worked for the Foundation for more than 30 years. I have represented tens 

of thousands of employees in cases like Beck. I was the lead counsel for the plaintiff 

workers in three such cases that I argued in the United States Supreme Court. 

 I commend you for investigating the adequacy of this country's labor laws after 

Beck and related cases. Implementation of Harry Beck's victory in the Supreme Court is a 

serious problem. Many American workers are forced by virtue of a unique privilege 

Congress granted unions to contribute their hard-earned dollars to political and 

ideological causes they oppose. 

 I am talking about union dues and agency fees collected from workers under 

threat of loss of job. These moneys, under federal election law, are lawfully used for 

registration and get out the vote drives, candidate support among union members and 

their families, administration of union political action committees, and issue advocacy. 

These in kind political expenditures amount to between 300 to $500 million in a 

presidential election year. The unions spend many millions more on state and local 

elections and lobbying at all levels of government. 

 Under the National Labor Relations and Railway Labor Acts, employees who 

never requested union representation must accept the bargaining agent selected by the 

majority in their bargaining unit. Then, if their employer and the union agree, the law 

forces these employees to pay fees equal to union dues for the unwanted representation or 

be fired. The evil inherent in compelling workers to subsidize our unions' political and 

ideological activities is apparent. As Thomas Jefferson eloquently put it, ``to compel a 
30

man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he doesn’t 

believe, is sinful and tyrannical.'' Preventing that evil, however, is not easy under current 

law.

 In dissenting from the Supreme Court's first ruling on the problem, in Machinists 

v. Street, the late Justice Hugo Black articulated the difficulty well. To avoid 

constitutional questions, the Court held that the Railway Labor Act prohibits the use of 

objecting workers' forced dues and fees for political and ideological purposes. However, 

the Court majority held that the employees' remedy was merely a reduction or a refund of 

the part of the dues used for politics. Justice Black exposed that remedy's fatal flaw, and 

I quote. 

 ``It may be that courts and lawyers with sufficient skill in accounting, algebra, 

geometry, trigonometry, and calculus will be able to extract the proper microscopic 

answer from the voluminous and complex accounting records of the local, national, and 

international unions involved. It seems to me, however, that this formula, with its 

attendant trial burdens, promises little hope for financial recompense to the individual 

workers whose First Amendment freedoms have been flagrantly violated.'' 

 The Supreme Court's later Beck decision ruled that employees covered by the 

National Labor Relations Act also cannot lawfully be compelled to subsidize a union's 

political and ideological activities. That decision should have paved the way for all 

private sector employees to stop the collection of dues for anything other than bargaining 

activities. 

 However, like Street, Beck is not self-enforcing. Experience shows that Justice 

Black was correct. Without the help of an organization like the Foundation, no employee 

or group of employees can effectively battle a labor union and ensure that they are not 

subsidizing its political and ideological agenda. Even with the rulings in Beck and 

related cases, the deck is stacked against the individual employees. And even with the 

help of the Foundation, which cannot assist every worker who wants to exercise Beck 

rights, complicated and protracted litigation often is necessary to vindicate those rights. 

 Employees must overcome many hurdles to exercise their Beck rights. The first 

obstacle is the compulsory unionism agreements. The courts have long held that actual 

union membership cannot lawfully be required. Yet most unions and employers still 

negotiate contracts that state that ``membership in good standing'' or ``membership'' is 

required. In Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, the Supreme Court sanctioned this 

misleading practice. The Court reasoned that contracts merely use a legal ``term of art'' 

that ``incorporates all of the [judicial] refinements associated with the language.'' 

 The Marquez decision, I respectfully submit, does not consider the realities of the 

workplace. As the then chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, a Clinton 

appointee said in 1998, ``even today, many workers and employers do not understand 

that 'membership' is what the United States Supreme Court has defined it to be,'' not what 

it literally and commonly means. Almost every day, the Foundation receives calls and email messages from employees who believe that the contract under which they work 

requires them to join the union. 
31

Unions have a legal duty to inform workers that they have a right not to join and if they 

do not join, not to subsidize political activities. However, that duty is honored more in 

the breach than in the observance, as Justices Kennedy and Thomas recognized in their 

concurring opinion in Marquez. 

 ``When an employee who is approached regarding union membership expresses 

reluctance, a union frequently will produce or invoke the collective bargaining 

agreement. The employee, unschooled in semantic legal fictions, cannot possibly discern 

his rights from a document that has been designed by the union to conceal them. In such 

a context, 'member' is not a term of art, but one of deception.'' 

 Union officials often tell workers that they must join or be fired as occurred in the 

cases of the employees' testifying here today and other cases I cite in my written 

statement. Union officials also often tell members they will be fired if they resign. An 

example of this practice is Exhibit 1 to my statement, which I understand is in an 

overhead. Even more commonly, unions simply fail to tell employees about their 

options, letting them be misled by the contract or by the common understanding in the 

shop that membership is required. 

 What about employers? Employers have no legal duty to inform employees that 

they do not have to join the union. Moreover, many employers believe that the contract 

requires exactly what it says, membership. Even when employers are aware of the 

Supreme Court's technical construction of the term, ``member,'' they do not inform 

employees that they have the right not to join. Employers do not want legal trouble with 

the union. If an employer tells employees what their rights are, it might find itself 

defending an unfair labor practice charge filed by the union alleging that the employer 

has unlawfully attempted to discourage membership. I cite examples of this in my 

written statement. 

 In sum, forced union membership and compelled financial support of union 

political activities often result from misinformation and misrepresentation engendered by 

the contract provisions that the federal labor statutes authorize. 

 A second obstacle to exercising Beck rights is the ``Hobson's Choice'' workers 

face. Under currently law, only non-members have a right to refrain from financially 

supporting their bargaining agent's politics. Non-members must forego important 

employment rights that accompany membership such as voting on contracts and 

participating in selecting the representatives who negotiate contracts. Under the system 

of exclusive representation the federal labor statutes impose, individual employees cannot 

negotiate for themselves. Consequently, many workers become or remain members 

despite their disagreement with the union's politics, because that is the only way to have 

any say in determining their wages and other terms and conditions that govern their 

working lives. 

 Another obstacle to the exercise of Beck rights is the obscure manner in which the 

courts and National Labor Relations Board permit unions to notify employees of their 

rights not to join and not to subsidize union political activity. When unions give such 

notice, they often hide it in fine print inside union propaganda that dissenting workers 

find offensive and therefore do not read. My written statement describes an egregious 
32

but typical example of that practice. 

 When employees do learn about their right to resign and object, they often face 

coercion, threats and abuse. Threats of violence sometimes occur. My statement gives 

examples of these coercive tactics. 

 Many unions use more subtle techniques of ostracism and harassment. Unions 

often publicly identify workers exercising Beck rights as pariahs to be shunned for 

disloyalty. Unions routinely publicize non-members' names, addresses and other 

personal information with predictable consequences. My statement documents these 

practices, too. 

 Even if they do not face coercion, threats and harassment, workers who object to 

use of their compulsory dues and fees for political purposes must negotiate technical 

procedural hurdles. The most significant are the requirements imposed by most unions 

that Beck objections be submitted during a short window period, typically a month or 

less, and be renewed every year. The National Labor Relations Board has approved both 

of these obstacles to the exercise of Beck rights. As a result, many employees are forced 

to pay for union political activities because their objections are considered untimely 

under union rules. 

 Why should constitutional rights be available only once a year? Employees 

should be free to stop subsidizing union political activity whenever they discover that the 

union is using their money for purposes they oppose, not just during a short and arbitrary 

window period. 

 Workers also should be free to make objections that continue in effect until 

withdrawn, just as union membership continues until a resignation is submitted. Two 

federal courts have declined to follow the Board on this issue, however, these courts' 

rulings that continuing objections must be honored apply only in the Fifth Circuits, three 

states, and to the Machinists Union nationwide, but only under the Railway Labor Act. 

And, of course, most employees are under the National Labor Relations Act. 

 Another procedural hurdle non-members face is finding out how the union spends 

their dues and fees, so they can intelligently decide whether to object. In Teachers Local 

1 v. Hudson, the Supreme Court held that ``potential objectors must be given sufficient 

information to gauge the propriety of the union's fee.'' Yet the NLRB has ruled that 

unions need not disclose any financial information to non-members until after they 

object.

 The Supreme Court also specified in Hudson that ``adequate disclosure surely 

would include the major categories of expenses, as well as verification by an independent 

auditor,'' and that disclosure must be made not only for the local collection the money, 

but also ``for its affiliated state and national labor organizations.'' 

 Yet when unions give employees financial disclosure, it often is sketchy, as it was 

in Mr. Penrod's case. Many unions refuse to disclose expenses of affiliates that receive 

portions of the dues and fees, and they claim it is too burdensome. Many unions also do 
33

not provide audited financial disclosure. The NLRB has approved all of these practices. 

 In the Ferriso case, one U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Board's holding that a 

union's allocation of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses disclosed to non-members 

need not be verified by an independent auditor. In Mr. Penrod's case, the same court 

rejected the Board's position that objectors need not be given a detailed explanation of 

how the money is spent, a full auditor's report and an explanation of how affiliates use 

their part of the money, and that only objectors must be given financial disclosure.

However, the Board will not necessarily follow Ferriso and Penrod and other cases 

because it is the Board's standard practice ``to ignore precedent from federal appellate 

courts in favor of its own interpretations'' of the law. 

 Disclosure of a union's calculation of its chargeable expenses and an independent 

audit are necessary because only the unions posses the facts and records from which the 

proportion of chargeable expenses can be calculated. The problem is that unless an 

employee undertakes litigation to challenge the fee, the unions themselves determine 

what the chargeable expenses are. Obviously, it is in the union's self-interest to 

maximize the fees. So what we have is the fox guarding the hen house. 

 The independent audit Hudson requires provides some check on the union's 

calculation of its chargeable expenses. Unfortunately, that constraint is not now what it 

should be, because the lower federal courts have held that the auditor need not verify that 

the union correctly allocated its expenses as chargeable or not. That cramped view of the 

auditor's function in this context is consistent with neither accounting practices in other 

contexts, nor the Supreme Court's Hudson decision, as I show in my written statement. 

 Another major obstacle workers face is the National Labor Relations Board's 

failure to enforce Beck vigorously, both in processing cases and applying judicial 

precedent. Beck was decided in 1988, by the Supreme Court, the NLRB's general counsel 

and the Board have failed to process expeditiously unfair labor practice charges of Beck 

violations. The Board delayed for eight years before it issues its first post-Beck decision.

Many other Beck cases languish before the Board for similar lengthy periods of time. 

 The then NLRB chairman admitted, in Exhibit 2 to my written statement, that at 

the end of July, 1997, the 65 oldest cases then before the Board included 21 Beck cases, 

almost a third of the old cases. As my statement explains, the Board later issued 

decisions in some of those cases, only after the objecting employees petitioned for 

mandamus from the D.C. Circuit. 

 Many Beck cases do not even reach the Board. The general counsel has settled 

many Beck charges with no real relief for the employees. The Board's regional directors 

have refused to issue complaints and dismiss many other charges at the general counsel's 

direction.

 The number of cases I'm talking about is not the 100 Congressman Owens 

referred to. Those are just the cases that the Board decided. There are hundreds of other 

cases that were deep sixed before they got to the Board. Significantly, in 1994, the 

general counsel's office instructed all regional directors to immediately dismiss Beck 

charges they found unworthy, but not to issue complaints on worthy Beck charges, but to
34

submit them to the Division of Advice. This memorandum is Exhibit 5 to my statement. 

It's also on overhead. 

 It's circumstantial evidence that the general counsel intended to delay the 

processing of Beck charges or spike as many as possible. 

 In 1998, the general counsel set up yet another roadblock. In Exhibit 6 to my 

statement, which I believe also the relevant portion is in overhead, the then acting general 

counsel instructed that Beck charges must be dismissed unless the non-member has to do 

this--``explains why a particular expenditure treated as chargeable in a union's disclosure 

is not chargeable and presents evidence or give[s] promising leads that would lead to 

evidence that would support that assertion.'' 

 This is impossible at the charge stage because non-members do not have access to 

the union's financial records. The Board itself has given workers little protection and 

relief when it finally decides Beck cases. As already discussed, the Board has permitted 

unions to give notices calculated not to be seen by potential objectors, approve technical 

requirements that make it more difficult to object, and weaken procedural protections for 

non-members that the Supreme Court found constitutionally required for public 

employees. 

 The Board also has refused to follow Supreme Court precedent as to what 

activities are lawfully chargeable. In Beck, the Supreme Court concluded ``that Section 

8(a)(3) of the NLRA, like its statutory equivalent, Section, Eleventh of the RLA, 

authorizes the exaction of only those fees and dues necessary to performing the duties of 

an exclusive representative in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues,'' 

quoting from--the Supreme Court was quoting from a Railway Labor Act case, Ellis v. 

Railway Clerks. 

 Moreover, Beck ruled that decisions in this area of the law, under the RLA, are 

``controlling,'' under the NLRA. Yet, in Ellis, the Supreme Court held that union 

organizing is not lawfully chargeable. Despite the Court's clear mandates, the Board has 

held that organizing is chargeable to objecting non-members under the NLRA. 

 Workers under the NLRA who wish to vindicate their rights can avoid the Board 

by suing their bargaining agent in federal court for breach of the duty of fair 

representation. Workers under the RLA must bring such an action. That brings me back 

to Justice Black's prediction that the refund or reduction remedy adopted in Street is 

inherently inadequate. If employees manage to learn their rights, withstand the subtle and 

no so subtle pressures in the shop, leap the many procedural hurdles and challenge the 

union's calculation, they encounter the problems just as Black predicted. 

 They must retain lawyers, accountants and statisticians to rebut the union's claim. 

Then they must spend years fighting procedural motions by the union and engage in 

discovery, reviewing the union's books and records, and endure protracted trials and 

appeals. As I detail in my written statement, these cases typically take a decade or more 

to litigate. 
35

In conclusion, the experiences of the workers who have testified today are not 

isolated examples of abuse of law, but part of a systemic problem. The National Labor 

Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act, as written by Congress and interpreted by the 

courts and the NLRB, do not adequately protect the constitutional and statutory right of 

workers not to subsidize union political and ideological activities. 

 The only federal labor laws that do adequately protect that fundamental right are 

the Federal Labor Relations Act and the statute that covers postal employees, both of 

which prohibit agreements that require workers to join or pay dues to a union. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RAYMOND J. LaJEUNESSE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT 

AND STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE 

FOUNDATION, INC, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA – SEE APPENDIX I 

Chairman Norwood. I would like to thank each of you for your insightful testimony. 

The Subcommittee is very grateful to you and your time and energy that you bring to this 

issue.

 I've had numerous requests from members of the Committee and others to take a 

five-minute recess. Nature calls in various parts and if we will, we will recess for five 

minutes and come right back to it, so we can get to the questioning. 

 Thank you. 

 [Recess.] 

Mr. Isakson. [Presiding] We'll call the Subcommittee back to order. 

 We have various members who have run for a vote and have run to do one thing 

or another, which probably will happen for the duration of the meeting. But if we wait on 

everybody to get back, we would wait forever. So I will take the liberty, as temporary 

chair, to ask a question, and then we'll go to Ms. Sanchez. 

Mr. Corson, with regard to facts, not opinions expressed by Mr. Sickler, was his 

explanation of his experience, in your opinion, accurate? 

Mr. Corson. No. Mr. Sickler. 

Mr. Isakson. Excuse me for interrupting you. 

Mr. Corson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Isakson. But what specific part or parts would you say are inaccurate? 

Mr. Corson. Mr. Sickler decided not to pay any fee at all to the union, and so we're not 

really, in Mr. Sickler's case, talking about the portion, which he would have the right to
36

withhold under Beck and related cases. He was not paying any fee at all. 

 I did not personally have any discussions with Mr. Sickler during the 

development of the case, but I did have a number of phone calls with his co-plaintiff, Mr. 

Masiello. And Mr. Masiello was very clear on the phone to me that he believed he had 

the right to a personal, individual escrow account under his reading of the Hudson case, 

and he does not. Hudson does not say that. 

 And I was very concerned when I heard that Mr. Masiello was not paying his fee, 

because I do know what some of the consequences are and I tried very hard to explain to 

him that he didn't have this right. And, in fact, after about three or four phone calls, Mr. 

Masiello actually agreed with me. He understood what I was telling him. And, at that 

point, he still refused, because, at that point, he had gone so long he needed to pay a 

reinstatement fee. 

 Now none of those issues came up in the litigation. The litigation turned out to be 

about something that was really not part of the development of the case at all. It was very 

frustrating for all parties. But if we had had better communication, we may well have 

been able to resolve it. 

Mr. Isakson. Okay. For the benefit of the testimony, unlike the open microphone on 

testimony, we're going to have quicker answers on questions. So I appreciate your 

answer. No need to elaborate. 

 I'll get to you in just a second, Mr. Sickler. 

 The question, do you have any questions regarding the time between the 

arbitration being set up and the time it actually happened? 

Mr. Corson. The arbitration in that situation should have been sooner. 

Mr. Isakson. That's fine. The reason I asked the question is this, and I'm sure Mr. 

Sickler would have different opinions than you would have and you would have different 

opinions than he would have, but in my general experience, it sounds to me like the 

limited number, you said 5 to 700 in your testimony, out of 50,000, I believe, or 500,000. 

Mr. Corson. Five hundred thousand. 

Mr. Isakson. The complaints appeared to be a small number and 8 or 13 actually went to 

arbitration. I understand that. But I'm making an observation that you don't have to 

defend, because it's just an observation that seemed replete throughout everything. If 

remedies or the process to a remedy is protracted, it is a deterrent, many times, for 

somebody to seek a remedy, if you follow what I'm talking about. That's the observation-

-that's why I wanted to ask, because I read in the testimony, the form that you supplied, 

which all workers are given, as to their remedies, and I believe Number 3 or 4 

specifically outlined the arbitration. 

 Notwithstanding, Mr. Sickler, that the arbitrator was listed as favorable to one 

party or another, which I understand is an issue you had, the fact of the matter is, in any 
37

situation where someone has a grievance, it appears to me that an expeditious 

implementation of the rights of both sides generally gives you a more positive outlook 

towards people being able to seek their rights or find out that they were wrong. If 

situations are continuously protracted, then it's a deterrent towards individuals actually 

seeking those rights. That was my observation. 

Mr. Corson. May I speak for just a minute? 

Mr. Isakson. Just a minute. 

Mr. Corson. I agree with you, and partly as a result of Mr. Sickler's litigation, we set at 

the union an internal goal to go to arbitration by April of each year for that year, and we 

accomplished that this year and we fully expect to accomplish it in all years from here on 

out.

Mr. Isakson. And lastly, I would say that notwithstanding the merits in the opinion of 

anybody of a case, a request to have someone terminated prior to the time they've had 

their arbitration doesn't seem to me to be a good facilitator for people to actually seek 

arbitration.

Mr. Sickler, you wanted to say something, sir? 

Mr. Sickler. Yes, I became an objector because I didn't want the union using my money 

for political purposes. I challenged their calculation of my reduction for the same reason. 

I thought they were still using some of my money for political purposes. 

Mr. Isakson. I understood that. 

Mr. Sickler. They had no escrow account. They never established an escrow account.

They had an internal account within the union that was accessible to the union to use for 

whatever they wanted to use it for. As a matter of fact, they wrote a check out of that 

account that they called an escrow account to the National Right to Work Legal Defense 

Foundation. Giving them the money to place in this misnamed escrow account would 

still have given them the use of my money for political purposes to which I objected. I 

waited for them to establish a real escrow account and they never did. 

Mr. Isakson. I understood that from the testimony and I understand Mr. Corson's 

position and I'm going to abide by the rule I tried to say earlier. The red light is on so I'm 

going to shut up and recognize a much more attractive member of this committee than I, 

Ms. Sanchez, from California. 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I have a couple questions, actually. I'm very disturbed about Mr. Sickler's 

particular case. 

 Now, Mr. Corson, you are counsel for the Machinists? 
38

Mr. Corson. Yes. 

Ms. Sanchez. When Mr. Sickler had his problem with your union, rather than filing a 

charge with the Labor Board or the Mediation Board, he went directly and sued your 

union. If he had been fired for trying to form a union at a business, would he have had the 

same option to directly sue? 

Mr. Corson. No, not at all. The rights for objectors with respect to that portion of their 

fee are much greater than persons who would be fired for union activity or trying to form 

a union. Those people cannot go to court. 

Ms. Sanchez. I don't know if this is under your purview for the entire union, but in your 

knowledge of Beck-related cases that you've been involved with, how does the number of 

cases with respect to Beck deal with the number of cases that you're involved with on 

unlawful discharge by employers, over union activities, let's say? 

Mr. Corson. Beck-related cases are a really very small number compared to the number 

of times we need to go to bat for people who have been either disciplined for union 

activity or in organizing drives. People have been fired, locked out. 

Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Sickler suggested that he paid some dues amount, but he was not 

really a participant in union activities. If he had been discharged or wrongfully 

discharged or there was a problem with his employment, even though he wasn't a 

member of your union, would you have to go in and try to help him? 

Mr. Corson. Yes, we would represent him on an equal basis with members. We are 

required to by law, and we do. 

Ms. Sanchez. Okay. Thank you. 

 I have a couple questions for Ms. Fields-Jacobs. 

 By the way, I was very impressed, not only moved by some of the testimony you 

gave, and how articulate you were with respect to that. 

 When a worker is fired for trying to form a union and the NLRB refuses to bring 

the complaint in the worker's behalf, does the worker have the option of suing the 

employer directly? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. No. 

Ms. Sanchez. Not in anything you've seen? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. No, no. 

Ms. Sanchez. Okay. This is with respect to the United Auto Workers in particular. 

Being a Hispanic and being a woman, I'm well aware of UAW's role in the 1950s and the 

1960s as one of the most activist and aggressive, actually, unions with respect to the civil 

rights movement. Even though this activity didn't, at the time, look directly related to 
39

what a normal union, one might seem would be its bailiwick of activities, it was very 

instrumental in helping bring about civil rights, which, of course, as a consequence, 

blacks, other minorities, Hispanics, women, have more employment opportunities today. 

 In your view, was it appropriate for the UAW to have participated and spent its 

money to promote equal opportunity employment? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Absolutely. And I think that when we look at why I do this work, 

and many of my colleagues do this work, having a union is about the overall element of 

social justice and the ability to be fair and equal. Workers are people in their community. 

They don't just exist inside the workplace. Their lives are impacted from outside, 

external forces, governmental policies, and it's our responsibility, I would argue, that we 

are responsible to society as a whole. 

 Many workers will ask and talk about that or ask me questions of that, you know, 

how is the union going to be effective? What happens if they change the laws? And we 

say, ``Listen. Every day we fight, and that's our responsibility,'' and the conversation to 

people is that we treat people holistically, our members, and not just about a single issue. 

Ms. Sanchez. As an organizer for the unions, have you ever met people who don't expect 

the union to be politically active? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. No, they don't expect you not to be. They expect you to be. But they 

also tell me that sometimes they don't agree, but fully see the benefit. This is a 

democratic institution. This is a democracy. People have a right to voice their opinion 

and we often say, ``But let's talk about what issues'', we're very issue, I'm a trade unionist. 

I'm not into parties, and that's what our leadership is charged to do, and we respect 

everybody and their views. 

Ms. Sanchez. I work within an institution, obviously, here, the House of Representatives, 

that I don't feel is very democratic at all, being in the minority, and I don't get to really 

say what amendments come forward. I don't get to say ``I'd like my bill to be voted on 

the floor.'' I can't even sometimes get a chairman to have my bill heard in committee, let 

alone get it to the House floor. This is certainly not a democratic institution by any 

means. 

 Can you tell me why you believe your union is a democratic institution? What 

are the privileges of a member? How do they vote? What do they get to review? How is 

your leadership elected or is it appointed, et cetera, et cetera. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. There is what we call community action program, CAP councils 

around the country. In the locals you are elected. For instance, you're a member in your 

local. You can run for CAP council. You can be on a committee. They elect who's the 

chair. Many issue surveys are taken in many locals and lots of dialogue, and very 

focused around concerns and issues. Things are reviewed. Things are put forward. There 

are internal debates. Again, as you said, Ms. Sanchez, you don't always win, right? I 

mean we are--it's about the discussion and moving what's the best agenda. 
40

It's important to know in our institution that we do not tell people what to do, that 

we are providing information and education for each member, and there's lots of 

discussion about it. 

 Every year we hold the CAP conference here. Delegates come. None of those 

people come without a discussion at their local union. So there are lots of opportunities 

within the union to agree, to disagree on many issues. 

 And I want to say again, concerns and issues is the point we try to take in, making 

sure that, and knowing when I came out of my local, that there was an endorsement 

process, that people could come in and talk to people, candidates. 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. Cope wanted to respond to one of those questions. 

Ms. Cope. I want to respond because I'm thinking I'm in the wrong committee. This is 

about workers' rights. This isn't about what this union does or what this union doesn't do 

or what they provide. This is about belonging to a union and as a non-member, not 

having our rights being respected. I'm respecting the union. I expect the same respect. I 

chose not to join. I wanted the truth. I asked for it several times. It's not about what the 

union does or what they promote. 

 Many of us are females where I work and many of us were led to be afraid of our 

loss of our jobs. That's what this issue is here today, not of what the union does or the 

politics, this and that. It's our rights. That's what this, or I've wasted my time. I've 

wasted your time. If that's what you want to know, that's another committee, but this is 

about what our rights have been overlooked. 

Ms. Sanchez. Well, Ms. Cope, I get to ask the questions. I'm anxious to hear some of the 

answers. That's why I've asked the questions. The Chairman, when he started out this 

committee, started talking about Bush's tax cut. That has nothing to do with anything.

As far as I'm concerned, that should have been left for the Ways and Means Committee. 

I thought maybe I had gotten a promotion and moved up here. 

Ms. Cope. I think. 

Ms. Sanchez. So I'm allowed to ask the questions. I was anxious to hear the answers. I 

wanted to see how democratic a union is, what a worker can do, if he has any say, and I 

also asked a question about if they're outside of the union but are paying fees, do they get 

represented.

 Thank you. 
41

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, ladies. The Chair would observe that I skipped the 

ranking member to go to the ranking lady member, which I thought was very democratic. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to make a comment and that is that we are here to discuss the 

Beck decision and what's followed since then. And I know that the right to organize has 

always been a right that's very important in this country, but that really deals with unions 

and management and doesn't really deal with the rights of the individuals under the Beck 

decision.

 So I would like to follow up on a point that Mr. Penrod made earlier. He testified 

that he had received a handwritten note from his union that was termed, at least by the 

NLRB, as a legally adequate financial disclosure, and the D.C. Circuit Court disagreed, 

and apparently strongly so. 

 But I would like to ask Mr. LaJeunesse, how could it possibly have taken the 

NLRB six years to address what really seemed to be a blatant abuse of our law, according 

to the D.C. Circuit Court? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Well, I think, Congresswoman, in part, I answered that question during 

my statement, and that is that the delay on the part of the general counsel in processing 

cases, the delay of the Board itself in addressing cases that come before it, Chairman 

Gould, in his letter to Congressman Lantos, which is, I believe, Exhibit 2 to my written 

statement, pointed out to Congressman Lantos that at least he implied that one of the 

reasons cases were being held so long before the court was that for political reasons, 

some members of the Board were not signing off. 

Mrs. Biggert. Is there a backlog of cases dealing with this issue before the NLRB or is 

there a backlog of other cases that hold up a decision such as this? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Well, as I pointed out in my statement, as in 1997, one-third of the 

oldest cases were Beck cases, and they certainly weren't one-third of all the cases before 

the Board. So Beck cases were being held up in an inordinate proportion. I don't have 

exact statistics today. 

 I do know that the Board got around to issuing decisions in Beck cases only after 

the Foundation filed on behalf of some of those charging party non-member workers, 

mandamus petitions with the D.C. Circuit, which issued orders requiring the Board to tell 

it when they were going to decide the cases. It was only at the point the Board started 

getting the Beck cases off its docket. 

Mrs. Biggert. Well, is it rare for citizens like Mr. Penrod to receive these funds, the 

EAJA? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. EAJA funds are not that often awarded. In fact, in the Mandamus 

cases we filed, the Board agreed to pay all of the attorneys' fees we requested under 
42

EAJA, in my opinion, for fear of having the D.C. Circuit find that its position was 

substantially unjustified, which is the standard under the EAJA for an award of such fees. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Then, Mr. Corson, it seems like several of these cases, since it's 

taken so long, were before 1986, when I believe that you put in more procedures for 

dealing with these cases; is that correct? Was that in 1986? 

Mr. Corson. Our compliance program does date from 1986, yes. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Did you then take these cases and go through them for procedures 

to see how you could follow up with those cases? 

Mr. Corson. If I understand your question properly, is it, do we learn from experience 

and do we learn from Board decisions and cases, and, yes, I do this as part of my job. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. 

Mr. Corson. Part of my job is to look at what the courts have told us and we make our 

changes.

Mrs. Biggert. Were you in contact with the other witnesses that we have here today, on 

their cases? 

Mr. Corson. No. 

Mrs. Biggert. Not by written or anything? 

Mr. Corson. Well. 

Mrs. Biggert. Or with their unions? 

Mr. Corson. No, I'm really only able to speak for our procedures, for the Machinists 

Union procedures. 

Mrs. Biggert. I see. So these were not cases that you were involved in? 

Mr. Corson. I was not. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Congresswoman, may I comment on that point? 

 It's not a case of the unions responding to legal decisions, in general. It's a case of 

the unions do not adopt the procedures that are constitutionally required until someone 

sues them and gets a judgment. The nice system that the IAM has now is the result of 

several lawsuits where judgments were entered against them or they agreed to settle the 

cases because they were afraid of a judgment. And even today, unless Mr. Corson is 

going to correct me, in the Lutz case, a nationwide injunction was issued requiring them 

to honor continuing objections. But that case was brought under the Railway Labor Act, 
43

and, to my knowledge, even today, they still require employees, under the National Labor 

Relations Act, to object each and every year. 

Mrs. Biggert. So, in other words, they're not learning by what's happened in really just a 

case-by-case basis, whether there is any posting of notice. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. That's correct, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. And, Mr. Beck, you've been still working on this case for years and 

years and years. Is there going to be any end to it? 

Mr. Beck. I probably would guess, as you would, ma'am, that I'll probably see the 

answer in heaven. 

Mrs. Biggert. Or legislation. 

Mr. Beck. Yes. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Ms. Biggert, for your questions. 

 And now we'll go to Major Owens, the ranking member, for his questioning time. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. Andrews. Thank you. I'd like to thank my friend from New York, and I appreciate 

the indulgence of the Subcommittee Chairman. 

 I'm privileged to serve as the ranking member of the subcommittee with 

jurisdiction over the National Labor Relations Act and I listened to the testimony today 

with great interest. 

Mr. LaJeunesse, did I pronounce your name correctly? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. You did, Congressman. 

Mr. Andrews. Oh, that's about the first thing I've done right all day, but thank you. 

 On page two of your testimony you say that ``individual workers throughout 

America are forced by virtue of the unique privileged granted to unions by Congress, to 

contribute their hard-earned dollars to political and ideological causes they oppose.'' 

 First of all, I wonder about the uniqueness of that. I live in a state where we still 

have electric monopolies, utilities, and the utility company to whom I pay my monthly 

bill joins organizations to promote nuclear power. Many of my neighbors and 

constituents do not favor nuclear power. I suppose you could take the position it's not 

compulsory that they have electricity in their house, but most of us feel that it is. So I'm 
44

not sure about the uniqueness point that you make. 

 But I also wonder a little about the accuracy. I think what you're saying is that 

because the Beck decision is ineffective, in your opinion, they're forced to do so; is that 

right?

Mr. LaJeunesse. Well, first of all, unions have two unique privileges, A, exclusive 

representation, and B, the right to require people to pay money to them as a condition of 

employment. 

Mr. Andrews. I understand that, but is it your statement that if the Beck opinion were 

effectively enforced, in your opinion, that that statement would not be accurate, that I just 

read? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. If the Beck decision were effectively enforced, then people would not 

be required to contribute hard-earned dollars to political and ideological causes they 

oppose.

Mr. Andrews. So the answer is yes? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. But the point of my testimony is-- 

Mr. Andrews. We heard a lot from you today. The answer is yes. 

 I want to ask you something else. You consistently say that this is a systemic 

problem, and I agree. The testimony we've heard today is very compelling and I 

commend the individuals who came to give it. But I wanted some information about how 

systemic this is. How many complaints a year does your foundation get from citizens 

about abuse of their rights by a labor union? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. How many complaints? 

Mr. Andrews. Yes, how many people call you and say, ``My rights have just been 

violated by my union and I'd like you to do something about it''? How many people call 

you a year and say that? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. It's probably a couple thousand. 

Mr. Andrews. A couple thousand? Well, is it three? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. And each of them represents other employees in their bargaining unit. 

And how many of them don't know about the Foundation? How many of them can't find 

us? 

Mr. Andrews. So the answer is a couple thousand. 

 There are 16 million union members in America; is that right? Is that number 

accurate?
45

Mr. LaJeunesse. I don't know. 

Mr. Andrews. If it is inaccurate, I would invite you to correct the record. 

 So there are 16 million people and a couple thousand of them contact your 

Foundation. How many of those individuals-- 

Mr. LaJeunesse. That's the ones that call. 

Mr. Andrews. Right. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. That's the ones that call or write us a letter or send us an e-mail. 

Mr. Andrews. Okay. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Approximately a thousand a day go to our Web site to find out what 

their rights are. 

Mr. Andrews. Okay. That's a curious way of measuring it. 

 But a few thousand a year call you and ask you to help. How many of those do 

you help? How many lawsuits do you initiate? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. We have over 400 cases now pending. 

Mr. Andrews. Four hundred now pending. So they were started over a period of how 

many years? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Some of them have been pending for a decade. 

Mr. Andrews. So over. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Because of the delay involved in processing cases both before the 

courts and before the NLRB they have been pending for a decade. 

Mr. Andrews. Okay. So over a period of a decade, you've initiated about 400 actions. Is 

that accurate? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. No, that's how many are pending today. Many others have been settled 

or resolved. 

Mr. Andrews. How many? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Over those years? 

Mr. Andrews. How many? 
46

Mr. LaJeunesse. As of March 15, 2001, since the Foundation was established in 1968, 

we have represented employees in 1,781 cases. 

Mr. Andrews. Okay. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. And, remember, we only have a legal staff, originally it was one, me, 

and now we have 10. 10 attorneys to take on the hundreds of labor unions in this country. 

Mr. Andrews. All right. Let me ask you another question. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews. Your time has expired. 

Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, if I may? If I may? 

Chairman Norwood. Just as the time expired for Ms. Biggert, it has for you. And we do 

appreciate your questions. 

Mr. Ballenger, you're up. 

Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, the witness testified for 45 minutes. We don't get a chance 

to ask him a few more questions? 

Chairman Norwood. You can go the second time around. 

Mr. Ballenger, you can go. 

Mr. Andrews. Will there be a second time around? 

Chairman Norwood. I don't know, but I'm just saying that's the way we used to do it. 

Mr. Andrews. Will there be, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman Norwood. There will be, as far as I'm concerned, except for one thing. There 

is a very serious vote going over in the Commerce Committee, and that could interfere 

with it. But other than that, yes, because I'd like a turn at questioning, too. 

Mr. Andrews. Okay. I would ask a unanimous consent to submit some written questions 

for the witnesses as well. 

Chairman Norwood. Absolutely, without objection. 

Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Chairman, if I may help a little bit on this? Mr. Sickler, according to 

your testimony and according to, I happened to be the Chairman of the Committee when 

Mr. Masiello, I hope I'm pronouncing that properly, came up and testified in 1998. 

 My understanding is that according to your testimony, you found out about this 

whole situation, and as I remember it, it was more right-to-life people that were upset in 

Charlotte. I don't know whether you were one of them at that particular time, but in our 

testimony at that time, it proves that issues, that you disagree with the union about, don't 
47

have to be working issues or political issues, they can be social issues, as well. You don't 

think the money should be spent that way. 

 Is that not correct? 

Mr. Sickler. That's correct. 

Mr. Ballenger. And you first noticed this in 1994, according to your testimony. 

Mr. Sickler. That's about the time. 

Mr. Ballenger. You didn't start doing anything until 1995, but in 1994 is when you 

started.

Mr. Sickler. Yes, in 1994, is about the time I became aware and that I read the 

disclosure. 

Mr. Ballenger. Right. 

Mr. Sickler. The notice to the employees. 

Mr. Ballenger. And what I would like to, I'm not a lawyer, but we've had several lawyers 

discussing this and the last two were pure lawyers discussing things. And I know they're 

free. Everything they do for you doesn't cost you a nickel, but here's a man who has 

gone, what, six or seven years in an effort to straighten up what you thought was right, 

and what the law says is right. 

 And, let's see, the final settlement by the courts on your case, with Mr. Masiello, 

was in April of this year, right? 

Mr. Sickler. That's correct. 

Mr. Ballenger. So it took you, what, six or seven years of working as best you could and 

having, I know one of the things where they gave you an arbitrator who was nonpartisan 

except listed as an ally of the Teamsters Union. Everybody was working for you all the 

way through this, is the way I understand it. 

Mr. Sickler. Well, I. 

Mr. Ballenger. And since all these lawyers that we deal with are so cheap and free, all 

you've got to do is figure six years at 40 hours a week. What is it, at $60 an hour, $70 an 

hour? Why would anybody think they had a chance of winning a case in a situation like 

this? And I'm sure Mr. Corson is free also, and I don't know how many other people he's 

got in his legal department that are up there fighting against you as an individual trying to 

carry your own case. 

 In other words, I hate to say it, but it operates pretty much like our Social Security 

system, disability works. If we turn you down every time you come up and, you know, 

after five or six years you finally say, ``Well, I can't win this thing. I give up.'' And the 
48

unions have got you whooped in the fact that you're a lone individual, and I thank 

whoever helped you finance your effort, because it takes a hell of a lot of guts to do what 

you did for as long as you did. Most everybody I know would have quit. But the unions 

have got all kinds of money and they--I was wondering. Now do you think they were 

using your money, your own dues money? You didn't get fired until 1999, were they 

using your dues money to work against you in this particular case? 

Mr. Sickler. Well, I still don't know how they're using my dues money, because they still 

haven't provided me with the financial disclosure that they're supposed to. I suspect they 

are misusing my dues money, yes. 

Mr. Ballenger. Sure. I mean there's no reason it couldn't have been your money, because 

it was put into the big pot. So if ever in my life I've ever heard of a one-sided situation, 

the union has got you locked out. There's no way you can do anything about them, unless 

you're willing to fight for six years and spend whatever amount of money it costs. 

 I hate to say it, no, I don't hate to say it. I think it's completely unfair, the 

situation that you poor guys have been in, and Ms. Cope, to be in the situation where the 

court system don't do you any favors because they make you hire a lawyer. And since 

they're not free, I think the unions ought to supply the money so you could have a lawyer 

so you'd be equal. That way, you could be using your dues on both sides of the 

argument. 

Mr. Sickler. That would be democratic and fair. 

Mr. Ballenger. Well, like I say, as you can tell, I'm completely unbiased in this whole 

idea. But I would like to say that when I read the opening statement that Mr. Masiello 

made two years ago, it said that he said he began asking about his Beck rights. 

 When he started asking, ``The local lodge president immediately started a 

campaign to discredit me. He did this with slanderous lies and character assassination. 

Letters were hung all over the workplace claiming that I objected to paying any dues. 

Months had gone by and the harassment had not let up one bit. And to make matters 

worse, I was still paying what they had considered full dues. Not one penny of the 

overpayment was refunded to me, and I was forced to take the local lodge president to 

small claims court.'' 

 Now when the day somebody says that you have rights, but this is what you have 

to do to find out what you-to really get your rights enforced, this is completely unfair and 

I think-I've always heard about Mr. Beck and I told him earlier-to say ``Thank God there 

are people around like you that are willing to stick your neck out as long as you have,'' 

and also, the other three of you that have done the same thing. And I hope someday we 

can do something for you here. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger. I appreciate it. Your time is up. I'd 

now like to yield to Mr. Owens for five minutes. 

Mr. Ballenger. Completely unbiased. 
49

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I think from the very beginning, it's been pretty clear that 

this hearing is about more than just the Beck decision. This hearing is about issues that 

you raised in the PowerPoint, the opinions of unions versus the opinions of the rest of us, 

which you are very concerned about. 

 We have not heard the last of the subject under discussion here, mainly, that 

unions ought to be harassed in a way that no other institution in a democratic society is 

harassed. We have people who pay into pension funds. Do you have a right to decide 

how they invest your pension funds? 

 You have all kinds of situations, which exist in our society where we decide that 

everybody will deposit some money into a bank, up to $100,000, federal deposit 

insurance on that. It's insured. And we had a situation where many of those banks 

collapsed and we had to go and pay off, as citizens--most citizens don't know it--but we 

had to pay off, as citizens, the money that was lost by those banks. 

 But we participate all the time in situations in a very complex society where 

individuals surrender their rights to, from day to day, decision to decision, participate.

When you vote as a member of a body, whether it's your church or your lodge or any 

other body, and the union likewise, you vote to have confidence in the people who are 

going to run that operation. Just as we are a republic, the United States is a republic and 

you vote for members of Congress and other elected officials. They run the operation. 

 So we have larger issues that are going to be involved here and I think this is the 

opening scenario for what this committee is going to be forced to deal with, and that is 

the role of labor unions in our society and how they can be dealt with in terms of, in my 

opinion, unequal treatment with respect to their right to represent their members. 

Nobody here has asked any questions or had any hearings about corporations and the 

corporations' rights to spend enormous amounts of money on issues, candidates, to 

finance campaigns. So we are singling out labor unions in a very special way. The 

harassment of unions is very much an item on the agenda here, and we are going to hear 

more about it as we go on. The Beck decision has been discussed before. As I said in my 

opening testimony, there's something called the Paycheck Protection Act that's going to 

come down the pike. We've already had an opening onslaught on ergonomics, where in 

one day the Congress and the President combined wiped out ergonomics, a blow to 

working people all over the country, whether they belong to unions or not. 

 So we can look forward to more of this and it's about the unequal protection of 

unions and union members in this society, an attempt to make them different, an attempt 

to hold them up to some kind of different standard and harass them in some way. 

 We've been here for quite a bit of time now and I prefer to yield the remainder of 

my time to Mr. Andrews, if he would like. 

Mr. Andrews. I thank my friend for yielding. 

 Another question, again for Mr. LaJeunesse. It's accurate, isn't it, that under the 

law a member of a union who is aggrieved by the union's practices can sue the union in 
50

federal court; is that correct? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. For breach of duty of fair representation. 

Mr. Andrews. Yes. And by the same token, an individual who claims that his or her 

employer has violated their labor rights must go to the NLRB; is that correct? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. If they're under the National Labor Relations Act. But there is no duty 

of fair representation with regard to employers. 

Mr. Andrews. Right. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. The duty of fair representation was created by the Supreme Court in 

order to protect employees. 

Mr. Andrews. Right. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. From the fact that unions have this unique privilege of exclusive 

representation.

Mr. Andrews. Right. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Which can be and has been abused in many cases. 

Mr. Andrews. I want to come back to your assertion that there is a systemic problem. 

And I don't assume you know this off the top of your head, but I would invite you to 

submit for the record the number of complaints that have been filed against unions in 

federal courts by aggrieved members of unions. And if you're unable or unwilling to do 

that, I'd ask the Committee to supplement the record that way. 

 What happens if? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Congressman, I can tell you how many complaints, in fact, I have told 

you how many complaints have been filed. 

Mr. Andrews. Please tell me. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. With representation by Foundation attorneys? I have no way of 

knowing how many are filed outside that realm. 

Mr. Andrews. But you did draw the conclusion there was a systemic problem. I'm just 

curious as to what data you used? Since you don't know that answer, what data did you 

use to draw your conclusion that there is a systemic problem? 

Mr. LaJeunesse. Well, I'd say the almost 2,000 cases that the Foundation has had to file 

indicates a systemic problem. 

Mr. Andrews. In 10 years? In over a 10 year period? 
51

Mr. LaJeunesse. I think that a systemic problem is indicated when, and I want to, for the 

record tell you the number of calls and e-mails that we received requesting assistance in 

the year 2000 was 2,718, and that doesn't count the number of people who went to our 

Web site for assistance. And, of course, in each of these cases, we weren't talking about 

one person or one complaint is filed. 

 For example, in the case of Hohe v. Casey, which was brought by Foundation 

attorneys for state employees in Pennsylvania, the judgment in that case was $8.3 million 

for approximately 50,000 state employees who had their constitutional rights violated by 

the state, county, and municipal employees unions. 

Mr. Andrews. I just want to reiterate my understanding and then I realize that Mr. 

Owens' time is up. But it is my understanding that your testimony is that based upon 

2,700 calls and e-mails in a typical year, based upon several thousand complaints that you 

filed over 10 years, in a universe of 16 million unionized workers, where you do not 

know the number of workers who themselves have initiated a complaint through the 

federal courts, that you're drawing the conclusion there is a systemic problem; is that 

right?

Mr. LaJeunesse. I draw the conclusion that there is a systemic problem because I've 

observed a systemic problem over the years and, quite frankly, Mr. Andrews, if only one 

person were having their fundamental constitutional First Amendment rights violated, we 

should have a legislative solution. 

Mr. Andrews. I don't disagree with that, but you are the one who said it was systemic 

and, of course, the word ``systemic'' implies that it's something that affects many, many 

people. I'm just curious as to who they are. 

Mr. LaJeunesse. I would repeat, 50,000 state employees is a lot of people who were 

having their rights violated. We just had a settlement in the Abrams case, which was 

brought against the Communications Workers of America, which was a follow-up to 

enforce Beck. 

 And, in 1985, the United States Court of Appeals, I'm sorry 1995, the United 

States Court of Appeals, seven years after the Supreme Court Beck decision, the D.C. 

Circuit found that CWA was still violating workers' rights. That case was certified as a 

class action. The class in that case was 125,000 non-members nationwide, 71,000 of 

whom are now going to have a right under the settlement in that case to obtain a refund of 

the non-chargeable portion of their moneys over a nine-year period, when CWA 

reportedly gave what the courts have held were statutorily inadequate notices. 

Mr. Andrews. I'm just interested in the difference between anecdotal. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews. You've been very helpful as 

a non-member of the Subcommittee in your questioning. I appreciate it. Your time is 

now up. 

 And, finally, the Chairman gets some time, and I yield to myself five minutes. 
52

But, however, to help Mr. Andrews, I'd like to have Ms. Cope respond to his question, 

because she was asking to, and then Mr. Sickler. 

Ms. Cope. Okay. What I would like to mention is, this goes on every day. When you're 

looking for numbers, you wouldn't believe how many people are not being told the truth. 

That's what we're after today, is to be told the truth. To this day, this practice is still 

going on at two places I work at, the airport, as well as in reservations. All new hires are 

told they must join. They must. I've asked Mr. Corson to appear. I've had to take down 

notices that tell us to have our employment, to maintain our employment. So, Mr. 

Andrews, I think you're kind of missing the boat, because there are so many people like 

me out there, and we're so afraid to come forward, and everyone is afraid that they're 

going to lose their jobs. But we're told inaccurate information, and that's why I'm here, to 

get the facts straight. 

Mr. Andrews. The reason I'm here is to-- 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Andrews, you don't have the time. I'm sorry. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, Mr. Chairman, the witness addressed a point to me. 

Chairman Norwood. No, you do not have the time. It's my time, and I'm letting them 

help you. 

Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, don't you think that common courtesy would suggest that I 

can respond to the lady's question? 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Sickler, it's your turn. 

Mr. Sickler. Yes, Congressman Owens tried to characterize this as a unique attack on 

unions, and I think what's really unique about this situation is federal law requires that I 

give money to an organization that I wouldn't otherwise support and that uses my money 

to support politics and politicians that I disagree with. 

 Now if my company that I work with, or any other corporation, gives money for 

politics and politicians, if U.S. Airways wants to lobby or support political candidates, 

they're not using my money. They're using their own money. And that's the unique 

situation here. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, let me ask a general question of all of you. Is there any one 

of you who believes that men and women do not have the right to determine how their 

money is being spent on political issues? Is there anyone in any union that shouldn't have 

that right, and does the Supreme Court ensure us that you have that right? Does anybody 

disagree with that? 

 Well, I tend to disagree with my friend, Mr. Owens, about this being a hearing 

that is designed for union bashing. The best I can tell, most of you out there have been a 

member of a union. I mean, this is about certain parts of a union, certain people in a 

union, that they, too, have inalienable rights, and this is one of them in my view, one of 
53

the very strong ones. 

 I defend the right of any person to join a union. I feel very strongly about that.

That is not, however, what this particular hearing is about. But I defend the right for any 

American to become a member of a union. But I also defend the right of any American 

who doesn't want to be a member of the union. And that's sort of what we're trying to get 

at here, is people that perhaps are being coerced. 

 Let me get to my first question. Ms. Fields-Jacobs, after reading your testimony, I 

asked my staff to go through some of our files, and we found a few documents that I'd 

like to share with you. And I will have the staff deliver a copy of the letter to the witness 

table for your review, and we'll use the overhead to display the documents. 

 Unmistakably, at least one UAW local seems to be providing misleading 

information to their rank and file, their members, as the letters dated January 14, 2000 

and April 13, 2000 read, ``A worker is being told quite directly and'', ``that he will be 

fired for not joining the union and paying full dues.'' 

 Now you say, Ms. Fields-Jacobs, in your testimony, that only a very small 

number of workers object and that each of these workers only have to write a letter to the 

union secretary-treasurer to receive a rebate or stop improper dues from being assessed. 

Obviously, it isn't that easy, from what I've been hearing today. The system doesn't 

sound, to me, like it's working properly. I would be willing to bet that given a week's 

time, I cannot obtain another three or four similar letters on UAW stationery to other 

workers.

 Now, in my mind, one letter like this, just one, it doesn't matter how many 

complaints you get, one is enough to justify action to ensure that the rank and file 

workers are not given false and misleading information. We don't wait for a crime wave 

to take steps to prevent armed robbery, do we? Now let's be honest with each other. 

How can the UAW defend this kind of action, even if it's just one? 

 And I hope you have the letters in front of you now? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. I do have the letters in front of me. 

 Let me just say I'm not a Beck specialist. I don't work in the president's office, so 

I don't know what the facts of this case are, but members are able to appeal directly. And 

so I don't know what the facts of this case are, so I'm not going to sit here and respond to 

it. But we agree on something. One case of injustice is not acceptable, and I wish it was 

applied equally in every forum. 

 Let me say this to be clear, 1972, 16 years before the Supreme Court issued the 

Beck decision, the UAW added a constitutional provision that any member who wanted a 

rebate of that portion of their dues that goes to political and legislative activities could do 

it by submitting it. Here's how the process works. 
54

Every person who is organized is given a new member magazine, Solidarity magazine. 

Chairman Norwood. Ms. Jacobs. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. No, you asked, respectfully, Mr. Norwood, you asked me a question. 

I'm outlining what happens. 

Chairman Norwood. Ms. Jacobs, it is my time and you don't get to do that. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Factually, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. You don't get to do that here. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. I have sat here and been called a thug, I have been called a thug, a 

tyrannical, evil. 

Chairman Norwood. I'm just calling, you're talking too much. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. I'm just giving you. 

Chairman Norwood. I'm not calling you any of that. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. I just want the opportunity to be factual to you, respectfully, sir, that 

in the UAW, I don't know any of these people and I'm not going to make a whole society 

and say that there are no problems, but we give the members an ability to appeal when 

there is a problem and if there's something we're doing wrong, then it should be 

addressed, like everything else. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, my question is pretty simple. Can you respond to that letter? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Sir, as you know, in any forum. 

Chairman Norwood. It's on UAW stationery. 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. The UAW represents 1 million members. I cannot today, on 

Thursday, May 9th, sit down and tell you that I can factually respond to that. If you 

would like to do that with us. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you think that letter is correct? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Sir, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. Is that letter correct? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Sir, I do not know the facts of the case. 

Chairman Norwood. If you would just simply respond for the record? 
55

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Sir, I do not know the facts of the case. I don't know where you got 

these, where these were obtained. I can sit here and be more than happy to talk to you 

about any injustice, and we believe, in the UAW, Chairman Norwood, that if there is 

something going on that is not what is in line with the Constitution, before Beck, we 

didn't need Beck to respect the members' rights. 

Chairman Norwood. So these letters are correct? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Sir, I do not know the facts of this case. 

Chairman Norwood. If these letters are correct, would you say that they're wrong? 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. Would I say what? 

Chairman Norwood. If these letters-- 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs. They would be in violation of the constitutional provision. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much. 

 Do you want to go again, Ms. Sanchez? You are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I would just like to make a comment that my Web page gets about 100,000 hits a 

month. If I multiply that by 24 months for every election, that's 2.4 million people or 

hits, and I never expect that 2.4 million people are going to come and vote in my election. 

So I think numbers and the way they are used are very important. And because of that 

reason, I would like to give my time to Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. Andrews. I appreciate my friend. 

 I just wanted to respond, respectfully, to what Ms. Cope, said. I don't think we're 

missing the boat. We want the law enforced the way it ought to be. And you told us 

some stories today that say that it isn't being enforced the way it ought to be, and we're 

interested in that. We're interested in trying to fix it. 

 I understand that in your situation you've had a difficult time getting a refund or a 

rebate that you were entitled to, and I think that that's a problem and it ought to be fixed. 

 My point was simply that there's an expression in law that hard cases make bad 

law. And we've heard some very hard cases here today, some very unfortunate ones from 

the point of view of the witnesses. Our job is to find out what the overall systemic 

situation is and try to fix the individual problems, but also understand what the systemic 

situation is. The Chairman and I agree very strongly on one systemic situation. We think 

that HMOs are routinely disregarding the rights of patients and the public, and we think 

they're-- 
56

Chairman Norwood. Now you can talk as long as you want to. 

 [Laughter.] 

Mr. Andrews. I knew I'd get you that way. 

 And we think there needs to be a systemic solution. The issue in this hearing 

today is whether or not a systemic solution, to use our friend, the witness', testimony, is 

necessary, and I think the burden is on those who would say that it is. And I'll just come 

back to this point, that we've heard powerful anecdotal evidence from the witnesses and 

we've heard a recitation of cases from counsel, but I think that the challenge for those 

who claim there is a systemic problem is to generate the facts to demonstrate it. And I've 

heard nothing that indicates that, but the record is still open. 

 I yield back to my friend from California. 

Ms. Sanchez. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the time. 

Chairman Norwood. You yield back the balance of your time. Thank you very much. 

 So everybody can note how fair the Chairman has been, I'm the only one without 

two rounds of questioning. So I simply want to ask for a couple of responses before we 

close down the hearing. And I think it would be probably correct, Mr. Sickler, you 

respond to that and then, Mr. Beck, I'm going to ask you to respond to my earlier 

question to Ms. Jacobs that I asked earlier, and I'll review it with you when we get to it. 

Mr. Sickler? 

Mr. Sickler. Yes. I'm just curious, if we were talking about a non-systemic violation 

where someone was denied a job because of their sex or their race or their religion, and it 

wasn't a systemic problem, it was just a problem that happened here and there across the 

country, would it be something that would be ignored? Does it need to be a systemic 

problem when someone's individual rights are violated? I think not. 

 I think if it was a matter where somebody was denied a job because of their sex, 

that this entire panel would be saying ``There's something that should be done about it. If 

there's no law in place that will enforce this and prevent this, we should do something 

about it.'' This is the same situation. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Beck, what I was trying to get at and what I had hoped was 

Ms. Jacobs would tell me that the UAW would respond to these officials who have 

written union members basically saying that if you don't pay your dues, if you don't do 

this, we're going to get you fired or we're going to have you terminated. And we handed 

out to you the two letters from the locals that wrote these types of letters to union 

members. And I wondered if you had any thoughts, as we close this hearing? 

 And these are obviously real. I don't know if there's 10 million of these going on 

or just these two. I have no idea. I just know if it's one, it's too many. 
57

Any comments, sir? 

Mr. Beck. Mr. Norwood, the union conveniently has set up a hierarchy of ignorance.

The locals often submit documents that the hierarchy in the international refuses to 

respond to, saying they don't control the locals, and that is until a local makes a decision 

that the hierarchy doesn't like. That's a convenient way of not having to face the issues 

that most of us at the local level face. That's a convenience that the worker has to fight 

through in order to be heard. And in many cases, as you've heard today, it either costs 

someone their job, or their families can be intimidated. 

 My use of the word ``thug'' had nothing to do with Ms. Jacobs. I don't know her. 

But I do know that thugs from the union came to my house to intimidate my family in the 

middle of the night while I was working, and when I went to the hierarchy of the union, 

they conveniently said, ``That must be a local issue.'' 

 I think the same thing exists when it comes to these kinds of letters. The local 

puts them out, there is no rejection of this from the international, and therefore the worker 

is left to wonder who has the power? 

 In one case, we find that a man is fired. Reasonable people like Mr. Corson, and I 

believe he is, had he known about the firing prior, would probably have stepped in and 

said, ``This doesn't make sense. How can you fire someone before they have the 

opportunity to have been heard in arbitration?'' But it happens. 

 I don't know what the solution is as far as the union is concerned. I just know that 

the Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Act that's presently before 

Congress, needs to be addressed seriously so that every individual in this country has the 

right to choose or not to choose representation from people that it either agrees with or 

does not agree with. 

 Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, and thank you all. And I want to say again to all of you 

that we're very grateful for the time that you've taken. It has taken longer than usual, as 

I've tried to let each of you say whatever you wanted to say and have whatever amount of 

time that you wanted, and I, for one Member of Congress, do appreciate all seven of you 

and your participation in this. This is a learning experience for us all. 

 I don't remember which one of you quoted Thomas Jefferson, but I truly believe 

that if there is only one member in this entire country, out of the 160 million members of 

the unions, that are having their rights superseded, it is particularly onerous. Thomas 

Jefferson, I believe, said ``sinful'', if he didn't, I am. To tell a man or a woman that you 

must pay me dues so I can use those dues to have something politically done in this 

country against your political beliefs. And that's what we're trying to get at in this 

hearing.

 This is a surgical hearing. We're trying to figure out why is it so difficult for 

members of the union to simply say, ``I don't want to pay for that particular political
58

process. Return my money.'' It is clear to me that it is not easy. 

 Those of you who have experienced it, those cases that we've read about and have 

on file, it is unconscionable to me that they make it difficult. It can't be that much money 

to start with, and I don't understand why a man or a woman who's a member of a union 

can't simply say to their local, not necessarily all the way to the top, but to their local,

``Hey, look, I'm not into that. I don't want to pay for that. Send me my money back.'' 

And it ought not to be as hard as it is being made to be. 

 And I hope Congress really will do something about this, and I simply don't view 

this as union bashing. It may be getting after union officers. It may be getting at those at 

the head, but it is for the members, and that's what this really is all about. 

 I thank you all, I thank the members, and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Norwood, 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 29, 35, 40, 41, 43, 46, 48, 

51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57 

Mr. Andrews, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56 

Mr. Ballenger, 46, 47, 48 

Mr. Beck, 15, 16, 43, 57 

Mr. Corson, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42 

Mr. Isakson, 35, 36, 37 

Mr. Lajeunesse, 10, 12, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51 

Mr. Owens, 2, 4, 7, 16, 43, 49 

Mr. Penrod, 18 

Mr. Sickler, 21, 22, 37, 47, 48, 52, 56 

Mrs. Biggert, 41, 42, 43 

Mrs. Mink, 13 

Ms. Cope, 13, 40, 52 

Ms. Fields-Jacobs, 10, 38, 39, 53, 54, 55 

Ms. Sanchez, 37, 38, 39, 40, 55, 56