As previously reported on the Freedom@Work blog, union militants are certainly making headlines of late using violent tactics and vandalism to prove their point.

Stunningly, union thugs in Michigan may have taken this to the next level last week when John King, owner of King Electrical Services, was reportedly shot by a union goon spraying the word "scab" on the side of his car in the driveway.

Of course this should surprise no one familiar with the violent legacy of Big Labor, including that of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka. But for good measure, the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) opined today about union bosses' reliance on violence to get their way:

The attack on King is emblematic of the sad fact that the leading perpetrators of political violence today are U.S. labor unions.

They've grown more violent in their rhetoric as their political power grows and their appeal to workers diminishes.

According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a right-to-work think tank in Washington, there have been 4,400 incidents of union violence in the last 20 years.

The Teamsters are the leading perpetrators, with 454 incidents. But IBEW, which some suspect in the King incident, is in the top 10, having engaged in 125 incidents.

All told, there have been 11,600 incidents of union violence against workers, management and the public since 1975.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court actually ruled to grant union officials the special privilege to be exempt from federal prosecution for union violence. And shocking these numbers may seem, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research states that for reported incidences of union violence between 1975 and 2000, only three percent of those incidents have led to an arrest and conviction.

The numbers used by IBD also don't account for the fact that most incidents of union violence go unreported (a study of one strike found seven instances of violence for every on reported on in the media) meaning that the already staggering numbers the article cites are just the tip of the iceberg.

FEC Fails to Investigate Teachers’ Complaint of NEA Union Money Laundering Scheme

Employee rights advocate weighs federal lawsuit

Washington, DC (January 5, 2010) – Apparently without conducting a field investigation, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed a complaint against one of the most politically active unions in America after evidence surfaced that union officials deposited illegally laundered dues money into its political action committee (PAC).

Citing in part lack of sufficient funding to enforce the law, the FEC junked a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and two Alabama teachers who discovered a union scheme to divert convention reimbursements into the National Education Association (NEA) union’s PAC.

When attending the NEA’s 2004 national convention, Daphne Middle School science department chair Claire Waites was deceived into supporting the NEA’s PAC and was determined that it would not happen again. However, Waites and Assistant Principal Dr. Jeanne Fox, both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA unions, discovered the practice continues.

Click here to read the full release.

Last week we reported on an attempt by National Media Board (NMB) bureaucrats to reposition the agency as a promoter of coercive "card check" union organizing. The NMB is a federal bureaucracy whose purpose is supposedly to, among other things, “to promote… the effectuation of employee rights of self-organization where a representation dispute exists…” within the railroad and airline industries.

Today we learn via the Daily Labor Report that the NMB's proposal has been yanked, at least for now. The move is a victory for the National Right to Work Foundation, which opposed the changes:

National Right to Work Staff Attorney Glenn M. Taubman submitted opposing comments... regarding the sneaky changes proposed by the National Mediation Board. As Taubman points out, not interfering with “card check” practices is essentially providing a rubber stamp for more union boss interference, influence and coercion.

Taubman makes a forceful argument using historical fact and case law that having rules that allow “card check” undermine employee free choice. Taubman concludes that “all MNB rules, regulations and policies should mandate the secret-ballot election process and entirely forbid ‘card checks.’”

The full document can be downloaded here.

In recent weeks, the National Mediation Board, a federal bureaucracy whose purpose is to, among other things, “to promote… the effectuation of employee rights of self-organization where a representation dispute exists…” within the railroad and airline industries, has proposed revisions to its Representational Manual that would open the floodgates to the use of coercive "card check."

While the NMB does “determine and certify collective bargaining representatives of employees” it also says that it functions to “ensure that the process occurs without interference, influence or coercion.” Despite this fact, the proposed NMB revisions are explicitly stated to not be “intended to interfere with or preclude either certification by card check…or voluntary recognition.” In other words, while its mission is to stop coercion, the NMB wants to modify its rules to encourage the coercive card check process for unionization.

National Right to Work Staff Attorney Glenn M. Taubman submitted opposing comments for the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation regarding the sneaky changes proposed by the National Mediation Board. As Taubman points out, not interfering with “card check” practices is essentially providing a rubber stamp for more union boss interference, influence and coercion.

Taubman makes a forceful argument using historical fact and case law that having rules that allow “card check” undermine employee free choice. Taubman concludes that “all MNB rules, regulations and policies should mandate the secret-ballot election process and entirely forbid ‘card checks.’”

The full document can be downloaded here.

The recent Chamber v. Brown decision (.pdf) highlighted one of the worst aspects of coercive union organizing. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens emphasized the California statute's most problematic feature: while the free flow of truthful information about the downsides of unionization was shut off by the state's draconian regulations, union organizers received special dispensation to harass workers both at home and on the job:

Instead of forbidding the use of state funds for all employer advocacy regarding unionization, AB 1889 [the California law] permits use of state funds for select employer advocacy activities that promote unions. Specifically, the statute exempts expenses incurred in connection with, inter alia, giving unions access to the workplace, and voluntarily recognizing unions without a secret ballot election.

"Voluntarily recognizing unions without a secret ballot election" is a euphemism for coercive card-check drives. And while the Chamber v. Brown decision is a small brake on in-your-face union organizing drives underway across America, the frequency of card-check drives has increased markedly over the past several years.  Evidently, union organizers have realized that publicly badgering employees into signing away their rights to self-representation is a lot easier than acceding to federally-supervised secret ballot elections.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Foundation staff attorneys recently acquired data from the National Labor Relations Board on the incidence of card-check petitions in the workplace.  According to this NLRB spreadsheet, union agents gained monopoly bargaining privileges using these methods in more than 250 America workplaces since November of 2007. The biggest offenders were members of SEIU President Andy Stern's so-called "Change to Win" coalition: the SEIU and UNITE HERE racked up 26 successful card-check drives each, while the Teamsters managed to pull off an impressive 108 card-check drives.  TheNLRB was not required to record this information until the Foundation's Dana/Metaldyne victory last September.

So why is coercive card-check organizing so uniquely damaging to employee freedom? The reason is simple: forcing workers to publicly disclose their preferences to union organizers leaves them vulnerable to intimidation, harassment, and retaliation.

Here's an excerpt from the congressional testimony of Jen Jason, a former UNITE HERE union organizer who participated in several card-check petition drives:

From my experience, the number of cards signed appear to have little relationship to the ultimate vote count. During a private election campaign, even though a union still sends organizers out to workers’ homes on frequent canvassing in attempts to gain support, the worker has a better chance to get perspective on the questions at hand. The time allocated for the election to go forward allows the worker a chance to think through his or her own issues without undue influence—thus avoiding an immediate, impulsive decision based on little or no fact. After all, the decision to join a union is often life-changing, and workers should be afforded the time to debate, discuss and research all of the options available to them.

As an organizer working under a “card check” system versus an election system, I knew that “card check” gave me the ability to quickly agitate a set of workers into signing cards. I did not have to prove the union’s case, answer more informed questions from workers or be held accountable for the service record of my union.

When the union is allowed to implement the “card check” strategy, the decision about whether or not an individual employee would choose to join a union is reduced to a crisis decision. This situation is created by the organizer and places the worker into a high pressure sales situation. Furthermore, my experience is that in jurisdictions in which “card check” was actually legislated, organizers tended to be even more willing to harass, lie and use fear tactics to intimidate workers into signing cards. I have personally heard from workers that they signed the union card simply to get the organizer to leave their home and not harass them further. At no point during a “card check” campaign, is the opportunity created or fostered for employees to seriously consider their working lives and to think about possible solutions to any problems.

Pretty sobering stuff.  Of course, the card-check strategy was never intended to fairly gauge workers' preferences.

After working with UNITE HERE organizers for years, Jen Jason finally got the full picture. Her experience should make the pernicious nature of card-check organizing abundantly clear:

I began my career with UNITE with a strong belief in worker’s rights and democracy in the workplace. During the course of my employment with the union, I began to understand the reality behind the rhetoric. I took in the ways that organizers were manipulating workers just to get a majority on “the cards” and the various strategies that they employed. I began to appreciate that promises made by organizers at a worker’s house had little to do with how the union actually functions as a “service” organization.

Today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that efforts to sweep more workers into unionization through coercive "card check" organizing are paying off for union officials.

However, if Congress resurrects and passes mandatory "card check" legislation, workers will have even less say over whether they are unionized. Union officials will unleash a tidal wave of in-your-face organizing drives on America's workers, and potentially millions more will be corralled into dues-paying union ranks.

Employees Michael Ashby and John Hurley describe their fight against abusive union power in this short video clip from the National Right To Work Foundation's video, The Perilous Fight.

View more video clips on the Foundation's growing YouTube channel here.

Of course, from time to time public figures will spew some pretty surprising statements to the media. This can be especially true when union bosses put their own needs in front of the American workers they claim to “represent.”

Here’s what some union officials had to say about their liking to compulsory unionism:

• Pushing Big Labor’s “card check” organizing scheme over the employee-preferred secret ballot elections, Mike Fishman, SEIU Local 32BJ chief, said: “We don’t do elections.” –Wall Street Journal

• Speaking against Iowa’s 60 year-old Right to Work law, Jan Laue, a top official of the Iowa AFL-CIO said, “If you don't want to be a part of it, then you ought to go work somewhere else.” –River Cities’ Reader

• The National Right to Work Foundation hired 24-hour security detail after United Auto Workers union militants distributed driving directions to a dissenting employee’s home. UAW union Region 8 boss Gary Casteel claimed to disavow use of vandalism or physical threats to those who opposed unionization. Yet, Casteel seemingly encouraged the reprisals when the labor boss said this about the dissenting employee, “He did put himself in limelight.” –High Point Enterprise

• Tim Welch, spin doctor for the WFSE union, speaking about employees’ right (or lack-thereof in Washington state) to choose: “You can choose to be a member of the union, you can choose to pay a fee. But ultimately, if you do not like that, you can choose to be unemployed.” – Spokesman Review

• Former chief of the United Mine Workers union, Richard Trumka, implied that employees who work during a strike deserve whatever happens to them. In 1993, he had this to say after a heavy equipment operator was shot in the back of the head as he drove past militant UMW strikers: "I'm saying if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you're going to burn your finger." –Washington Times

Randy Boettjer experienced years of harassment by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 47 union officials.

Randy (pictured) had dared to raise concerns about health care benefits, but an IBEW official simply scorned, “we don't like your kind.” Having been so disgusted by union officials’ deceptions, he created his own website critical of the IBEW union hierarchy.

Once the union bosses learned he was exercising his freedom of speech, union officials filed a lawsuit against Randy for libel and tried to extract $25,000 from him in Orange County Superior Court. Moreover, the union expelled Randy and levied $250,000 in trumped-up fines against him.

But in the end, Foundation attorneys helped Randy obtain federal labor prosecution of the union, forcing union officials to rescind the $250,000 fine and to stop all forced dues claims against him.

Randy is just one of hundreds of thousands of employees the National Right to Work Foundation has helped. Read about other individuals courageously defending their rights in the face of ugly union coercion here.

Laborers' International Union of North America Local 79 union thugs are back at it again.

New Jersey residents Joseph Chetrit and his family have been targets of a LIUNA union intimidation campaign for weeks.

Chetrit explained that union militants “have been abusive and confrontational to his family” after they placed the infamous 15-foot inflatable rat outside his home. In what they described as going through a “gauntlet” to leave their own property, Chetrit and his family (including his wife and their four children) cannot even walk to their synagogue without fear for their safety.

Sadly, one of Chetrit’s children is seeing a counselor as a result of the union’s ugly intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, a judge agreed with Chetrit that “[i]t is the hostile placement immediately adjacent to the home, towering over the sidewalk, directly facing the home, with the rat's claws and teeth bared, that creates the intimidating and menacing effect.”

NorthJersey.com has the full story here.