Over the last couple of days, the media has devoted considerable print and airtime to a proposed bailout of the so-called Big Three -- the Detroit-based car giants GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

"Big Labor Three" is more like it.

What really separates the Detroit automakers from the "foreign" automakers (who also make hundreds of thousands of cars in the U.S.) is compulsory unionism. Foreign manufacturers like Toyota, Honda and Nissan have U.S. plants that are free from monopoly bargaining, and they produce cars largely in Right to Work states, where forced dues are prohibited.

Some of the bailout coverage has addressed the destructive effects of the United Auto Workers union's monopoly bargaining privileges (who can forget the $31/hour paid to over 12,000 UAW members to do crossword puzzles?) which have run these once-great companies into the ground and costing tens of thousands of jobs.

While the proposal is, at a minimum, an indirect bailout of the UAW and forced unionism in general, it appears the union bosses have a direct bailout in mind as well. The Washington Post explains,

The $25 billion would come on top of $25 billion in low-interest loans Congress approved in September for the car companies to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. And the United Auto Workers plans to press next year for an additional $15 billion in public funds to cover the first payment the three companies are due to make into a new independent entity that will fund retiree pensions and health benefits.

After the UAW's two-day strike against GM last year led to the creation of union-administered trusts to handle health and pension obligations to union retirees, CNN noted this amazing statistic:

Today, the number of UAW retirees and surviving spouses collecting benefits from the big three automakers - about 540,000 - outnumbers active members working at the three automakers by three to one.

If this sounds like a pyramid scheme, don't be surprised to learn that this is exactly where the bailout money -- tens of billions of taxpayer dollars -- will be going. The Big Three simply won't be able to afford payments to the union-boss-run trusts, and now they want all Americans to pay for them.

What has sadly gone unreported in this fiasco is the nature of union-administred trust funds. The National Right to Work Foundation has previously revealed the lack of accountability in union pensions, which have often been used by union bosses as slush funds. As we told you last month, despite new federal reporting requirements, union and trust fund officials can choose to hide any trust expenditures they wish from their members. Can we really expect the new administration to ensure that union trusts aren't misusing their funds?

It seems unlikely that Americans will tolerate a bailout of the UAW bosses.

United Steelworkers Face Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Illegal Dues Objection Procedure

USW’s rule forces nonmembers to renew objection to forced dues each year

Morgantown, WV (November 17, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers national union for two Morgantown workers for its illegal scheme to coerce them to pay full union dues.

Chemtura Corporation employs approximately 80 workers at its Morgantown factory who are “represented” by the USW. Because West Virginia is not a Right to Work state, nonmembers are forced to pay certain compulsory fees to the union, but only for activities which union bosses can prove are related to collective bargaining. Previous Foundation-won litigation has established that workers have the right to refuse formal union membership and that union officials may not charge nonmembers for activities like political activism, organizing, and member-only events.

The USW forces David Yost, Ronald Echegary, and other similarly situated Chemtura employees to renew their objections to payment of full union dues in a 30-day window period each year. Nonmembers who do not annually renew their previous objections are suddenly assumed to be “non-objectors” and against their will and without their consent are compelled to pay full union dues or lose their jobs.

In contrast, union officials do not need to get new consents each year from union members, re-establishing that they want to remain members and continue to pay dues through payroll deduction. As the charges explain, the USW’s policy is discriminatory and “solely designed to burden objecting nonmembers.”

With its arbitrary “Nonmember Objection Procedure,” the USW has violated its duty to represent fairly nonmembers in good faith. Moreover, federal labor law does not grant certified unions the authority to convert nonmembers into “non-objectors” without their consent.

In June, Yost sent a letter to USW union bosses asserting his procedural rights under Communication Workers of America v. Beck and related cases. The Supreme Court has held that unions must provide nonmembers a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor, and the opportunity to challenge the basis of the fee. In his letter, Yost declared his intent to file unfair labor practice charges if the union did not consider his objection permanent and continuing. Echegary sent a similar letter in August, before his objection was to expire. In both instances, a USW lawyer replied that the employee would need to re-object each year.

“It is unbelievable that United Steelworkers union bosses expect nonmembers to follow these arbitrary and illegal union procedures,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, two Chemtura Corp. employees filed unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers union:

Morgantown, WV (November 17, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers national union for two Morgantown workers for its illegal scheme to coerce them to pay full union dues.

Chemtura Corporation employs approximately 80 workers at its Morgantown factory who are “represented” by the USW. Because West Virginia is not a Right to Work state, nonmembers are forced to pay certain compulsory fees to the union, but only for activities which union bosses can prove are related to collective bargaining. Previous Foundation-won litigation has established that workers have the right to refuse formal union membership and that union officials may not charge nonmembers for activities like political activism, organizing, and member-only events.

The USW forces David Yost, Ronald Echegary, and other similarly situated Chemtura employees to renew their objections to payment of full union dues in a 30-day window period each year. Nonmembers who do not annually renew their previous objections are suddenly assumed to be “non-objectors” and against their will and without their consent are compelled to pay full union dues or lose their jobs.

Read the rest of the Foundation's press release here.

On Monday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published an editorial criticizing the special privileges Pennsylvania law gives to teacher unions:

The Pennsylvania State Education Association causes untold damage to kids, taxpayers and the commonwealth. Few Pennsylvanians know how costly is this teacher union. But the public has the power to tame the beast.

With more than 185,500 members, 281 full-time employees and an annual income above $84 million, the PSEA is one of the state's wealthiest, largest and most politically active labor unions, reports The Commonwealth Foundation, a public-policy, free-market think tank in Harrisburg.

The PSEA has had cancerlike growth because of its ability to organize employees into collective bargaining units, influence legislation through its puppets that the union's political action committee helped to elect, and push for endless amounts of public financing for public schools, which usually ends up in union members' pockets.

Yesterday, the PSEA lied in response:

Contrary to the editorial, Pennsylvania is not a "compulsory" union state. Act 84, the Fair Share Fee law, preserves the right of all teachers and school employees to join or not to join a union.

But unions are legally required to represent each member of their bargaining units (including nonmembers) fairly and without discrimination. So it is reasonable for unions to charge nonmembers a fee for the costs of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, as well as enforcing their collective bargaining agreements through processing grievances.

There is no question that Pennsylvania is a compulsory unionism state.  That's an outright lie from the PSEA.  Further, this is a common refrain from union bosses, who refuse to mention that the only reason they must "represent" nonmembers because they seek monopoly bargaining over all employees, not just members.

The truth is that excellent teachers, who would often rather represent themselves in negotiations with school district officials, have no choice but to accept a union's so-called "representation." That usually means good teachers are forced to accept lower compensation than they could get if they negotiated on their own behalf.

For more on teacher union abuses in Pennsylvania and other compulsory unionism states, check out this op-ed in the Tribune-Review by Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

For more on the issue of compulsory unionism and education, see this video and listen to this podcast.

Agency Trial Judge Won’t Punish Union Officials for Threatening Non-Striking PVHMC Nurses with Fines, Jail

Nurse’s civil rights attorneys will appeal to the National Labor Relations Board

Pomona, California (November 25, 2008) – Attorneys for a Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center nurse announced they will appeal an erroneous administrative law judge ruling dismissing a federal complaint against a local union. Union officials had threatened non-striking nurses with financial penalties and even arrest for refusing to abandon their patients.

Federal labor prosecutors agreed with unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys and found that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 121RN officials had illegally coerced nurses in the exercise of their rights to refrain from union activity. The General Counsel of the NLRB formally brought the case before the federal labor law judge.

In May 2007, the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the hospital expired. SEIU officials later ordered a series of general strikes. Dozens of nurses resigned from formal union membership so they could continue treating their patients without facing retaliation by union officials. In response, union bosses menacingly disseminated information to nurses stating that, under a California “strikebreaker” law, they may be “subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail” for refusing to join the strike and returning to work. SEIU officials further suggested to nurses that nonmembers would continue to owe compulsory union dues even though no contract containing a valid forced-dues clause was in effect.

Foundation attorneys helped Carole Jean Badertscher file the original unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB, and the General Counsel agreed that the Golden State’s “strikebreaker” law “coerced and intimidated employees from engaging in activities protected by the [National Labor Relations] Act,” which guarantees the right of nonmembers to work rather than strike. Moreover, the General Counsel agreed that the union bosses’ false insistence that nonmembers pay dues when no contract is in effect is also an unfair labor practice.

But Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol dismissed the complaint, claiming that because none of the nurses could be legally classified as “professional strikebreakers,” the California law did not apply to them, and thus they should have ignored the threats. Also, according to the ALJ, union bosses did not violate the duty of fair representation because they “did not directly link continued dues payment with enforcement of a [forced-dues clause].”

“Unbelievably, the judge has effectively indicated that employees are expected to hire their own labor lawyers to help them read between the lines of union boss propaganda intended to coerce and intimidate them,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The fact remains that union bosses sought to mislead and pressure nurses into turning their backs on patients and continue to pay dues against their will.”

Foundation attorneys will file an appeal with the NLRB in Washington, DC.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing free legal aid to a California nurse who faced threats of fines and imprisonment for choosing not to go on strike, will appeal an administrative law judge's tortured reasoning with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC.

Pomona, California (November 25, 2008) – Attorneys for a Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center nurse announced they will appeal an erroneous administrative law judge ruling dismissing a federal complaint against a local union. Union officials had threatened non-striking nurses with financial penalties and even arrest for refusing to abandon their patients.

Federal labor prosecutors agreed with unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys and found that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 121RN officials had illegally coerced nurses in the exercise of their rights to refrain from union activity. The General Counsel of the NLRB formally brought the case before the federal labor law judge.

In May 2007, the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the hospital expired. SEIU officials later ordered a series of general strikes. Dozens of nurses resigned from formal union membership so they could continue treating their patients without facing retaliation by union officials. In response, union bosses menacingly disseminated information to nurses stating that, under a California “strikebreaker” law, they may be “subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail” for refusing to join the strike and returning to work. SEIU officials further suggested to nurses that nonmembers would continue to owe compulsory union dues even though no contract containing a valid forced-dues clause was in effect.

Read the rest of the Foundation's press release here.

Currently, 22 states have Right to Work protections which ensure that while workers are free to join unions, they are also free to refuse to join or pay tribute to an unwanted union. But this summer, federal legislation to wipe away every Right to Work law in the country was introduced in Congress.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, explains the nature of the threat -- and how supporters of employee freedom rallied once before to protect Right to Work laws (while forced unionism proponents got wiped out in subsequent elections) -- in Human Events:

In July, Sherman introduced legislation to repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act -- the provision of the 1947 law that affirms the right of states to enact Right to Work laws. Strike Section 14(b) from the books, and state Right to Work laws would be preempted by federal labor policy, which upholds forced unionism.

Sherman’s bill got little attention last year. Even most Democrats
ignored the proposed 14(b) repeal. Only eight House Democrats
cosponsored the bill before Nancy Pelosi sent it to committee.

But as time goes on, and particularly if Big Labor’s cronies in Congress
pass legislation like the Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill or the Police
and Fire Fighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which would force countless
thousands of America’s first responders under union control against
their will, a fresh attempt to repeal Section 14(b) may gather steam.

Read the whole thing here.

Tragedy struck on Black Friday at a Wal-Mart on Long Island when impatient customers trampled an employee as they rushed into the store at 5 a.m., leading to his death.

But union bosses -- long engaged in a vicious corporate campaign against the retailer in an effort to force Wal-Mart employees into their forced dues rank -- are trying to exploit the tragedy for their self-serving ends:

"This incident was avoidable," said Bruce Both, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500, the state of New York's largest grocery worker's union.

"Where were the safety barriers? Where was security? How did store management not see dangerous numbers of customers barreling down on the store in such an unsafe manner?

"This is not just tragic; it rises to a level of blatant irresponsibility by Wal-Mart," he said.

(Via Reason)