Ronald Trowbridge has an excellent op-ed in Saturday's Houston Chronicle about the corrosive effects on forced unionism in the workplace.

Some years ago, I crossed a faculty picket line at a large university — the only faculty member out of several hundred professors to cross. Every fiber in my body opposed the strike, and I was pathologically unable to not cross. The nightmare that followed was the most stressful experience in my life, save for the cancer and death of my wife.

What happened?

As for my professorial friends, Frank screamed to me down the pathway filled with students, "You a******!" Walter said he was going to take a picture of my crossing the line and show it to people, hoping that I would get hurt.

Donald said to me in the crowded faculty lunchroom, "There's Trowbridge. No, he's not a scab; he's an oozing, running sore." Laughter erupted. Sheila called me a "scab," with a scowling, mean face. She really meant it.

Jay, my telephone mate and one I had taken in as a guest at my summer cottage, was so red-faced with anger at me that he yelled, "That's it, Trowbridge, I am never again going to answer your telephone!"

All this over an illegal strike. But for forced unionism proponents, what's legal, or just, or fair is irrelevant. It's all about some mindless, don't-question-your-peers sense of "solidarity."

And as Trowbridge warns, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill) will further increase workplace hostility by pitting union partisans against their co-workers by eliminating the protection of the secret ballot and incentivizing intimidation against workers by union goons.

In August, we told you about allegations of corruption against Tyrone Freeman, then head the largest Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate in California. Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times published new allegations against Freeman and his union.

In 2004, Freeman's local launched what they called a "charity" to develop affordable housing for its members. The charity's board is mostly comprised of union officials, and the charity shares office space with the union.

The problem? In at least two years of operation, the "charity" failed to spend a single cent on its charitable mission.

The charity, launched by a scandal-ridden Los Angeles chapter of the Service Employees International Union, had total expenses of about $165,000 for 2005 and 2006, and all of the money went to consulting fees, insurance costs and other overhead, according to its Internal Revenue Service filings.

Charity watchdogs say that nonprofits should never have zero program expenses in two successive years and that well-performing charities direct at least 70% of their annual spending to their charitable purpose.

"Of the 5,000-plus charities we've looked at, I don't think we've ever seen one that didn't spend anything on its charitable programs," said Sandra Miniutti, vice president of Charity Navigator, an online rating service.

Running a union-affiliated charity that doesn't actually do any charity -- sounds a bit like the kind of job Rob Blagojevich was asking the SEIU to set up for him.

As Freedom @ Work readers are aware, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union wants its very own federal bailout. On Friday, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger, expressing frustration that his union doesn't own everybody in Congress, indirectly blamed the mess in Detroit on the fact that the National Right to Work Foundation fights for voluntary unionism while protecting its donors' from being harassed by union goons.

But rather than worrying about the Foundation's funding sources and demanding the American taxpayers to bail out his pension scheme, perhaps Gettelfinger should examine his union's financial mismanagement. The DC Examiner has more:

What do UAW executives and workers do to relax? They play golf at the union’s highly touted championship caliber Black Lake Golf Club, designed by Rees Jones. The UAW golf club is in secluded Onaway, MI, as part of the union’s Walter and Mary Reuther Family Education Center. Also part of Black Lake are a learning center, a practice facility with practice bunkers, chipping and putting greens, and a small, nine-hole par-three Little Course.

Golf Digest named Black Lake as one of top “upscale public courses.” And Michigan Golf described the course as a “classic” that includes “wide, well-groomed fairways [that] provide ample room for big hitters.” But some big hitters get special privileges at Black Lake. Tee times can be reserved up to two weeks in advance by UAW execs, compared to only three days for non-UAW duffers. Cost to play Black Lake is $95 per round.

Remember all the much-deserved bad press Detroit’s high-paid Big Three executives received last month when they flew in their corporate jets to beg Washington for a tax-paid bailout? Has anybody in Congress or the media bothered to ask UAW head Ron Gettelfinger about his union’s assets and perks like Black Lake Golf Club?

Michelle Malkin points out that the UAW union's golf course and education center have managed to lose $23 million over the last five years, even though both are supposedly run as for-profit businesses, according to an independent audit.

Today, President-elect Barack Obama named his pick for Labor Secretary, California Congresswoman Hilda Solis. Unsurprisingly, union bosses are rallying behind the pick.

Solis is a prominent supporter of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill), which would replace the secret ballot with intimidating "card check" campaigns in which union goons repeatedly harass workers at work and at home to sign union authorization cards. Once the union collects a simple majority of these public "votes," every worker in the bargaining unit loses the right to negotiate directly with the employer.

But in January 2007, Solis joined other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to protest the lack of a secret ballot in the election for CHC officials. The San Diego Union-Tribune has a good summary of their complaint (emphasis added):

On Wednesday, Sanchez did not elaborate on the claim of election rules violation. However, in a letter to Baca earlier this month, she, her sister, Solis and Velazquez contended the vote did not follow procedure because secret ballot votes were not taken.

The letter requested a new vote, by secret ballot.

“While this request is not likely to change the results, and while it may seem like a mere formality, it is important that the integrity of the CHC be unquestioned and above reproach,” it said.

There you have it -- incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is on the record favoring the secret ballot as "unquestioned and above reproach." But only when it protects her from intimidation.

For more on the selection of union-label Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, click here to read the statement issued by National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

Today the New York Times published a letter to the editor from union activist Wilma Liebman, who as a member of the National Labor Relations Board has testified before Congress on behalf of the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill) and complaining about individual rights. In the letter, Liebman writes:

Labor policy is indeed a long-neglected arena, ripe for the intervention of President-elect Barack Obama. What the editorial doesn’t mention is the opportunity to revitalize the National Labor Relations Board, which administers the main federal labor law.

During the Bush administration, nearly every policy choice made by a sharply divided board impeded collective bargaining, created obstacles to union representation or favored employer interests. Not surprisingly, the board has lost legitimacy.

But how can the board be legitimate when a member of the Board spends her free time bashing the very law she is supposed impartially to enforce while campaigning -- in Congress, in "academic" journals, in the letters section of the Times -- to rewrite it.

One wonders how an employee could expect Liebman (who previously worked as a union lawyer) to fairly apply the law in a case where union intimidation restrains an employee's free choice to not associate with a union. Surely in most other fora, judges would recuse themselves in such cases.  (In fact, it may be appropriate for legal counsel to seek Liebman's recusal if they believe her naked union activism has forfeited her objectivity.)

Member Liebman can parrot Big Labor talking points all she wants, but the fact remains that she routinely displays an ugly disdain for true employee free choice -- the right for each employee to decide on his or her own, without being intimidated by a union organizer, whether to join or pay dues to a union.

We've already told you about the hypocrisy of Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA), President-elect Obama's pick to head the Department of Labor, on the secret ballot, and about how Solis as Secretary of Labor is likely to support cuts to the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which investigates union corruption. On Friday, Solis appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Ted Kennedy-led committee is presiding over Solis' nomination.

The LA Times has a good rundown of the hearings. Importantly,

Solis also was pressed by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) about preserving "right to work" laws in states such as his that prohibit employers from requiring workers to be members of a union or to pay dues as condition of employment.

But Solis told Alexander she was "not qualified" to give him a response on the issue, except to say that she believed "that the president-elect feels strongly that American workers should have a choice to join or not to join a union. And to me that is the basic premise of our democracy, whether you want to be associated with a group or not."

Empahsis mine.

The incoming Labor Secretary, if she is to be taken at her word, believes that freedom of association is a basic right of American democracy. This is precisely what the Right to Work principle is -- that no worker should be forced to join or pay dues to a union to get or keep a job.

Unfortunately, Right to Work wasn't the only important issue Solis felt "not qualified" or otherwise unable to articulate her own position or that of President-elect Obama. Solis dodged key questions about the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives, mandatory first contract arbitration, the abuse of prevailing wage rules, and union boss corruption.

So what is she qualified to do, exactly? With her vacuousness on full display last Friday, it is increasingly apparent that her main "qualification" to be Secretary of Labor may simply be being good at doing exactly what she's told by union bosses.

Teachers File FEC Complaint against NEA for Illegal PAC Money Laundering Scheme

Sworn testimony indicates union officials misled educators, diverted union treasury funds into political committee

Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).

Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.

In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC, as delegates of the BCEA. By telephone, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed Waites and Fox that contributions to a “children’s fund” in their names were made from money included in their expense reimbursements for their trip to the convention.

Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.

Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Sworn statements by Waites and Fox indicate that the AEA union boss also admitted that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues. However, it is illegal for unions to contribute to political candidates using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.”

Teacher union officials also violated federal law by encouraging and soliciting contributions under false pretenses and without informing Waites or Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. Federal law also forbids campaign contributions made in the name of another person.

“This union money laundering scheme makes a mockery of federal election law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which has joined Waites and Fox as a complainant. “We suspect this scheme was widely used by the NEA union hierarchy and could involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. We urge the FEC to take decisive action.”

U.S. Supreme Court Misses Opportunity to Expand Protections for Employees Forced to Pay Union Dues

Today’s ruling highlights the need for Right to Work laws, which end forced unionism

Washington, DC (January 21, 2009) -- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maine state employees can be compelled under penalty of losing their jobs to pay into an international union’s litigation slush fund – even where all the litigation expenditures are made outside of their own bargaining unit.

In doing so, the High Court affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a loose standard of protection under the U.S. Constitution for employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

“America’s workers were not well served by this ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court missed an obvious opportunity to apply explicitly the same ‘strict scrutiny’ standard that applies under the First Amendment to other content-based government restrictions on free speech,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provided free legal aid to the employees asserting their rights.

“Forced unionism is an outrageous situation. It results from actions by politicians to pay back the union bosses who got them elected by handing them the forced union dues of millions of employees in America.”

The employee petitioners in Daniel Locke et al. v. Edward Karass et al., asked the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity to the criteria it had established previously that determine what union activities employees can be lawfully forced to fund.

Unions spend billions of dollars each year on activities such as politics, organizing, litigation, lobbying, and a wide range of other ideological and non-bargaining activities. Yet union officials often claim that non-union members must foot the bill for these activities or be fired from their jobs.

The High Court’s ruling dealt with a special situation where, according to lower courts, employees who pay into a national litigation pooling arrangement could theoretically at some time benefit from litigation expenditures for their own bargaining unit.

“Because of the narrowness of the issue involved, we are optimistic that collateral damage to employee rights will be minimized,” continued Mix. “More fundamentally, however, this decision also highlights the need for state Right to Work laws which prevent union officials from extracting any compulsory dues from individual employees as a condition of employment.”

Locke is the 14th case brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.