With the strike ordered by UAW officials against GM ending early this morning, it's important to draw a few lessons.

As Patrick noted Monday, the UAW hierarchy was willing to sell out some rank-and-file workers on wages so long as GM promised union officials the ability to organize its nonunion suppliers to bolster compulsory dues revenues.

Second, despite the misconceptions held by some, the fact that union officials can shut down nationwide employers and industries demonstrates that they are clearly still relevant. The widespread impact and attention the strike attracted is proof positive.

Addtionally, because of their ability to compel dues from workers in the 28 states without Right to Work laws, union officials are major players politically. Why just last friday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to deploy 200,000 union operatives and $200 million to influence the 2008 elections.

In an all too familiar scene, Nevada County employees in California are outraged at a recent union election they called "underhanded" and "sneaky," that now means they have to pay union dues or be fired.

"It left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It was just kind of snuck in," said Mike Sherman, an employee in the welfare department who didn't hear of the election until after ballots were cast.

Similar groups of frustrated employees have formed grassroots groups opposed to forced union dues in Maine and Washington State in recent years. California, Maine, and Washington State all are without a Right to Work law which would make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.

And speaking of Washington...

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys were instrumental in helping several employees get their jobs back last year after Washington Federation of State Employees union officials unlawfully ordered them fired for refusing to pay union dues without due process. WFSE union spokesman Tim Welch said at the time:

"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."

Despite Welch's clear hostility to employee rights, he aptly summarizes Washington State law, which authorizes the firing of employees for refusing to pay union dues.

However, several employees did indeed stand on principle and refused to pay dues to the unwanted union, sacrificing their jobs in the process. Among these employees were Pat Woodward and Maxine Dunkelman who decided to file suit against the WFSE union alongside several coworkers with the Foundation's help. Here is what Pat had to say about being fired for refusing to pay union dues at a press conference announcing the lawsuit:

The coercive "card check" union organizing scheme became the law of the land for public sector workers in Massachusetts yesterday.

Bay State employees will undoubtedly find out soon that this abuse ridden scheme is no tea party. See all the latest about the National Right to Work Foundation's efforts to lessen the abuses suffered by workers under such drives here.

Ray Hogler of Colorado State University, an advocate of forced union dues, recently mischaracterized Colorado as a "modified right to work state." He cites a law that simply makes it just a little less easy for union officials in Colorado to impose forced union dues on employees. That law requires a secret ballot election in which a majority of eligible voters or 75 percent of actual voters must favor firing workers if they refuse to pay union dues.

Make no mistake about it, despite this procedural hurdle, union officials can still order workers across Colorado fired for refusal to pay dues once they clear it. All they have to do is quash employee dissent, and with the laws of 28 states mandating compulsory dues, they have plenty of cash to do it.

Hogler continues:

The rhetorical hyperbole about Colorado's unions does raise issues of labor law reform that are complicated, contentious and of serious consequence.

Actually, it's not that complicated, employees are either truly free to choose whether to join or pay dues to a union or they're not. And in Colorado, despite Hogler's objections, the law still favors coercion over free choice.

A top ranking Teamsters official boasts today about a recently ratified contract with UPS that:

“Once the national UPS and the local UPS Freight agreements are both ratified by our members, we will have a ‘card check/neutrality agreement’ with UPS Freight."

Let's hope no dissenting workers targeted with "card check" suffer the same fate as Rod Carter, a former UPS driver who Right to Work attorneys helped file suit after Teamsters operatives viciously attacked him for refusing to walk off the job.

Every week, it seems that union officials target more workers with coercive "card check" organizing.

In one of the most watched cases at the National Labor Relations Board, Right to Work attorneys today struck a blow for employees nationwide that want to vote out a union recognized under a coercive "card check" organizing drive.

The case involved a controversial "card check" drive by the UAW union, and an accompanying case involved the Steelworkers union.

Comparing secret ballot elections to "card checks," the NLRB majority pointed out:

“Card checks are less reliable because they lack secrecy and procedural safeguards… union card-solicitation campaigns have been accompanied by misinformation… workers sometimes sign union authorization cards…to get the person off their back.”

Though employees can now petition to vote out the unwanted union for 45 days after recognition, the ruling will only take effect prospectively. This means that the very employees that brought the case will not be able to toss out the unwanted union!

Yesterday's National Labor Relations Board decision continues to grab headlines across the country.

It's interesting to note that while you have certain members of Congress pressing to mandate the coercive "card check" scheme, the NLRB here has signaled the inferiority of the process in measuring employee support for unionization. In essence, employees now have an out once a union is imposed on them via "card check."

In the underlying Metaldyne case, 50 percent of the employees petitioned to vote the union out immediately following the recognition of the union. How can union officials possibly claim with a straight face that a majority of employees supported unionization" In cruel irony, however, as mentioned previously, yesterday's decision will not protect the very employees that brought the underlying cases.