Score another win for Big Labor at the expense of employee freedom. Yesterday in New York, Governor David Paterson signed a law making union dues mandatory for public employees who choose to refrain from union membership.

In the past, the law authorizing union bosses to force public employees to pay up as a requirement of keeping their job would expire every two years. The union boss spin is almost unbelievable:

[Union bosses] said on Wednesday that making the law permanent guaranteed that unions would have the money to adequately represent members and nonmembers alike, which they were required to do under a state law known as the Taylor Law. “In public employment, they have the right not to belong, but I still must represent them,” said Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “If under the law we’re obligated to represent every employee, then it’s only fair that every employee pays something toward the cost of being represented.”

Iannuzzi's language is fairly typical among union officials (they frequently use the term "fair share" to describe the dues they seize from nonmembers to pay for unwanted "representation"). But painting union bosses as hapless victims of the very special privileges they got enacted is absolutley absurd. Exclusive representation -- monopoly bargaining -- is a statutory power given to unions precisely because union bosses lobbied for it.

I'd love to call Iannuzzi's bluff -- will he and other union bosses actually consent to lifting federal and state laws which give unions the special privilege of monopoly bargaining? If they had a beef with the Taylor Law, why not just petition the state to repeal the offensive portions? No, instead, the union despots demanded even more privileges -- the power to line their pockets and entrench compuslory unionism.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the state Senate -- after years of refusing to make forced dues for nonmembers permanent -- gave in to Big Labor's demands:

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill last month. Similar bills had passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly before, only to fail in the Senate. But with Republicans in a pitched battle to preserve their thin majority in the Senate, the party seemed unwilling to block a priority of organized labor. It passed the Senate last month by a 62-to-0 vote. The Assembly approved it 140 to 5.

Clearly, New York State Senate Republicans have abandoned principle for politics. But the leftist union bosses are always ungrateful -- if they get a chance to replace any of these Republican appeasers with a union-backed Democrat, they'll do it without hesitation.

The New York Times has a devastating article up on the incestuous relationship between public sector union officials and the New York state legislature. The actual controversy is downright farcical: legislators relied on a public sector union accountant to determine the cost of proposed increases to the state's employee pension plan.

A reasonable observer might suggest that this arrangement represented a clear conflict of interest, but to New York state legislators it was just good book-keeping. According to the Times, the union actuary "reviewed" hundreds of bills for the state before being exposed by the paper's investigation. What's more, the Times reports that the actuary neglected to mention additional legislative costs of up $500 million in his original reports.

The Times' description of the actuary's "methodology" is particularly mind-boggling (emphasis mine):

" . . . in an arrangement that had not been publicly disclosed, Mr. Schwartz [the union actuary] was being paid by labor unions. He acknowledged in an interview that he skewed his work to favor the [union's interests], calling his job “a step above voodoo.”

As a result, legislative leaders said they would no longer rely on Mr. Schwartz’s work, and a disciplinary board affiliated with the American Academy of Actuaries has begun a review of Mr. Schwartz’s conduct.

The Legislature relied almost exclusively on Mr. Schwartz — a consultant to District Council 37, the umbrella group of municipal unions as well as to unions representing firefighters, teachers, detectives and correction officers — to determine the cost of pension bills involving New York City employees."

Fortunately, Empire State legislators swung into action to reasssure the Times that they were monitoring the situation all along. I'm sure New York taxpayers are greatly reassured by their representatives' scrupulous accounting procedures:

"Despite legislative leaders’ assertions that they undertake independent financial analyses of the pension bills, neither the Senate nor the Assembly could provide any records to bolster that claim."

Unfortunately, this sort of lax book-keeping is par for the course when it comes to union pension funds which are often managed for the benefit of union bosses, rather than the pensioners. The incident also highlights the dangerous potential for union political activism in the legislative sphere.

When things get too cozy, there really are no breaks on political corruption. In another instance, Schwartz analyzed a Big Labor supported bill and basically lied to the legislature -- saying it would result in no additional costs to taxpayers.

"Mr. Schwartz conceded in an interview last month that he knew the bill would actually have a significant cost, explaining, “I got a little bit carried away in my formulation.”

He added that he made his projections look “as cheap as possible” to favor his clients."

Today's regretful passing of commentator William F. Buckley Jr. reminds us of how Mr. Buckley stood up to compulsory unionism with help from the National Right to Work Foundation several decades back. George Leef details the fight in pages 160-162 of Free Choice for Workers: A History of the Right to Work Movement.

After American Federation of Television and Radio Artists union officials told Mr. Buckley to join the union and pay up if he wanted to voice his opinions over the airwaves, he fought back in the form of a Foundation-aided lawsuit.

Though the case was batted between the courts and National Labor Relations Board, it ultimately led the AFTRA union to stop requiring formal membership from employees. (However, it could still compel dues from employees.)

Despite this, Mr. Buckley voiced satisfaction at his case's achievement. Mr. Leef cites:

Summing up his case, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in his sydicated column, 'Thanks to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which funded this case...employees are precisely not bound to obey the union's rules any long, and the First Amendment has won a significant victory.'

Following up on last week's post, Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research spoke out last week against a recent executive order in Colorado extending union monopoly bargaining over state employees. (NRTW Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr. spoke at the event.)

According to an article in the Denver Business Journal:

Greer also said that even if legislators approve a law prohibiting
government workers from striking -- and Ritter signs it -- 48 percent
of public sector strikes are technically illegal, meaning that
legislation is not an effective deterrent against strikes.

"By all economic measures, Colorado would be better off without
forced dues and fees and everyone would be better off with right to
work laws."

How true- if strike prohibitions work, how did union officials shut down New York City just before Christmas in 2005" They didn't seem to mind the illegality of that strike. The imposition of forced union dues has also prompted state employees in Washington and Maine to fight back.

A high-level Teamsters official from New York yesterday was indicted on federal embezzlement and extortion charges for demanding among other things:

"...that his employees mow his lawn, clean his gutters and chauffeur his family."

Sounds like quite the life. According to the article:

"The indictment said the employees complied with Rumore's demands because they feared they would suffer economic harm or even lose their jobs if they did not."

Rumore was released on $250,000 bond, I wonder where he got all that cash. He also faces up to 25 years in prison.

As noted by the late Senator John McClellan, "Compulsory unionism and corruption go hand-in-hand." These are the sorts of misdeeds union officials perpetrate at the expense of rank-and-file workers when the do not face the accountability instilled by a Right to Work law.

Over 4,500 rank-and-file workers have been hung out to dry by their union local in New York City.

The Village Voice had an intriguing editorial about the Carpenters Local 157 union. Apparently the local is infested with corruption, and not just recently either. The editorial reports:

“…the Carpenters union has been unable to climb out of a 30-year-long quagmire of corruption.”

But just as troubling, William Callahan, the union's court-appointed independent investigator, had this to say to Carpenters union chief, Douglas McCarron:

“…Local 157 as ‘a mismanaged mess where [business agents] come and go as they please, following few, if any, rules.’”

Sadly, in an instance like this when the union hierarchy turned its back on its own, it goes to show that union bosses are more concerned about their own well-being than actually respecting the rights of the workers they claim to “represent.”

Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 91 is no stranger when it comes to using threats, coercion and intimidation on the picket line.

But despite court appearances, federal investigations and even beatings throughout the 1990s, Local 91 union officials have brought out their newest scare-tactic weapon…a 10-ft inflatable rat, paid for in full with $4,000 of union dues, much of which is taken from workers as a condition of employment.

(Photo by Charles Lewis/Buffalo News)

The rat, union officials claim, is a peaceful message to workers who choose not to toe the union line.

According to The Buffalo News, most agree that the giant rat planted outside a Holiday Inn at a Niagara Falls construction site is a not-so-subtle sign of some of this LIUNA Local’s violent past. The giant rat is inflated for about four hours every morning, and during that time, Local 91 picketers intimidate truck drivers entering the site.

In fact, one Local 91 operative, Michael Godzisz, even tried to justify the intimidation:

The picketing laborers also stop construction vehicles as they enter the site but do so for only three of five minutes at a time, he said.

And the union local’s business manager supported the bullying tactic:

“We can’t hold them up, and if we keep walking they can’t run us over,” said Rob Connolly, Local 91’s business manager. “After about five minutes, we let them go out of courtesy.” [Emphasis added]

Despite LIUNA Local 91’s claim to reform and anger management control, the use of the giant rat is just another type of terror used to intimidate those employees who refuse to walk off the job. In fact, other locals have used the rat trap up and down the east coast.

But giving truckers a “courtesy” to get through the picket line leaves you questioning: what exactly happens after the five minute window is up"

SEATTLE, Wash. (March 19, 2001) -- National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are filing a class-action lawsuit against the Washington Education Association (WEA) union seeking to reclaim money illegally seized from the paychecks of more than 4,200 teachers to advance the union's political agenda. Foundation attorneys filed the class-action lawsuit, Davenport v. WEA, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Thurston on behalf of teachers who are not union members (but who must still pay agency fees) after WEA union officials illegally seized fees without authorization in violation of Washington's so-called "paycheck protection" law (Initiative 134). Since the non-member teachers had not exercised their right to reclaim about $175 (per teacher per year) under a recent Foundation-won court settlement against the WEA union, they are only entitled to reclaim about $10 (per year over five years) attributed to "political activities" under the narrow definition in the mis-named "paycheck protection" law. The suit asks that about $200,000 in illegally seized fees be returned to the teachers. "Because flimsy 'paycheck protection' laws like this one are so fatally flawed, teachers relying on the law have received little protection of their rights not to fund union electioneering and the like," said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. "However, the Foundation took the case anyway because we always do everything possible under the law to help victims of forced unionism abuse." Initiative 134 was intended to prevent union officials from spending government workers' money for politics without prior authorization. After passage of that law, union officials easily sidestepped the law's narrow and toothless requirements. Last September, Washington's Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) determined that WEA union officials had not secured authorization from nonmembers for the forced union dues spent on the tiny fraction of union political activity actually regulated by the law. Washington's Attorney General now seeks unspecified sanctions against the WEA union, but is seeking absolutely no damages for the teachers whose rights were violated. Foundation attorneys have already won a settlement for Washington teachers in Leer v. WEA. Under Leer, about 300 teachers annually reclaim more than $175 each in forced union dues that had been seized by WEA union officials for politics, lobbying, organizing, and other non-bargaining activities. Unlike the flawed Initiative 134, Leer attacked the very basis of forced union dues on constitutional grounds. However, most non-member teachers have not yet exercised their rights under Leer and have thus been paying nearly full dues to the WEA labor union - even money that the PDC found required affirmative authorization. The more than 4,200 teachers in Davenport were never asked for authorization, so they are seeking a full rebate, plus interest, of the amount that was seized illegally from their paychecks. Teachers are also seeking an injunction prohibiting WEA officials from seizing forced union dues used for influencing elections and supporting political committees without affirmative consent from non-member teachers.

Janesville, Wis. (March 9, 2001) -- Responding to charges filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found that local Teamsters union officials violated the rights of Janesville Products employees by threatening to have them fired, and in one case even arrested, for trying to reclaim illegally seized forced union dues. A full refund of the illegally seized money from approximately 75 workers could exceed $10,000. The Regional Director of the NLRB based in Milwaukee issued a formal complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges filed last December on behalf of 14 employees against Teamsters union Local 579. Foundation attorneys filed the charges after union officials demanded that the employees pay almost full union dues without any authorization to collect forced dues under the collective bargaining agreement. "Teamsters officials must now answer for their systematic shakedown of these employees," said Foundation Director of Legal Information Randy Wanke. "They weren't legally entitled to dock these employees' wages, but they did it anyway." The employees filed earlier charges against union officials last October for using a portion of their forced dues for politics. Upon further investigation into that case, Foundation attorneys discovered that the collective bargaining agreement at Janesville Products did not authorize any forced union dues at all from certain employees. Under the agreement, employees who were not members of the union when the agreement went into effect on July 1, 2000, were "grandfathered" out of the forced unionism provision. Despite that clear provision, Teamsters union Local 579 officials demanded that the non-members pay union dues or forfeit their jobs. The NLRB's complaint states that a union official even went as far as threatening one of the employees with a "police complaint and possible arrest" for demanding that the union stop seizing forced dues from his paycheck. The NLRB has given Teamsters union Local 579 officials until March 20 to respond to the complaint. Foundation attorneys intend to ensure that any resolution results in full protection for all qualifying employees at the plant, including full rebates of all dues illegally seized.

PALMDALE, Calif. (March 5, 2001) -- A Lockheed Martin employee today filed federal charges against an international labor union after union officials illegally seized forced union dues from his paycheck to fund union political activities. With the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, the aeronautics factory employee, Mark Thomley, filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union, its District 725 affiliate, and its Palmdale-based Local 727-P affiliate. "Mark Thomley and his coworkers are being forced to fork over their hard-earned money for political activities they don't support," said Randy Wanke, Director of Legal Information for the National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse. The charges state that union officials devised a "rebate" scheme under which they seize fees used for politics and other nonchargeable expenditures from nonmembers' paychecks. Union bureaucrats do not return the money - which (the charges state) "should never have been taken in the first place" - until several months later. Union officials' actions violate the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communications Workers v. Beck, which held that workers may withhold any forced union dues used for all activities unrelated to collective bargaining. In addition, union officials are violating NLRB rulings (in California Saw and Knife Works and other cases) requiring unions to provide objecting nonmembers with an "advance reduction" of their dues. Foundation attorneys are demanding that the IAM union halt its practice of collecting full union dues from nonmembers and immediately return all money illegally confiscated from workers under the union's "rebate" scheme.