The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has just released a report entitled "Tax-Paying Families Are Fleeing Forced-Unionism States" that details how and why families are moving from the 28 states that do not protect employees from forced unionism to the 22 states that do:

The IRS’s Statistical Information Service (SIS)… data for the Tax Filing Year 2008 show that a total of 1.523 million personal income tax filers were residing that year in a Right to Work state after residing somewhere else in the 50 states or the District of Columbia the previous year.  Meanwhile, a total of 1.338 million tax filers were residing in a Right to Work state in 2007, but filed from one of the other 49 states or the District of Columbia in
2008.

That means a net total of 185,000 tax filers moved from a forced-unionism state to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008.

The SIS also calculates and makes available to the public the aggregate adjusted gross incomes for migrating households in the year immediately following the move.  Personal income tax filers moving to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008 reported a total of $76.432 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $50,190 per filer.  Tax filers moving out of a Right to Work state during the same period reported a total of $61.773 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $46,165 per filer.

Both because of their substantial taxpayer losses due to net domestic out-migration, and because the taxpayers they gained earned significantly less per capita in 2008 than did the taxpayers they lost, forced-dues states lost a total of $14.659 billion in adjusted gross 2008 income in a single year.

The research report also highlights how those workers who flee forced unionism benefit with an adjusted gross income more than $4000 higher than their counterparts who moved from a pro-worker freedom state into a forced unionism state.

Of course, the most important aspect of why workers are fleeing to Right to Work states is because Right to Work laws give workers the needed protections to counter Big Labor’s forced dues monopoly in the workplace.  Right to Work laws allow workers to keep their own hard-earned money if they find union dues payment to be objectionable or even just undesirable. Because of that right, Right to Work laws allow independent-minded workers the ability to better hold union bosses accountable for their actions.

To read the full NILRR report, click here.

Recently, the National Right to Work Foundation sounded the alarm about an under-the-radar attempt by Big Labor to make dramatic changes to labor regulations under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), enabling union organizers to force independent-minded railway and airline industry workers into unwanted union membership.

Big labor partisans from over 30 unions, led by AFL-CIO, pushed to change the current system requiring union bosses to obtain the consent of a true majority of workers in a given bargaining unit to accept their "exclusive representation."  Instead, they want a new system that allows just a majority of workers actually voting in a union organizing election to impose unionization on the whole group — thereby giving union officials the upper hand over workers who would otherwise decline union affiliation.

Unfortunately, the National Mediation Board (NMB), the government agency charged under the Railway Labor Act with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries, voted 2-1 to discard 75 year old precedent and assist Big Labor in maximizing unionization of workers under the jurisdiction of the RLA.  Right to Work litigators sprung into action filing formal comments defending independent-minded workers against the NMB’s draconian maneuver.

Now the Foundation has requested to testify at the NMB’s December 7, 2009 hearing on the proposed policy changes.  Naturally, the Foundation — as America’s preeminent workers’ rights advocacy organization — is in a unique position to provide the needed perspective of individual workers opposed to forced unionism.

Given the opportunity, Foundation attorneys will point out that the proposed changes makes it exceedingly difficult for independent-minded workers to resist Big Labor’s well-funded, professional organizing machine — operating across entire, often-nationwide bargaining units — and imposes a greater burden on employees who wish to refrain from union membership by forcing them to either take affirmative action to protect rights that should already be secure or otherwise allow far less than a majority of their colleagues take away their independence.

In an expose published last week in the New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse profiles several UNITE HERE union organizers who claim that union bosses demanded they reveal intimate details of their personal lives — including whether or not they have even been sexually abused — and then collected this sensitive information and shared it with other union staff and organizers in a disturbing process known as "pink-sheeting."

The union organizers’ accounts of what they claim is a widespread problem within UNITE HERE are simply horrifying and speak for themselves:

“It’s extremely cultlike and extremely manipulative,” said Amelia Frank-Vitale, a Yale graduate and former hotel union organizer who said these practices drove her to see a therapist.

…

“This information is extremely personal,” said Matthew Edwards, an organizer who had disclosed that he was from a broken home and was overweight when young. “It is catalogued and shared throughout the whole organizing department.”

…

“I wanted to change conditions at my workplace,” Maria said. “I was ready to fight for respect for workers. But this entire thing felt like a total lack of respect. I quit the union because I felt this was psychological abuse.”

The full article has many more accounts, and it’s a must-read for those concerned with the lack of accountability within the union hierarchy.   The union organizers claim that their supervisors relied on "pink-sheeting" to ensure the organizers remained loyal to the union bosses and never questioned their authority or instructions. However one feels about unions in general, everyone should agree that these tactics are an affront to basic human decency and should have no place in the workplace.

The comments section contains several replies from Times readers claiming to be current or former  union staffers or organizers backing up the veracity of the accounts in the article.  One commenter claims to have heard the real goal of pink-sheeting "is to expunge the staffer of middle-class values."  It’s understandable to question the accounts of anonymous commenters, but these current and former organizers deserve to be heard for coming out against these outrageous union boss practices.

Of course, while ignored by the notoriously pro-forced unionism Times, the article raises more fundamental questions, including:

• If this is how union bosses treat organizers, how can union bosses be trusted to "represent" rank-and-file workers who vocalize opposition to unionization?

• And perhaps most timely: With such horrific tactics continuing to come to light, why are so many politicians still intent on handing union bosses even more special privileges?

There’s nothing new about forced-dues-hungry union bosses complaining about how volunteers and nonprofits don’t pay union dues, but this is a new low:

Last week at a city council meeting in Allentown, Pa., a top official of the local Service Employees International Union chapter ranted about 17-year-old Scout Kevin Anderson’s park cleanup work. Anderson devoted some 200 hours to the job in order to earn an Eagle Scout badge. He picked up trash and helped clear a 1,000-foot walking path with fellow members of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley.

But SEIU’s Nick Balzano gave them hell instead of thanks.

Balzano disparaged altruistic efforts in city parks and asserted that "there is (sic) to be no volunteers" since his union members were laid off. He then issued a witch hunt threat: "We’ll also be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails. We may file another grievance on that." Citing union rules, he gave the Allentown city council, the Boy Scouts and all potential volunteers an iron-fisted ultimatum: "None of them can pick up a hoe. They can’t pick up a shovel. They can’t plant a flower. They can’t clear a bicycle path. They can’t do anything. Our people do that."

Michelle Malkin has more on this outrage here.  Boy Scouts, and anyone else who voluntarily gives up their free time to improve our communities, should be commended for their service, not ridiculed by selfish union bosses.  This kind of union demagoguery is quickly becoming a widespread national problem.  Malkin asks National Right to Work president Mark Mix why (emphasis added).

In California, union heavies in the Sacramento area sued a nonprofit environmental group for using college-age volunteers on a state-funded project to clean up a canyon and build a community trail. Big Labor dusted off an old law that requires community service volunteers to be paid prevailing wages for doing the same kind of cleanup that Allentown Boy Scout Kevin Anderson was punished for doing freely. The law was finally repealed, but not without a brass-knuckles fight.

As National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix, whose group monitors forced union abuses, pointed out during the battle: "Discerning California union bosses’ real agenda … is not hard. Volunteer workers don’t have to pay compulsory union dues to serve their communities, but most paid workers on public projects in California do. … (It) is yet another example of how government-authorized compulsory union dues corrupt the political process and furnish unscrupulous union officials with an enormous incentive to act against the public interest."

A recent story in the Providence Journal serves as a stark reminder of union bosses’ historical ties to the mafia and the propensity of union militants to mask their corruption and violence under pleasant-sounding goals like social justice.

U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith gave Nicholas Manocchio, a former director of the Laborers’ New England Region Organizing Fund, three years’ probation for accepting cash, liquor, rental cars and gift certificates from an undercover FBI agent posing as a contractor seeking business in Rhode Island.

Before being sentenced, Manocchio told Smith that he was "ashamed and embarrassed and repentant." He had worked for social justice causes, he said, and had tried to break through the labor movement’s culture of favoritism. "I hope you don’t define me by that single act."

While Manocchio may have committed just a "single act" of corruption, union bosses across the country think they’re above the law. This Right to Work video report shows that union violence is all too real, and that often the victims are rank-and-file workers.

Compulsory unionism itself is to blame.  With all the special privileges — including immunity from federal prosecution for union-related violence — union bigwigs have garnered through their political power, why wouldn’t they think they’re above the law?