From the San Jose Mercury News, here’s an excellent op-ed from retired teacher Larry Sand on forced teacher union dues:

So why does CTA not let its members decide if they want to contribute to CTA’s various political funds? It is simply because the union knows that if these donations were voluntary, the vast majority of teachers wouldn’t contribute a penny.

So does CTA really care about the needs and opinions of its teachers, or does it just see its members as convenient ATMs to further its own political agenda?

Teachers should closely examine whether they want to continue giving their hard-earned money to candidates and causes in which they have no interest or find repellent. And CTA needs to fess up to its arrogant attitude that it knows what’s best for teachers, when, in fact, what teachers actually think about various issues is of no concern to it.

As Sand notes, even if teachers opt-out of dues for union political activism, they’re still forced to pay over $700 annually in so-called "agency fees" to teacher union bosses. And even that’s no guarantee that their money won’t be used to fund union political activism – as many Foundation-assisted employees can attest, union officials often funnel forced dues collected for "workplace bargaining" to union-backed political causes. 

The solution, of course, is for California to adopt a Right to Work law, which would make all union dues strictly voluntary. Right to Work laws ensure that union officials only accept voluntary contributions from all employees, including public school teachers. 

Federal Labor Board Hits Nurses Union
Hierarchy with Complaint for Keeping Workers in Dark

Warwick, RI (July 8, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Boston issued a formal complaint indicating that local union officials have kept nurses in the dark about the amount of compulsory union dues.

The NLRB’s regional director investigated unfair labor practices charges filed by a Kent Hospital nurse with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. The regional director found merit to the charges that United Nurses & Allied Professionals (UNAP) union officials failed to meet federal financial disclosure requirements and will now prosecute the union before an administrative law judge.

In September 2009, Jeanette Geary and other nurses informed UNAP union officials that they were exercising their right to refrain from formal union membership and to the payment of any fees for non-bargaining activities including politics and member-only events.

Read the full release by clicking here.

As reported in today’s Washington Examiner, the National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix sent a letter to the U.S. Senate opposing Elena Kagan’s confirmation as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for misrepresenting her views regarding the use of forced union dues for union boss political activity.

From the Examiner:

(Mark Mix argues) Kagan should not be confirmed because when she was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, about a 1996 email she wrote while serving in the Clinton administration, she falsely claimed she was merely repeating the chief executive’s views, not her own.

In his letter to the senators, Mix quoted Kagan’s email in which she said:

"It is unfortunately true that almost any meaningful campaign finance reform proposal raises constitutional issues. This is a result of the Supreme Court’s view – which I believe to be mistaken in many cases – that money is speech and that attempts to limit the influence of money on our political system therefore raises First Amendment problems."

Kagan could not have simply been echoing somebody else’s view in that email, Mix argued, because a memo later in 1996 from her and other White House staff members to then-White House chief of staff Leon Panetta "incorporated Ms. Kagan’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect the right to spend money for political activities. In short, in 1996 Ms. Kagan both suggested and endorsed that crabbed view of the First Amendment."

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has repeatedly fought to protect workers who are forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment to also support union boss political activities with which they disagree before the U.S. Supreme Court and various other courts across the country.

Mark Mix’s letter also noted that Kagen expressed opposition to the Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in Communications Workers v. Beck in which the Court affirmed the right of private-sector workers to exercise the same freedom from coerced support of union boss politics under the National Labor Relations Act:

(Ms. Kagan) recommended that President Clinton oppose any legislation protecting the right of workers not to be forced to subsidize union politics, despite the First Amendment’s guarantee of that basic worker freedom of speech and association.

…

Ms. Kagan emailed… her recommendation that (the Administration)… “state strong opposition to Beck legislation, no matter what it is attached to.”

Ms. Kagan… disagreed with the well-established legal principle that underlies the long line of Supreme Court decisions recognizing the constitutional right of workers not to be compelled to subsidize union political activities as a condition of employment… (putting) her far outside the judicial mainstream and (demonstrating) a disdain for the rights of independent-minded American workers.

To read Mark Mix’s letter, click here.

Via Big Government, here’s a damning video explaining the wasteful contract created by New York/New Jersey Police Union officials, which mandates that officers collect overtime pay even after they’ve been suspended for misconduct:

Of course, the Police/Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill threatens to spread this and other wasteful union boss instituted work rules to states and counties who have no desire to hamstring their public safety employees with union monopoly bargaining. If Big Labor gets their way on Capitol Hill, this video is a frightening portent of things to come. 

The Obama Administration hasn’t been shy about paying back the union bosses, but it has been shy about answering basic questions about its collusion with Big Labor.

So while Monday’s report in Politico shouldn’t shock anyone, it is telling:

President Barack Obama’s political director failed to disclose that he was slated to receive a nearly $40,000 payout from a large labor union while he was working in the White House.

Patrick Gaspard, who served as the political director for the Service Employees International Union local 1199, received $37,071.46 in “carried over leave and vacation” from the union in 2009, but he did not disclose the agreement to receive the payment on his financial disclosure forms filed with the White House.

…
Gaspard spent nine years at 1199 SEIU, a major labor union in New York. Gaspard also worked for Obama’s campaign, and later worked for the transition team, where he earned $11,500, according to the financial disclosure form he filed this year. He was pulling a salary from SEIU until Jan. 16, 2009, shortly before Obama was inaugurated.

From political director of an affiliate of the SEIU to political director of President Obama. Where did one job stop and the other begin?

The July/August 2010 issue of Foundation Action is now available for download as a PDF. This is the Foundation’s official bimonthly publication that provides an excellent overview of hard-hitting legal actions being taken by Foundation attorneys every day to combat forced unionism.

This issue’s top story details Delta Air Lines employees’ legal challenge to Obama Administration appointees’ scheme to push railway and airline  workers into forced union ranks.

Also in this issue:

• Union Bosses Illegally Threaten Workers with Termination
• Avoid Stock Market Uncertainty with a Charitable Gift Annuity
• Workers Take Stand Against Teamster Union Boss Intimidation
• The Detroit News: Michigan Will Benefit with Workplace Choice

In addition to to reading Foundation Action online, you can sign up to receive a free subscription by mail here.

Here’s a must-read editorial from National Review on Big Labor’s Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill:

Lacking the evolutionary finesse that keeps most parasites from killing their host organisms, the American labor movement has driven the private firms that once employed its members offshore or into bankruptcy. Consequently, the only growth market remaining for the union movement is government: More union members today are employed by government than by the private sector. The union bosses, being neither blind nor stupid, see the advantages of sitting on both sides of the negotiating table, and their influence on politics has been predictably baleful. Unfortunately for those who would curtail their influence, they enjoy a steady stream of cash, expropriated from the paychecks of their members, and a ready supply of foot soldiers available for get-out-the-vote and rent-a-mob duties.

That’s a problem for conservatives. One of the more dynamic Republican leaders in the country, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, is battening down his political hatches for the hurricane of union abuse headed his way in response to his sober efforts to get his state’s finances in order. It is going to be ugly, with the unions employing the same tactics they used to derail the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger. So why in the name of Barry Goldwater would a single Republican, much less a half-dozen senators, support extending the influence of the people who made New Jersey New Jersey? The Senate Republicans supporting the bill include not only the usual practitioners of Me-Tooism — the Maine ladies, Lisa Murkowski — but also Scott Brown of Massachusetts and New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg. (What, no Lindsey Graham?) It would be cheaper and better for the country if these Republicans would just go ahead and make a direct donation to the Democratic National Committee, an act to which supporting this bill is equivalent. If Sen. Mike Johanns really wants to turn Lincoln, Neb., into Trenton on the Prairie, let him confine his efforts to his own state and leave the other 49 to go their own way.

Click here to read the whole thing. For more editorials opposing this terrible piece of legislation, check out our earlier blog post on the groundswell of public opposition to expanding Big Labor’s control over public safety employees.

National Right to Work President Mark Mix discusses the consequences of the Police/Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill on Richmond, Virginia’s Jimmy Barrett Show. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:

As always, you can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.  

From the Washington Post on down, magazines and newspapers across the country are editorializing against the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill, a Big Labor power grab that would shove thousands of public safety employees into union collectives and usurp state and local laws across the country.

Here’s Right to Work President Mark Mix in the Richmond Times Dispatch:

With Reid and his Big Labor allies in Congress in full payback mode, Sen. Jim Webb’s and Sen. Mark Warner’s votes could easily determine the fate of Virginia’s public safety workers.

If passed, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill could turn over police and firefighters of local governments to union-boss control by federal mandate. It overrides the laws of at least 25 states, including states like Virginia that have a complete ban on granting union officials bargaining privileges for public-sector employees.

The Virginian-Pilot also editorialized against the bill:

After retreating from one misguided intrusion into labor law, congressional Democrats are mustering another clumsy campaign to appease their union donors.

Much like the failed card-check legislation, the latest initiative is an unnecessary federal interference with employment matters. If adopted, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would require state and local governments to engage in collective bargaining with police officers, deputies, firefighters and emergency medical workers over wages and work conditions.

As did the Charleston Daily Mail:

Really, members of Congress are shameless sometimes. Unions are huge contributors to Democratic campaign coffers, and they expect favors in return.

This is one that members of Congress should not grant. There is absolutely no justification for the federal government overcalling state-developed law on collective bargaining.

The Denver Post:

Reid’s measure would require that public safety workers be given collective bargaining rights without voter approval. The Colorado Municipal League, which opposes the measure, points out that the federal mandate would instantly affect thousands of employees and Colorado taxpayers at every level.

We agree. Brushing away the current structure not only tramples on local control, it could result in higher budgets at a time tax revenue is down and local governments are struggling.

The National League of Cities also opposes this legislation, as it would override the laws of 19 states other than Colorado. NLC lobbyist Neil Bomberg tells us the measure could arrive in the form of an amendment to small-business legislation or as a free-standing bill on the Senate floor next week.

And the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

While a boon to unions, this law would seriously damage our federalist system by taking away a large measure of local control over police and firefighters unions and lead to higher costs to local governments and taxpayers, costs that neither will be able to affect at the ballot box. 

And some related commentary from National Review:

Organized labor — increasingly dominated by public-sector workers — sees this as compensation for the failure of their card-check effort. The losers in this scenario will be taxpayers.

We can only hope that elected officials take note of the near-unanimous level of public opposition to this terrible idea.

UPDATE: Yet more editorials against the Police/Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill from the San Francisco Examiner, Watertown Daily Times, Charleston Post and Courier, Newport Daily Press, and the Silver City Sun-News.

Many Freedom@Work readers are already following the latest Big Labor offensive on Capitol Hill. Under the guise of protecting our first responders, pro-forced unionism politicians are attempting to ram home the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

This legislation would force states to adopt monopoly union bargaining for all police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Not only would this bill push unwilling public safety employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks, it would also usurp the right of state and local governments to determine if their employees unionize.

In fact, this power grab is so egregious that even the often pro-Big Labor Washington Post has taken notice. Here’s the Post’s blistering editorial against the bill:

What this bill would do is impose a permanent, one-size-fits-all federal solution in an area — public-sector labor relations — that has traditionally been left to the states, and where state flexibility is probably more necessary than ever. The imposition on Virginia would be dramatic, of course, but even union-friendly Maryland, which lets each county decide whether and how to bargain with its employees, might find itself in costly, time-consuming contention with the feds. Farther afield, Colorado’s "fire protection districts," special units of government dedicated to providing that service, would face costly collective bargaining even where firefighters and management are working harmoniously without it.

We share the bill sponsors’ esteem for first responders. They should be adequately, even generously, compensated. Still, many outsized pensions now threatening state and local governments were awarded by politicians to curry favor with public-safety unions. To be sure, the bill includes acompromise provision assuring states that they don’t have to bargain over pensions. But it hardly matters. The bill further empowers an already strong lobby that could use its additional clout to pressure state legislators to allow pension-bargaining anyway — or to enact such benefits by statute. This bill is a bad idea whose time, we hope, has still not come.

Read the whole thing here. And remember, if Big Labor sympathizers at the Washington Post are astounded by this unpopular bill, imagine how bad it must be for the rest of us.