Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Professor Bruce Cameron, a Foundation litigator and member of the Regent University Law School faculty, to discuss a money laundering scheme used by the National Education Association to help elect Barack Obama. The MP3 is here.

According to a complaint being submitted by Foundation attorneys to the Federal Election Commission, the NEA illegally laundered teachers’ dues into a union political action committee. Adding insult to injury, when confronted by teachers, union officials tried to dupe them into thinking they were contributing to a "children’s fund."

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.

Yesterday’s Politico featured an article on Big Labor’s agenda for 2009 (which the SEIU union just announced that alone it plans to spend $85 million to push for). As we already know, priority one is imposing the card check organizing mandate that leads to intimidation and harassment of workers who may not wish to affiliate with a union.

The whole article is worth reading, however one particular quote is instructive about the state of Big Labor and union organizing today:

“For American labor, 2009 will be a big year,” McEntee said. “We have a new administration. We have governors all across the country who are looking toward being able to organize more workers in red states that have become blue.”

Notice that McEntee, who is the top official at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, says that it will be politicians who unionize workers.

This is the dirty little secret: It’s increasingly uncommon for employees to seek unionization on their own.  Instead, most "organizing" takes place because union officials target workers for unionization from the outside top down-style, often with Big Labor supported politicians playing a central role.

Two of the many examples of this are the Maine State workers being represented by Foundation attorneys in the Locke U.S. Supreme Court case and the home and health care workers in Illinois who were forced into union ranks by disgraced Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. In both those cases, the union was designated by Big Labor-friendly governors — rather than selected by the workers.

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.

In our latest podcast, Foundation attorney Bruce Cameron sits down with radio host Phil Heimlich to discuss the plight of two Ohio teachers whose religious beliefs compelled them to object to their union’s controversial political advocacy.

Today, columnist Michelle Malkin did a follow up piece on the United Autoworkers (UAW) union for-profit "championship caliber" golf course and "family education center" that has lost over $23 million in the past five years. Malkin examined the financial reports of the UAW union and found that UAW forced union dues expenditures are going into a lot more than the $33 million golf course and "family education center":

In May and November 2007, the UAW forked over nearly $53,000 for union staff meetings at the Thousand Hills Golf Resort in Branson, Mo. In September 2007, the UAW dropped another $5,000 at the Lakes of Taylor Golf Club in Taylor, Mich., and another $9,000 at the Thunderbird Hills Golf Club in Huron, Ohio. Another bill for $5,772 showed up for the Branson, Mo., golf resort. On Oct. 26, 2007, the union spent $5,000 on another "golf outing" in Detroit. In May and June 2007, UAW bosses spent nearly $11,000 on a golf tournament and related expenses at the Hawthorne Hill Country Club in Lima, Ohio. And in April 2007, the UAW spent $12,000 for a charity golf sponsorship in Dearborn, Mich. In August 2007, the UAW paid nearly $10,000 to its for-profit Black Lake golf course operator, UBG, for something itemized as "Golf 2007 Summer School." UBG had nearly $4.4 million worth of outstanding loans from the union. Another for-profit entity that runs the education center, UBE, had nearly $20 million in outstanding loans from the union.

Malkin also points to other so-called "investments" made by UAW union bosses using forced union dues, including a $9.75 million bid made by former UAW union president Steve Yokich to buy a 100-room resort and spa, a $14.7 million "investment" in a failed airline, and $5 million "investment" in a failed liberal talk radio station.

While UAW union officials make bank being subsidized by employees’ forced union dues, they spend millions of dollars on their fat cat lifestyles; and then they have the audacity to demand the American taxpayers foot the bill in the form of a bailout for companies the UAW’s forced unionism stranglehold is helping drive into bankruptcy.

The government should bail out the workers by releasing them from forced union dues.  Then they would have the freedom to choose whether or not to hand over their hard-earned money to financially support the UAW bosses’ ponzi schemes.

The latest edition of Foundation Action is now available online as a free download.
This month’s issue covers a number of topics related to employee freedom in the workplace, including oral arguments from the Foundation’s latest Supreme Court case and a recent legal victory that netted Georgia workers over $250,000 in refunds of dues illegally seized.

To download the November/December newsletter, go here. You can also sign up for a free print subscription.

In early December, the Department of Labor issued a request for information regarding Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Associations (VEBAs). VEBAs are health and welfare trust funds set up by employers and union officials using "voluntary" contributions from workers.

Unfortunately, lack of oversight and an influx of money frequently encourages union corruption, so the National Right to Work Foundation submitted comments (.pdf) warning the DoL about the dangers of giving union bosses a blank check.

As the Foundation’s comments point out, VEBAs should not be surpervised solely by the union hierarchy, but rather should involve employer oversight. Not only would handing over a massive trust fund to union bosses violate the Labor Management Relations Act, which prohibits employers from giving union bosses "any money or other thing of value," it also further encourages union corruption and mismanagement.

In one notable Foundation case, union bosses had the gall to finance a new luxurious union headquarters building with funds diverted from employees’ VEBA. This expenditure was euphemistically termed an "investment" by the the VEBA’s trustees, who were evidently more concerned with helping the union bosses than bringing workers a good return on their money.

The Foundation’s experience with worker-funded VEBAs makes one thing clear: corrupt union bosses should not exercise sole control.

A local Detroit news station followed two union bosses around for the better part of a year, recording their work-related activities. Some of the "benefits" of union representation include union bosses getting paid to drink on the job, collecting massive overtime checks when they’re off work, and running personal errands on the rank-and-file workers’ dime. Unfortunately, these perks are only available to union bosses, but we’re sure workers are incredibly grateful for such top-notch "representation."

Union officials’ bad habits are subsidized by employees’ forced union dues, which fund their position within the union’s bloated hierarchy. When union bosses claim overtime when they’re really off work, their co-workers are also forced to pick up the slack.

Adding insult to injury, states (like Michigan) that lack Right to Work laws force all workers – even those who object to union "representation" – to pay for union activities.

If two corrupt union bosses can rack up hundreds of hours of phony overtime pay per year, imagine how many jobs could have been saved at the collapsing Big Three automotive companies if America eliminated compulsory unionism. We need our workers to be free and our industries competitive.

Speaking of the Wall Street Journal, its editorial on Pennsylvania teacher union bosses’ pathetic and disgaceful practice of ordering teachers to abandon schoolchildren during frequent strikes is also quite informative:

Teachers unions routinely claim that the interests of students are their top priority. So we would be interested to hear how the Pennsylvania affiliate of the National Education Association explains the proliferation of teacher walkouts in the middle of the school year.

According to a recent study by the Allegheny Institute, Pennsylvania is once again the worst state in the country for teacher strikes. No less than 42% of all teacher walkouts nationwide occur in the Keystone State, leaving kids sidelined and parents scrambling to juggle work and family, potentially on as little as 48 hours notice required by state
law.

The strikes take place despite the state’s ranking in the top 20% nationwide for teacher salaries in 2006-2007 — the most recent data available — with an average of $54,970. Those paychecks go even further when adjusted for the state’s cost of living compared to top-spending school districts in places like California.

Unsurprisingly, the status quo is perpetuated by the unions’ corrupt relationship with local politicians:

Pennsylvania taxpayers aren’t pleased. Last year, a bill to prohibit teacher strikes was introduced in the state legislature by Todd Rock and 28 co-sponsors, only to be sidelined thanks to union opposition. According to a group called Stop Teacher Strikes, 75% of state legislators between 2004 and 2006 received teacher union money. The office of Governor Ed Rendell, who received more than $500,000 in teachers union political action committee cash for his 2006 re-election bid, called the strike ban a "radical response" to the problem.

Simon Campbell, president of Stop Teacher Strikes, explained the connection between compulsory unionism and failing schools at this year’s Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism (CEAFU) conference: