As more details emerge about the proposed deal between GM and the UAW hierarchy, which involves a two-tiered wage structure, this sentence jumped off the page:

In a side-letter to the contract, GM and the UAW also identified 3,126 jobs now outsourced to non-union companies that could be transferred to UAW-represented companies at the lower wage rates.

In other words, UAW officials are willing to sell out these employees on wages so long as they can count them within UAW ranks, and force employees in non-Right to Work states to pay dues or be fired. Some deal.

In the wake of Tuesday’s long-awaited ruling at the NLRB won by Right to Work attorneys, union officials are remaining mum. This silence is deafening.

Perhaps union officials are embarrassed to have to fought to prevent rank-and-file workers from the chance to vote out an unwanted union for up to four years after a coercive "card check" drive. Maybe they took a look at this 2007 McLaughlin & Associates poll showing that just shy of 80 percent of likely voters oppose mandating this coercive organizing method.

In either case, despite a cascade of crocodile tears shed by the union elite over decisions by this NLRB, it has generally crashed and burned in reversing the damage done to employee free choice by the agency during the Clinton years.

While the majority’s decision in yesterday’s Dana/Metaldyne National Labor Relations Board case was a meaningful step forward for employees who have been forced into a union through the abusive “card check” process, the two-member dissent by Democrat NLRB members Liebman and Walsh should terrify anyone who thinks that the choice to unionize should be one solely made by employees.

In their dissent they write: “An employer has little incentive to recognize a union voluntarily if it knows that its decision is subject to second-guessing through a decertification petition.”

That single sentence reveals at least three biases against employee free choice held by Liebman, Walsh and the union officials who support them:

• First, it implies that employers should have an “incentive” to push employees into unions through card check.

• Second, it implies that employers (cooperating with union organizers) should be able to make a “decision” on when and how employees join a union.

• And third, it assumes that once an employer and union decide that workers should be unionized, the very employees whose rights are at stake should not even be able to weigh in on that “decision” through a secret-ballot decertification election. (Liebman and Walsh call this “second-guessing” but since many employees sign cards because they are misled or pressured by union organizers, really this is often the first chance employees have to freely express their view on unionization.)

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.

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!

When hard-working employees object to paying forced dues for politics, they mean it.

But despite such opposition, union officials will try to find every way possible to demoralize and hamstring employees so that their forced dues money continues to follow into union political coffers.

Take a look at Robert Prime from Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Prime works at the Naval Air Station. In December 2003, he filed charges with help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation after IAM union officials told him he had to object every single year to paying for union political advocacy.

IAM union officials refused to acknowledge that his objection should apply continuously. And while Mr. Prime fights for his objection to be honored, he and his coworkers are forced to oblige to a burdensome and discriminatory policy until a decision is issued after a hearing scheduled for the end of this year.

It took nearly four years for him just to get that far. But Mr. Prime and his coworkers in Florida are not alone.

Just months ago, the NLRB delayed another ruling where George Gally, a 40-year veteran at Colt Firearms, requested that the federal board rule on his case under similar circumstances.

Right to Work attorneys helped Mr. Gally of Connecticut originally file unfair labor practice charges in 2003. His charges challenged the United Auto Worker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of requiring employees to object annually in order to receive refunds of forced union dues spent for union political activities.

But the NLRB, with its reputation for dragging its feet, refused to rule on Mr. Gally’s precedent-setting case and punted the decision back to a Regional Director for further review.

As a result, Mr. Gally has no choice, like Mr. Prime, to wait longer for a ruling as union officials continue to enforce bogus hurdles designed solely to keep rank-and-file workers in line.

Union officials do not require the same of their members. So why do they require those employees – who do not want to pay for union political activities – to object every year?

The answer can surely be heard in the “cha-ching” of union bosses’ coffers.

In a sometimes vulgar and entirely anti-employee display, Michigan union officials and Big Labor politicians held a “rally” in Lansing last week against efforts by Michigan citizens to promote a much-needed Right to Work law in Michigan.

The union bosses based in the state’s capital city apparently held their “Rapid Response” rally because the National Right to Work Foundation’s Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse was speaking to a group of Cooley Law School students in Lansing at the same time.

Sucking up to his union paymasters, one politician blustered: “Right to work: Get your a** back to where you came from! We do not need you in Michigan!”

Despite the cheers and jeers of the paid union officials who make a living by leeching off the hard earned wages of employees, Michigan citizens are increasingly recognizing that their state — perhaps more than any other state in the country — needs a Right to Work law. Aside from protecting the freedom of choice of employees it would help reverse Michigan’s current “one state recession.”

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.

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.

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.