In the latest episode, Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Matt Brouillette of the Pennsylvania-based Commonwealth Foundation to discuss the compulsory unionism stranglehold over much of America’s educational system. Check it out:

In this special episode of the National Right to Work Podcast, National Right to Work Committee and Foundation President Mark Mix tells host Stefan Gleason about the ramifications of the power-shifting election.

Last week, blogger Clayton Cramer gave his take on why Big Labor bosses would want to wipe out secret ballot elections from the American workplace. His account includes some telling examples of union boss intimidation:

I am more inclined to suspect that a lot of people sign the union authorization cards because they are either strongly encouraged or even directly threatened to do so. Labor unions are fundamentally institutions of organized violence. A friend who has since passed on left me this account of working in a union shop in California during World War II (when the federal government leaned pretty heavily on employers to accept unions):

Our next problem was that after three months on the job, workers were required to join the paper workers union. Those who did not received disfiguring beatings after hours. Having seen what happened to another girl in same position as Wanda and I, we decided that rather than face the same treatment we would quit our jobs before the three months ended.

I remember being quite young and surprised that my father was home during the day. He explained that his union, the Boilermakers/Blacksmiths, had gone on strike. "Can’t you go to work anyway?"

"Not if you want to live."

And unfortunately, this wasn’t just his imagination. There’s a fascinating decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Enmons (1973), that held that the Hobbs Act that "makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion" did not apply to labor unions engaged in destroying power company transformers with rifles and explosives because such use of violence did not qualify as extortion.
Extortion means that you are getting something that you don’t have a right to get–while higher wages obtained through such violence was a legitimate union bargaining tactic. The Court may have actually come to the right conclusion, based on the legal definition of extortion and the legislative intent of the Hobbs Act–but it does show you something of how labor unions get things done.

I had a friend in California who grew up in Michigan. His father was a UAW local official. He remembered vividly being in a coffee shop with his family one day. The guy in the next booth made some remark to a companion that was uncomplimentary to the union–and my friend’s father instinctively swung his coffee mug around and shattered it on this guy’s jaw.

There’s a long and ugly, bloody, deadly history of corporations and labor unions fighting it out in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There’s plenty of evil that was done by both sides. But this is not the situation today–not even close. Labor violence today is almost entirely by labor unions. I can easily believe that the reason that the AFL-CIO wants to "streamline" the process is that they are intimidating workers into signing authorization cards–and don’t dare risk a secret ballot.

Well said.

To learn more on how union organizers mislead workers into signing away their rights and to view an appalling example of an actual "authorization card" used by Teamster union organizers to deceive employees into compulsory unionism, click here: Spotlight on "Card Check" Deception.

Just two days before the election, the Washington Post’s Tim Craig unearthed some last-minute, secretive union politicking:

The Virginia Democratic Party failed to properly disclose a $200,000 donation it received in early September from a labor union, party officials admitted today.

In Virginia, there are no limits on how much an individual or organization can give to a political candidate or party, but all donations of $10,000 or more have to be reported to the State Board of Elections within three business days. The information is then uploaded on the State Board of Elections’ website so the public can keep track of who is funding political committees and candidates.

On Sept. 4, the Laborers’ Political League Education Fund gave the state party $200,000, which at the time was the largest contribution the state party had received in at least a decade, excluding transfers from candidates or other Democratic committees. But the state party never reported it until Oct. 15, when it filed its quarterly campaign finance report.

More here.

Over the last couple of days, the media has devoted considerable print and airtime to a proposed bailout of the so-called Big Three — the Detroit-based car giants GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

"Big Labor Three" is more like it.

What really separates the Detroit automakers from the "foreign" automakers (who also make hundreds of thousands of cars in the U.S.) is compulsory unionism. Foreign manufacturers like Toyota, Honda and Nissan have U.S. plants that are free from monopoly bargaining, and they produce cars largely in Right to Work states, where forced dues are prohibited.

Some of the bailout coverage has addressed the destructive effects of the United Auto Workers union’s monopoly bargaining privileges (who can forget the $31/hour paid to over 12,000 UAW members to do crossword puzzles?) which have run these once-great companies into the ground and costing tens of thousands of jobs.

While the proposal is, at a minimum, an indirect bailout of the UAW and forced unionism in general, it appears the union bosses have a direct bailout in mind as well. The Washington Post explains,

The $25 billion would come on top of $25 billion in low-interest loans Congress approved in September for the car companies to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. And the United Auto Workers plans to press next year for an additional $15 billion in public funds to cover the first payment the three companies are due to make into a new independent entity that will fund retiree pensions and health benefits.

After the UAW’s two-day strike against GM last year led to the creation of union-administered trusts to handle health and pension obligations to union retirees, CNN noted this amazing statistic:

Today, the number of UAW retirees and surviving spouses collecting benefits from the big three automakers – about 540,000 – outnumbers active members working at the three automakers by three to one.

If this sounds like a pyramid scheme, don’t be surprised to learn that this is exactly where the bailout money — tens of billions of taxpayer dollars — will be going. The Big Three simply won’t be able to afford payments to the union-boss-run trusts, and now they want all Americans to pay for them.

What has sadly gone unreported in this fiasco is the nature of union-administred trust funds. The National Right to Work Foundation has previously revealed the lack of accountability in union pensions, which have often been used by union bosses as slush funds. As we told you last month, despite new federal reporting requirements, union and trust fund officials can choose to hide any trust expenditures they wish from their members. Can we really expect the new administration to ensure that union trusts aren’t misusing their funds?

It seems unlikely that Americans will tolerate a bailout of the UAW bosses.

Recently the National Institute for Labor Relations Research released a new fact sheet that shows the numerous economic advantages associated with Right to Work states.

As the Fact Sheet details, Right to Work states have significant advantages in many areas including:

• Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income
• Growth in Real Manufacturing GDP
• Percentage Growth in Construction Employment
• Growth in Number of College Graduates (age 25+ with B.A.)
• Percentage Growth in Number of People/Children Covered by Private, Employer Based Health Insurance

And all those advantages are just icing on the cake. After all, the best reason for Right to Work protections is eliminating the injustice of firing employees for refusal to join or pay dues to a union.

That injustice has recognized by as wide a range of people as…

Thomas Jefferson who said: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical," and

Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor who said: "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."

Interested in learning about the connection between the Big Three auto bailout and compulsory unionism? Check out the latest Right to Work video:

The UAW has consistently leveraged its position as the Big Three’s monopoly bargaining agent to extend forced unionism throughout the automotive sector. Now they’re screaming for a federal bailout to save the entire industry. Should government really be in the businesses of saving compulsory unionism?

The answer, of course, is no. Forced unionism should be eliminated, not subsidized.

Recently, Foundation attorneys notified employees represented by the Machinists union (IAM) and Washington Education Association union (WEA) nonmembers of their opportunity to reclaim a portion of their forced union dues from supporting the union officials’ politics as determined by law and Foundation-won court precedent.

Employees Represented by IAM

In the National Right to Work Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union", it states that:

If you are a nonmember of the IAM paying dues to keep your job, you are entitled to claim a reduction in your 2009 IAM dues of approximately 25%. For 2009, the IAM admits that 30.54% of International union dues, 16.77% of district lodge dues and 20.61% of local lodge dues are spent on political, ideological and other non-representational activities for which no employee can be required to pay. According to the "Notice" published in the Fall 2008 issue of the "IAM Journal," you can claim this reduction by sending a letter postmarked during the month of November 2008.

With November ending in less than a week and a half, now is the time to act if you have not already done so to get your 25% reduction in your 2009 IAM dues. For more information and specific instructions on how to claim your rebate, read the Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union (IAM)".

Nonmembers of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association (Washington teachers)

In the Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers" it states that:

As a nonmember of the NEA/WEA/UniServ Council/local association, you should have received your 2008/09 "Hudson" package from the WEA. Please use this suggested letter that you can fill out and mail to get your 2008/09 rebate check of around $200. You must individually complete and send in your objection/challenge/rebate request letter. Your letter must be postmarked on or before December 8, 2008!

Again, time is running out. December 8th is less than two-and-a-half weeks away and if you do not send in your letter on or before December 8th, you will probably not receive your rebate. For more specific instructions on how to claim your rebate of approximately $200, please refer to the Foundation’s "Special Legal Notice to Washington Teachers".

As always, the Foundation will continue to help employees across the country fight the evils of compulsory unionism. If you are a teacher interested in your legal rights, please refer to the Abood and Hudson decisions on our Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents webpage. If you are a private sector employee, you can learn more about your legal rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck decision on the same page.

In this week’s episode, Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Stanley Greer, Senior Research Director at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, to discuss the proposed $25+ billion auto industry and UAW union bailout, and the close connection between compulsory unionism and Detroit’s economic woes. Check it out:

Click here to download this episode

You can also listen to the Foundation’s podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.

[Note: Some Firefox users have reported audio distortion when using the player above. To ensure the podcast plays correctly just click here to listen.]

Politico reports that House Dems are gearing up for a battle over the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee between Representatives Waxman and Dingell:

The race itself remains a tough one to call. “I’m not even sure the candidates know,” said Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, a Waxman supporter.

And most lawmakers dread picking sides.

Asked who she would be supporting, Rules Chairwoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York exclaimed, “Oh, it’s a secret ballot, thank the Lord.”

But while Slaughter literally praises God for the fact that she can vote in private, she also is a cosponsor of an effort to strip workers of their access to a secret-ballot vote for unionization. Does she even notice the rank hypocrisy?