Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 91 is no stranger when it comes to using threats, coercion and intimidation on the picket line.

But despite court appearances, federal investigations and even beatings throughout the 1990s, Local 91 union officials have brought out their newest scare-tactic weapon…a 10-ft inflatable rat, paid for in full with $4,000 of union dues, much of which is taken from workers as a condition of employment.

(Photo by Charles Lewis/Buffalo News)

The rat, union officials claim, is a peaceful message to workers who choose not to toe the union line.

According to The Buffalo News, most agree that the giant rat planted outside a Holiday Inn at a Niagara Falls construction site is a not-so-subtle sign of some of this LIUNA Local’s violent past. The giant rat is inflated for about four hours every morning, and during that time, Local 91 picketers intimidate truck drivers entering the site.

In fact, one Local 91 operative, Michael Godzisz, even tried to justify the intimidation:

The picketing laborers also stop construction vehicles as they enter the site but do so for only three of five minutes at a time, he said.

And the union local’s business manager supported the bullying tactic:

“We can’t hold them up, and if we keep walking they can’t run us over,” said Rob Connolly, Local 91’s business manager. “After about five minutes, we let them go out of courtesy.” [Emphasis added]

Despite LIUNA Local 91’s claim to reform and anger management control, the use of the giant rat is just another type of terror used to intimidate those employees who refuse to walk off the job. In fact, other locals have used the rat trap up and down the east coast.

But giving truckers a “courtesy” to get through the picket line leaves you questioning: what exactly happens after the five minute window is up»

And while union officials bemoan recent NLRB decisions, consider this:

According to an analysis by Jones Day attorney G. Roger King, prepared for the American Bar Association, from 1994 to 2001 the Clinton NLRB overturned 60 long-standing cases, throwing a jaw-dropping 1,181 years of combined precedent out the window.

The NLRB hasn’t even come close to this during the Bush years. And with three vacancies at the five member Board at the end of this year, the window of opportunity for the agency to make further strides for employee rights is rapidly closing.

AFL-CIO head honcho John Sweeney and SEIU chief Andy Stern both chimed in about last week’s victory on behalf of employees by Right to Work attorneys. Sweeney cites a previous NLRB decision calling coercive card check unionization drives "a favored element of national policy."

What a joke. As previously cited, the Board in this decision cited:

“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.”

Stern, however, gets one thing right when he says:

"The NLRB has become a caricature of itself, and as a nation, we should be embarrassed by governing bodies that fail to consider even the most basic needs and rights of workers.”

How true. The NLRB has failed America’s workers in many other Foundation cases. Here are just a few.

If you haven’t already, take a look at this site that shows a unique take on the employees that the National Right to Work Foundation helps.

This page, called “Employee Profiles” highlights just a few of the courageous employees who have stood up against compulsory unionism abuse with the Foundation’s help. The interactive site gives a brief look at their stories and experiences, along with personal quotes, pictures and news.

You may find 16-Year-Old Danielle Cookson’s story inspiring, as she stood up against union bosses who were threatening her job. Or, former history teacher Gary Davenport’s Supreme Court fight might provide some insight on your First Amendment rights and union officials using forced dues for politics.

The 10 brave individuals featured on the site, who have boldly stood up to defend their rights in the face of union coercion, have provided hope for those workers throughout the nation who believe in the principle that no American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union.

More profiles will be added to this site soon.

As is normally the case when union officials fear losing a secret ballot election, the UAW walked away from an election at Toledo Hospital.

Perhaps hospital employees have been paying attention to the uphill battle that nurses at St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center in Toledo have faced in ridding their workplace of the unwanted union.

In the run up to that election, in charges that were settled after Right to Work attorneys came to the nurses’ aid, the NLRB agreed to prosecute the UAW union for bullying dissenting nurses including “following, surrounding, and impeding access to employees." The complaint also cited that in one instance a union operative physically “struck a clipboard containing the petition” from one of the nurse’s hands.

Adding insult to injury, these same nurses must still pay dues to the UAW union as a condition of employment since Ohio is not a Right to Work state.

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!