In Michigan where the economy is already in ruins, the Grand Rapids Press highlights warnings from University of Michigan economist Don Grimes about the nationwide UAW strike:

“It’s not exactly what the state needs right now,” said University of Michigan economist Don Grimes. “You’ve got a train wreck in Detroit and a train wreck in Lansing. It’s like a perfect storm.”

“The workers will be getting $200 a week in strike pay,” he said. “Before, they were earning $1,500 a week in pay.”

A $1,300 per-week pay cut is an awful lot to ask of these workers who have families to support. Meanwhile, GM looks to lose nearly $100 million per day due to the loss of production.

Looks like UAW bosses are hitting everyone where it hurts the most: their wallets.

Some analysts are suggesting that the when UAW union bosses ordered the strike against GM on Monday it was so that the union officials could look tough for the rank-and-file workers, as opposed to being a negotiating tactic with GM.

Goldman Sachs Analyst Robert Barry, expressed this view in a research note on GM prepared in response to the strike:

In our view, the action is designed to allow UAW leaders to look vigilant in fighting to preserve benefits, members to feel concessions are not being given gratuitously, and GM management to appear to be maximizing shareholder value…

If experts like Barry are correct (and he did correctly predict a short strike) that means that once again, union officials were placing their own well-being and power above what is best for the employees they claim to “represent.”

With the strike ordered by UAW officials against GM ending early this morning, it’s important to draw a few lessons.

As Patrick noted Monday, the UAW hierarchy was willing to sell out some rank-and-file workers on wages so long as GM promised union officials the ability to organize its nonunion suppliers to bolster compulsory dues revenues.

Second, despite the misconceptions held by some, the fact that union officials can shut down nationwide employers and industries demonstrates that they are clearly still relevant. The widespread impact and attention the strike attracted is proof positive.

Addtionally, because of their ability to compel dues from workers in the 28 states without Right to Work laws, union officials are major players politically. Why just last friday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to deploy 200,000 union operatives and $200 million to influence the 2008 elections.

Pennsylvania Turnpike employees should watch the Teamsters union-Turnpike Commission talks closely as another union-ordered statewide strike looms.

Why» Past experience shows that Teamster union bosses tried to block Turnpike employees from exercising their constitutional rights to refrain from formal union membership and cut off compulsory dues unrelated to monopoly bargaining.

In recent months, the National Right to Work Foundation helped 28 Pennsylvania Turnpike employees file separate federal civil rights lawsuits against Teamsters union locals 77 and 250, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and two Turnpike Commission officers for illegally seizing union dues from the employees’ paychecks.

The breakthrough came for the Turnpike employees when a federal judge ruled that Local 77’s union policy prohibiting employees from resigning from membership (so-called "maintenance of membership" clauses) likely violates First Amendment.

The federal judge enjoined the Teamsters union locals and the PTC from seizing the forced dues from the employees’ paychecks. But most importantly, the judge found that union officials’ actions demonstrated a “real or immediate danger to their First Amendment rights.”

Union officials commonly use the "maintenance of membership" clauses to trap workers in union ranks. And you can bet that as Teamsters union officials sit at the table with PTC officials, they’ll be pushing for this clause to stay so that union bosses can thwart any employee effort to reclaim forced dues.

In an all too familiar scene, Nevada County employees in California are outraged at a recent union election they called "underhanded" and "sneaky," that now means they have to pay union dues or be fired.

"It left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. It was just kind of snuck in," said Mike Sherman, an employee in the welfare department who didn’t hear of the election until after ballots were cast.

Similar groups of frustrated employees have formed grassroots groups opposed to forced union dues in Maine and Washington State in recent years. California, Maine, and Washington State all are without a Right to Work law which would make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.

And speaking of Washington…

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys were instrumental in helping several employees get their jobs back last year after Washington Federation of State Employees union officials unlawfully ordered them fired for refusing to pay union dues without due process. WFSE union spokesman Tim Welch said at the time:

"You can choose to be a member of the union, you can choose to pay a fee. But ultimately, if you do not like that, you can choose to be unemployed."

Despite Welch’s clear hostility to employee rights, he aptly summarizes Washington State law, which authorizes the firing of employees for refusing to pay union dues.

However, several employees did indeed stand on principle and refused to pay dues to the unwanted union, sacrificing their jobs in the process. Among these employees were Pat Woodward and Maxine Dunkelman who decided to file suit against the WFSE union alongside several coworkers with the Foundation’s help. Here is what Pat had to say about being fired for refusing to pay union dues at a press conference announcing the lawsuit:

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.

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.

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.”

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.