National Review’s Byron York has a few pointed questions for Hilda Solis (emphasis added):

Solis had a rough hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee when she declined to answer all sorts of seemingly noncontroversial questions about her positions on basic labor issues. (Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a frustrated account of the hearing, asking, "How can senators consent if they have no clue what policies they might be consenting to?") Now, some committee members want to know more about Solis’ relationship with a pro-labor group called American Rights at Work. On the group’s website, Solis is listed as a member of the board of directors, and she also served as Treasurer of the organization from 2004 to 2007. The question is whether Solis, who as a member of Congress is prohibited from lobbying Congress, fully disclosed her relationship with the group.

American Rights at Work is an important part of Big Labor’s push for the Employee Free Choice Act, known more accurately as card check.

—

No one is accusing Solis of concealing her connection with the group; it was common knowledge in the labor world, and she listed it in the paperwork she submitted for her confirmation hearing. But she did not list it on the disclosure forms she was required to submit to the House of Representatives. It was an unpaid position, so there is no problem with income. But there are questions about whether Solis, as Treasurer, played a de facto role in the group’s lobbying activity; if you’re a member of Congress, you’re not supposed to simultaneously lobby Congress.

Solis may not have concealed her position at American Rights at Work (ARAW), but her dubious statements made on a Senate questionnaire and disclosure forms raise serious questions about her integrity.

ARAW is a 501(c)(4), which means that influencing legislation is the primary political activity it engages in. (On the group’s website, where Solis is still listed as a board member, appear a number of pro-Card Check television ads and an announcement of a $3 million ad buy.)

Given her fiduciary responsibilities as Treasurer of ARAW, it seems unlikely she wasn’t somehow involved with ARAW’s extensive lobbying efforts. But according to the Wall Street Journal, she responded to a written follow up question submitted by Senator Enzi by claiming "I have never participated in lobbying, or advised anyone on lobbying, either Congress or the Executive Branch on behalf of American Rights at Work."

As for ARAW itself, the organization is simply a Big Labor front group set up to promote the ugly agenda of forcing workers into union collectives. (Union bosses also set it up to "tangle" with National Right to Work and originally planned instead to name ARAW "National Rights at Work" before our trademark lawyers threatened them with a lawsuit.)

A quick search of union disclosure forms reveals ARAW received at least $411,000 for "political activities" from various union outfits in 2007 while she was treasurer of the organization. And this isn’t even counting over $700,000 in generic contributions from unions that the group received in 2007 — funds also likely to have been spent for lobbying while Solis was Treasurer.

It was bad enough when Solis flatly refused to answer a few basic questions about her stance on state Right to Work laws and coercive card check organizing, but now she appears disingenuous about her relationship with this union front group and naked promotion of forced unionism.

On Friday, Freedom@Work scooped the national media in breaking the full story about President Obama’s executive order giveaway to Big Labor. For those of you who missed it, Obama handed the Department of Labor the new power to blacklist nonunion companies targeted by union operatives.

Under the new rules, any unfair labor practice charge leveled against a contractor — perhaps during a union organizing drive — could be used to bar the contractor from competing for taxpayer-funded federal work. Hilda Solis, Obama’s pro-forced unionism pick for Secretary of Labor, is sure to use this requirement to pressure companies into handing their employees over to forced unionism

Taken alone, this blacklist rule is outrageous, but the outrage is compounded by the fact that Obama and his pro-forced unionism allies in Congress are on the verge of passing a massive, pork-filled «stimulus» bill. The 900 billion dollar package promises a dramatic, across-the-board increase in federal outlays, and thanks to President Obama’s generosity, Big Labor is perfectly positioned to leverage those funds to tap into more sources of forced union dues from the 92 percent of American workers who have not chosen to unionize.

Now that union operatives at DOL have the power to blacklist a company from federal contracting simply by lodging a few spurious (even unadjudicated) charges, it’s pretty clear union bosses are in for a massive payday when the «stimulus» bill passes.

Today, President Barack Obama issued two deeply disturbing executive orders as his first big payback to Big Labor.

Flanked by union bosses at a White House ceremony, Obama said “Welcome back to the White House” and announced sweeping measures which give his Secretary of Labor the power to blackball non-union contractors targeted by union organizers.

With federal outlays rising dramatically as part of attempts to “stimulate” the economy, the number of firms with federal contracts are expected to increase dramatically in the coming months. Nearly 93 percent of America’s private-sector workforce has not chosen to unionize, so union officials hope to leverage these federal funds in a full court press to corral millions more workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks.

One of the Obama executive orders hands his Secretary of Labor virtually unchecked power to blacklist those firms which union officials complain are supposedly violating federal labor laws. The Secretary of Labor is expected to leverage DOL’s new powers against companies not agreeing to grease the rails for coercive union organizing drives or companies not ceding to uneconomic or abusive union-boss demands.

This new blacklisting power has enormous implications for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, to say nothing of individual employee rights.

The other federal executive order effectively bars contractors from sharing truthful, non-coercive information with their employees about the downsides of unionization.

Taken together, the two executive orders go well beyond actions by President Clinton to force employees of federal contractors into union collectives, and they could turn the U.S. Department of Labor into a giant, taxpayer-funded extension of the union organizing wing at AFL-CIO headquarters.

Meanwhile, Labor Secretary-designate Hilda Solis continues to stonewall important questions about freedom in the workplace.

For more about today’s executive orders, read the National Right to Work Foundation’s press release.

The confirmation of radical unionist Hilda Solis, Democrat congresswoman from Los Angeles, to be Obama’s new Secretary of Labor has hit a snag.

While the Senate has approved other Cabinet nominees left and right — including a Treasury Secretary who has admitted to failing to pay income taxes — Solis has yet to make it out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The Pasadena Star-News has more:

At least one unidentified Republican senator is using a parliamentary procedure to holdup Solis’ confirmation, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, alleged from the Senate floor Thursday.

The anonymous hold — as the informal delay tactic is known — essentially prevents the full Senate from voting on Solis’ confirmation by threatening a filibuster. It could be lifted at any time.

The hold was placed on the nomination because of Solis’ support for legislation aimed at facilitating union organization and regarding pay-discrimination, and for non-responsive answers during her confirmation hearing, the Washington, DC-based Congress Daily reported Friday.

President Obama is asking the Senate — and the American people — to approve as Labor Secretary a Congresswoman who chose not to — or can’t — answer questions about worker freedom, secret ballots, or prevailing wage laws. As we recently wrote, Solis told the HELP Committee that she is "not qualified" to discuss Right to Work.

Solis has made a political career of carrying Big Labor’s water — first in the California legislature and more recently in the U.S. House of Representatives.  She sports a 100 percent lifetime AFL-CIO rating.  In fact, the union bosses hand-picked Solis in 2000 to challenge then-incumbent Congressman Marty Martinez (D-CA) because Martinez "only" voted with Big Labor 80 percent of the time.

Here is what she said at the recent U.S. Senate confirmation hearing in which Solis dodges questions on basic issues any Labor Secretary nominee should be able to address — issues like card check and Right to Work.  Check out the video below:

This week, President Obama named Wilma Liebman chair of the National Labor Relations Board, the quasi-judicial body which administers the National Labor Relations Act. A former union lawyer, Liebman has used her seat on the Board to do Big Labor’s bidding and trample upon employee freedom.

In a statement, Liebman said

I am honored by President Obama’s designation to serve as Chairman, and I look forward to continuing my service on the Board with my colleague, Peter Schaumber, and ultimately with a full complement of Board Members.

I wish to thank Member Schaumber for his own outstanding service as Chairman. His leadership and collegiality, coupled with the efforts of dedicated agency staff, have enabled the Board to operate productively this past year.

The Board’s work matters, just as it did when the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. Democracy in the workplace is still basic to a democratic society, and collective bargaining is still basic to a fair economy. The statute we administer is the foundation of America’s commitment to human rights recognized around the world.

Emphsis mine.

As for "the statute [the Board members] administer," Liebman appears to have forfeited her objectivity by urging Congress to amend that law by passing the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.ka. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). As we asked earlier this month, how can an employee trust Liebman to impartially administer the NLRA when she is also working to amend it to effectively eliminate the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives?

Moreover, Liebman’s so-called "committment to human rights" does not appear to include any conception of individual freedom. In fact, she has shown an ugly disdain for individual rights, writing in one "academic" journal:

[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could
have troubling political and social consequences.Workers may view the
employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to
grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action
at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work
encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a
functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues
are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and
direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as
effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of
democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union
movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in
our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What
institution will speak for working people—indeed for the middle
class—as effectively?

The truth is that Wilma Liebman thinks she knows more about what is in a worker’s best interest than the individual worker does.  That’s why she feels is it good public policy to force as many workers into union collectives as possible.  As far as she is concerned, individual free choice is irrelevant.

Foundation attorneys look forward to getting her Board’s rulings slammed down by the federal appellate courts.

The National Right to Work Foundation has launched an online petition to President Barack Obama advising him that his election did not give him a “mandate” to impose draconian policies that will dramatically increase the power and money of the Big Labor Bosses.

We need your participation — Click here.

After spending record sums to put Obama in the White House, the union bosses are expecting the President to return the favor. And as Obama wrote in his memoir, The Audacity of Hope,

"I owe those unions… When their leaders call, I do my best to call them
back right away. I don’t mind feeling obligated."

The potential payback could start with the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). Sign the petition to urge the President NOT to advanced such a policy which would, among other things:

DENY workers the right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not they want to be part of a union (this is at the top of the agenda for Big Labor, because it would enable union organizers to forcibly unionize millions more workers into dues-paying union ranks)

Please sign the petition NOW, by clicking here.

When US Airways Flight 1549 crash-landed in the middle of the Hudson River last week, union apologists quickly claimed that the passengers’ harrowing rescue was a result of union procedures. I wonder what they’d say about this troubling story from the Boston Herald?

A bitter feud between Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the firefighters’ union blocked swift action to fill critical maintenance jobs until doomed Ladder 26 barreled into a building killing a Boston jake, both sides acknowledge.

Local 718 president Ed Kelly called the mayor’s move to fill slots open since 2007 a smokescreen for months of inaction ended by Lt. Kevin Kelley’s death.

Why wasn’t the firefighters’ equipment properly maintained? Instead hiring independent mechanics, city union bosses were more concerned with shoving workers into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks (emphasis mine):

Menino yesterday ordered Fire Commissioner Roderick Fraser to fill long-vacant mechanic positions nearly eight months after Fraser publicly raised concerns about inadequate staffing at a City Council hearing.

“I don’t think we’re adequately prepared to maintain our apparatus fleet the way we should,” Fraser told councilors at a May budget hearing.

Asked why it took so long to authorize Fraser to hire outside of the firefighters’ union, Menino said union rules blocked him but now he was taking bold action to assure firefighter safety.

“With a union workforce, you have to negotiate any changes,” Menino said. “I see an emergency and I’m going to do something about it.”

Menino’s action could spur a union grievance. The new mechanics will belong to a city union but not Local 718.

Kelly supports hiring mechanics but insists anyone responsible for firefighter safety belong to Local 718.

So the union boss put the expansion of his forced dues revenue stream before the safety of the public — and even the firefighters he claims to "represent." Just another example why forcing our nation’s public safety officials into union’s compulsory unionism ranks is a bad idea.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports that the SEIU-dominated "Change to Win" coalition and the AFL-CIO are considering a merger. The stated rationale for the proposed deal — to improve "organizing" activities — is all the more ironic in light of Change to Win’s original decision to break-off from the AFL-CIO. Top bosses from the SEIU, Teamsters, and several other unions claimed left the AFL-CIO to form Change to Win because they wanted to focus on workplace organizing.

The result of this decision speaks volumes about the priorities of union bosses: instead of adressing workers’ needs, Change to Win used forced union dues to become one of the most powerful and aggressive political organizations in the United States. According to Stan Greer, a policy analyst at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the SEIU hierarchy even implemented a national call center for worker complaints last year in order to free up virtually all union bosses to do full-time electioneering.

The moral of the story? Any union boss reorganization plan is purely cosmetic — it’s all a big side show. The SEIU, Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO will continue to focus their efforts on expanding the scope of compulsory unionism through the political process no matter what.