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.

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.

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.

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:

The cover story of the hot-off-the-press November-December issue of Foundation Action recaps the exciting oral arguments of the Foundation’s Locke v. Karass case, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in early October.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

Vice President Stefan Gleason sits down with Foundation Staff Attorney Glenn Taubman to discuss the ugly realities of coercive card-check organizing drives and Big Labor’s efforts to make this process for unionization mandatory; Listen here:

For additional background, check out this op-ed from Foundation President Mark Mix.

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

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

If you follow Freedom@Work regularly, you know we’ve recently mentioned several Foundation Action articles from our latest newsletter. Now the entire thing is available online, free of charge. If you’re interested in an up-to-date look at our efforts to combat compulsory unionism, download Foundation Action today (.pdf).

Alternatively, you can sign up for a free print subscription or submit your email address at the top right corner of the page for a digital copy of the newsletter.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the disastrous economic implications of handing Big Labor more forced unionism power:

By the mid-1930s, the U.S. economy appeared to be climbing out of the Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), which had bottomed out at 41 in 1932, was advancing. It increased 73% from the beginning of 1935 through the end of 1936, when it hit 180. The number of unemployed, 13 million in 1933, dropped to 9.5 million in 1935 and 7.6 million in 1936.

Then, in 1937, the DJIA plunged 33% in what is often called "a depression within a depression." Joblessness skyrocketed.

A principal factor in the meltdown that year was the U.S. Supreme Court’s surprise 5-4 decision in early April to uphold the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, which had passed two years earlier. This measure, which is still the basis of our labor relations regime, authorized union officials to seek and obtain the power to act as the "exclusive" (that is, the monopoly) bargaining agent over all the front-line employees, including union nonmembers as well as members, in a unionized workplace.

[…]

If the mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," becomes law, it will likely have a similar effect on the economy as the original Wagner Act, transforming what could have been a recovery into a lengthy, deep recession, or worse.

Read the whole thing here.

What the op-ed didn’t have the space to get to is the card check’s negative impact on employee freedom. As we’ve explained elsewhere, allowing union operatives to publicly browbeat workers into signing away their rights to self-representation would open the door to intimidation and coercion. Because of this, the Foundation is preparing for a flood of cases if card check becomes the law of the land.

For a good primer on the dangers of card-check organizing drives, check out this Foundation video report.