Foundation VP Stefan Gleason has an op-ed up over at Human Events on union political activism in the wake of the Supreme Court’s favorable Chamber v. Brown decision. Money quote:

Although the court ruled in favor of employer free speech and employee free choice, workers remain vulnerable to an onslaught of intimidation brought on by card-check organizing drives. In one article about the ruling, an AFL-CIO union lawyer snickered that the outcome would only encourage union bosses to pour more money into passing the erroneously titled “Employee Free Choice Act.” That bill passed the House this year, but a filibuster has stalled it in the Senate. Even if Big Labor and its allies in the Senate don’t get it through this year, you can be sure they’ll be back in ’09.

This legislative power grab—endorsed by union-label politicians and bankrolled by union political funds—is designed to allow union bosses to bypass government-supervised secret ballot elections in favor of card check, tilting the playing field in favor of union organizers.

Read the whole thing here.

On May 12, the Department of Labor issued a notice proposing a few minor rule changes aimed at improving union transparency. To help workers get more information on union expenditures they’re frequently obligated to fund as a condition of employment, the new regulations would revise parts of the LM-2 form, a financial disclosure report filed by unions with over $250,000 in annual revenue.

Among other things, the new regulations would require unions to disclose the amount of money spent on benefits for individual union officers, to report indirect monetary disbursements, to itemize certain receipts of $5,000 or more, and to disclose the identity of the purchaser or seller in transactions involving union assets.

Sounds pretty modest, right? In the past, we’ve blogged about the false promise of reducing union corruption simply by regulating financial disclosure. That said, Freedom@Work certainly doesn’t oppose measures that promote greater transparency. In fact, Foundation staff attorneys filed comments (.pdf) with the Department of Labor in support of the proposed rule changes. We believe that workers have a right to know what activities their mandatory dues payments are funding.

But Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative George Miller beg to differ. In a public letter (.pdf) to the Department of Labor, they claim that the burden of financial accountability (for funds that are essentially handed to them on a silver platter, I might add) is simply too onerous for union bosses to bear (emphasis mine):

The NPRM also advances a misguided proposal that makes it more likely that smaller local unions will face dramatic increases in their financial record-keeping and reporting obligations. The officers of small local unions often work full-time for a represented employer while simultaneously performing their duties as union officers. Their resources are small, and their access to professional assistance – including lawyers and accountants – can be limited.

Senator Kennedy’s newfound enthusiasm for easing America’s regulatory burden is a bit surprising – one wonders why he recently introduced legislation requiring restaurants to list nutritional info for every single menu item – and wholly disingenuous. Local unions are affiliated with larger national and international unions precisely because these entities are supposed to provide "access to professional assistance."

Kennedy and Miller’s blatant hypocrisy is particularly rankling because union bosses have repeatedly used this justification to extract more mandatory dues-payments from nonunion employees. In Lehnert v. Ferris (1991), for example, Foundation attorneys argued before the Supreme Court that nonmember workers should not be forced to pay for union "services" provided from other union affiliates. However, union lawyers successfully claimed that "services" provided by the union’s parent organization justified additional compulsory dues-payments. Here’s the crux of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion (emphasis mine):

Because the essence of the affiliation relationship is the notion that the parent union will bring to bear its often considerable economic, political, and informational resources when the local is in need of them, that part of a local’s affiliation fee which contributes to the pool of resources potentially available to it is assessed for the bargaining unit’s protection, even if it is not actually expended on that unit in any particular membership year.

In other words, support from Big Labor’s national affiliates is part and parcel of the mandatory agency fee package. If unwilling workers are funding unions’ "considerable economic, political, and informational resources," shouldn’t local affiliates have access to the resources they need to comply with these modest disclosure requirements?

This sordid episode demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of union bosses and their political allies. Kennedy and Miller should just cut the crap. Like their Big Labor cronies, they just don’t want workers to see the extent to which they are being ripped off. Period.

Jill Long Thompson, the Democratic nominee for governor of Indiana, is campaigning on the promise that her first action as chief executive of the state would be to impose union monopoly bargaing on Indiana state employees (and ultimately compel them to fund unions against their will, I presume). Her reasoning could even be viewed as sacriligious by some:

"I think (collective bargaining) is a God-given right," she said.

For the record, union monopoly bargaining is not even a constitutional right, but rather just a controversial statutory privilege granted by certain legislatures. Meanwhile, many sincere employees of faith have successfully raised their religious objections to union affiliation, based on their reading of Scripture (or teachings of other religious faiths).

Thompson’s comments are likely to be deeply offensive to individuals who believe God disapproves of laws that strip employees of their individual freedom to contract and that force workers to affiliate with radical ideological groups.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have secured the right of employees of faith to trigger federal civil rights laws to secure a reprieve from all requirements to pay dues to unions thought immoral. Religious objectors to compulsory unionism can learn more about their rights here.

A recent survey of New Jersey job providers featured some interesting conclusions. It turns out that current state policies have discouraged new businesses from setting up shop:

Such findings have given the state a national reputation as inhospitable to industry. In 2007, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council rated New Jersey last among states to foster small-scale operations. This year, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation said the state was second to last on its tax-climate index.

So what’s an economically stagnating state to do? Here’s some sound advice:

"It is not about the broader economy. It is about the poor choices New Jersey has made," said Philip Kirschner, president of the business association…

"As for legislation and policy reform, he said, New Jersey could adopt other states’ successful models.

"North Carolina’s economy, for instance, grew from agriculture and manufacturing to include tourism, technology and finance, some well-served by research universities. Unlike New Jersey, it is a Right to Rork state – in which union membership is not compulsory…"

Surprise, surprise!  Incidentally, here’s CNBC’s recent ranking of "America’s Top States for Businesses" in the workforce category.  What do the leading states all have in common?  Every one is a member of the Right to Work club.

Of course — first and foremost — Right to Work is about employee freedom in the workplace, but much to the chagrin of union bosses, rolling back coercive union power has undeniable economic benefits as well.

Karen Ackerman, the national political director for the AFL-CIO, recently had this nonsense to say about the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act:

"Of course, employers are not happy about it," Ackerman said of the legislation. "Of course, employers are going to call it undemocratic.

"But, in fact, if people want to be members of the Republican Party, they don’t have to have a secret-ballot election. If folks want to join a church or be a member of a Boys Club, they don’t have to have a secret election," she said.

The Employee Free Choice Act, she said, is "a way to even out the system."

What she doesn’t want to acknowledge is that my political party or church does not have special coervice powers granted by the government to compel other people to accept its "representation" and even to join or pay dues.

Even secret ballot elections for union certification are far from fair. That’s because if a union is voted in, it is awarded the power to be the "exclusive representative" of all members of the bargaining unit — even those workers who do not want to join (or be "represented by") the union brass.

Opponents of Card Check Instant Organizing shouldn’t only rely on appeals to "democracy" in the debate against union officials and union-backed politicians. A democratic election may seem a better alternative to union goons misleading or coercing workers into signing authorization cards — but one should not overlook the link between card check and the greater evil of monopoly bargaining.

If Ackerman were to be honest, she would look at the flip side of her own example — I may be free to donate money to the Republican party, but she is also free NOT to do so. A worker should be free to join or pay dues to a union, but a worker should also be free NOT to support a union — or to be "represented" by a union.

As long as there is monopoly bargaining — whether it is imposed through an NLRB-supervised election or the even more abusive card check process — there can be no real employee free choice.

A couple of weeks ago, Will Collins blasted Denver Post deputy editor Bob Ewegen for his misleading column denying the economic boom underway in Right to Work states. This weekend, Ewegen once again spouted the talking points of compulsory unionism (emphasis mine):

Despite the label, "Right to Work" laws don’t guarantee anybody a job — unless you’re a lawyer. Unions have filed a lawsuit alleging widespread fraud by the petition gatherers hired by the anti-union forces. The challenge could knock the initiative off the ballot, though sponsors have asked for the right to seek extra signatures to "cure" those defects.

Big Labor and its media stooges love setting up a tired false dichotomy about Right to Work. The Right to Work principle is not at all "anti-union." The Right to Work principle makes no judgment on whether workers should join/support a union for whatever reason. That is a decision best left up to the individual. The Right to Work principle is therefore anti-compulsory unionism and pro-freedom of choice.

Whether he knows it or not, Ewegan actually ends up highlighting an injustice flowing from forced unionism later in his column:

Amendment 27, the 2002 Colorado campaign finance law written by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, allows labor unions to contribute up to $4,000 to candidates to the legislature. Businesses and private citizens are limited to one-tenth as much as unions can contribute, no more than $400 per election season.

That’s because Amendment 27 allows "small donor committees" to give politicians 10 times as much as any other person or group if they get only $50 or less per contributor. Unions are well positioned to exploit that loophole because, for example, the Colorado Association of Public Employees/Service Employees International Union, can deduct $4 a month from a member’s $15 monthly dues for political purposes and count the resulting $48 a year as a "small donor" contribution from a member who may not even be aware that she made that particular "donation."

Let’s sum up: Colorado law (1) limits the amount of money an individual person can choose to donate to a political campaign and (2) refuses individual employees the right to decide whether they want a union’s "representation."

But when it comes to unions, Colorado law (1) allows unions to donate up to ten times as much as individuals to political campaigns and (2) grants union officials the government-backed coercive power to seize dues from individuals and divert them into the union’s political agenda.

Ewegen also laments that Right to Work does not guarantee employment. That’s true, and Right to Work doesn’t guarantee rainbows or sunshine either, although it is worth pointing out that Right to Work laws certainly do help create jobs.

Next time, instead of shilling for Big Labor and complaining about Right to Work laws’ lack of mystical powers, Ewegen should acknowledge the fact that compulsory unionism guarantees special privileges for Big Labor at the expense of individuals’ freedom of association.

Last week, officials from the United Steelworkers union and "Unite the Union" — among the largest unions in North America and the United Kingdom — announced that they had signed an agreement to merge into a single, global union. From their joint press release:

Consistent with this calling, Workers Uniting will "match our words with action and resources, utilizing our collective expertise and knowledge through collective bargaining, organizing, global political action and international solidarity."

What might this "global political action" include? Among other activities… "Exposure to the political processes in each other’s countries, including Democratic Party primaries and Labour Party conferences."

Initially, the two unions claim, "Workers Uniting" (though "Union Bosses Uniting" would be a more accurate name) will operate with a budget of several million dollars.

Of course, the press release fails to mention that the bulk of the budget will be funded by forced union dues from American workers who never asked for globalist union "representation" in the first place.

On July 4, former Senator Jesse Helms passed away in Raleigh, North Carolina at the age of 86. Best known for his tireless conservative advocacy, Senator Helms was a staunch defender of employees’ Right to Work and a fierce opponent of compulsory unionism.

Once dubbed "Public Enemy #1" by North Carolina AFL-CIO top boss Wilbur Hobby, Helms’ impressive legislative record included several notable accomplishments on behalf of the Right to Work movement. In 1978, his timely filibuster single-handedly de-railed Big Labor’s efforts to pass the infamous Pushbutton Unionism Bill (or so-called "Labor Law Reform"), a piece of legislation designed to impose draconian penalties on any employer resisting compulsory unionization. Helms struck another blow against Big Labor in 1995, successfully opposing Senator Ted Kennedy’s attempts to pass the Pushbutton Strike Bill.

In the 1990s, Helms actively assisted the National Right to Work Committee’s efforts to safeguard employee freedom through passage of the National Right to Work Act. Not only did Helms reintroduce the legislation in 2001, he also wrote letters and recorded messages on behalf of the Committee. Through his efforts, Helms helped mobilize hundreds of thousands of citizens against compulsory unionism.

In 2001, then Foundation President Reed Larson paid Helms the ultimate tribute: "No member of Congress – nobody in the whole United States – has done as much to help [us] advance the Right to Work cause as Jesse Helms."

A few Right to Work-related updates from over the holiday weekend:

1.) July 5th marked the 73rd anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act. This legislation, originally enacted in 1935, imposes union officials as middlemen between management and workers. While reformers thought they were curtailing the worst excesses with the Taft-Hartley Amendments in 1947, the NLRA continued to give government backing to Big Labor’s monopoly bargaining privileges while actually increasing the government force behind an immoral policy of forcing workers to pay dues for often unwanted union "representation."

Here’s a good primer on the NLRA’s evolution from Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

2.) Reason Magazine has a good post up on the racially-charged history of mandatory collective bargaining. Here’s the money quote:

The NAACP’s publication The Crisis, for example, decried the monopoly powers granted to racist unions by the NRA, noting in 1934 that "union labor strategy seems to be to obtain the right to bargain with the employees as the sole representative of labor, and then close the union to black workers."

Institutional union racism continues to this very day.  And it is aided and abetted by Big Labor’s monopoly bargaining privileges which give union officials inordinate power over employees’ livelihood.  It is all too common for union bosses to retaliate against employees for any arbitrary reasons, including race. In fact, one need not go back any further than a week to find allegations of racism by union officials.

In May, a devastating piece from the Far Left New Republic highlighted the Teamsters’ officials attempts to get rid of the Independent Review Board (IRB), a federal oversight body intended to police the union’s well-documented connections to organized crime. Here’s a particularly choice example of Teamster union "representation" from the article:

But Hoffa’s efforts [to get rid of the IRB] were derailed by a sensational IRB report that appeared late that year detailing the efforts of Chicago Teamsters, working with a Chicago labor broker, Richard Simon, whom Stier [a former federal prosecutor] would later describe as "having ties to organized crime," to undermine a Teamster local in Las Vegas by negotiating non-union, low-wage agreements to service the city’s numerous business conventions.

Now a former Teamsters boss has written in to announce he’s shocked – shocked – by the magazine’s allegations of corruption. Having already been ejected from the union by the IRB for innappropriate conduct, his credibility on this issue is somewhat strained. Fortunately, the author ably defends his original contentions:

The IRB found that the two men [two Teamsters officials — one of whom wrote in to object to the first article] tried to get the Teamsters local 631 in Las Vegas, which provided workers to convention shows, to allow Richard Simon, a Chicago labor broker, to provide non-union workers to conventions. The workers, which would be provided by Simon’s United Temps, would not receive benefits or overtime. All in all, they would earn less than half of the Teamster workers; and under the labor agreement that the Teamsters had with the conventions, Simon’s cut-rate contract could then become the standard for all convention employees. The Teamsters would be screwed, but Simon would come out ahead, and so would Hogan’s brother Michael, who was the vice president of Simon’s company, and also the head of a convention company that would be hiring Simon’s workers.

Notably, the IRB’s investigation was later validated by a federal court:

"Having carefully reviewed the hearing record," the Appeals Court wrote, "we concluded that the IRB’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, are not arbitrary or capricious, and plainly demonstrate that Hogan and Passo were negotiating a contract that they knew would have harmed the union."

While more oversight may seem desirable, it’s no substitute for real reform. Corruption will remain endemic to labor unions like the Teamsters as long as union officials have access to a bottomless source of mandatory dues payments. Furthermore, the entire structure of monopoly bargaining gives employees no meaningful recourse to combat union fraud and corruption, as union officials are essentially installed for life as workers’ sole representatives [this National Institute for Labor Relations Research paper is good primer on the relationship between compulsory unionism and union corruption].

Good-faith efforts at union oversight are also vulnerable to changes in the political environment. According to this Wall Street Journal article, one presidential candidate has already announced his support for dismantling the IRB and giving the Teamsters free reign to police themselves. Unfortunately, we already know how that strategy will turn out (from the original TNR article):

To build an argument for getting rid of the IRB, Hoffa set up his own internal oversight group. It was called RISE (or Respect, Integrity, Strength, and Ethics) and was run by a former federal prosecutor and organized crime expert Ed Stier.

. . .

For Stier, however, those hopes were dashed the next year when he began investigating Chicago-area Teamster locals for corruption. As he later detailed in a report, Stier discovered "multiple issues related to organized crime [and] corruption" in Local 714, and similar issues in five other area locals. The report concluded, "Issues related to organized crime infiltration and associated corruption in the Chicago area are numerous and cut across jurisdictional lines." But in the fall of 2003, as Stier was still in the midst of his investigation, the Teamster leadership began objecting vociferously to it, and in February 2004, Hoffa shut it down.