Columnist Thomas Sowell points out in an op-ed today the harmful effects of bad economic policies on job creation in "rust belt" states:

In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

He concludes:

Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are
not being replaced by new jobs. Rust belt policies that drove out old
jobs also keep out new jobs.

Chief among these harmful policies is compulsory unionism. According to a National Institute for Labor Relations Research fact sheet, Right to Work states outperform forced unionism states, which include all of the rust belt, on a litany of economic growth indicators.

Most notably, with regard to job growth, non-farm private sector job growth in Right to Work states nearly doubled that of forced unionism states between 1996-2006. NILRR also notes that Real Personal Income growth also was nearly double in Right to Work states between 2001-2006.

Sounds like the golden goose has fled for greener pastures.

The internal drumbeat against SEIU chief Andy Stern for seeking the union’s "growth at any cost" is only growing louder, as articles in the NY Times and Wall Street Journal bear out.

The Times article in particular shows how union officials often sell out workers’ interests in exchange for a "card check" deal from an employer that will give them a toe hold in the workplace, and eventually the ability to compel dues from employees:

Michael Torres, a respiratory therapist at U.S.C. University Hospital
in Los Angeles, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corporation, said Mr.
Stern’s approach had hurt Tenet employees. He complained that union
leaders had sought to make a deal that called for not pushing for
pensions or retiree health coverage; in exchange Tenet would not fight
unionization of 23 facilities in Florida.

No wonder the dissention is reaching a fever pitch, with the group even running ads, brought to our attention by a reader, on the pro-forced unionism Daily Kos site decrying "top-down leadership."

Following up on forced dues for foster parents in Washington State, another op-ed in the Seattle P-I this week says that the California Legislature wants to "unionize Grandma." The article states:

A bill pending in the Senate would create a union to organize family
members who provide child care for their kin and are paid by the state
so that mothers can work outside the home.

Furthermore:

Child-care providers who did not want to join the union would still
have to pay fees — likely in the same amount as the union dues.

Most disturbingly, this extension of compulsory unionism is part of a broader trend:

The move in California is part of a nationwide strategy by SEIU and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Since
2005, governors in eight states have issued executive orders or taken
other action giving family child-care providers the right to unionize
and bargain as a group.

And in all of those states without a Right to Work law, those care providers must pay union dues. What a tell tale sign that this is all about the money that union officials must stoop to compelling payment of union dues from people taking care of their own families.

Today’s regretful passing of commentator William F. Buckley Jr. reminds us of how Mr. Buckley stood up to compulsory unionism with help from the National Right to Work Foundation several decades back. George Leef details the fight in pages 160-162 of Free Choice for Workers: A History of the Right to Work Movement.

After American Federation of Television and Radio Artists union officials told Mr. Buckley to join the union and pay up if he wanted to voice his opinions over the airwaves, he fought back in the form of a Foundation-aided lawsuit.

Though the case was batted between the courts and National Labor Relations Board, it ultimately led the AFTRA union to stop requiring formal membership from employees. (However, it could still compel dues from employees.)

Despite this, Mr. Buckley voiced satisfaction at his case’s achievement. Mr. Leef cites:

Summing up his case, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in his sydicated column, ‘Thanks to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which funded this case…employees are precisely not bound to obey the union’s rules any long, and the First Amendment has won a significant victory.’

According to The Hill, NEA union officials are gearing up for an effort to dump between $40-$50 million dollars, much of it in compulsory union dues, into the 2008 elections. NEA chief Reg Weaver leaves no doubt about it:

“We plan to be very aggressive,” said Reg Weaver, the NEA’s president.

Perhaps many teachers would be better off if the NEA union and its affiliates were not so aggressive. For instance, the Ohio branch of the NEA told St. Marys district school teacher Carol Katter to "change religions" when she asserted her right to divert her mandatory dues from political causes she disagrees with on religious grounds.

However, with help from the National Right to Work Foundation, Katter struck down an Ohio law preventing such "religious objectors" from diverting such forced dues to charity unless they belonged to certain state-approved religions.

"I was not going to give one cent to those causes," Katter told the Ohio media. "I know where NEA money goes, and I never wanted to be part of that."

You heard it right. According to an op-ed just run by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Washington State is considering subjecting foster parents within the state to compulsory unionism, which could cause some serious problems. The piece cites:

If forced to join, I predict foster parents already fed up with the
system will depart in droves. If even 20 percent leave already thin
ranks, it will be a foster care disaster.

The author also brands the idea as a "beachhead," and that:

Once a precedent is set, it will be easy to expand the scope because virtually all children in foster care are special needs.

Sounds like union officials in Washington are once again using the legislature to expand their special privileges rather than soliciting voluntary support of those they seek to organize. Not to mention the fact that these are foster parents we’re talking about here.

A new buzz word paid union operatives throw around when they decide to strike against a facility they have absolutely nothing to do with is that they’re simply holding an "informational" picket. As in this instance in Tennessee, union officials hold such pickets for pretty much any reason under the sun, but usually for simply being non-union.

This, no doubt, leaves employees forced to foot the bill for this activity scratching their heads. Why are they forced to pay the salaries of paid union professionals to picket facilities that they don’t even work at?

Here’s some recent "informational picketing" out of Albany, New York:

Further undermining what little credibility it may still have, the American Bar Association held its annual labor law conference and loaded up the agenda with another one-sided panel discussion to attack the concept of employee free choice.

For the 4th year in a row, ABA political hacks have pointedly refused to allow the perspective of employees who may, God forbid, not want a union to dominate their workplace. Once again, a hot topic at the conference was the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s cases defending employees whose rights are abused during card check organizing drives.

And yet again, the ABA meeting planners refused to allow the perspective of workers or their Right to Work attorneys to be heard — instead selecting speakers representing Big Labor and a small faction of squishy, union-boss-friendly management lawyers. (Of course, the views of the speakers were rejected by the NLRB in its recent Dana/Metaldyne ruling, and the views of Foundation attorneys were embraced. Just a technicality, I guess.)

The ABA’s intellectual dishonesty continues to be an embarrassment to America’s legal profession.

The American flag will now fly at election sites where employees vote over whether or not to unionize, according to a recent announcement by the National Labor Relations Board. How ironic, considering that union officials are pressing to eliminate secret ballots over whether to unionize in favor of the coercive "card check" process, where employees are often pressured individually.

Unfortunately, the secret ballot election process is not without fault either. If 1,000 employees vote overall, and 501 vote to unionize, the other 499 must accept unwanted union "representation" over their wages and working conditions, and in 28 states pay dues or be fired. Such tyranny of the majority has no place over such fundamental choices as the Right to Work in a country that prides itself on individual freedom to choose.

And speaking of which, a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the National Right to Work Foundation’s recent work at the U.S. Supreme Court.