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.

As Patrick Semmens pointed out recently, Denver Post columnist Al Lewis got quite an earful for suggesting that workers are rarely dissatisfied with compulsory union representation. But at least Al has the grace to admit he was wrong. In a recent post, he acknowledged that "unions make workers pay."

His colleague Bob Ewegen, on the other hand, is an unrepentant forced unionism propagandist. In a recent column, he trots out the same tired talking points in defense of non-Right to Work states' supposed economic vitality:

If you're lucky enough to find a job at all, the only right the Coors plan gives you is the right to work for less. Quite a bit less, actually. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that an average worker in the 22 states with right-to-work laws earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787). Nationwide, union members earn $9,308 a year more than non-union workers, $41,652 versus $32,344.

A little fact-checking is in order. As noted in this recent post, economically-dynamic Right to Work states enjoy lower taxes, lower housing costs, cheaper goods, and better services. In fact, if you adjust workers' salaries for relative costs of living, employees clearly make more money in Right to Work areas.

Ewegen further suggests that Right to Work states are struggling economically -- rather than serving as powerhouses of job and standard of living growth.

Quoting out of context statistics is a neat -- albeit intellectually dishonest -- rhetorical trick. Most Right to Work states are concentrated in the South, a region that has historically endured lower rates of economic growth than the rest of the country. Now, however, these states boast higher rates of growth than their non-Right to Work counterparts. What's changed? As this analysis demonstrates, states that embrace Right to Work principles enjoy substantially better economic performance.

And these trends show no signs of letting up. According to one blogger, the past several years have seen Right to Work states continue to register better economic performance than their non-Right to Work neighbors.

On Sunday, Denver Post columnist Al Lewis asked with skepticism "Where are the victims of unions?"

It must have struck a nerve out there. Only days later he writes a column with quotes from the "scores" of people who wrote in. Here are a few of the responses Lewis received:

• "I don't like the direction they are headed in now... They've drifted from protecting the main interest of the working man into the outskirts of politics."
• "Unions use the same methods as street thugs. They steal the money of hard working people through lies and intimidation."
• "I unwillingly have $44.75 taken out of my pay check every month. My opinion of the . . . union is . . . we are nothing more than a 'cash cow.' "
• "If the union had to earn its money, it would really make them a better union."

The Rocky Mountain News recently published a misleading op-ed by union organizer James Hansen. The article contains a number of misleading claims, but the following passage’s description of a Right to Work law is so fundamentally wrong that it has to be addressed:

“A right-to-work [sic] law would allow the government to intervene in labor-management relations, undermining the freedom that employers and workers now have to negotiate the best agreement possible for both sides.”

Union officials in Colorado already have government granted power to force every employee - member or not - to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their job (or getting a job in the first place). No other organization or association is allowed to extort forced fees from individuals.

State Right to Work protections simply eliminate this extraordinary government intervention, which is the exact opposite Hansen’s claim.

Further, if Hansen was really concerned with government intervention into employer-employee relations, he would call for the repeal of government imposed monopoly bargaining (that allows union officials to forcibly represent every employee) or the numerous other special government-granted powers that unions have.

But contrary to Hansen’s assertion, union officials are not at all concerned about preventing government intervention into employee-employer relations, as they long ago rejected AFL-CIO founder Samuel Gompers' call for purely voluntary unionism. For the better part of the last 100 years, union bosses have built their empire on special government-granted powers, with forced dues as the most glaring example of the power.

Following up on last week's post, Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research spoke out last week against a recent executive order in Colorado extending union monopoly bargaining over state employees. (NRTW Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr. spoke at the event.)

According to an article in the Denver Business Journal:

Greer also said that even if legislators approve a law prohibiting
government workers from striking -- and Ritter signs it -- 48 percent
of public sector strikes are technically illegal, meaning that
legislation is not an effective deterrent against strikes.

"By all economic measures, Colorado would be better off without
forced dues and fees and everyone would be better off with right to
work laws."

How true- if strike prohibitions work, how did union officials shut down New York City just before Christmas in 2005" They didn't seem to mind the illegality of that strike. The imposition of forced union dues has also prompted state employees in Washington and Maine to fight back.

The Denver Post published an article earlier this week featuring the NRTW Foundation's work on behalf of state employees in Washington in 2006, including Patricia Woodward. Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials ordered Ms. Woodward fired for refusal to pay dues. In the Post article, her niece, Darla Branif, called the imposition of forced dues on Washington state employees a "dirty deal."

In 2006 WFSE spokesman Tim Welch told dissenting employees exactly what he thought when asked by a local newspaper:

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

Sadly, with no Right to Work law in place in Washington, Welch is right. However, employees in Washington did fight back with the Foundation's help. Watch Patricia Woodward's statement at a related press conference below.

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.