Manny Lopez from the Detroit News comments on the United Autoworker (UAW) union hierarchy's "new" strategy of organizing workers, (i.e. using even more intimidation and harassment to force additional workers into their dues-paying ranks):

Bob King, the new president of the UAW was stumping for democracy yesterday, and you'd think that it would be hard to corrupt such a thing.

But he did. See, democracy to the unions means do it our way, or no way.

King said the UAW will try a new tactic to organize foreign automakers. The membership-declining union is going to draft a set of principles that will bar companies from using derogatory, untruthful or threatening statements to dissuade workers from organizing (as if that was a one-way street).

"Any company that does not agree to the UAW principles is essentially declaring war on freedom of speech and assembly," he said.

Ta-da, the "shame campaign" (my interpretation, not his).

Those that don't sign on will be labeled as being against the First Amendment.

But as Lopez correctly points out, UAW union hypocrites seem the least bit interested in protecting Michigan workers' rights to also not be forced to associate with something they want no part of:

In fact, the UAW's push for freedom could be a good thing if it were universally open to such a thing. How about the UAW abide by its own new interest in openness and allow its members in Michigan and other forced unionism states to also have the freedom to decide whether they want to be in the union?

I'll buy into the UAW's campaign for the First Amendment and the freedom of speech and assembly when it gives its workers in every state that same opportunity.

How about it Mr. King? Let's make Michigan a right-to-work state. Or is the freedom to choose limited to certain circumstances?

And not only would Right to Work protections be great for workers' rights, it would also be good for their wallets.  Now that's a "new" strategy Michigan's families could support.

In case you missed it, earlier this month the Washington Examiner reported that from 2005 to 2008, Big Labor's big money boys have funneled nearly $10 million from forced-dues-fueled union treasuries to the scandal-ridden Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (popularly known as "ACORN") and its affiliates.

According to the report, leading the way is the scandal-plauged Service Employees International Union (SEIU), doling out a whopping $7.4 million; followed by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the Longshore and Warehouse Union, the Communication Workers of America (CWA), and the National Education Association (NEA) unions. The Examiner also notes:

SEIU Locals 100 and 880 were listed as allied organizations on ACORN’s web site until The Examiner highlighted this connection.

LM-2’s show over $600,000 in contributions between these SEIU locals and other ACORN operations. A 2007 LM-2 form shows SEIU Local 880, which is active in Illinois and Minnesota, donated $60,118 to ACORN for "membership services." Organized labor has kicked it back in the form of gifts and grants to ACORN totaling $2.4 million, according to the disclosure forms.

ACORN activists have participated in highly aggressive, well-coordinated anti-corporate campaigns across the country unofficially called “Muscle for Money” funded by SEIU.

In other words, SEIU union kingpins shelled out top dollar for ACORN activists to conduct corporate shakedown campaigns, with tactics that include crashing business meetings and harassing company officials and their families at their own homes, to extract corporate donations and intimidate employers into accepting the Big Labor syndicate's compulsory unionism agenda (which prominently includes forcing the companies' workers into union ranks).

One must wonder if the workers who are "represented" by SEIU union bosses are even aware that their dues are funding a "mob-style 'protection' racket."

To learn about your rights, including your right to opt out of paying union dues which union bosses use on non-bargaining activities such as union politics, lobbying, and member-only events, please check out the Foundation's "Know Your Rights" page here.

Tragedy struck on Black Friday at a Wal-Mart on Long Island when impatient customers trampled an employee as they rushed into the store at 5 a.m., leading to his death.

But union bosses -- long engaged in a vicious corporate campaign against the retailer in an effort to force Wal-Mart employees into their forced dues rank -- are trying to exploit the tragedy for their self-serving ends:

"This incident was avoidable," said Bruce Both, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500, the state of New York's largest grocery worker's union.

"Where were the safety barriers? Where was security? How did store management not see dangerous numbers of customers barreling down on the store in such an unsafe manner?

"This is not just tragic; it rises to a level of blatant irresponsibility by Wal-Mart," he said.

(Via Reason)

Here at Freedom@Work, we've been covering Big Labor's vicious corporate smear campaigns for quite some time. With the likelihood of pro-compulsory unionism politicians being swept into office and Big Labor's power on the rise, it looks like union organizers have redoubled their efforts to impose card-check certification drives across the country.

First, we have the case of Aramark Food Services, headquartered in Philadelphia. As mentioned earlier, Aramark has been targeted by the SEIU for refusing to cooperate with the union bosses' efforts to forcibly organize company employees. Now comes this latest update from Chicago's Daily Herald (emphasis mine):

"It's very typical of SEIU to … put pressure on the employer by … pointing out the various problems with the employer's labor relations or management practices," said Bob Bruno, a labor relations researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago...

Hade said the union is pursuing agreements that would allow suburban service workers to unionize without holding an election.

"It's a fair process," [service union spokeswoman] Hade said. "They don't face intimidation from anyone."

A fair process? Note how the article euphemistically alludes to card-check elections as "agreements that would allow suburban service workers to unionize without holding an election." That's an interesting way to characterize a process that subjects workers to coercive public pressure from both management and union organizers. Hade would do well to check out the Foundation's video on card-check harassment and intimidation.

But not surprisingly, this is happening all over the place. In Oregon, United Farm Workers operatives are pressuring Beef Northwest to organize its workers. The locale may change, but Big Labor's tactics stay the same (emphasis mine):

Now, the United Farm Workers' efforts to organize the state's largest cattle feedlot has turned ugly, as the two sides clash over one central question: whether or not the company's 80 employees even want union representation.

Union organizers say Beef Northwest workers don't get regular salary raises, affordable health insurance or respect. They want a card check process, in which workers sign union cards and a third party oversees the vote. In the card check process, at least 50 percent of workers need to agree to union representation.

Beef Northwest owners say their workers are among the highest paid in the industry and that the majority of their workers appear happy. They want the vote taken by secret ballot, in which workers vote anonymously without union involvement.

Oregon's experience foreshadows Big Labor's coming political ascendancy. Union operatives are in the process of securing the allegiance of state and local governments across the country. With a big national election coming up, Forbes has the story on union organizers' goals for the next election cycle:

Teamsters spokesman Galen Munroe says, "It's pretty much accepted that Americans want change after the Bush Administration," adding that the Employee Free Choice Act, designed to make it easier for workers to choose a union, would help strengthen the middle class. The measure didn't make it out of the Senate last year, but Obama has vowed to revive it if elected.

A writer for the Los Angeles Times has an interesting piece up on Andy Stern, president of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Stern has been a driving force behind the SEIU's expansion since the mid-80s, and the article plugs his organizational success. What the article fails to do, like so many others, is grapple with the controversies and anti-employee freedom bent that has colored Stern's tenure.

Consider the following passage:

"Stern's ambition is to transform and revive American unionism. In 2005, he led several big unions, including the SEIU, the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers, out of the AFL-CIO. In their new coalition, known as Change to Win, Stern pushed each of the unions to devote a qualitatively large proportion of their resources to organizing, even if it meant reducing the number of staff who 'serviced existing members.' He insisted that unless unions such as the SEIU achieved a far higher degree of "density" in specific industries, such as healthcare, they wouldn't be strong enough to raise wages and working conditions for everyone."

Although the article does highlight the considerable internal dissent provoked by Stern's "growth at any cost" policies, the author glosses over the ugly truth behind the SEIU's recent expansion. Stern's strategy has been so successful in part because it emphasizes coercive, top-down union organizing drives, card-check campaigns that disenfranchise employees, and vicious corporate PR broadsides that blackmail businesses into collaborating with SEIU organizers.

Given Stern's ambitious national strategy to build a larger political machine, it's no surprise that workers increasingly question the union hierarchy's desire to pursue the interests of workers.

That's just one of many propsed rule changes being suggested at the National Labor Relations Board. Late last week, the National Right to Work Foundation filed comments opposing the changes which would further undermine employees' freedom to choose whether or not to unionize.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap unionization election even when no employees have expressed any interest. The proposed changes would also severely undermine employees' ability to challenge any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubber stamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

Sounds like the proposed changes a real loser for employee free choice.