[For more on this scandal, see this post: SEIU Bosses Gave Gov. Blagojevich More Than $1.7 Million Already, Not Including Possible Payout for Senate Seat]

By now, many of you have already heard about the pay-for-play scandal enveloping Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Unsurprisingly, Blago's corrupt antics are intimately connected to Big Labor. In return for a cushy appointment at the SEIU's Change to Win coalition, he apparently offered to name SEIU's hand-picked candidate to Barack Obama's newly-vacant senate seat (from the federal complaint .pdf):

Defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and [his aide] JOHN HARRIS, together with others, attempted to use ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s authority to appoint a United States Senator for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, including, among other things, appointment as Secretary of Health & Human Services in the President-elect’s administration, and alternatively, a lucrative job which they schemed to induce a union to provide to ROD BLAGOJEVICH in exchange for appointing as senator an individual whom ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS believed to be favored by union officials and their associates.

--

HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.

The SEIU, of course, is denying any connection to the Blagojevich bribe, which is a bit hard to swallow given the circumstances. Here's another damning excerpt from the charges (emphasis mine):

On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with SEIU Official, who was in Washington, D.C. Prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that approximately a week before this call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH met with SEIU Official to discuss the vacant Senate seat, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH understood that SEIU Official was an emissary to discuss Senate Candidate 1’s interest in the Senate seat. During the conversation with SEIU Official on November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed SEIU Official that he had heard the President-elect wanted persons other than Senate Candidate 1 to be considered for the Senate seat.

SEIU Official stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that “one thing I’d be interested in” is a 501(c)(4) organization. ROD BLAGOJEVICH explained the 501(c)(4)idea to SEIU Official and said that the 501(c)(4) could help “our new Senator [Senate Candidate 1].” SEIU Official agreed to “put that flag up and see where it goes.”

For those of you wondering, "Senate Candidate 1" is Valerie Jarrett, the SEIU's once-favored choice for the Illinois senate vacancy. As the excerpted segment shows, the feds also have an anonymous SEIU official agreeing on tape to convey Blago's proposed bribe to his superiors.

BREAKING NEWS: Notwithstanding SEIU denials, Politico reports a Democrat source has revealed the unnamed SEIU official is none other than President Andrew Stern himself.

UPDATE: NPR now reports that the SEIU official was actually Tom Balanoff, the union's Illinois chief.

Blago's abortive bargain was a pretty sweet deal. The Illinois governor would have picked up a plum SEIU job funded by forced union dues, while Big Labor would have gotten another bought-and-paid-for senator.

The workers funding Blago's lavish new salary and the SEIU's vast political apparatus may have felt left out of the deal, but that's just the way Big Labor operates.

Just another example of the corruption that goes hand-in-hand with the injustice of forced unionism.

Today, the Foundation issued a news release announcing parallel federal lawsuits concerning illegal forced dues:

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.”

Read the rest of the Foundation's news release here.

Erin McKee, top boss of the Charleston Labor Council, has written a mind-numbingly ignorant (or intentionally misleading) response to an op-ed which outlines the mass rewriting of federal labor law Big Labor is hoping for after the 2008 election. Several of Boss McKee's assertions are just downright factually incorrect.

Lie #1:

Mr. Factor points out that [Big] labor's agenda is to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed, which is true. If a majority of employees have signed cards saying they want a union, it doesn't end there. They would then be allowed to have a fair election process and not be lied to, harassed and fired.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, the text of the misnamed EFCA reveals that once union organizers present the signed cards of even the smallest majority of workers in a unit, the National Labor Relations Board "shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative." In other words, card check does effectively eliminate the secret ballot from union certification drives. The less-abusive current election process would be replaced by one-on-one harassment from union goons.

Lie #2:

In a right to work state such as South Carolina, the union is forced to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. This means that everyone benefits, not just those who choose to pay the union dues for the benefits they receive. (If you think this is fair, let's try running our government this way and see what happens.)

Right to Work laws merely ensure that workers cannot be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union. Unfortunately, even non members are forced to accept the union's so-called representation, even when it works against them. It's illegal for workers to bargain with their employer on their own merits.

Further, federal law doesn't require that unions represent non-members, they seek and obtain monopoly bargaining status. Plus, as I have previously explained, if union bosses were serious about eliminating the so-called "free rider" problem, they would oppose federal and state monopoly bargaining statutes. They don't. They want them.

Lie #3:

Mr. Factor also seems to have a problem with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. He states that public-safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept a union's representation. Do local governments have the manpower to negotiate a bargaining agreement with each employee individually, or would it be more effective if management worked with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package?

Yes, they do actually. Municipalities all over the country do it. (For a good summary of the more-aptly titled Police & Fire Monopoly Bargaining Act, check out this month's Labor Watch article by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.)

Boss McKee's language in this passage is particularly revealing of Big Labor's patronizing attitude toward workers. Instead of each employee negotiating with the employer, union cheifs like McKee claim to want "management [to work] with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package." But what exactly is the difference? How is that not what is occurring when individual employees have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the employer? Why should a majority of the employee's co-workers get to pick the employee's representation? Even criminal defendants get to pick their own representation!

This month's issue of the Capital Research Center's Labor Watch newsletter features a cover story on Big Labor's attempts to force public safety officers nationwide into monopoly union collectives. The article details many unjust aspects of federal monopoly bargaining power grab, not the least of which is that it trumps state laws while stripping employees of their right to negotiate their own terms of employment or be rewarded for their individual merits.

While the National Right to Work Committee continues to lead the fight against the bill's passage, Foundation attorneys are preparing for a legal challenge if it becomes law. We have previously reported on this overall situation here.

One passage in the Labor Watch piece is particularly noteworthy:

Congressional Quarterly Today reported on May 30 that Sen. Reid still “intends to call up” H.R.980 for a Senate floor vote prior to this fall’s elections. Whether he actually does this may depend on what action is taken by Senate Republicans who oppose the legislation. If they hold firm, Reid will not be able to secure a final floor vote before the November elections without first allowing several right-to-work amendments to be considered and voted on. The most important of these amendments is sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). It would repeal all provisions in federal labor law that authorize the firing of employees for refusing to pay dues or “agency” fees to an unwanted union.

A Battle For Forced Dues

[Harry] Reid knows that if a right-to-work amendment like DeMint’s comes up for a vote, union officials will oppose it with all their might, and they will order their Senate supporters to oppose it as well. This will, in turn, demonstrate clearly that Big Labor’s battle for [mandated monopoly bargaining for Public Safety employees] is largely a battle for forced union dues. [emphasis added.]

Score another win for Big Labor at the expense of employee freedom. Yesterday in New York, Governor David Paterson signed a law making union dues mandatory for public employees who choose to refrain from union membership.

In the past, the law authorizing union bosses to force public employees to pay up as a requirement of keeping their job would expire every two years. The union boss spin is almost unbelievable:

[Union bosses] said on Wednesday that making the law permanent guaranteed that unions would have the money to adequately represent members and nonmembers alike, which they were required to do under a state law known as the Taylor Law. “In public employment, they have the right not to belong, but I still must represent them,” said Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “If under the law we’re obligated to represent every employee, then it’s only fair that every employee pays something toward the cost of being represented.”

Iannuzzi's language is fairly typical among union officials (they frequently use the term "fair share" to describe the dues they seize from nonmembers to pay for unwanted "representation"). But painting union bosses as hapless victims of the very special privileges they got enacted is absolutley absurd. Exclusive representation -- monopoly bargaining -- is a statutory power given to unions precisely because union bosses lobbied for it.

I'd love to call Iannuzzi's bluff -- will he and other union bosses actually consent to lifting federal and state laws which give unions the special privilege of monopoly bargaining? If they had a beef with the Taylor Law, why not just petition the state to repeal the offensive portions? No, instead, the union despots demanded even more privileges -- the power to line their pockets and entrench compuslory unionism.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the state Senate -- after years of refusing to make forced dues for nonmembers permanent -- gave in to Big Labor's demands:

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill last month. Similar bills had passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly before, only to fail in the Senate. But with Republicans in a pitched battle to preserve their thin majority in the Senate, the party seemed unwilling to block a priority of organized labor. It passed the Senate last month by a 62-to-0 vote. The Assembly approved it 140 to 5.

Clearly, New York State Senate Republicans have abandoned principle for politics. But the leftist union bosses are always ungrateful -- if they get a chance to replace any of these Republican appeasers with a union-backed Democrat, they'll do it without hesitation.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit's flawed reasoning.

The Foundation's press release is now available online. Money quote:

Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.

The Foundation's amicus brief is also availble online (pdf). Union lawyers argued the California law was intended to ensure "neutrality" in the workplace, but the argument rang hollow, as Foundation attorneys pointed out (emphasis mine):

Assembly Bill No. 1889, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 (“AB 1889”), is the law at issue. It is a state labor regulation that has only one purpose and effect: to halt the free flow of non-coercive information from employers to their employees, so that unions may take advantage of the enforced silence and corral uninformed employees into unionization. AB 1889’s “gag rule” directly conflicts with the core of federal labor policy, which encourages the free flow of non-coercive information precisely so that employees can make an intelligent and fully informed decision to choose or reject unionization. Employees are the real victims of this misguided state effort to undo federal labor policy.

The Foundation's amicus brief goes on to explain why state-enforced "neutrality" agreements are heavily biased in favor of union organizers (emphasis mine):

AB 1889 [the California law] enables unions to demand and receive so-called “neutrality and card check” agreements, under which employees’ right to choose or reject unionization in a free and uncoerced manner is hampered. For example, most “neutrality and card check” agreements place a gag on employer speech, so that employees are unable to learn from their employer anything that may be unfavorable to the union. Moreover, such agreements typically provide unions with employees’ home addresses and other confidential information, so that union agents can make home visits and other potentially unwanted solicitations as a means to cajole or coerce employees to sign cards. Additionally, unions are often given physical access to the workplace to further pressure employees to sign the cards. Perhaps most egregious, most neutrality agreements waive NLRB-supervised secret-ballot elections and substitute the “card check” process, in which a signed authorization card counts as a “vote” for the union. Thus, the union acts to prevent employees from voting their consciences in a traditional secret-ballot election, even though experience shows that the process of soliciting union authorization cards often relies upon coercion and misrepresentations.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a concise write-up here. This passage highlights the court's key findings:

The court rejected arguments by California and labor unions that the state is entitled to restrict the use of its own funds in the workplace. Stevens said California was trying to regulate employer speech by requiring extensive record keeping, to ensure that no state funds were spent against unions, and by requiring businesses to pay the legal fees of unions and other private parties who successfully sued them for violations.

Unfortunately, this setback means that Big Labor is now more intent than ever on passing coercive "card-check" legislation. The Chronicle's article continues:

From a union perspective, he said, the case also highlights the importance of labor-backed legislation - passed by the House, but stalled in the Senate - that would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees signed affiliation cards.

While the Foundation's strategic litigation strategy continues to pay dividends, Big Labor's political clout and election year campaign plans could put our forces on the defensive more than ever come November.

Danielle Cookson made the news in San Diego last year when then 16-year-old girl (she's now 17) took on UFCW union officials who were illegally demanding that she join the union or lose her part-time job. Danielle told a local news reporter:

"I don't want to join because I don't want to have to pay the fees since I'm saving up money for college... [The union is] not going to do anything for me. I'm sixteen with a part-time job and they just want my money."

Refusing to be bullied, Foundation attorneys helped Cookson file unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board against the UFCW Local 135 union officials. Many of the issues of the case have already been settled, with UFCW bosses having backed off some of their illegal demands.

But UFCW officials persist in demanding that Cookson pay more than can be legally required under the Foundation-won Beck U.S. Supreme Court case.

Cookson's case recently had a positive development when the Office of the General Counsel of the NLRB ordered its regional officials to further investigate union bosses' improper attempts to force Cookson to pay for overhead expenses for activities not related to collective bargaining. (The letter asking for more information can be downloaded here [pdf].)

Here's video of Cookson talking about her case:

The Daily Labor Report (subscription only) recently reported on an important win for National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court:

Upholding the National Labor Relations Board's January 2006 decision against Studio Transportation Drivers Local 399 of the Teamsters, the appeals court found that the union, which used the arbitration awards for nonrepresentational purposes such as political and charitable contributions, should exclude the money from its calculation of agency fees rather than use it to reduce its reported nonrepresentational expenses.

By spending the arbitration award money on nonrepresentational rather than representational expenditures, the union in effect increased the agency fees owed by the objecting nonmember for representational expenses, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the appeals court.

The win is important because it prohibits cooking the books to overcharge nonmembers who are forced to pay dues to union officials as condition of employment.

It is now even more clearly illegal for union officials to funnel revenue from sources other than union dues to pay for "non-chargeable" items – like politics, lobbying and members-only activities.   Using this scheme, union officials try to get away with charging a higher percentage of the remaining activities to forced-dues-payers.

You can be certain that as long as union officials can force employees to pay dues they will continue to develop schemes to maximize the amount of the dues they extract from unwilling workers.  Thanks to National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, at least this particular method of union discrimination is clearly illegal.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top lawyer, has just inflicted more damage on America's working men and women laboring under compulsory unionism. Does President Bush even know what his administration's lawyer is doing?

This week, the too-clever-by-half lawyer filed a brief in the National Right to Work Foundation's latest pending U.S. Supreme Court case, Locke v. Karass, and has taken a position that surely must please the union bosses. The High Court in Locke will examine the criteria for determining how much non-union members must pay to a union where they do not enjoy the fundamental protection of a Right to Work law.

Foundation attorneys argue that the U.S. Constitution does not permit the forced extraction of dues or fees for any expenses not directly tied to representational activity in the employees' actual bargaining unit.

But Mr. Clement apparently has no issue with forcing Maine state workers to pay for union activism anywhere in the world, so long as the union satisfies a vague and weak two-part test. In practical terms, Clement's standard would further empower union bosses to charge workers for almost anything under the sun, unless a worker gets a lawyer and forces them to prove that the forced fees are being used for narrowly prescribed purposes.

This is not the first time that U.S. Solicitor General Clement has taken positions supportive of compulsory unionism. He adopted the AFL-CIO's position and seriously undermined employee freedom during oral argument in the Foundation's Davenport v. WEA case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

With "friends" like Bush's Solicitor General, who needs enemies?

Over at the LRC blog, a reader writes in to say how Grand Theft Auto 4, currently the best selling video game on the market, contains dialog that compares unions to the mafia. At one point the main character is told: "union's just another word for mafia."

Ultimately the pop culture video game comparison of union bosses to mafia dons is more than mere tongue-and-cheek.

As currently constituted, with their many compulsory unionism special privileges, some union officials run what could be compared to a classic mafia enterprise: the protection racket.

Wikipedia defines a protection racket as follows:

an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase "protection" services against various external threats.

In the case of unions, union bosses frequently paint employers to be exploitive and then demand that workers pay money in exchange for "representation." At the same time, in forced-dues states, employees are threatened with the loss of their job if they refuse to pay for the so-called "representation," whether or not the employees want it.

And for another example of how compulsory unionism leads to union officials' involvement in organized crime, watch this video: