In this week's "Top 10 List" from Human Events, the staff of Human Events listed the "Top 10 Things On Big Labor's Agenda." The list is telling, as it describes Big Labor's outrageous plans to to grab more coercive power and erode employees' rights in the workplace. Of course, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act", more accurately called the "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill tops the list:

1. Employee Free Choice Act
In addition to the notorious “card-check” provision that strips union members of their right to a secret ballot, this bill also provides for increased penalties for employers who commit allegedly unfair labor practices...

Besides card check forced unionism, Big Labor is even toying with a relaunch of efforts to "Repeal...Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act [which] would take from states the right to enact Right to Work laws." Big Labor has wanted for decades to repeal this critical provision, and the most serious attempt to do so was in 1960s.

Not only is Big Labor trying to ultimately overturn laws in Right to Work states, but they "also seek the forced unionization of police, firefighters, and EMTs by federal fiat -- overturning the laws of more than two dozen states."

Other notable aspects of Human Events' "Top 10 List" includes Big Labor's nefarious plans of using the Federal government to force more employees into full dues paying compulsory unionism (see: #6, 7), concealing corruption (see: #8), and making it harder for employees to exercise their rights against the abuses of compulsory unionism (see: #9, 10).

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.]

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.

The Heritage Foundation has just put up an interesting -- if at times confusing -- new web memo on possible alternatives to compulsory unionization. One of the more salient points the author raises is that the legislation governing workplace relations - the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) - is almost entirely obsolete. Times have changed since 1935 (the year the bill was first drafted), and the workplace now emphasizes cooperation over confrontation between management and labor:

That economy no longer exists. Businesses today rely on feedback and communication from employees. Employers do not simply give top-down orders, but incorporate bottom-up communication and employee discretion. The line between workers and management has increasingly blurred, and most workers want cooperative—not adversarial—relations with their employers.

Unfortunately, Big Labor hasn't changed with the times. If anything, union officials are promoting an increasingly adversarial relationship with management that relies on hate-the-boss rhetoric, vicious corporate campaigns, coercive card-check organizing drives, and scurious lawsuits to force companies to herd their employees into forced-dues-paying union collectives.

Would a more cooperative approach benefit employees? According to the memo, alternatives to the current system is certainly popular with American workers:

The fact that few workers want to join traditional unions does not mean that they do not want a voice in workplace relations. Surveys show that workers want to participate in decisions in the workplace and want to be heard by their supervisors, but they do not want hostile relations with management.

Ultimately, the policy prescriptions put forth in the web memo are unfortunately vague on the vital isues of compulsory union dues and monopoly bargaining.

If Heritage's proposed reforms eliminate forced dues, monopoly bargaining, or both, then they would be a step forward for employee rights. However, if the "reforms" do nothing to dismantle these extraordinary monopoly union privileges and make unionism more voluntary, then it is hard to see how trying to add "employee involvement" programs to the NLRA would be anything other than a gigantic waste of time and resources.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today opposing the federal imposition of monopoly bargaining on America's firefighters, police, and EMTs.

The article lists many compelling reasons to be against monopoly bargaining, but never fully lays out the case for opposition to this form of compulsory unionism as a fundamental issue of employees' individual rights.

The fact is freedom of association should preclude union bosses from being able to force employees to accept their so-called "representation," thereby stripping individuals of their freedom to contract. Even worse, union bosses force employees -- union members or not -- to pay money for the "privilege" of losing their right of self-representation.

Even convicted criminals have the right to choose their own representation. It's deplorable that Congress would try to force states to strip first responders of their freedoms.

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.

The Chicago Sun Times reports that $25 million from five union pension funds have been misused by a Chicago firm that specializes in managing union pension funds. Such funds are funded from employees' paychecks and normally all employees under a union contract - even if they don't want to be - are forced to pay money in. Often the pension funds are then used as de facto slush funds for union officials.

According to reports, one million dollars were funneled into political organizations including "Citizens for a Greater Detroit" and the Michigan Democrats. Money was also used to buy a Detroit strip club, a Michigan horse farm, and millions were used for "travel and entertainment" for clients including private jets, Vegas nightclubs and Super Bowl tickets.

Since the firm specializes in managing union pension funds, the "clients" being entertained were likely union officials who were effectively ripping off the very employees they claim to represent. It is also unlikely that it is a coincidence that the political money went to the union's political allies.

The Department of Labor is suing the firm to try and recover the funds, but if unions didn't have the power to force employees to accept their "representation," employees would not have been compelled to fund these pension plans in the first place.

AFL-CIO top boss John Sweeney and Virginia AFL-CIO chief James Leaman recently had an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that shows just how union officials view the workers they claim to represent.

The headline of the article rhetorically asks: "Without labor unions, who speaks for the worker?"

The implication is that workers are incapable of representing themselves. This also implies that workers who reject union membership are too stupid to know what is best for them.

That contemptuous view of workers and their ability to look after their own best interests explains why Big Labor is constantly claiming to have employees' best interests in mind while trying to limit the ability of those very employees to exercise free choice when it comes to unionization.

According to the union boss mentality, forcing workers to be represented by the union (as happens nationwide under monopoly bargaining), forcing workers to pay dues to a union (as happens in non-Right to Work states), and eliminating the protection of a secret ballot (as happens in a card check drive), are all just ways of coercing workers into doing what the union bosses think is best for them.

With such a condescending view of the workers they want to represent, it is no wonder that when actually given the choice, fewer and fewer employees are choosing unionization. Unfortunately, the union bosses are intent on "solving" that problem by eliminating that choice.

Right to Work President Mark Mix made a national TV appearance on "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel last week. He discussed the so-called "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act" with Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA).