Last week, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, pointed out in Investor's Business Daily that the real issue in the ongoing battles between Big Labor and reform-minded public officials in various states across the country is getting lost in the union bosses' self-serving rhetoric.

As Mix notes, given the media coverage of the battle in Wisconsin:

Americans learning about organized labor's battles in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and other states from TV, radio and newspaper reports may understandably be confused about what is at stake, especially if they have no personal experience with unions themselves. From afar, it's easy to draw the conclusion that public employees' right to join a union is at stake.

Of course a worker's right to join a union is not the issue at all. The real issue at stake is that Big Labor enjoys numerous government-granted special privileges at the expense of workers' individual rights:

...What reform-minded elected officials are seeking to curtail, and in
some cases even abolish, is government union chiefs' legal power to
force public servants into a union as a condition of employment.

Under the current labor laws of nearly half of the states, government union officials have been explicitly authorized to force all public employees in a workplace to pay union dues or be fired, as long as a majority of their fellow employees (among those expressing an opinion) support unionization.

Such forced-unionism laws, which Big Labor is now fighting furiously to keep on the books in the face of increasingly intense public opposition, actually trample on, rather than protect, employees' freedom to make personal decisions about unionism.

And that's the point. So next time you hear union bosses like Richard Trumka shouting about "protecting workers' rights," it's important to keep in mind that what he really means is "protecting union bosses' special powers."

Today, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work was published in the Washington Times regarding today's U.S. Senate vote on Senator Harry Reid's Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill (S. 3991). Despite voters sending a clear message to Washington last month, it appears some pro-forced unionism senators didn't quite get the message:

If Mr. Reid cared one whit for what ordinary Americans think, he would respond to such electoral drubbings for his fellow Big Labor Democrats and GOP fellow travelers by backing away from federally mandated union-boss control over public-safety officers. Instead, he announced over the weekend that he will file for cloture and force a vote on this draconian bill on Wednesday. Among those voting will be 14 defeated or retiring senators who won't be back in January.

Federalizing union monopoly bargaining over public-safety employees would be ill-advised under any circumstances, but at a time when taxes are already poised to skyrocket and cities and towns across America are already struggling to get through the worst fiscal crisis in decades, Congress would have to be incredibly reckless to enact this harmful legislation.

By tipping the scales even further in favor of government employment growth over job growth, S. 3991 could damage the hopes of reviving America's private-sector economy. Moreover, as former Service Employees International Union second-in-command Anna Burger boasted, a federal public-safety union mandate would "create a national collective," i.e. monopoly, "bargaining standard for all [state and local] public workers."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post came out with a hard-hitting editorial against the bill:

...the Senate is about to take up a measure that might compound the financial predicament of state and local governments. Pushed by Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would require all states to give police and fire unions "adequate" collective bargaining rights - as determined by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Unions could sue states deemed "inadequate" in federal court. Mr. Reid is trying to get this measure through the lame-duck Congress as a reward to the firefighters' union, which backed his reelection campaign. But it also enjoys support from several key Republicans. 

We share the sponsors' high regard for first responders. But this measure would trample long-standing state autonomy in public-sector labor relations, to no obvious national purpose. Of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates in 2008, three did not require collective bargaining for police and one, Virginia, forbids it for all public employees.

The bill could disrupt the law in both Virginia and Maryland, the latter of which lets counties decide whether and how to bargain with employees. The predictable result would be higher costs for employee contracts or legal bills - or both - at precisely the moment when cash-strapped states and localities can least afford them.

It's no wonder that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram declared today that "The Senate would do taxpayers a big favor by killing this bill."

Federal Prosecution Against Grocery Union Bosses for Widespread Rights Abuses to Proceed as Class-Action

Union officials’ illegal forced-dues scheme violated possibly thousands of workers’ rights

Phoenix, AZ (October 22, 2010) – A federal prosecution initiated by several Fry’s Food Stores workers, whose rights were abused by local union bosses during a looming strike last year, will proceed as a “class action” and will potentially affect thousands of similarly-situated employees statewide.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees from several Fry’s locations in Arizona filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management after union and company officials continued to seize union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.

Upset by a UFCW Local 99 boss-initiated strike threat last November, the employees resigned formal union membership and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.

The charges, filed by Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence – acting for other similarly situated employees – spurred the NLRB Regional Director in Phoenix to find that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Arizona Fry’s Food Stores locations were illegal because they do not allow employees to revoke them once a contract terminates, as required by federal law.

Subsequently, the NLRB’s Regional Director initiated a statewide prosecution against UFCW Local 99 union bosses. However, an NLRB administrative law judge refused to uphold a subpoena of the union’s statewide records that would indicate how widespread the union’s practice of failing to honor Fry’s employees’ dues revocations really is. This week, the NLRB in Washington, D.C. overruled the judge’s decision and ordered the union to comply with the subpoena.

Read the entire release here.

Regular Freedom@Work readers may recall that National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are duking it out in federal court against government union lawyers over a blatant political payback scheme initiated by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.  In order to thank union bosses for their political support, Granholm handed all home-based child-care providers who provide services to state-subsidized low-income families over to the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions.

Granholm, following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced-union organizing, directed state officials to grease the skids for union organizers to railroad the child-care providers under union boss control.

A courageous group of child-care workers asked National Right to Work for assistance, as some of them didn't even know they were being forced into union dues-paying ranks until it was too late, and they want nothing to do with the union.  This courageous group of workers filed a federal class-action lawsuit to challenge Granholm's scheme as a violation of their Constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and their right to freely petition government for redress of grievances because, in effect, Governor Granholm is picking the lobbyists of Michigan’s child-care providers.

In mid-July, Foundation attorneys appeared in federal court in Grand Rapids and convinced the judge to proceed with the child-care workers’ case — despite state and union lawyers’ multiple attempts to have the case dismissed.  Wednesday, the Grand Rapids Press called on the federal judge to strike down the forced unionism scheme. As the Grand Rapids Press explains:

Covert unionization violates basic constitutional rights of freedom of association. The formation of the union for Michigan child care providers four years ago was downright sneaky and unfair. A lawsuit in federal court, brought by some affected child care providers, objects to their being shoe-horned into unions — and forced to pay dues — against their will. In that suit, and in one brought in state courts, the child care providers have legitimate grievances. They should prevail.

The forced-unionization travesty occurred primarily because Michigan Democrats wanted to help the UAW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) pad their membership rolls.

In 2006, the UAW and AFSCME partnered to form a union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan. The union represents and draws dues from people who care for children from low-income families. The new union members belong either to the UAW or AFSCME, depending on the part of the state in which they live.

Whatever attempts were made to inform child care providers of the pending unionization must have been feeble at best. Only 15 percent of the state’s 40,000 dues-paying providers took part in the vote-by-mail certification election that formed the union. Fully 92 percent of those voting said yes to the union. But they hardly constitute a valid majority of all the now-dues-paying members. Hopefully, the federal lawsuit will uncover how this election was allowed to occur.

The low-income clients provided a rationale — though not a legitimate one — for the forced unionization. The argument is that because providers take public money in state subsidies for those clients, they are therefore public employees. Union dues are taken directly from the state subsidies, money that should go toward child care. The UAW and AFSCME receive 1.15 percent of the subsidies, amounting to more than $1 million a year.

To suggest that government grants make providers public employees is an epic stretch. The child care workers are employed by the parents who hire them. At best, they contract with the government for child care services for low-income clients.

...The suit in federal court, filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, challenges the unionization as a violation of the workers’ constitutional right to free association.

That is the crucial point.

Indeed. And UAW and AFSCME union bosses are funneling millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced unionism politicians (such as Governor Granholm), and now those same politicians are forcing Michigan's home-care providers to pay to the tune of $3.7 million into union boss coffers. If Foundation litigators are successful in federal court, the outcome can have a far reaching, national impact in rolling back Big Labor’s state-by-state push of forcing susceptible, unsuspecting home-care providers under union control.

Government Union Bosses Face Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Dues Scheme

Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenge union hierarchy for violating employees’ constitutional rights

Philadelphia, PA (May 21, 2010) – Eight public employees have filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the eight employees with free legal aid, filed the suit today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The borough employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1600 union, are asking the court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The Court ruled in Abood that nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, but not the part used to pay for union politics and other union activities.

IBEW Local 1600 union officials are compelling the employees into paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues.

Click here to read the whole release.

Today, National Right to Work President Mark Mix was published in the Investor's Business Daily exposing how General Motors (GM) and United Autoworker (UAW) union bosses colluded to use taxpayer dollars to "pay back" the taxpayers for the government bail out it received last year:

...GM leaders and the UAW officials who colluded with them to extract $43 billion out of taxpayers in exchange for arguably worthless stock are now patting themselves on the back for paying back on April 21 the balance of a $6.7 billion loan they took out from taxpayers as part of the 2009 bankruptcy package.

In a weekly radio address to the nation late last month, President Obama suggested that the fact that taxpayers have now recouped 14% of the taxes he diverted into GM coffers on their behalf vindicates his decision to bail out GM and the UAW brass.

But ordinary Americans, with whom the GM and Chrysler bailouts have become overwhelmingly unpopular over the past year, are unlikely to agree. Especially not if they learn that GM was able to "pay back" the loan only because it had not yet spent all of the other $43 billion in taxpayer money it raked in last year.

But, as Mix further notes, the mirage that GM and UAW officials are being fiscally responsible with the taxpayer's money is just part of their plan to ask for even more money from the government:

...[T]he apparent motive of Obama-selected GM CEO Ed Whitacre and UAW officials in repaying the $6.7 billion now is to pave the way for the company to secure a new $10 billion loan from taxpayers at an interest rate of just 5%, two points lower than the previous rate, to pay for the retooling of its plants to meet the government's new, stricter fuel-economy standards.

If the GM/UAW "zombie" corporation obtains the new $10 billion government loan, it will end up even more deeply in hock to taxpayers than before, after having gotten good PR and kudos from the president for having paid off its original loan "in full."

Fortunately, the American people are not as easily bamboozled as President Obama and his cohorts in the GM and UAW union hierarchies seem to think they are.

Mix concludes that "the president's fork-tongued reassurances that all is going well with the bailouts are likely to make Americans angrier and angrier as time goes on" because his special deals and political paybacks to his Big Labor buddies are more than American families can bear, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.

Last month, the Senate rejected an attempt to confirm President Barack Obama's nomination of pro-compulsory unionism radical Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Wall Street Journal reports that with the Senate now taking it's Easter recess, Becker could be appointed via a recess appointment "as early as today."

As the Journal notes, a Craig Becker NLRB appointment resurrection would be disastrous to employee rights:

Mr. Becker has written extensively about the National Labor Relations Act, the law that the NLRB interprets and enforces. In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, he said that the "core defect in union election law . . . is the employer's status as a party to labor representation proceedings" and that "employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives."

In other words, you can forget about employees getting truthful and non-coercive information about the downsides of unionization.

But there's more.  Becker has publicly argued union goons should have the privilege to repeatedly harass workers at home until the workers sign "card check" union authorization cards; advocated allowing government arbiters impose contracts on workers without even allowing the workers to vote on the contract; and has even compared union organizing elections to US Congressional elections, stating that the only question decided in such elections should be which union gets monopoly control over workers, not whether they wish to remain independent and union free. 

Or as the Journal puts it, "the modern union movement is bloody-minded about the will to power and Mr. Becker is one of its fiercest partisans."

Meanwhile, Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, expressed some additional concerns regarding Becker's extreme forced unionism record in this morning's Washington Times:

Mark Mix of the National Right to Work organization reports that in 2007 alone, Mr. Becker's lawyering forced 63,000 California workers to pay union dues even after rejecting union membership. He [encouraged] repeated "home visits" for union backers, designed to pressure workers to sign public union-organizing petitions. Unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition. ... Their actions necessarily involve coercion," Mr. Becker once explained.

To view more information on Big Labor sycophant Craig Becker's radical views, check out this National Right to Work Committee special video report:

Today, President Barack Obama's nomination of pro-compulsory unionism radical Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is scheduled to be taken up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

National Right to Work President Mark Mix warns in today's Washington Times of the grave dangers Becker's possible confirmation will pose to workers' rights:

When the union bosses have the NLRB in their fold, workers who try to exercise their legal rights to dismiss unwanted union monopoly bargaining agents - or even to stop their forced dues from being used to elect handpicked Big Labor candidates - are denied even the most basic protections.

That's why, especially considering Mr. Becker's record, it's not a stretch to believe that - should he be confirmed by the U.S. Senate - Mr. Becker wouldn't think twice about rubber-stamping even the most abusive forced unionism schemes cooked up by union militants.

In fact, as a former AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer, Mr. Becker is solely responsible for forcing tens of thousands of workers under union boss control.

In one case, reports from a Los Angeles SEIU local union revealed that almost 63,000 people rejected membership in the union in 2007, but thanks to Mr. Becker, were still forced to pay dues.

And Mr. Becker's own words explain why. He was even so bold as to say unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition ... their actions necessarily involve coercion."

With that kind of anything-goes attitude, it's no surprise Mr. Becker supports "home visits," in which union militants repeatedly harass workers at home until they sign union-authorization cards, and even advocates letting Mr. Obama's handpicked arbiters impose contracts on workers, without even allowing the workers to vote on their own contract.

In fact, Mr. Becker is so extreme he actually believes the only choice workers should have is which union they should be forced to join and pay dues to!

In Mr. Becker's view, if an independent worker refuses to pick, he and the rest of Big Labor's lackeys on the NLRB should be able to choose a union for that worker. This kind of Big Labor kowtowing is not only outrageous, but it's also dangerous.

To read all of Mark Mix's op-ed in the Washington Times click here.