Today's Washington Post has a good rundown of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's alleged pay-for-play deal with a high-ranking Service Employees International Union boss we've been telling you about. This paragraph is particularly revealing:

[SEIU president Andrew] Stern has emerged as a central player in the labor movement by pressing aggressively to expand union rolls, along the way irritating AFL-CIO leaders, whom he accused of being complacent, and leaders of some SEIU chapters who accuse him of cutting deals with business and government that enhance his profile while undercutting local chapters. Among his victories was Blagojevich's decision to let SEIU, and not the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, organize Illinois' child-care workers.

Stern's personal machinations to secure his own PR are entirely at odds with workers' interests. But more importantly, take a look at that last sentence again: "Among his victories was Blagojevich's decision to let SEIU, and not [AFSCME], organize Illinois' child-care workers."

Far Left magazine The American Prospect summarized the SEIU-AFSCME battle in 2005. In Blagojevich's first race for governor in 2002, the SEIU provided a thousand volunteers in the weeks before the primary election, enough to push the Congressman over his nearest rival by just one percent. As governor, Blagojevich repaid the SEIU by issuing executive orders that effectively ensured that the SEIU (and not AFSCME) would "represent" the 5,000 home-care workers and 48,000 child-care workers in the state.

This potentially unconstitutional scheme to impose monopoly bargaining on home care providers has resulted in many hundreds of thousands of new forced union dues payers across America. It's a huge new cash cow for union bosses.

The fact is, if union bosses spend millions of dollars to get a candidate elected, they expect something in return. Blagojevich was happy to oblige.

Sometimes, that means giving union bosses like Andy Stern and his ilk close access to governors like Blagojevich to let them pick political appointments. Sometimes, it means legislative power grabs like the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (aka the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). And, of course, union bosses use their political power precisely to gain even more revenue and political power.

And that's the bigger picture in the Blagojevich scandal -- Big Labor's influence wouldn't be possible without forced unionism.

Yesterday President Bush issued an Exectuive Order exempting several agencies and subdivisions of the Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury departments from draconian and stifling federal labor-management relations strictures.

This is good policy. However, while freeing any worker from forced union monopoly bargaining is a welcome step, the last-minute move begs the question: What took so long?

Unfortunately, making this common-sense change on the way out the door cheapens it, making it appear to be little more than political retaliation. The administration should have made this and many more pro-individual-rights moves long ago. Instead, the incompetent political managers in the White House thought that making policy concessions to the union bosses would have bought their support. How wrong they were.

Foundation attorneys have long advocated for freeing national security employees from forced unionization, including fighting for the rights of airport screeners to remain free from union monopoly control.

There are other recent examples of Administration officials foolishly failing to agressively protect employee free choice. There are big political lessons to be learned here.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union is objecting to a plan by Detroit city officials to turn over an abandoned nursery to Greening of Detroit, a nonprofit group. What's the problem, exactly?

Using privately raised funds and volunteers, the group would restore the nursery and use it to provide mature trees to neighborhoods. Greening already plants 2,000 trees a year throughout the city.

But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees obtained an injunction from Wayne County Circuit Court against the deal, saying it violates the collective bargaining agreement. The union says the bargaining agreement applies to any deals to turn over control of city operations to a third party -- meaning city workers must staff the nursery.

...

Terrence King, director of the city's General Services Department, called the union's position baffling. Not only would no city workers be displaced, but there should be more work for city forestry workers once the trees are grown, he said.

Baffling is an understatement. But if these volunteers were paying forced union dues like Detroit city employees must do, we doubt the union bosses would be objecting.

The New York Times has a devastating article up on the incestuous relationship between public sector union officials and the New York state legislature. The actual controversy is downright farcical: legislators relied on a public sector union accountant to determine the cost of proposed increases to the state's employee pension plan.

A reasonable observer might suggest that this arrangement represented a clear conflict of interest, but to New York state legislators it was just good book-keeping. According to the Times, the union actuary "reviewed" hundreds of bills for the state before being exposed by the paper's investigation. What's more, the Times reports that the actuary neglected to mention additional legislative costs of up $500 million in his original reports.

The Times' description of the actuary's "methodology" is particularly mind-boggling (emphasis mine):

" . . . in an arrangement that had not been publicly disclosed, Mr. Schwartz [the union actuary] was being paid by labor unions. He acknowledged in an interview that he skewed his work to favor the [union's interests], calling his job “a step above voodoo.”

As a result, legislative leaders said they would no longer rely on Mr. Schwartz’s work, and a disciplinary board affiliated with the American Academy of Actuaries has begun a review of Mr. Schwartz’s conduct.

The Legislature relied almost exclusively on Mr. Schwartz — a consultant to District Council 37, the umbrella group of municipal unions as well as to unions representing firefighters, teachers, detectives and correction officers — to determine the cost of pension bills involving New York City employees."

Fortunately, Empire State legislators swung into action to reasssure the Times that they were monitoring the situation all along. I'm sure New York taxpayers are greatly reassured by their representatives' scrupulous accounting procedures:

"Despite legislative leaders’ assertions that they undertake independent financial analyses of the pension bills, neither the Senate nor the Assembly could provide any records to bolster that claim."

Unfortunately, this sort of lax book-keeping is par for the course when it comes to union pension funds which are often managed for the benefit of union bosses, rather than the pensioners. The incident also highlights the dangerous potential for union political activism in the legislative sphere.

When things get too cozy, there really are no breaks on political corruption. In another instance, Schwartz analyzed a Big Labor supported bill and basically lied to the legislature -- saying it would result in no additional costs to taxpayers.

"Mr. Schwartz conceded in an interview last month that he knew the bill would actually have a significant cost, explaining, “I got a little bit carried away in my formulation.”

He added that he made his projections look “as cheap as possible” to favor his clients."

The coercive "card check" union organizing scheme became the law of the land for public sector workers in Massachusetts yesterday.

Bay State employees will undoubtedly find out soon that this abuse ridden scheme is no tea party. See all the latest about the National Right to Work Foundation's efforts to lessen the abuses suffered by workers under such drives here.