Here's an interesting story (via EIA) from Nevada where teacher union officials are gathering signatures to put a massive tax increase on the ballot in November.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, union political operatives, who need to collect tens of thousands of signatures in order to put the tax hike on the ballot, are having trouble getting people to sign because "blockers" who oppose the tax increase are voicing their opposition to prospective signers during the collection process.

The article quotes one such "blocker" as saying "Say no to the tax grab! Think before you ink!" until the individual who might have signed the union operative's petition decides against it and leaves. Nevada's top teacher union official Lynn Warne denounced the actions as "thug tactics" (which is ironic because according to this website, the tactic was invented by union organizers in Oregon).

Normally there wouldn't be much to add to this story, but a closer look reveals another example of a nasty pattern: Union bosses have realized that absent opposing viewpoints or the privacy of the secret ballot, they have no problem getting anyone to sign anything.

However, when employees or employers insist on providing an opposing viewpoint or demanding a secret ballot election union officials have considerably more trouble selling their power grabs. Rather than persuade workers (or in this case registered voters in Nevada) on the merits, they'd rather hoodwink or pressure them into signing -- while denouncing the presentation of an opposing viewpoint as "thug tactics."

Following up on the recent upheaval within the SEIU union, a group of nurses from Nevada have recently put out a video decrying the disconnect between rank-and-file nurses and the union hierarchy.

And speaking of which, a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the National Right to Work Foundation's recent work at the U.S. Supreme Court. The paper notes of the Locke case the High Court took up yesterday:

"The case is the latest instance of the justices addressing issues that could erode the power of labor unions," noted The Associated Press.

Yet, if limiting the ability of organized labor to use coercion to fund its agenda erodes union power, it's power these groups never should have enjoyed in the first place.

Couldn't have put it better ourselves. The AP also notes that the Foundation's 14 U.S. Supreme Court cases have all been "targeting unions," but fails to mention that every single case was on behalf of employees that wanted nothing to do with them.

No one should be forced to join or pay dues to an unwanted union, and that principle is at the very heart of each case the Foundation takes up.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the importance of the National Right to Work Foundation's Beck U.S. Supreme Court victory:

That ruling -- Communication Workers v. Beck -- is soundly grounded in the First Amendment. No one can be required to hand over money to someone else, if those funds will then be used to promote political views or causes which are anathema to the person whose money is being used.

Unfortunately, union officials commonly ignore and violate that principle, as borne out by the number of Beck enforcement cases the Foundation has. However, the article recognizes that as a Right to Work state, employees can go beyond cutting off union dues for politics.

Because no Nevadan can be required to join a union just to get or keep his or her job, disgusted union members here have an even more effective option. They can keep their jobs and quit the union.

With union officials in this context squabbling over which candidate to support, employees in Nevada deserve to know that they can not only cut off their dues going towards union political activities- they are free to pay none at all.