Yesterday, a pro-Big Labor blogger at OpenLeft inadvertently highlighted the absurdity of the SEIU's apparently illegal fundraising scheme (emphasis mine):

If the local doesn't put enough money into the national PAC, they will have to pay a penalty of regular funds out of union dues to the international. PAC contributions are voluntary and only come when members feel empowered, whereas union dues are automatic, so this is a strong incentive for locals to organize and empower their members. It's a good policy move, and it was voted on and ratified at the SEIU Convention.

Surely the author realizes that there's some tension between "voluntary contributions" and an SEIU policy that penalizes local affiliates for failing to meet MANDATORY political fundraising targets? Actually, he does:

The requirement and penalty do somewhat cut against what it means to voluntarily give to political causes. A possible lawsuit might be viable.

For sure. Here's the relevant section of US code quoted in the National Right to Work Foundation's letters (.pdf) to the Departments of Justice and Labor (emphasis mine):

(2) For purposes of this section and section 79l(h) of title 15,^[1] the term “contribution or expenditure” includes a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in section 431 of this title, and also includes any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value (except a loan of money by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section or for any applicable electioneering communication, but shall not include

. . .

It shall be unlawful—

(A) for such a fund to make a contribution or expenditure by utilizing money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal; or by dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as a condition of employment, or by moneys obtained in any commercial transaction;

No political expenditures " . . . secured by financial reprisals or the threat of financial reprisals?" Sounds like a pretty explicit violation of U.S. law.

The SEIU's political fundraising apparatus is absolutely enormous. As the author of the OpenLeft post notes, its institutional clout and massive campaign expenditures dwarf other organizations' contributions. But coercing local SEIU affiliates into bankrolling a national campaign strategy has the potential to irreparably taint our electoral process. When even a pro-Big Labor mouthpiece concedes the viability of the Foundation's case, it's time for the Departments of Labor and Justice to take action.

ADDENDUM: Here's more commentary on the political implications of the SEIU's fundraising from QandO and Protein Wisdom.

Last week, officials from the United Steelworkers union and "Unite the Union" -- among the largest unions in North America and the United Kingdom -- announced that they had signed an agreement to merge into a single, global union. From their joint press release:

Consistent with this calling, Workers Uniting will "match our words with action and resources, utilizing our collective expertise and knowledge through collective bargaining, organizing, global political action and international solidarity."

What might this "global political action" include? Among other activities... "Exposure to the political processes in each other's countries, including Democratic Party primaries and Labour Party conferences."

Initially, the two unions claim, "Workers Uniting" (though "Union Bosses Uniting" would be a more accurate name) will operate with a budget of several million dollars.

Of course, the press release fails to mention that the bulk of the budget will be funded by forced union dues from American workers who never asked for globalist union "representation" in the first place.

Wednesday's Daily Labor Report (subscription required) featured a self-serving article likely placed by the National Labor Relations Board's PR flacks in which the two remaining board members assert that the NLRB "might actually be functioning more efficiently" with three vacancies than with a full five-member panel. Hmmm. Perhaps Congress should take another look at the NLRB's excessive funding levels.

We at Freedom @ Work also take issue with a false claim by the Board contained in the article:

Applying current board precedent, regardless of whether either of the two members disagrees with it and thinks it should be overturned, "hasn't been difficult, because as usual we generally try to decide cases based on extant board law," [Chairman Peter] Schaumber said. The two members explained that they are following longstanding board policy not to make new law or set new rules without at least a three-member majority voting for the change.

Oops, Mr. Schaumber. Not so. Just a few weeks ago, the two-member Board issued a controversial ruling which changed the law and further encouraged union-stooge congressmen to engage in deception and union coercion. As a Foundation press release explained (emphasis mine):

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.

The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.

The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.

Either Schaumber was confused when deciding this Trump Plaza Hotel case, or he's being disingenuous to the press.

Yesterday, the AFL-CIO officially endorsed its candidate for president. The endorsement should come as no surprise, of course, since Big Labor has always used member dues -- and forced dues from nonmembers -- to support its Far Left political agenda. But this year's campaign will apparently be the largest and most expensive yet:

This year, the AFL-CIO is carrying out its largest grassroots political mobilization in history. Thousands of volunteers are helping educate millions of workers and mobilizing them to get to the polls to elect Barack Obama and a working family-friendly Congress. The AFL-CIO union movement is focusing on mobilizing more than 13 million union voters―including union members, families of members, retirees and members of the AFL-CIO community affiliate Working America―in 24 priority states, working to elect U.S. senators and representatives, as well as state and local candidates.

An Associated Press report reports how much money Big Labor is admitting it will spend on electioneering. (While large, the numbers below understate by several hundred million dollars Big Labor's true political spending this year, according to our research.):

As expected, the leaders of the nation's largest labor organization voted unanimously to endorse Obama, freeing the organization and its 56 unions to spend some of its $200 million war chest on his campaign.
...
Between the AFL-CIO and its chief rival, the Change to Win labor organization, the nation's labor movement plans to spend around $300 million on the 2008 elections. Change to Win, made up of seven powerful unions that broke away from the AFL-CIO in 2005, already has endorsed Obama. The AFL-CIO represents 9 million union members; Change to Win, 6 million.

Big Labor "represents" so many workers because forced unionism laws compel workers in 28 states to join or pay dues to a union. Even in Right to Work states, many workers are unaware of their rights, and in some cases union bosses pretend Right to Work laws don't even exist. Legally, thanks to Foundation-won Supreme Court cases Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, workers can be forced to pay dues for unwanted bargaining, but may opt out of paying dues which union bosses use on non-bargaining activities such as union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

But as we so often see, union officials frequently trample these constitutional rights. Last week, the Foundation announced a settlement reached between an Alaska state employee and the Alaska State Employees Association union, an AFL-CIO affiliate. ASEA union officials threatened Hunsick's dismissal for refusal pay full union dues. Hunsick did not want to support the union's political and ideological agenda, but union bosses continually denied him the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Hudson.

When an AFL-CIO activist knocks on your door and hands you a pamphlet explaining who to vote for, keep in mind that the funding behind it all might just be seized at gunpoint (figuratively speaking, in most cases) from folks like Robert Hunsick.

A few Right to Work-related updates from around the web:

1.) The Toledo Blade has a great editorial up on one city official's attempt to strong arm private contractors into blackballing non-union workers. Money quote:

Mr. Szollosi argues that because public money was spent on the property, the principles that apply to public construction should hold sway even after the property is sold to the private sector. But the only thing that would be accomplished by restricting development on the site to union workers would be to limit Mr. Dillin's ability to negotiate the best deal he can with local trade unions, raising labor costs and potentially putting the project in jeopardy.

And if that worst-case scenario were to be realized, there would be no jobs for anyone, union or nonunion. If that's what the grandstanding Mr. Szollosi wants, he's the wrong person to represent Toledo's workers in the current economic climate.

Big Labor has a sad history of discriminating against nonunion workers and contractors, while taxpayers foot the bill.

2.) The Seattle Times posted a surprisingly thorough investigation into Washington Governor Christine Gregoire's extensive financial connections to union PACs. Excerpting the piece really doesn't do it justice, but here's a quick preview. The SEIU donated $418,000 (!) to Gregoire's 2004 campaign, and by all accounts their investment paid off handsomely:

Another big donor, the SEIU, had some major setbacks in the Legislature this year, but the union has benefited from the Democrats' efforts to increase human-services spending.

Gregoire and the Legislature raised reimbursement rates for nursing homes, money that helped SEIU win new contracts with 20 homes and add 2,000 new members. And they passed legislation that enabled the union to organize more than 10,000 child-care providers.

3.) The Communist Party of America has apparently decided to throw its considerable political heft behind the erroneously-titled "Employee Free Choice Act." From a recent op-ed by the Chair of Communist Party USA's Political Action Commission:

As AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker told the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists convention, “This election cannot be only about John McCain’s failings. It must be about working people’s vision — our vision of a new direction for our country. A vision that includes . . . the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act … [W]e are going to spark a movement of those who are ready to make their voices heard in shaping the new America we must build together — and we are going collect our debt this November.”

The Communist Party USA’s emergency program to repair, renew and rebuild America is a contribution toward this effort.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has been targeted by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) officials for making personnel decisions which union bosses say is retaliation for the union's attempts to organize her staff. One columnist gave her the label of "union buster" in a recent article for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Since AFSCME's Minnesota Chapter endorsed Swanson during the 2006 election for her pro-union-boss positions, this particular turn of events is rich with irony.

There are notable parallels between union "corporate campaigns" and the AFSCME's ongoing PR assault against the Attorney General. Union operatives frequently rely on ugly public slurs to force companies into tacitly accepting coercive membership drives, and these well-honed tactics are being increasingly deployed against public officials.

According to Swanson, union bosses threatened to "place negative stories about her in the press and on Internet blogs if she didn't support a union for the attorneys."

Other employees say they've suffered intimidation and harassment at the hands of union militants for refusing to support the AFSCME's membership drive.

It's sad, but this is what union organizing has become. Help union bosses "recruit" new forced dues paying members... or else.

An article in The New Republic points to the tens of millions of dollars being spent by union officials on politics and specifically focuses on the massive involvement by the so-called "Change to Win" union coalition in politics.

The article calls Change to Win's decision to endorse Obama an "about-face," citing Change to Win's early declarations that it would not focus on politics but on organizing. Yet, Change to Win's emphasis on politics (led by SEIU top boss Andy Stern) really wasn't that hard to predict.

In fact, back in 2005 when Change to Win union bosses split from the AFL-CIO union hierarchy National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason had this to say:

This political posturing within ultra-elite union hierarchies amounts to nothing more than a shell game by power-hungry union officials bent on control over more than $10 billion in compulsory union dues. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is steering Big Labor’s ship as long as individual workers continue to be strapped to the mast.

Ultimately, it is not Change to Win's flip-flop on its rhetoric about that political spending that is the real hypocrisy, but the split itself...

Change to Win left the AFL-CIO because Change to Win union officials objected to how dues money was being spent and they didn't like the representation they were receiving from the AFL-CIO. Yet, everyday individual employees who object to how their dues are being spent and to the representation that they are getting from union bosses are told to just pay up or be fired.

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.

A top official – Steven T. Thomas – at the Laborer’s International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 500 in Ohio was fired for spending thousands of dollars on personal entertainment using the union’s credit card.

Of course, the credit card debts are paid by forced dues-paying workers the union local supposedly “represents.” And according to this union boss, there’s apparently no better way to represent the working interests of those employees than to spend the money in multiple gentlemen’s clubs.

The Toledo Blade reports:

[Steven T. Thomas] charged the union $17,414 for 96 separate visits in 2004 to Scarlett’s in Toledo and Kahoots Gentlemen's Club in Columbus, according to report obtained by The Blade.

Thomas, the business manager of the union local, was removed in May 2007 for the misuse of funds.

But in an ironic twist, Judge Nadine S. Pettiford of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission recently ruled that Thomas was not fired with just cause from his job and ordered that Thomas’ unemployment benefits be reinstated.

The outcome of this story is entirely amazing, as it highlights yet another reason why compulsory unionism and corruption go hand-in-hand and why labor bosses often barely receive a slap on the wrist when they misuse union dues.

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.