Right to Work Blog

But what about union members here?

The Militant reports that 5,000 “unionists and immigrant rights activists” rallied on the Mall by the U.S. Capitol demanding “legalization” of illegal aliens in the United States. Among the participants were labor contingents from UNITE HERE, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Laborers Union.

According to the Militant, speakers at the rally included “NAACP President Bruce Gordon; Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza; UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm; and Eliseo Medina, international vice president of SEIU. Several prominent Democrats also gave speeches, including Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Congressman Luis Gutierrez.” And, “ Macrina Alarcon of Mexicanas Sin Fronteras (Mexicans Without Borders) spoke about fights against . . . anti-illegal immigrant city ordinances from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, to . . . Palm Bay, Florida.”

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) addresses a fundamental question rank and file union members are wondering — why spend so much on politics.

As the editorial notes, “This month marks the deadline for the last of the nation’s unions to file newly expanded disclosure reports, known as LM-2 forms.”

The Journal article spends considerable space mining the data from those reports. Among the highlights:

“Hard-working union members deserve to know, for example, that of the AFL-CIO’s $82 million in discretionary disbursements from July 2004 to June 2005, . . . [a] whopping $49 million, or 60% of its budget, instead went to political activities and lobbying, while another $2.4 million went to contributions, gifts and grants.”

“The National Education Association was even more skewed toward politics, spending 66% of its $143 million discretionary budget on matters unrelated to improving its members’ lots.”

“[B]ased on the filings, the AFL-CIO spent at least $2.7 million alone on T-shirts, flyers, telephone calls, Web site hosting, and other support for 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry.”

“Groups that received AFL-CIO money included Citizens for Tax Justice, an organization devoted to higher tax rates; the Economic Policy Institute, a think-tank that campaigns against tax cuts; and the Alliance for Justice, a ferocious opponent of President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees.”

The Journal correctly points out, “Dues-paying workers of the world might want to ask: ‘Why is Mr. Sweeney spending more of their money trying to raise taxes, or fighting for the cultural left, than he is on collective bargaining?’”

(Here’s a link to the section of the Department of Labor site where you can find and search Big Labor’s LM2s.)

State treasurer and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides is dead in the water, according to informed political watchers in the Golden State, but that hasn’t stopped public employee union officials from launching statewide television attack ads on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The spots renew the union bosses’ attack on Schwarzenegger’s character, with a nurse, firefighter, police officer and several teachers portraying him as untrustworthy.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “the coalition paying for the ads is the Alliance for a Better California, a version of the group that ran labor’s campaign against Schwarzenegger’s initiatives last year. Members include the California Teachers Assn., Service Employees International Union, California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. and California Professional Firefighters, said Gale Kaufman, a Democratic campaign strategist for the unions.”

They fail to mention the ads are funded with mandatory union dues coerced from government workers who have little choice in the matter.

Ahh! Power and privilege, it is the Golden State for Big Labor.

Despite the fact that the National Democrat Party is essentially an auxiliary of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions, that doesn’t seem good enough for the South Carolina AFL-CIO. They are members of the newly created and state certified South Carolina Labor Party. We won’t be holding our breath to see if the new group wants to protect South Carolina’s Right to Work law which simply protects workers from forced unionism.

Pablo Alvarado, the executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, describe their new alliance in an opinion piece in the Oakland Tribune.

In the article, entitled “Day Laborers, Organized Labor Unite for Workers’ Rights,” the pair describe efforts to secure America’s borders as having “racist undertones.”

“Out of our common interests, the AFL-CIO and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network have formed a new partnership to work for workplace and national policy reforms. We believe workers — regardless of race, gender, national origin or immigration status — must come together to protect our rights and opportunities.” (Read: Must join or pay dues to a labor union!)

They conclude by arguing breaking immigration law is not as important as organizing these workers.

John Sweeney and the rest of Big Labor dream about the dues revenue surely to flow — law or no law!

Despite his now-independent reputation, Sen. Joe Lieberman is an extremist when it comes to union power over workers. He is pro-Big Labor and has carried their water for over a quarter of a century in politics. But even that is not good enough for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees who just announced that it’s dropping its endorsement of Lieberman and throwing its support to what can only be described as extreme, extremist liberal, Ned Lamont. Why? According to Sal Luciano, the head of AFCSME Council 4, the union bosses wanted to see a congressional delegation able to stand up to President Bush.

“Since the Aug. 8 primary, we paid close attention to the remarks of both men,” Luciano said. “We saw Joe Lieberman moving closer and closer to Bush, while Ned Lamont held firm in his strong opposition to the direction Bush is taking us.” Council 4 is the state’s largest affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

A quick glance of Lieberman’s anti-right to work record shows he supported the union bosses over worker protections almost every time:

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 85 percent in 2005.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 83 percent in 2004.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

As a large group of pro-Big Labor Republicans have found out this year, loyalty means nothing to the union bosses. They want subservience and power.

Union bigwigs claim that they and the politicians they support are “looking out” for the union workers interests, but apparently Joe Lieberman’s 100% AFSCME rating means he’s just not looking hard enough. But then again, forcing workers to pay union dues and fees to get or keep a job is in AFSCME interest – right?

The Big Labor based coalition that defeated Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special election initiatives last year is contemplating a reunion. Even with polls showing Gov. Schwarzenegger cruising to re-election, the union bosses are out for blood.

To defeat the reform initiatives that were on the ballot, California organized labor spent an astounding $148.5 million of workers’ dues money. The California Teachers Union alone spent nearly $60 million.

California, of course, is not a right to work state. Workers do not have the protections they need and are forced to pay union dues or fees as a job condition. That leaves the bosses’ political treasure chests filled to throw vast sums of money at political causes — even into a losing effort now and then.

While nearly eight out of every ten Americans believe it is just plain wrong to compel workers to join a union, union officials continue to try to find new ways to force workers to pay union dues and fees. During the next few years, legislation that would allow misrepresentations and intimidation as an organizing tool could be considered by the U. S. House and Senate.

Readers of this blog well know that the “card check” bill would allow union militants to pressure individual workers to sign a card indicating they want a union at their place of employment.

Justin Hakes of our sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, described Big Labor’s strategy accurately when he said, “This bill would outright outlaw the less abusive, more traditional process by which unions have been formed for the most part since 1935, and that’s by secret ballot election,” Hakes said. Instead, “it would establish card check as the only legal method by which a union can be formed in this country.

“Under card check, the only free choice you’re given is ‘union yes’ or ‘union yes,’” Hakes said. “Workers are often lied to about what the cards truly are. A lot of times, employees are told they’re insurance or tax forms or even a petition for a union election.

“Those who have resisted signing such cards have endured everything from being followed around the workplace during lunch breaks to, in some instances, being visited at home by union organizers,” Hakes added.

David Broder, Washington’s venerable political reporter, has offered up a classic example of puff piece journalism about Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Broder, referring to Vilsack as a dark horse presidential candidate in 2008, profiles the governor as a successful power broker — for bringing Big Labor and the Democrat Leadership Council together to support the anti-worker and anti-democracy “card check” bill.

Readers of this blog know the “card-check” bill is nothing more than the “blank check” bill — giving union bosses the power to intimidate and coerce workers to unionize. The legislation eliminates secret ballots at home when America is spending billions to support democracy and free elections abroad.

It’s sad that Broder fails to see through this rouse. Rather than asking the tough questions, he parrots Big Labor’s line, actually arguing that those who oppose the bill are doing so “ostensibly” to protect workers’ choices.

Whether Broder understands the issue or not, workers know that secret ballot elections are a right worth fighting for.

Recently defeated in their attempt to undermine Arizona’s Right to Work law, Big Labor hasn’t given up its efforts to grab workers’ dues money in the prosperous and growing Grand Canyon state.

Organized labor is making one of its largest efforts in state history to organize new members and increase the funds flowing into its political coffers. Targeted industries include iron workers, painters, grocery store workers, and probably most vulnerable, state government employees.

But there is another reason why union officials are targeting Arizona — its large population of illegal immigrants.

Barry Hirsch, an economics professor at Trinity University in San Antonio, points out that Big Labor has “had a big shift on immigration policy,” he said. “They used to see immigration as a threat that was pushing down wages, but now they see that it has potential to attract new workers.”

The AFL-CIO supports amnesty for workers who are already illegally in this country and has partnered with the National Day Laborer Organization Network to ensure that, if the country adopts a guest-worker program, they will be able to collect dues from the immigrants.