Right to Work Blog

With the power to negotiate international trade agreements about to expire, Democrats in Congress are pressing the White House to accept provisions that would boost the power of Big Labor in the United States in exchange for extending negotiating authority. In fact, many argue they are promoting the ability of foreign countries to question the legality of existing Right to Work laws.

Washington Post reporter Peter Goodman has the story:

The Bush administration needs congressional blessings for recent trade deals with Peru, Colombia and Panama, as well as another pact still being hammered out with South Korea. The administration is also seeking the extension of the president’s fast-track authority — the right to negotiate trade deals, then submit them to Congress for a simple up-or-down vote without amendments. That power expires at the end of June.

But rather than allow the Executive Branch the ability to promote the sale of American products abroad (products that in many cases are made with union jobs), Democrats in Congress are carrying water for the bosses — promoting provisions that could be used to question existing Right to Work laws.

House leaders have demanded that new deals include the core principles of the International Labor Organization, a U.N. body in Switzerland that seeks to improve the lot of workers. . . . Some Republicans and business groups have argued that unions could use the standards as a way to increase their power in the United States, wielding the force of international treaty to mandate changes in American law.

Several American states allow managers to replace striking workers, while right-to-work states bar the exclusion of workers who are not members of unions, both potential conflicts with the ILO principles, scholars say. . . . Republicans who are worried about the ILO issue note that any treaty language ratified by Congress becomes binding American law. They fear other countries would bring trade complaints against the United States asserting that the nation, in its treatment of workers, is not living up to the terms of its trade deals.

Were ILO principles to be inserted into trade agreements, “there’s a possibility that our own laws could get questioned,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing in January.

We have seen the AFL-CIO go to the United Nations and other international bodies to request assistance in undermining American law. Enactment of these provisions in trade legislation could give these international organizations the power to change American law.

So much for American sovereignty.

After filing a complaint in the United Nations objecting to the National Labor Relations Board decision known as the Kentucky River case, union bosses are now pushing Congress to act. Newly drafted legislation by Reps. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and Don Young (R-AK) in the House and Chris Dodd (D-CT) in the Senate aims to expand Big Labor’s membership rolls by redefining the term “supervisors.”

It appears that the Change to Win Coalition is having some growing pains. According to documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times (Registration Required), there is “serious concern about the future and direction” of the union.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that organized labor sends a “message of intimidation” to Chicago’s City Council “by pumping more than $1 million into just five aldermanic races — with some challengers receiving 100 percent of their campaign contributions from unions . . . ”

Bernard Loyd [a board member for the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC)] reviewed the campaign finance reports of union-backed challengers in a few wards. . . . It showed that organized labor contributed $1.02 million to challengers in five wards and that the beneficiaries relied almost exclusively on union money. They were 3rd Ward challenger Pat Dowell ($147,000 or two-thirds of all contributions); 12th Ward candidate Carina Sanchez ($171,000 or 96 percent); 15th Ward candidate Toni Foulkes ($250,000 or 100 percent); 16th Ward challenger Joann Thompson ($248,000 or 100 percent); and 21st Ward challenger Leroy Jones Jr. ($210,000 or 96 percent).

Those same candidates also received the benefit of extensive campaign management, polling, message development, opposition research and hundreds of precinct workers, he said.

Four of the top five union-funded candidates advanced to the April 17 run-off. The only exception was the 12th Ward, where incumbent George Cardenas steamrolled to a 59.2 percent victory over union-bankrolled Sanchez thanks to support from a wounded, but still potent, Hispanic Democratic Organization.

Two challengers who won their races outright together received $75,000 in union money, the MPC report states. They are aldermen-elect Sandi Jackson (7th), wife of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., and Brendan Reilly (42nd).

“There are a handful of union candidates who had little to no financial support from the community. They were essentially propped up by the unions in order to send a message of intimidation to the City Council,” Loyd said.

Illinois, of course, is a state where workers are not afforded Right to Work protections. Union bosses in the state can spend their dues with impunity — and do.

[Though the numbers remain the same, this article has since been clarified (scroll down to the clarification) and updated by the Chicago Sun Times. The Metropolitan Policy Council has also clarified that though Mr. Loyd is, indeed, author of the study and an MPC board member, MPC is a nonpartisan organization that played no role in production or dissemination of Bernard Lloyd's analysis of labor's contributions to aldermanic candidates. The study was done by Mr. Lloyd in his roles as private businessman.]

Iowa State Rep. Ralph Watts is reporting that opposition to gutting the state Right to Work law is so intense that even the so-called compromise proposal that would “just” force all public employees to pay union fees or dues, leaving private sector employees alone — for now — is getting

. . . more opposition than any other bill in the five years I have been in the House, and rightly so.

We must let the Democrat leadership in the state know “they ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Dennis Seid of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal has a laugh at the expense of United Auto Workers (UAW) Boss Ron Gettelfinger’s recent offer to unionize Toyota’s employees:

. . . to help the world’s No. 2 automaker “continue to be a success.”

Uh, oh! It’s no wonder that Toyota isn’t exactly jumping for joy at the prospects. They’ve done just fine without the UAW, and probably don’t need the UAW to come to its “rescue.”

Consider what has befallen General Motors, Ford and Chrysler the past few years. The UAW has certainly helped them continue to be successful, hasn’t it?

The UAW, using their compulsory unionism power, has endangered the livelihoods of the very workers they claim to represent.

Seid sums it up, “Face it: The UAW has helped turn the domestic automakers into inefficient, bloated companies. It’s why they’re shedding plants, workers and brands.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy is throwing his weight behind the Card Check scheme and will hold a hearing on the legislation in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on March 27th. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is gathering votes to filibuster the legislation.

Citing the Lord and Armageddon, Gov. Rod Blagojevich fired up the Illinois Education Association (IEA) labor union for a brutal fight in the Legislature, hoping to convince the union bosses to open their forced dues fed spending spigots to support his tax proposal according to the Associated Press.

“It will be Armageddon, but we are on the side of the Lord and we will prevail,” Blagojevich told more than 1,200 cheering delegates at IEA’s annual meeting in suburban Chicago . . . .

Blagojevich’s plan is a new $6 billion tax on business revenues. Judging from the union delegates’ reaction, they love tax increases as much as the Governor.

Don’t let up.

Iowa readers should continue to contact their state representatives — immediately.

Big Labor’s efforts to carve up the rights of Iowa workers have hit a major road block — the massive outpouring of opposition by the citizens of Iowa — in the state House. The Des Moines Register notes that:

Democratic leaders in the Iowa House unexpectedly postponed Thursday’s “fair share” [sic] debate after meeting in private for four hours and concluding they no longer had enough votes to pass the bill.

Word in the halls was Democrat leaders and the union bosses were putting incredible pressure on several Democrat representatives to vote to make government employees second class citizens and essentially compelling them to join a union. They need to hear from you.

Tell them NO to forced unionism in Iowa.

“The right to a secret ballot is the cornerstone of our democracy. For centuries, Americans — regardless of their race, creed or gender — have fought for the right to vote. And for the right to keep that vote private.

Now, just months after the new Congress was elected in 435 separate, private ballot elections, the new Democratic leadership is preparing to strip men and women of their right to a private ballot in the workplace. What could be more undemocratic than that?”

See article.