As the Sun reported, passage of the bill:

. . . would for the first time in 60 years, allow workers to organize without putting the issue to a secret-ballot vote.

The legislation also has a provision that would:

. . . stiffen penalties for employers who commit unfair labor practices during an organizing drive and impose binding arbitration in bargaining cases in which the sides cannot agree.

Taken together, the changes would shake the foundations of modern labor law and likely usher in the largest unionization drive since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Chicago-based Seyfarth Shaw LLP, a leading labor relations law firm, held a Web seminar last month outlining the implications of the bill . . . .

As Amanda Sonneborn, a lawyer with the firm, put it: “. . . you read it and weep.”

This isn’t speculation by Sonneborn. She points to Illinois as an example of the bill’s “cascading effect.”

The state passed mandatory card check in 2003. As a result, union density soared, she said. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, for instance, doubled its number of bargaining units in four years, Sonneborn said.

In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union has tripled its membership over the past 20 years primarily through negotiating voluntary card check agreements with casino companies. The union added 10,000 members from 2002 to 2005 alone — and will add another 6,000 when MGM Mirage’s CityCenter opens in 2009.

In Canada, the effect also has been striking. Thirty-two percent of the country’s workers belong to a union, a density not seen in the United States since the American labor movement’s pinnacle in 1955. Only 12 percent of American workers today belong to a union. Labor benefits from mandatory card check laws in some Canadian provinces. Alberta sports the lowest union density of those places — a whopping 24 percent.

. . . Under the card check bill, employers would face fines for unfair labor practices of up to $20,000 per violation.

. . . 20 years ago, the Justice Department filed a federal civil racketeering complaint against the Teamsters, alleging the union had “made a devil’s pact” with the Mafia. A year later, the union settled with the government, agreeing to a consent decree in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit.

The WSJ [Wall Street Journal] reports the decree established a three-member independent review board to investigate and monitor possible corruption within the union and “required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed officer.” Prior to the decree, delegates elected the union president.

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has pushed for relaxation or elimination of federal involvement since he took office in 1999, arguing that oversight is very costly and that corruption has diminished dramatically. He reportedly lobbied Obama for a year to support his position.

While officials of the oversight board agree that corruption has been reduced, they insist that if the board were eliminated, it would surely re-emerge. The union, they say, is not equipped or inclined to police itself.

Interestingly, neither the Teamsters nor Obama denies that Obama has expressed the view that the consent decree has “run its course.” They just deny there was any quid pro quo between Obama’s position and the Teamsters’ endorsement. After all, Obama came around to his position opposing federal oversight in July or August 2007, and the union didn’t endorse him until February 2008. Why the delay?

Well, the WSJ reports that fellow Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards also agreed with the union on this issue, and “when Mr. Edwards dropped out of the race in January, the union endorsed Sen. Obama in February.”

The timing is undeniably curious and perhaps suspicious. But what is more troubling to me than that or even Obama’s substantive position on the issue is that he has voiced a position on it at all.

The issues surrounding the consent decree are a judicial matter, outside the purview of the executive branch. It’s up to a federal judge to decide whether and when the consent decree should be relaxed or withdrawn.

But sadly, Obama understands, like Bill Clinton intimately understood, that judicial affairs can be affected by the political branches, such as through sympathetic appointments to the Justice Department and the courts. So it is no small matter that a presidential candidate would consider intervening, albeit indirectly, in a judicial question, especially one involving potential corruption.

It’s disheartening to think that Sen. Obama would give a wink and a nod to union corruption for a turn at Big Labor’s forced-dues-funded feeding trough, but it appears that might be the case.

It’s definitely worth looking into.

Abercrombie had written an editorial supporting the elimination of secret ballot elections, but the Star didn’t find his reasoning compelling. “Abercrombie points out that management is known to pressure employees to reject union organization. That can be effective in discouraging them from signing union cards, but anonymity protected by secret ballots in union elections is the best way to thwart pressure from both management and labor.”

“The governor has two options: to stand with Iowans and veto or to side with big union bosses and sign the bill,” said House Republican Leader Christopher Rants, from Sioux City. “I’m hopeful he will listen to the outcry of Iowans.”

The bill tilts the playing field in favor of Big Labor and ends provisions that provide a balance between management and labor, Rants said.

“It’s a bad bill that will eventually raise Iowans’ property taxes and make it extremely hard to get rid of bad teachers,” said Senate Republican Leader Ron Wieck of Sioux City. “What should truly concern Iowans is that this bill is so bad that the Democrat governor is contemplating a veto.”
Groups such as the [Iowans for Right to Work, Iowa Professional Educators,] Iowa League of Cities and the Iowa State Association of Counties registered in opposition to House File 2645. . . .

A new ad campaign criticizes Sen. McCain for his position on health care. The size of the ad buy has not been released, but we do know that SEIU members are footing the bill.

To watch the video titled “Union Violence Meets the Sopranos,” click here.

“There is no compelling justification for replacing a fair, democratic process with one that has the potential to erode a worker’s existing rights and protections under the law,” she continued.

Indeed, there isn’t.

The likelihood of this vastly unpopular legislation receiving a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Legislature by May 1 to override the governor’s veto is slim, but we urge Hawaii’s Right to Work supporters to stand firm in their vocal opposition to this destructive legislation.

An alphabet soup of labor unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) and the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) — all spent millions in workers’ dues money to ensure her victory. Byron York has the story.

The mayor has decreed that any city project that receives funds from the Community Redevelopment Agency must agree to use union workers.

Rather than ensuring the best quality work at the lowest cost, this special-interest earmark to Big Labor prevents workers who chose not the join a union from getting work from a fund they subsidize with their taxes.