Funds gained through a confiscatory scheme that does not give workers a choice or a say in the matter gives the union bosses the ability to spend an almost unlimited about on political campaigns — and spend they will. Big labor spent over $1 billion in politics in 2010 and will break all spending records in 2012. Larry Scanlon, the political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, says their spending alone will top the $90 million they spent last year.

New Nationwide Poll Shows Union Members Support Right to Work

A scientific survey of union members nationwide, conducted the week before the November elections by well-known pollster Frank Luntz for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, shows that Big Labor bosses are out of touch with the people they purport to represent as well as the public at large.

The poll gauged the opinions of both private- and government-sector union members regarding key aspects of the agenda Big Labor bankrolls with union treasury funds, which consist primarily of dues and fees that workers are forced to fork over as a condition of employment.

In the 2009-2010 campaign cycle, union officials funneled forced dues and fees extracted from an estimated nine million union members and forced union fee-paying nonmembers into what appears to have been their largest ever federal mid-term electoral war chest.

Top bosses of the AFL-CIO-affiliated American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union openly admit to having spent a total of nearly $87.5 million, mostly union treasury money, on mid-term electioneering.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses acknowledge pouring $44 million, primarily forced-dues money, into 2009-2010 politics. National Education Association (NEA) teacher union chiefs have owned up to siphoning $40 million into politicking over the past two years.

Altogether, it’s safe to say Organized Labor shelled out more than a billion dollars in reported and unreported contributions, including “in-kind” support like phone banks and get-out-the-vote drives as well as cash, to its favored 2010 congressional candidates.

Four Out of Five Union Members Reject Forced Union Membership, Dues

In every election year, union strategists deploy Big Labor’s enormous campaign war chest to defeat pro-Right to Work candidates and elect and reelect candidates who support forced unionism.

Yet the Luntz survey shows that union members agree with the vast majority of Americans who support the Right to Work.

Most (54%) union members “strongly agree” that workers should “never be forced or coerced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.” An additional 26% “somewhat agree,” whereas only 14% disagree, either “somewhat” or “strongly.”

And the survey results indicate that support for the Right to Work is even stronger among government-sector union members than it is among private-sector union members.

In the 2009-2010 election cycle, Big Labor was also determined to defend politicians who had voted in early 2009 for President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” package.

AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka and other union bigwigs have stubbornly insisted, despite the distinct lack of tangible benefits, that this legislation has been a success.

But the union members who were forced to finance the union brass’s efforts to protect pro-”stimulus” politicians don’t agree at all. They are nearly four times as likely to regard the “stimulus” as “very much a failure” than as “very much a success.” Overall, a 53% to 41% majority of union members see the stimulus as a failure.

While union members are far more likely to vote for the candidates promoted by Big Labor than they are to support Big Labor’s forced-unionism, Tax & Spend agenda, the divide between the union rank and file and the hierarchy on candidates is still wide.

Making, or Not Making, Campaign Contributions Is A Personal Decision

According to the latest accounting, 93% of union federal PAC contributions in 2010 went to Democratic candidates, while more than one in three union household members voted for the GOP candidate in their U.S. House district.

“Regardless of how the individual unionized worker votes, it should be up to him or her to decide which candidates, if any, to support financially,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

“To ensure that what should be a personal decision truly is one, forced union dues must be abolished. And that is pro-Right to Work Americans’ unchanging goal.”

Wednesday, 09 June 2010

House Administration Releases Chart Explaining How the DISCLOSE Act Exempts Unions from Major Campaign Finance Restrictions

Today, the Committee on House Administration’s Republican Office released the following chart outlining Democrats’ preferential treatment of unions over other organizations interested in engaging in political speech before the upcoming elections. Despite public claims by the Democrat proponents of the DISCLOSE Act that the bill will treat unions and corporations equally, this chart clearly shows unions are in fact exempted from restrictive, costly requirements.

( CLICK HERE for a PDF)

 

The Wall Street Journal’s Kris Maher reports:

The AFL-CIO is planning its biggest political campaign ever this year, surpassing the $53 million spent in 2008 to help elect President Barack Obama

Trying to avert a Republican takeover of both the House and Senate in the November midterm elections, the labor federation is focusing on a “firewall” of six states with key congressional elections and relatively high numbers of union households: California, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

A new Web site targeting the tea parties is a part of a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country’s biggest labor unions and trickling slowly into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

A seemingly grassroots organization that’s mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds — including sizable labor union contributions — through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer.

A Web site popped up in January dedicated to preventing the tea party’s “radical” and “dangerous” ideas from “gaining legislative traction,” targeting GOP candidates in Illinois for the firing squad.

“This movement is a fad,” proclaims TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, which was established by the American Public Policy Center (APPC), a D.C.-based campaign shop that few people have ever heard of.

But a close look reveals the APPC’s place in a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country’s biggest labor unions into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

The most recent backers of the Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West, which helped fund the APPC and thus the Tea Party site, form a veritable Who’s Who of the country’s top labor unions: the Service Employees International Union, Change to Win, the Communications Workers of America, the National Education Association, the Teamsters Union, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union and others besides.

But by far the largest donations have come from a collection of unionized government workers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) — which in 2008 alone donated $5.8 million to Patriot Majority and another $4.1 million to Patriot Majority Midwest.

Using this arrangement, Varoga and Rakis are managing what NPR called a “never-ending pot of union money” that they dispense among the 527s they run, which in turn pay for ads in hotly contested election districts.

That means that taxpayer dollars, sent up as union dues, have been going to fund a host of Democratic causes and help quash the tea party movement.

What’s more, Varoga and Rakis are not actually present in Suite 1102. That is the office of their lawyer, Joseph Sandler, a longtime general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Sandler, whose firm and trust account raked in over $500,000 in Democratic party money in 2009 alone, told Fox News that there was nothing irregular in their setup.

It is not clear whether TheTeaPartyIsOver.org is the start of a larger campaign run by Varoga and Rakis to target tea party activists. Additional attempts to reach Varoga at a California number were unsuccessful. A staffer answering the phone in Varoga’s Oakland office last week told FoxNews.com that he was unavailable for comment and hung up.

Malanga insightfully notes:

Call it a tale of two economies. Private-sector workers — unionized and nonunion alike — can largely see that without compromises they may be forced to join unemployment lines. Not so in the public sector.

Government unions used their influence this winter in Washington to ensure that a healthy chunk of the federal stimulus package was sent to states and cities to preserve public jobs. Now they are fighting tenacious and largely successful local battles to safeguard salaries and benefits. Their gains, of course, can only come at the expense of taxpayers, which is one reason why states and cities are approving tens of billions of dollars in tax increases.

It’s not as if we haven’t seen this coming. When the movement among public-sector workers to unionize began gathering momentum in the 1950s, some critics, including private-sector labor leaders such as George Meany, observed that government is a monopoly not subject to the discipline of the marketplace. Allowing these workers — many already protected by civil-service law — to organize and bargain collectively might ultimately give them the power to hold politicians and taxpayers hostage.

It wasn’t long before such fears were realized. By the mid-1960s, dozens of cities across America were wracked by teachers’ strikes that closed school systems. Groups like New York City’s transit workers walked off the job in 1966, bringing business in Gotham to a near halt. The United Federation of Teachers led an illegal strike which closed down New York City schools in 1968.

Widespread ire against strikes by public workers produced legislation in many states outlawing them. That prompted government workers to retreat from the picket lines into the halls of government. In Washington, they organized political action committees, set up sophisticated lobbying efforts, and used their muscle to help elect sympathetic public officials.

Today, public-sector unions sit atop lists of organizations that devote the most money to lobbying and campaign contributions.

In Pennsylvania, a local think tank, the Commonwealth Foundation, counted the resources of the state’s teachers union a few years ago. It had 11 regional offices, 275 employees and $66 million in annual dues. In Connecticut, representatives of the teachers union camped outside the legislators’ doors in 2005 to keep tabs on school reformers who were calling on these officials to expand school choice.

And in California, unions spent more than $50 million in 2005 to defeat a series of ballot proposals that would have capped growth in the state’s budget. Now the state’s teachers union is putting its clout behind a ballot initiative, to be voted on next week, that would restore more than $9 billion in educational spending cut from the state’s budget.

The results of such efforts are evident in the rich rewards that public-sector employees now enjoy. A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

But the real power of the public sector is showing through in this economic crisis. Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%. For anyone who thinks such low unemployment numbers are good news, remember that the bulging public sector must be paid for with revenues that most governments don’t currently have. This is one reason for a spate of state and local tax increases, such as $5 billion in tax increases New York state passed in April, and $12 billion in tax increases California’s legislature agreed to in February that will only become law if voters pass a series of ballot initiatives next week.

The next lesson we are likely to learn is that voter revolts against new taxes are no longer effective because of the might that these public- sector groups now wield. The tax-cut uprising of the late 1970s began in California with Proposition 13 capping property taxes. It then spread to more than a dozen states before it became a national movement that helped elect Ronald Reagan. The next tax revolt, during the recession of the early 1990s, helped sink officials like New Jersey Gov. James Florio and produced ballot propositions in places like Colorado that capped spending or made tax increases more difficult.

Now powerful and savvy, public unions have moved effectively to quash antitax movements. In New Jersey, public unions derailed a taxpayer revolt in 2005 by using their legislative clout to water down a bill that would have created a state constitutional convention to enact property-tax reform. Meanwhile, under pressure from unions, state legislatures in places like Florida have been tightening rules and requirements for passing voter initiatives and referenda — blunting a favorite tool of antitax groups.

In states like Iowa where public unionization rates are still low government workers have had to accept concessions. But allies of the unions in Washington are working to rectify that situation with union-friendly legislation like the card check bill, which will make organizing much easier.

In the private sector such efforts will still be subject to the demands of the marketplace. Employers who are too generous with pay and benefits will be punished. In the public sector, however, more union members means more voters. And more voters means more dollars for political campaigns to elect sympathetic politicians who will enact higher taxes to foot the bill for the upward arc of government spending on workers. That will be the pattern for the indefinite future unless taxpayers find a way to roll back the enormous power public workers have acquired.

Despite the union’s indebtedness, it appears that they obtained a political return on the transfer of the union treasury to Obama and the DNC.  

Mr. Obama has so far named Patrick Gaspard, a former SEIU official to be White House political director, and more recently nominated Craig Becker, associate general counsel to the SEIU and the AFL-CIO to the National Labor Relations Board. Anna Burger, the SEIU’s second highest ranking officer, is a member of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

The Obama administration is taking up the two top items on the union’s agenda — legislation to make it easier for unions to organize workers, known as the Employee Free Choice Act, and health care reform. While the union’s hope that the administration could push through its original version of the organizing legislation has been dashed in recent weeks, it remains hopeful it will see worker-friendly changes in health care.

From the Deseret News:

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday reversed itself and ruled to uphold a Utah statute prohibiting union officials from using payroll deductions to divert teachers’ and other government workers’ money into union electioneering.

“Utah has a legitimate interest in avoiding the reality or appearance of government entanglement with partisan politics,” according to the ruling, and Utah’s Voluntary Contributions Act “plainly serves the state’s interest in separating public employment from political activities.”

Five Utah labor unions and one association of labor unions – representing several thousand Utah public employees – brought the suit against Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, seeking a declaration that the Utah VCA, a law passed in 2001, is unconstitutional as applied to all public employers other than the state itself.

After initially siding with union attorneys who argued the law somehow violated the constitutional rights of the union, the 10th Circuit Court put the case on hold pending the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a similar Idaho statute.

“The recent Supreme Court’s decision and now this 10th Circuit ruling makes clear what should have been obvious: Union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which advocates for right-to-work states, including Utah. “It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

Read on at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.