Today, Big Government, not the private sector, is Big Labor’s bread and butter. That’s why union officials push relentlessly for higher taxes and bigger government and seem completely unconcerned that the policies they advocate will slash overall private-sector job growth in future years.

Just three decades ago, less than a third of all employees subject to “exclusive” union bargaining worked for the government. Earlier this year, the U.S. Labor Department reported that for the first time ever, a majority of unionized workers across America are now government employees.

The outsized power and privileges of government union bosses clearly are a major force behind the unsustainable growth of government payrolls. According to data furnished by respected labor economists Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson, nonunion government employment nationwide actually fell by 2 percent, but Big Labor-controlled government employment grew by nearly 4 percent from 2007 to 2009.

Incredibly, nearly all Democrats and many Republicans on Capitol Hill appear eager to make matters even worse by rubber-stamping legislation (H.R. 413 and S. 3194) that would federally grant public-safety union officials monopoly bargaining privileges over state and local public employees nationwide.

In states that don’t already authorize public-safety monopoly bargaining, this legislation would impose it federally, denying localities the option to refuse to grant a union hierarchy the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join. In most states that already authorize public safety union monopolies, H.R. 413 and S. 3194 would widen their scope.

This legislation also would, as former Service Employees International Union second-in-command Anna Burger has boasted, “create a national collective [i.e. monopoly] bargaining standard for all public workers.”

Federalizing “exclusive” union bargaining over public safety employees would be ill advised under any circumstances, but at a time when taxes already are poised to skyrocket and cities and towns across America already are trying to deal with the worst fiscal crisis in decades, Congress would have to be incredibly reckless to enact this bill. By tipping the scales even further in favor of government-employment growth over business job growth, this legislation could kill hopes of reviving America’s private-sector economy for a long, long time.

Nevertheless, the current congressional majorities and the president are so beholden to Big Labor that they are very likely to make police and fire monopoly-bargaining legislation the law of the land soon, unless freedom-loving citizens nationwide contact their congressmen and senators, urging them to oppose H.R. 413 and S. 3194 in massive numbers.

NRTW President Mark Mix Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner (read full article, click here):

Imagine the outcry if McDonalds executives demanded that franchise owners collect “voluntary” contributions totaling $25,000 for the company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) from employees at every restaurant.

What if the fast food titan’s headquarters followed up with a threat – pay us, or face a $37,500 fine? Do you think this heavy-handed scheme would raise a few eyebrows at the Federal Election Commission (FEC)?

Replace “McDonalds” with “SEIU” in that description and you’ve got a pretty good idea of Big Labor’s latest political fundraising strategy. To meet their ambitious fundraising targets, Service Employees International Union bosses are now threatening to fine any local affiliate that doesn’t meet its PAC contribution requirements.

… After SEIU bosses announced their new policy, the National Right to Work Foundation filed a formal complaint with the FEC. Foundation attorneys argued that the union’s new constitutional provision coerces political campaign contributions from employees.

Although the FEC dismissed the Foundation’s complaint in April, Foundation attorneys were only notified of the decision 23 days after the fact. Adding insult to injury, the FEC finally got around to releasing the reasoning behind its dismissal in August, 111 days after the original decision was made.

Coincidentally, all FEC appeals must be filed within 60 days of any ruling. By delaying its announcement and only releasing its reasoning until well after the window period had expired, the FEC effectively made it impossible to appeal the decision to federal court.

… The DISCLOSE Act, a bill being pushed in Congress that would require political organizations to release the names of top donors, features yet another Big Labor carve-out. Prompted by union operatives, Obama and the Democrats have largely exempted unions from the bill’s disclosure requirements, but other activist groups are out of luck.

The FEC’s antics reveal what should have been obvious as soon as Big Labor’s money started pouring into Obama’s campaign coffers: Under Obama, the union bosses have effectively bought themselves immunity from any laws that get in the way of their massive forced-dues money-making machine.

Grass-Roots Right to Work Efforts Expanding in Midwestern States

Pro-forced unionism politicians like Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich., shown here with former Vice President Gore and President Obama) have lost credibility due to the extraordinarily poor economic performance of forced-unionism states. Credit: Radiospike.com

All across America, Right to Work states have long benefited from economic growth far superior to that of states in which millions of employees are forced to join or pay dues or fees to a labor union just to keep their jobs.

But over the past decade, the contrast between Right to Work states and forced-union-dues states has been especially stark in the Midwest.

Four Midwestern forced-unionism states — Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana — suffered absolute private-sector job declines over the past decade that were worse than those of any of the other 46 states. Midwestern forced-unionism states (the four just mentioned, plus Missouri, Wisconsin and Minnesota) lost a net total of 1.88 million private-sector jobs.

Combined, these seven forced-unionism states had 8.1% fewer private-sector jobs in 2009 than they did back in 1999.

Meanwhile, the five Midwestern Right to Work states (North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa and Kansas) experienced an overall private-sector job increase of 2.3%.

Moreover, from 1999 to 2009, real personal income in Midwestern Right to Work states grew by 17.3% — an increase two-and-a-half times as a great as the combined real personal income growth in Midwestern forced-unionism states.

State Right to Work laws prohibit the firing of employees simply for exercising their right to refuse to join or bankroll an unwanted union.

At this time, 22 states have Right to Work laws on the books. However, because of intensifying grass-roots efforts in many of the remaining 28 forced-unionism states, the number of Right to Work states could be on the rise over the course of the next few years.

Recession’s End Won’t Suffice to Revive Big Labor-Controlled States

“More and more citizens of Big Labor-controlled states like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana recognize that their states require fundamental reform in order to get their economies back on track,” observed National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“The fact is, compulsory unionism impedes private-sector job creation and income growth in every part of the business cycle. It’s clear that the national recession’s end won’t suffice to turn Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana around.

“On the other hand, there is strong evidence that economically troubled states could greatly accelerate their job and income growth by passing Right to Work legislation.”

One recent example of such evidence is a scholarly article by eminent economist Richard Vedder. A professor on the faculty of Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, and a specialist in labor, taxation and education issues, Dr. Vedder is the author of more than 100 academic papers as well as several books.

One of his books, coauthored with fellow Ohio University economist Lowell Galloway, is the acclaimed Out of Work. It received the Sir Anthony Fisher International Memorial Award and was also a Mencken Award Finalist.

In his article entitled “Right to Work Laws: Liberty, Prosperity, and Quality of Life,” appearing in the Winter 2010 edition of Cato Journal, Dr. Vedder reported the results of a regression analysis he did to test the economic impact of Right to Work laws.

Right to Work Law ‘Would Have Increased Per Capita Income by an Extra $2760′

Specifically, Dr. Vedder sought “to relate the rate of growth in real per capita personal income from 1977 to 2007 for the 48 contiguous U.S. states to the existence” of Right to Work laws.

The analysis controlled for each state’s tax burden, the share of its adults with college degrees, land area, and several other variables.

Dr. Vedder found “a very strong and highly statistically significant . . . positive relationship between” Right to Work laws and economic growth. He elaborated: Suppose two states both “had per capita income of $24,000 in 1977.”

Real per capita income in the state without Right to Work protections “would have risen to $36,000 in 2007, compared to $38,760″ in the Right to Work state. Right to Work protections “would have increased per capita income by an extra $2760 — or over $11,000 annually for a family of four.”

Dr. Vedder concluded: While alternative models “might offer somewhat different conclusions, . . . based on existing evidence, a strong case can be made” that Right to Work laws “have a positive impact on U.S. living standards.”

But despite all the evidence of Right to Work laws’ economic benefits, and despite the fact that nearly 80% of Americans who regularly vote support the Right to Work as a matter of principle, passing a state Right to Work law is never easy.

Unions that file federal disclosure forms rake in a total of roughly $20 billion a year in (mostly forced) dues and fees, government grants, rents, interest, and other revenues. And union bosses deploy a huge share of that money for politics and lobbying.

Freedom-Loving Citizens Must Be Mobilized to Pass More Right to Work Laws

If freedom-loving citizens are to counter successfully the might of the union political machine and prevail upon their elected officials to adopt a state Right to Work law, they must first be mobilized.

For years, grass-roots efforts to pass Right to Work legislation in the Midwest have been assisted by state groups like the Lansing-based Michigan Right to Work Committee and the Indianapolis-based Indiana Right to Work Committee.

In state after state this summer, these groups are mobilizing pro-Right to Work citizens to contact their legislative and executive candidates with thousands of postcards, letters, and phone calls urging them to oppose forced unionism.

Already, many politicians who were riding the fence have decided to take a stand in favor of Right to Work.

“Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana have long had reputations as Big Labor strongholds,” commented Mr. Mix. “Union bosses remain very powerful in much of the Midwest, largely because of their government-backed domination of public-sector employment.

“However, when a state’s private-sector job gains are paltry or negative during periods of nationwide economic growth, and its job losses are out-sized during recessions, then its citizens eventually get fed up.

“Once a critical mass of ordinary people become determined to change the way their state operates, union special interests can’t stop them.

“That’s why, in 2010, the pressure on Great Lakes state politicians to support Right to Work is mounting, even in Michigan, of all places!”

Right to Work Laws A Matter of Principle

Mr. Mix added that a desire to make their states more economically successful is not the sole motivation for supporters of state Right to Work legislative efforts:

“The Right to Work is a matter of principle as well as economics. Right to Work laws’ fundamental purpose is to protect the employee’s personal freedom of choice.

“Commitment to principle helps explain why so many National Committee members who live in a state that already has a Right to Work law are eager to offer their assistance to efforts to pass such laws in the remaining 28 forced-unionism states.

“No American should be forced to join or bankroll a union as a condition of employment. That’s why the Committee also continues to work for passage of national Right to Work legislation repealing all federal labor-law provisions that authorize forced union dues and fees.

“Effectively, that would make all 50 states Right to Work states.”

President Obama (D-IL), House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), and Senate Leader Reid (D-NV) are risking the nation’s fiscal health to payback Big Labor Bosses for forced-union-dues financed political campaign operations.  Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner:

Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate management with new companies and new products.

The conformist “organization man” Americans of the 1950s were replaced by nonconformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who created a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn’t wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.

Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn’t look anything like that of 1970.  … Most union members today are public employees.

The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president’s childhood.

Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic economic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.

What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.

Like President Obama, Gov. Joe Manchin has an established record of supporting union monopoly bargaining. As a U.S. senator, Mr. Manchin could help Big Labor corral state and local employees nationwide into unions. Credit: blogs.wvgazette.com

Would-Be U.S. Senators Urged to Stand Up to Big Labor Bosses

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) is an unabashed proponent of labor laws foisting union monopoly bargaining on public employees and government agencies.

As recently as this June, in an interview with the Charleston Daily Mail, Mr. Manchin endorsed a state law forcing local school boards in West Virginia to grant a single teacher union the power to speak for all teachers in their district, including those who don’t want to join.

According to the Daily Mail’s account, the governor actually said that such a monopoly-bargaining law would constitute a “solution” to “West Virginia’s education woes”!

Fortunately for independent-minded public employees and taxpayers, West Virginia legislators have up to now refused to send to the governor’s desk legislation handing government union bosses monopoly power to bargain over public employee salaries, benefits, and work rules.

Unfortunately, Mr. Manchin may soon have the opportunity to mandate union monopoly bargaining over West Virginia’s local public employees without the cooperation of the state’s Senate and House of Delegates.

Next U.S. Senator From West Virginia Could Cast Deciding Vote on Reid Bill

In the Democratic primary late this month to determine the party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Robert Byrd, Joe Manchin is considered the strong favorite. So far polls indicate that, if nominated, he will be the front-runner in the general election as well.

State AFL-CIO union bosses have endorsed Mr. Manchin for senator, making it plain that, if he is elected, they expect him to support “public employee collective [i.e., monopoly] bargaining” in the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Congress is already dangerously close to passing legislation that would mandate union monopoly bargaining over state and local public-safety employees across the country.

And this scheme, introduced in the Senate as S.3194 by Big Labor Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), would pave the way for federal legislation mandating union monopoly bargaining over front-line state and local public employees of all kinds.

“So far, Right to Work members and supporters have, through their dedication and generosity, succeeded in blocking Harry Reid’s Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill,” noted National Right to Work Committee Vice President Doug Stafford.

“But if Joe Manchin becomes West Virginia’s next U.S. senator, and refuses to budge from his current pro-monopoly bargaining stance, he could cast the deciding vote in favor of the Reid bill.

“I know freedom-loving West Virginians will do everything they can to prevent that from happening.”

Federal Survey Program Invites All Candidates to Support Right to Work

Mr. Stafford continued: “This fall, assuming he gets the Democratic nod, Mr. Manchin will face increasing pressure to repudiate public-sector union monopoly bargaining and other forms of forced unionism, thanks to the Committee’s federal candidate Survey 2010.”

As longtime Committee members know, the federal candidate survey invites U.S. congressional candidates to pledge to oppose forced unionism consistently and support national Right to Work legislation if elected.

The survey is one of the Committee’s most effective tools. In West Virginia, Senate candidates in both major parties are now getting a chance to return their surveys and answer 100% in favor of Right to Work.

But in the fall, more and more Right to Work supporters will be mobilized to lobby the Democratic and Republican standard bearers to pledge to support employees’ freedom to get and hold a job without being forced to accept unwanted union “representation” or pay union dues.

“The success of the survey program is key for the Committee’s future ability to defeat Big Labor power grabs in Congress and, ultimately, pass a national Right to Work law,” said Mr. Stafford.

“For that reason, the Survey 2010 is targeting not just the West Virginia Senate race, but critical Senate and House campaigns across the country.”

Unlike Unionized Workers’ Pension Funds, Union Bosses’ Are Secure

Mark Mix: Enactment of a National Right to Work law "would greatly strengthen union officials' incentive to do what's best for the employees they purport to represent, rather than feather their own nests." Credit: C-SPAN

There’s no denying the fact that federal labor law grants union officials extraordinary power over unionized employees. More candid apologists for union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues and fees have long acknowledged that fact.

Authorizing union bosses to get workers who don’t wish to join a union fired for refusing to fork over union dues or fees is coercion, blunt Big Labor apologists concede, but it is for the workers’ “own good.”

In Practice, Forced Unionism Is Impossible to Defend

Big Labor academic Allan Pulsipher once explicitly defended compulsory unionism as a “legitimate form of coercion in a free market economy”!

Reasonable people may disagree about whether it is theoretically possible that a worker could benefit from being forced to allow an unwanted union to have “exclusive” power to negotiate with the business over his or her pay, benefits, and working conditions.

Some well-intentioned people might even be able to defend, in theory, forcing workers to pay dues or fees for Big Labor “services” they didn’t ask for, and don’t want.

However, practical experience shows that union bosses rarely wield their coercive privileges to achieve objectives furnishing long-term benefits to unionized workers. Instead, union dons take care of themselves.

Union Chiefs ‘Know How to Fund a Pension Plan Properly, If They Choose to’

One remarkable example of how forced unionism benefits union bosses, not workers, pertains to pension funds.

As economists Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Andrew Brown pointed out in a well-documented study for the Hudson Institute late last year, the pensions that monopolistic unions negotiate for workers are disproportionately underfunded, compared with other pensions.

In 2006, for example, the last year completely unaffected by the recent recession, only 17% of union-negotiated pension plans were fully funded according to the criteria established by the federal Pension Protection Act (PPA).

Under the PPA, pension funds that have less than 80% of the assets needed to pay out scheduled benefits are considered “endangered.” In 2006, 41% of union-negotiated funds were endangered. In fact, union-negotiated funds were three times as likely to be endangered as nonunion funds.

And union-negotiated plans were 13 times more likely (13% vs. 1%) to fall under the PPA’s “critical” status, reserved for pensions that are less than 65% funded.

As Ms. Furchtgott-Roth pointed out in a follow-up op-ed for the New York Daily News, union chiefs “know how to fund a pension plan properly, if they choose to.”

She and Mr. Brown sampled 30 union professional staff pensions “among unions that sponsor the largest 46 rank-and-file” multiemployer plans and found that union bosses’ own plans “were 93% funded,” whereas the worker plans had only 70% “of the funds needed to satisfy their obligations.”

‘A Worker Is the Best Judge of Whether He or She Benefits From Unionism’

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:

“The recent Hudson Institute study contrasting the pension security of unionized employees with those of union-free employees and of union bosses illustrates the fact that employees are typically harmed, not helped, by compulsory unionism.

“Undoubtedly, some employees believe they benefit from being in a union. But the system only works for employees as a group and for the country when we trust employees to join and pay dues to the union voluntarily.

“A worker is the best judge of whether he or she benefits from unionism.”

Mr. Mix concluded that the Hudson Institute pension study reaffirms the need for passage of the National Right to Work Act, introduced in the current Congress by Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King as H.R.4107.

H.R.4107 would repeal all federal labor-law provisions that authorize the firing of employees for refusal to pay union dues or fees.

Enactment of this bill, Mr. Mix noted, “would greatly strengthen union officials’ incentive to do what’s best for the employees they purport to represent, rather than feather their own nests.”

He encouraged Committee members across the country to contact their congressmen and urge them to cosponsor H.R.4107, the National Right to Work Act, if they have not already done so.

But, as we have noted for years, the whole effort is predicated on a myth.  Corporations’ political spending is dwarfed by — you guess it — big labor political spending.  From the Washington Post: Labor unions have dominated spending on independent campaign ads so far this election season, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that freed spending by corporations.

Police Chief Anthony Batts to Oaklanders: If your home is burglarized, don't call us. Credit: AP

(Source: August 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Public-Safety Union Monopoly Undercuts California Law Enforcement

On Tuesday, July 13, Oakland, Calif., became a friendlier place for burglars, embezzlers, car thieves, bad-check passers, extortionists, and an array of other criminals.

That afternoon, Oakland, a major West Coast port city with roughly 400,000 residents, laid off 80 police officers, or 10% of its force, to help eliminate a budget deficit of over $30 million. In response, the city police department implemented a new policy in which officers aren’t being dispatched to take reports for 44 “lower priority” crimes.

Oaklanders whose homes or vehicles are burglarized must now go online or visit a police station to file reports. However, the police department warns them that, even if they do: “There will be no follow-up investigation, and the primary reason for filing the report is for insurance purposes.”

Why is the city recently reported to have the fourth highest violent crime rate in the country slashing the number of cops it employs? Some observers are blaming the recent national recession, which hit California especially hard.

But despite the recession-induced decline in Oakland’s tax revenues over the past couple of years, city officials could still have avoided laying off police this summer — if their hands weren’t tied by California labor policies that promote monopolistic unionism in the public sector.

Decades ago, Big Labor California politicians rubber-stamped legislation forcing local police departments to allow the agents of a single union to speak for all the police on their force, including those who haven’t joined the union and want nothing to do with it, on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules.

Government Union Bosses Prefer Service Cutbacks To Other Alternatives

The same union monopoly-bargaining system was foisted on California fire departments, school districts, prisons, and other government agencies.

As a consequence of government union bosses’ special privileges, California elected officials who face fiscal crises must get Big Labor’s permission before they can attempt to get their budgets back in order by changing the way employees are compensated.

For example, in Oakland, like in many other California jurisdictions, government union-promoted work rules make it almost impossible for police supervisors to schedule officers to work when and where they are needed during their regular eight-hour shifts.

Consequently, local taxpayers rack up enormous overtime costs.

Changing Big Labor scheduling restrictions and other work rules could easily have reduced the Oakland police department’s compensation expenses by as much as laying off 10% of the force does.

However, police union bosses rejected all proposals that would have resulted in a significant net reduction in taxpayers’ compensation costs, making layoffs unavoidable.

“When times are bad, government union bosses generally prefer layoffs that reduce services to other alternatives, partly because they know the layoffs will, very likely, only be temporary,” commented National Right to Work Committee Vice President Matthew Leen. “Consequently, structural problems never get resolved.”

Will U.S. Congress Make Matters Worse?

“That Californians have to deal with this is bad enough,” Mr. Leen continued.

“But incredibly, just as Golden State Congressman Brad Sherman [D] wants to foist private-sector forced union dues on all 50 states [see p. 5 for details], other Big Labor politicians are eager to federalize the public-sector union monopolies that are dragging California cities down.

“Their vehicle is S.3194/H.R.413, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] and union-label Congressman Dale Kildee [D-Mich.]. Unless it is stopped, this legislation could bring Oakland’s woes to other cities across America.”

For more information on S.3194/H.R.413, the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, see pp. 1-2.

Public-Safety Forced Unionism Still High on Capitol Hill Agenda

The American people do not support Big Labor’s legislative scheme to establish a new federal mandate imposing union “exclusive representation” (monopoly bargaining) over state and local police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide.

And powerful union-label politicians like U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) know this public-safety scheme (H.R.413/S.3194) is unpopular. That’s why they have repeatedly tried to sneak it through Congress.

Most recently, in June, Ms. Pelosi and her top lieutenants cut a deal with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and other union bigwigs to attach H.R.413, the House version of the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, to a massive spending bill that provides funding for U.S. troops.

International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) union boss Harold Schaitberger openly admitted to helping concoct the scheme to tack H.R.413 on to H.R.4899, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act, in a June 30 message to officers of his union subsidiaries. Early last month, the National Right to Work Committee obtained a copy of Mr. Schaitberger’s communication.

Firefighters Union Chief ‘Argued Strongly’ For War Supplemental Strategy

Mr. Schaitberger reported that he had “argued strongly” for attaching H.R.413 “to the War Supplemental funding proposal for our troops in Afghanistan.”

The backroom deal between House leaders and the union hierarchy allowed the public-safety forced-unionism measure to come to the floor so quickly that Right to Work members and their allies had virtually no time to mobilize for the vote.

On July 1, the House rubber-stamped H.R.413 as a provision of H.R.4899. With very few exceptions, the national media overlooked the fact that a pro-forced unionism federal takeover of state and local labor-management relations had been approved as part of an unrelated spending bill.

However, despite the media’s cluelessness, millions of Right to Work members and supporters around the country were well aware of what was going on because the Committee was informing and mobilizing them through e-mails, phone calls, and “snail” mail.

For several weeks in July, freedom-loving Americans mobilized by the Committee campaign contacted their senators again and again, urging them to oppose H.R.4899 on all votes unless and until the public-safety union monopoly-bargaining amendment was removed.

Several organizations representing the interests of local governments and public-safety departments, such as the National Sheriffs’ Association, joined with the Committee in lobbying against the forced-unionism sneak play.

The message clearly got through to a number of senators who normally vote with Big Labor, but are getting antsier and antsier about their next election, regardless of whether they have to face the voters this year, or not until 2012 or 2014.

On the evening of July 22, the Senate voted down the House-passed version of H.R.4899, and then approved a war spending bill without the monopoly-bargaining provision. Finally, on July 27, a chastened House acquiesced to the Senate’s action, and sent a stripped-down war supplemental to President Obama’s desk.

Vast Majority of Americans Reject Monopoly Bargaining

H.R.413 and its Senate companion, S.3194, would force countless police officers, firefighters and EMT’s to accept as their monopoly-bargaining agent a union they never voted for, and want nothing to do with.

Moreover, H.R.413 and S.3194 would, in practice, force tens of thousands of first responders to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs — despite Big Labor claims to the contrary.

“Americans overwhelmingly oppose monopoly bargaining and forced union dues, period,” noted Committee President Mark Mix.

“The public certainly has no interest in backing legislation designed to help Big Labor grab monopoly-bargaining privileges over hundreds of thousands of additional employees.”

Decades of polling confirm this point. Mr. Mix cited one recent scientific nationwide survey.

This poll found that 81% of Americans who regularly vote in statewide elections believe that employees in unionized businesses should retain the right to bargain for themselves. Just 17% of regular voters believe employees should not have that right, while 2% are unsure.

“Forcing union nonmembers to accept public-safety union officials as their monopoly-bargaining agent is what H.R.413 and S.3194 are all about,” explained Mr. Mix.

“Any state law or local ordinance authorizing public-safety union bosses to bargain on behalf of their members only would get tossed in the scrapheap if either measure became law.

“And, as Service Employees International Union second-in-command Anna Burger recently boasted, H.R.413/S.3194 would ‘create a national collective,’ i.e. monopoly, ‘bargaining standard for all public workers.’

“H.R.413/S.3194 simply can’t withstand public scrutiny. And Big Labor congressional leaders know it.”

Right to Work Committee And Its Members Will Keep Turning up the Heat

“Enactment of H.R.413 or S.3194 would be disastrous, not just for independent-minded public-safety officers and Right to Work advocates, but also for taxpayers and citizens who depend on their local police and fire departments,” Mr. Mix continued.

“That’s why the National Right to Work Committee and its members can’t afford to rest on our laurels for a minute. We will keep turning up the heat in preparation for the next Capitol Hill showdown over this legislation.

“Despite their recent setback, Harold Schaitberger, Richard Trumka, and the rest of the union hierarchy are far from ready to give up on their bid to federalize public-safety union monopoly bargaining.

“A number of the senators who helped defeat the public-safety scheme last month, when they were facing intense pressure from pro-Right to Work constituents, are current or previous cosponsors of this power grab.

“Right to Work supporters shouldn’t, and won’t, make the mistake of assuming such senators will be with us if, as is likely, Congress takes up H.R.413/S.3194 again this fall.

“Freedom-loving Americans must even be prepared for a possible showdown on this legislation during a ‘lame duck’ congressional session in November or December, after the elections, but before the new House and Senate are seated.

“Enactment of H.R.413/S.3194 would deal a harsh blow to the Right to Work cause.

“I know Committee members and supporters across the country understand that fact, and will do all they can to stop this legislation.”

Michelle Malkin highlights the non-existent ethical standards applied to Obama Big Labor politcal appointees like  SEIU/AFL-CIO lawyer Craig Becker who Obama appointed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):

Everything you need to know about President Obama’s fraudulent ethics pledge can be summed up in four words: SEIU lawyer Craig Becker.

It’s no surprise that Becker now refuses to hold himself accountable for the ethics pledge he himself signed in April. As the past two years have taught us, Team Obama’s operational slogan is: Rules are for fools. The contractual ethics commitment states: “I will not for a period of two years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.” Yet, Becker has participated in numerous NLRB cases involving the SEIU and its affiliates — and is parsing the definition of “former employer” by arguing that local SEIU chapters are “separate and distinct legal entities” that don’t fall under the ethics rules.

The National Right to Work Foundation, which has fought both national and local SEIU officials in court on behalf of rank-and-file workers’ rights, eviscerates Becker’s lawyerly blather. SEIU’s own constitution considers local affiliates “constituent subordinate bodies” of the national union, the foundation notes. “Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies.”

Despite the White House’s much-heralded policy of binding every executive appointee to strict conflict-of-interest guidelines, a defiant Becker now remains free to rule on cases involving his former Big Labor bosses. And the most ethical administration in U.S. history isn’t doing a thing to stop him.

He favors radical rewriting of union organizing rules and elimination of the secret ballot process by administrative fiat.

In any case, Becker has also acknowledged playing a key role in providing “advice and counsel” to the powerful SEIU affiliate in Illinois “relating to proposed executive orders and proposed legislation giving homecare workers a right to organize and engage in collective bargaining under state law.” [forced individual non-state employees to pay union fes to SEIU] Championed by Big Labor water-carrier and disgraced former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich and current SEIU-endorsed Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, such measures effectively bust into private homes for the Purple Shirts of the SEIU and other union competitors hungry for new dues-paying members.

Now, Becker is in the catbird seat — adjudicating challenges to the power grab rules he helped author.

(full article avaialbe at MichelleMalkin.com)

Anna Burger, the long-time secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, and chair of the Change to Win federation, Aug. 11 announced her retirement from both positions effective immediately.

In a statement, Burger said she is “committed to building a permanent and sustained progressive majority,” adding, “we need a coordinated progressive infrastructure that protects our American values of fairness and justice, and I intend to be part of that work.”

Burger will continue to consult and work with SEIU on “economic solutions for working families,” and will remain a member of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, according to an SEIU spokeswoman.

Burger’s duties as secretary-treasurer will be fulfilled temporarily by SEIU President Mary Kay Henry. The union’s international executive board is scheduled to vote in mid-September on a successor to complete Burger’s term, which does not expire until 2012.

But, does this mean that SEIU’s Anna Burger will no longer be a Democrat National Committee (DNC) Super Delegate – you betcha!  She was only part of the DNC controlling body because of her position with Big Labor (other union bosses are DNC super delegates as well).  Shouldn’t these DNC structural political positions make SEIU part of a political party, and shouldn’t it be required to file IRS and Federal Election Commission reports as a political organization? 

Here is a related flashback provided by taxpayer funded NPR:  (Audio)

The day after he locked up the nomination, Obama returned the favor when he addressed the union’s annual convention.

“If I keep on seeing purple everywhere I go,” he said, referencing the color associated with the union, “if you vote for me, then I promise you this: We will win this general election. And then you and I, together — together, you and I — we are going to change this country, and we are going to change the world. Thank you, guys. I love you.”

 For those who might think Big Labor powerhouse SEIU will become less abusive of FEC, IRS, and other laws and regulations, SEIU’s new boss is the same as the old boss.  When will congress and federal enforcement agencies begin to force Big Labor to play by the rules that everyone else is forced to adhere?

From AP:

With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back.

The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.’s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans…..State Rep. Jason Fields argues that the money could be better spent any number of ways — including saving jobs. ”You’ve got to be kidding me,” said Fields, a Milwaukee Democrat. “The fact that is the point of contention is kind of frightening. What are our priorities? I’m all for love and peace. But almost 1 million dollars? And you go to court over this issue?”

If Republicans win the House or Senate, big labor will call in their final chit and demand passage of the Card Check Forced Unionism bill and Boss Trumka isn’t denying it:

On the C-SPAN “Newsmakers” show he was asked whether the Employee Free Choice Act will be considered in Congress this year.Trumka said: “I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act come up again. I think you’ll see it probably before the end of the year.  Before the elections or in a lameduck session? Trumka: “Either one.”

Misfeasance

As executive director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission, Richard Murray was supposed to act as a good steward of the millions of dollars Ohio pours into new school buildings every day. Instead, a report by the Ohio inspector general shows, he has abused his position to push the interests of unions, including the one to which he belongs, at substantial cost to the state and local school districts.

His unprofessional behavior disqualifies him for this position.

Murray’s union advocacy comes as no surprise; his career before Gov. Ted Strickland appointed him included more than 12 years as Ohio director of the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust, a union advocacy group. He is a member of Local 423 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America.

Strickland’s decision in September 2009 to summarily oust well-regarded former Executive Director Michael Shoemaker, a fellow Democrat, and replace him with Murray shows that the governor, too, is far more interested in doing favors for one of his primary constituencies — labor — than in working for Ohioans’ best interests. In fact, Murray says he was instructed by the Strickland administration to treat construction unions as “constituents” and to improve relations with them.

Shortly after taking office, Strickland began stacking the deck for unions by appointing union-friendly members to the Facilities Commission, which promptly lifted the policy that prohibited school districts from requiring contractors to pay the union-level “prevailing wage” on their projects.

He also showed his loyalty to labor by declaring that 7,000 home-health-care workers and 8,000 home-based child-care workers who provide state-subsidized care could unionize. He has attempted to thwart charter schools, which are anathema to teachers unions. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to expand the prevailing-wage requirement to cover any project with any public funding.

Under Gov. Bob Taft, school districts undertaking jointly financed school building and renovation projects with the School Facilities Commission were barred from requiring prevailing wage or using project-labor agreements, which in effect require any worker on a commission-financed project to join a union, if only temporarily. Such agreements haven’t proved to improve quality or safety but serve to fill union coffers with mandatory dues. The Taft policy ensured that more school-building money went into school buildings.

Reversing that policy was Strickland’s prerogative, and voters can render a judgment. But, according to the inspector general’s findings, instead of remaining impartial and leaving it to school districts to decide if they wanted to pay more for labor, Murray pushed and bullied some of them to do so.

He met frequently with union organizations, introducing himself as a member of Local 423 and asking the union supporters to be his “eyes and ears” on project sites to report problems with nonunion contractors — a clear indication of his bias.

That was bad enough, but Murray went much further to help twist school officials’ arms. When union representatives visited school officials to argue in favor of union labor, Murray — the keeper of the state purse for school construction — sometimes accompanied them, an implicit message to school officials that their best interest lay in acquiescing to union demands.

He bragged about having fired the commission’s legal counsel, who had tangled with organized labor. He disrupted several building projects in southern Ohio by yanking the commission-assigned project administrator because union officials had complained about her, and he did this without bothering to check out the administrator’s record or investigating the union’s complaints. In other cases, too, he interfered in building projects in response to complaints by unions without verifying the allegations.

Also, Murray stood by while union official Gary Coleman screamed profanities at officials of Clay Local School District in Scioto County during a meeting in which Coleman was pushing the reluctant school district to use a project-labor agreement. Coleman was upset because the district was using a nonunion contractor to do site preparation.

That Murray sat silently while Coleman abused the stunned school officials is shameful. Worst of all, Coleman’s tactic worked; the district eventually signed a project-labor agreement.

Not long after, when the New Boston Local School District declined to sign a project-labor agreement, Murray suddenly raised objections to the site chosen for the project; school officials say he told them that if they would accept a labor agreement, his objections could be worked out. Murray disputes the New Boston officials, but the accusation fits the pattern reported by the inspector general.

Most recently, renovation of the combined campuses of the state-administered Ohio State School for the Deaf and Ohio State School for the Blind gave Murray a chance to impose a project-labor agreement without having to pressure a school board into it. He did so, even though the agreement directly benefits the union he belongs to as well as his former employer, the labor trust.

As is typical, the agreement acted to discourage nonunion contractors from bidding, resulting in fewer and predictably higher bids, the lowest coming in $11 million above the state’s $28 million estimate. Now the project will be delayed because, under state law, it must be rebid.

Complaints by Clay and New Boston school officials led to the inspector general’s probe. Inspector General Thomas P. Charles was appointed by Strickland and is empowered to investigate executive-branch wrongdoing.

Murray’s actions were grossly unprofessional and unacceptable for the head of a state agency in charge of billions of dollars in public money. The governor faces a choice: Remove an administrator who has ill-served the public, or keep him and thereby choose to serve labor’s interests rather than those of Ohio students and taxpayers. [Emphasis added]

The same day that House Democrats return to Washington to hand state and teacher union bosses a $26 billion bailout, teacher’s union announces a “plan to rev up recess action to protect Democrats’ majority.”  See what $26 billion dollars can buy you?

A coincidence — surely not.

Don’t forget that out of the estimated 3.3 million public school teachers nationwide, teachers unions were expecting about 160,000 layoffs this year — just 4.8 percent of all teachers. 38.1 percent of those layoffs are centered in just three states: 9,000 in New Jersey, 16,000 in New York and 36,000 in California. About 57 percent of those 160,000 teachers are unionized as noted by the Heritage Foundation, with contributions to state and local unions averaging $300 per teacher.  Add another $162 per teacher to the National Education Association and $190 per teacher to the American Federation of Teachers, as reported by Education Next, and the Senate easily has voted to give a minimum $40 million to the public teachers unions’ political coffers.  That money will be mobilized into campaign ads, direct mail, phone banks, you name it, all to help elect Democrats.

No.  The breaking news was that the District of Columbia had fired 241 teachers for poor performance.

DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee rocked the educational establishment by in the words of the Washington Post “for the first time, holds some educators accountable for student growth on standardized test scores.”

“Every child in a District of Columbia public school has a right to a highly effective teacher — in every classroom, of every school, of every neighborhood, of every ward, in this City,” Rhee said.

The Washington Teacher’s Union will, of course, be contesting the firings even though they agreed to the process as part of the last contract negotiations — which raised their pay by 21%!

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

If you want to make a Massachusetts taxpayer shudder, just say the words “Big Dig.”

Onetime "Big Dig" enthusiast Charlie Baker is touting his opposition to union-only PLA boondoggles as he campaigns for the Massachusetts governorship this year. Bay State voters may conclude: "Better late than never!" Credit: John Tlumacki/Boston Globe

For years now, the “Big Dig,” officially referred to as the Central/Artery Tunnel Project, has been widely recognized as a poorly constructed, extraordinarily expensive boondoggle.

The “Big Dig” tunnel system was conceived in the 1970′s to replace Boston’s aging elevated six-lane Central Artery and improve access to Logan Airport and Boston Harbor. In 1987, Congress voted to furnish federal taxpayer funds, and ground was first broken in 1991.

To the dismay of independent construction employees and firms and Right to Work advocates, Massachusetts politicians announced that the “Big Dig” would be subject to a union-only “project labor agreement” (PLA).

Construction firm owners who wished to bid on the project, whether unionized or union-free, would be forced to impose restrictive union work rules on employees and to fill positions through discriminatory union hiring halls.

In 1991, project managers estimated the “Big Dig” would cost $2.6 billion and take seven years to complete. Thirteen years and nearly $15 billion after ground had been broken, the tunnel system was open, but still not complete.

Then, in November 2004, Boston media outlets reported that the “Big Dig” had experienced 1400 leaks in its tunnel wall as well as a wide array of other costly-to-repair damage.

New Taxpayer-Funded PLA Example of What ‘Makes People Crazy About State Government’

The “Big Dig” finally concluded at the end of 2007. It ended up costing $22 billion, including $7 billion in interest, which won’t be paid off until 2038.

In Massachusetts today, public anger about construction defects, missed deadlines, and enormous cost overruns in the “Big Dig” PLA remains intense enough that it represents a significant problem for 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee Charlie Baker.

During the 1990′s, when Mr. Baker was Massachusetts’ chief budget writer, he supported borrowing an additional $1.5 billion for the “Big Dig.” Bay State taxpayers, who are still paying off that debt, don’t see that as a point in his favor!

However, Charlie Baker is singing a different tune about union-only PLA’s nowadays. In a campaign event last month, he blasted a June 14 decision by University of Massachusetts officials to foist a PLA on $750 million (at least) in new taxpayer-funded construction at UMass’s Boston campus.

Flagrantly discriminating against the roughly 80% of Massachusetts construction workers who aren’t unionized while accepting bids for publicly funded construction is the kind of thing “that makes people crazy about state government,” said Mr. Baker.

He pledges to ban PLA’s in state contracts if elected.

Gov. Patrick: ’96% of the Construction’ Is Being Done ‘by Union Workers’

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented: “Charlie Baker is surely a slow learner when it comes to the ill effects of union-only PLA’s. It took him an awfully long time to realize they’re unfair and anti-taxpayer.

“On the other hand, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, now seeking reelection, appears to be a ‘never learner’ when it comes to PLA’s.

“Despite the ‘Big Dig’ fiasco and the many other examples of huge delays and excessive costs in Massachusetts PLA’s over the past two decades, Mr. Patrick continues to be a cheerleader for these special-interest schemes.

“This March, Mr. Patrick actually boasted about the fact that, even though the vast majority of Bay State construction workers have opted against unionization, ’96% of the construction’ on a hospital PLA in Worcester ‘is being carried out by union workers’!

“Because of Mr. Patrick’s cluelessness, and because independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill is dodging the PLA issue, Mr. Baker’s current outspoken stance against PLA’s may well resonate with Bay State voters, despite his past.

“Mr. Baker is savvy enough to see, finally, that public opposition to PLA’s is intense, even in a traditional union stronghold state like Massachusetts.

“And that should give pause to President Barack Obama, who up to now has been relentlessly promoting union-only PLA’s at the federal level, and will have to campaign in all 50 states if he chooses to seek reelection in 2012.”

Three of the four current NLRB members who were appointed or reappointed by President Obama are veteran union lawyers. All three are expected to vote in lock-step to expand Big Labor's forced-unionism privileges.

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Since the beginning of 2009, Big Labor has had a cheerleader in the Oval Office. At the same time, ample majorities of both chambers of the U.S. Congress have been willing to vote for virtually any power grab sought by union officials, as long as they could do so without running into intense, across-the-board constituent opposition.

Consequently, top union bosses have expected to see enacted in the current Congress legislation that would help them sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control.

Their original vehicle for achieving this objective was S.560/H.R.1409, the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Sponsored by union-label Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.), S.560/H.R.1409 would grease the skids for Big Labor workplace takeovers in several ways. Most famously, it would effectively end secret-ballot elections in union organizing drives, replacing them with so-called “card checks.”

That means, if S.560/H.R.1409 became law, union organizers would have far more opportunities than they currently do to intimidate individual workers into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to Big Labor control.

Unfortunately for union bigwigs, the National Right to Work Committee and its allies have mobilized massive public opposition to the measure, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form.

New NLRB Made to Order For Union Hierarchy

In response, for many months now Big Labor lobbyists and union strategists have tried to concoct new, passable legislation that would accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means. But “Plan B” has been slow to emerge.

(Video: Watch this video on the post page)

And now, the Obama Administration appears to be considering another, quicker and easier way of intensifying workplace elections’ bias in favor union organizers. And this method has the advantage, from Big Labor’s perspective, of not requiring any direct congressional involvement.

The powerful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which regulates the labor-management relations of businesses employing well over 90% of America’s private-sector employees, will soon be manned entirely by bureaucrats appointed or reappointed by pro-forced unionism President Barack Obama.

As this month’s Newsletter goes to press, four of the five NLRB members are already Obama appointees or reappointees. And three of these four are veteran union lawyers.

Wilma Liebman, originally appointed to the Board by union-label President Bill Clinton and elevated to the chairmanship early last year by Mr. Obama, is an ex-lawyer for the notorious Teamster union.

Obama appointee Mark Pearce was, until this year, a career union lawyer in private practice in Buffalo, N.Y.

Craig Becker, who for years served as counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO, has been Mr. Obama’s most controversial appointee yet.

While Mr. Becker, Mr. Pierce, and Ms. Liebman will very likely almost always agree on the main issues in NLRB cases, Mr. Becker differs from the other two in having a long “paper trail” that from the time of his nomination made it plain to see just how radical he is.

Craig Becker: Union Monopoly Should Be Mandated, Even if Most Workers Don’t Want It

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:

“Over the years, Craig Becker has publicly acknowledged believing that any employee or employer efforts to resist the unionization of a workplace are unacceptable.

“For example, in one ‘labor studies’ journal article, Mr. Becker dismissed the notion that workers should have any say whatsoever, whether as individuals or collectively by secret ballot or ‘card check,’ over whether or not they are unionized.

“Federal policy should not acknowledge employees’ ‘choice to remain unrepresented,’ contended Mr. Becker.

“Their only choice, he explained, should be over which set of union officials get ‘exclusive’ power to negotiate their wages, benefits and work rules.

“Mr. Becker’s publicly aired views are so extreme that even several normally pro-forced unionism senators refused to approve his nomination. For that reason, he has yet to be confirmed. He nevertheless sits on the NLRB today because, on March 27, President Obama bypassed the Senate and ‘recess’ appointed him.

“It’s likely Mr. Becker will take every opportunity to curtail employees’ freedom to oppose unionization of their workplace.

“Ms. Liebman, Mr. Pierce, and he are all expected to vote in lock-step to increase Big Labor’s monopoly-bargaining and forced-dues powers over the individual employee whenever they get the chance.

“And barely more than two months after President Obama did the union bosses’ bidding by personally installing Mr. Becker, the Board signaled how it might bureaucratically proceed to provide Big Labor with tools of intimidation very similar to those the ‘card check’ bill would have furnished.”

On June 9, the NLRB put out a request for information about “electronic voting services for both remote and on-site elections.”

The request has been widely interpreted as a step toward mandating the routine use of remote Internet or telephone balloting in union organizing campaigns.

Remote Voting Facilitates ‘Vote Selling and Coercion’

Under current law, when a unionization election occurs, employees normally cast their votes in private ballot booths, except when circumstances make the use of ballot booths very difficult or impossible.

If the Obama NLRB dispenses with ballot booths, and instead makes it the norm for workers to cast their votes over unionization from, say, their home computers, that will greatly intensify the process’s bias in favor of union organizers.

“Federal labor policy already authorizes professional union organizers to target individual workers by visiting them at their homes, a privilege of which they regularly take advantage,” Mr. Mix pointed out.

“Forcing employees to vote at home would greatly exacerbate the abuses that already occur during such ‘home visits.’ Union organizers would visit workers’ homes to ‘make sure’ they had voted electronically, and even offer to ‘help’ them cast their votes.

“The NLRB request purports to focus solely on ‘secure’ electronic voting from remote locations, but, as Ms. [Wilma] Liebman, Mr. [Mark] Pierce, and Mr. Becker must surely know, that’s a practical impossibility.

“Remote Internet voting, as a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation and published by the Internet Policy Institute concluded a few years ago, ‘can be observed [by outsiders], opening the door to the possibilities of vote selling and coercion.’”

Right to Work Supporters Will Fight Back in Every Possible Way

On June 23, the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, formally submitted comments to the NLRB urging the agency not to proceed with implementing an abuse-ridden electronic balloting scheme.

Mr. Mix, who heads the Foundation as well as the Committee, acknowledged that Wilma Liebman and her cohorts were unlikely to pay heed, but added that going on the record now would be helpful for a future legal challenge.

“Right to Work supporters will fight back against ‘electronic’ voting, also known as ‘card check light,’ in every possible way,” Mr. Mix vowed.

“If the NLRB goes ahead with its scheme, as now seems all but inevitable, the Right to Work movement will lead legislative as well as legal efforts to thwart it.”