(Illinois)A deal struck by Big Labor bosses and Illinois Gov. Ron Blogovich made this mom and thousands like her political pawns.   Listen to WLS radio’s Cisco Cotto interview of The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation client and Big Labor ‘ political pawn’ Pam Harris.

Harris, who attends for her special needs son, receives a small stipend from the state will now be forced to give SEIU 880 union bosses a chunk of her stipend as result of Blogo’s deal.

She provides another example of a growing list of people being forced against their will into unions by the tens of thousands under a scheme that was in part devised by ACORN and an SEIU lawyer and current-NLRB Board member Craig Becker.

Under a deal that former Gov. Ron Blogovich  signed, Harris is essentially forced into  a bargaining unit of one and she is required to pay union dues.  This is nothing more than another shameless assault on personal liberty by feckless politicians who are more concerned with payback to Big Labor bosses than citizens’ rights. Click the triangle on the bar following to hear her interview.

“Why is the state of Illinois forcing Pam Harris to unionize…herself? All she wants to do is take care of her special needs son, and recieve funds from the state for assistance, but with those funds comes the requirement to join a union? Is that a fair decision? Should all home-care providers be forced to be a part of the SEIU? Pam Harris spoke with Cisco Cotto about all these things – [go to WLS web site to] download the podcast to hear her story.”

Visit the The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation’s website for more information regarding its multiple cases filed on behalf home-care and childcare across the country.

Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Foundation, takes to the pages of the Washington Examiner to ask, ” What’s next for the Washington Teacher’s Union Chief?”

Their desperation is a function of two realities: First, only 7 percent of all private sector employees are union members. Fewer members means less dues revenue, which in turn reduces how much campaign cash the leaders have to give, thus slashing their political leverage. Second, labor finances are in bad shape. The SEIU, for example, owes $156 million, including $94 million to Bank of America and other corporate lenders tapped to finance its 2008 political contributions to Obama and congressional Democrats.

Thus, card check, which union leaders think would enable them to recruit new members, is critically important to labor’s future. Big Labor has spent an estimated $400 million since 2006 seeking to elect enough Democrats to assure that card check becomes law. Just last month, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ Gerald McEntee said his union would spend another $50 million trying to protect Democratic incumbents in 2010. Here’s to hoping card check opponents in every congressional district in America make ‘em flush it all.

In March, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision struck down campaign finance limits on political expression by individuals working through corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. A cry ensued among liberal Democrats predicting doom if they and their special interest allies were required to follow the Constitution. Big Labor’s bosses promised to spend millions to protect the Democratic majority if it would speedily pass legislation to circumvent the decision (and thus the Constitution), but restore limits on their corporate foes.

The resulting DISCLOSE Act, according to its backers, will ensure transparency in campaign ad funding. Thursday, the House of Representatives approved the bill 219-206, with 36 Democrats and 170 Republicans in opposition to the measure, which was written by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year, and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who led the Senate Democrats’ campaign panel in 2008.

The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats’ union masters. A provision pushed by Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Bob Brady, for example, allows unions to transfer unlimited funds among affiliated groups to pay for political ads with no disclosure whatever. That makes campaign funding more transparent? (more…)