(Source: October 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

On September 15, the U.S. House voted 238-186 to rebuke Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon for trying to dictate where businesses may or may not expand.

By passing H.R.2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, last month, the House made a judgment that NLRB bureaucrats like Mr. Solomon should not have the power to order an employer to relocate jobs from one site to another.

House members were responding specifically to Mr. Solomon’s decision in April to file a complaint against Boeing for initiating a new aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina.

In several public statements, Boeing executives had made no bones about the fact that their decision to expand in a Right to Work state was prompted largely by their desire to avoid or at least mitigate multi-billion-dollar revenue losses stemming from disruptive strikes.

Agreeing with International Association of Machinists (IAM, AFL-CIO) union kingpins who had repeatedly ordered employees at Boeing’s Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claims these statements show Boeing was motivated by “anti-union animus.” Consequently, the South Carolina expansion is illegal, declares Mr. Solomon.

The Boeing case is currently before an NLRB administrative law judge and could potentially drag on for years.

As Politics, ‘the NLRB Issue Is a Doozy’ For Big Labor Politicians

Sponsored by pro-Right to Work freshman South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott (R), H.R.2587 aims to stop Mr. Solomon from penalizing employers legitimately concerned with strikes that disrupt production and alienate customers by telling them where they can or can’t locate jobs.

H.R.2587 would modestly reduce the NLRB’s current extraordinary power, barring it “from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance.”

This legislation sailed through the House with the support of several members who normally kowtow to the union bosses. That’s a sign, as a July 28 Wall Street Journal editorial put it, that “a policy of punishing business for building plants and creating jobs in their states . . . is a doozy” for Big Labor politicians.

However, in the U.S. Senate union-label Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will very likely be able to muster sufficient votes to stall H.R.2587, despite the reform’s popularity.

Indeed, on September 22 Big Labor Democrats torpedoed an effort by pro-Right to Work members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to attach an amendment similar to H.R.2587 to the Fiscal Year 2012 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill.

Moreover, the White House announced well before H.R.2587 passed the House that President Obama opposes it.

Other Countermeasures House Could Take Have Greater Potential

Because the President now unambiguously agrees with the man he unilaterally installed as NLRB general counsel about the Boeing complaint, an H.R.2587 veto can be expected should the bill somehow pass the Senate.

“The National Right to Work Committee supports H.R.2587 and is encouraged that it could pass the House,” said Committee President Mark Mix.

“However, this bill is quite unlikely to become law in the near future, and the Boeing power grab is only one of an array of ways in which the Obama NLRB is now threatening to eviscerate employees’ Right to Work.

“In light of these facts, Speaker John Boehner [R-Ohio] and other House leaders must pursue additional means of reining in this rogue agency.

“At a minimum, the House should consider appropriations amendments cutting off funds for pursuing the Boeing case and for implementing several other ongoing NLRB power grabs.

“By refusing to vote for an NLRB budget unless it curtails Obama bureaucrats’ worst excesses, the House can actually stop abuses like the Boeing complaint without the cooperation of Harry Reid’s Senate or the White House.

“But that will require intestinal fortitude on the part of Speaker Boehner and other House leaders, and ever-intensifying mobilization of Right to Work supporters nationwide.”

Mr. Mix urged Committee members to call Speaker Boehner at 202-225-0600 and urge him to pursue all appropriate courses of action to protect employees and businesses from NLRB excesses.

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Back in February 2009, one of the first actions President Barack Obama took after settling in at the White House was to issue Executive Order 13502, which promotes union-only “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on federally funded public works. In April 2010, the Obama Administration issued a “final rule” implementing the order.

“E.O.13502 now pressures federal agencies to acquiesce to PLAs on all large public works,” noted Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“In practice, it is designed to force nonunion companies wishing to participate in public works using $25 million or more in federal funds to impose union monopoly bargaining on their employees and hire new workers through discriminatory union hiring halls.

“Under union-only PLAs, independent workers who already have their own retirement funds are nevertheless forced to contribute to Big Labor-manipulated pension funds.

“Rather than compromise the freedom of their employees and the efficiency of their operations, most independent construction firms simply refuse to submit bids on PLA projects.”

Results of 2010 Elections Raised Hopes of Pro-Right to Work Citizens

Efforts to roll back E.O.13502 legislatively began almost as soon as this edict was issued. And the shellacking voters in state after state gave to Big Labor politicians in the 2010 elections spurred hope among National Right to Work Committee members and other PLA opponents that they were gaining momentum.

However, since the beginning of this year, Right to Work attempts to pass appropriations amendments in the now GOP-controlled U.S. House prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds to enforce E.O.13502 have repeatedly been thwarted by a handful of Big Labor-appeasing GOP congressmen.

The most recent setback for independent hardhats and construction firms occurred last month, as the House considered H.R.2055, the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations (MilCon) Bill for the Fiscal Year 2012.

In May, pro-Right to Work members of the House Appropriations Committee had attached to H.R.2055 an amendment prohibiting imposition of union-only PLAs on military, VA, and other construction funded through this measure.

But on June 13 a clique of 27 GOP congressmen, led by habitual forced-unionism apologist Steven LaTourette (Ohio), joined with 177 Big Labor Democrats to strip the pro-Right to Work provision from H.R.2055.

Although fewer than 12% of the 229 Republicans present and voting on the anti-Right to Work, pro-PLA LaTourette Amendment sided with Big Labor, that was enough for union lobbyists to grab a 204-203 victory.

House Speaker Urged to Hold Big Labor Appeasers’ Feet to the Fire

Mr. Mourad pointed out that ringleader Steven LaTourette and two of the other GOP House members voting for his union-label amendment hail from Ohio, the home state of Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

“As a self-styled foe of PLAs and wasteful government spending in general, Speaker Boehner should be doing everything possible to get appropriations legislation defunding PLAs approved by his chamber,” said Mr. Mourad.

“Public opposition to union-only PLAs is already intense, and growing more so. Ultimately, President Obama and [U.S. Senate Democratic] Majority Leader Harry Reid [Nev.] may decide they don’t want to expend any more of their political capital defending these special-interest schemes.

“But Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid will feel relatively little pressure to end their love affair with PLAs as long as the GOP-controlled House remains incapable of passing anti-PLA legislation!

“I strongly urge the speaker to advise all members of his House caucus, including especially his fellow Ohioans, that there will be significant intra-party repercussions for them if they continue providing cover for Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other union-label Democrats on the PLA issue.”

Mr. Mourad added that National Right to Work members in Ohio and around the country may want to call Speaker Boehner’s office in Washington, D.C., at 202-225-0600 to reinforce the message that a “hands off” approach toward pro-forced unionism GOP congressmen is unacceptable.

President’s Handpicked Bureaucrats Ignore 2010 Election Results

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

In the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 Congresses, Big Labor’s top objective was a rewrite of federal labor law making it even easier for union bosses to seize monopoly-bargaining power over millions of employees in the American private sector.

Union strategists’ legislative vehicle was the cynically mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act,” introduced by pro-forced unionism Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). After Mr. Kennedy died in 2009, union-label Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin took over as the lead Senate sponsor.

The Miller-Kennedy-Harkin measure was more accurately called the “Card-Check” Forced-Unionism Bill.

Even without a federal card-check mandate, union bosses have long been able to acquire “exclusive” (monopoly) power to negotiate employees’ pay, benefits, and work rules solely through the acquisition of signed “union authorization cards.”

Consequently, individual workers under the peering eyes of union organizers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control.

However, as stacked as current law is in favor of Big Labor’s monopoly-bargaining power, employers nevertheless retain the right to stand up for their employees against union-boss intimidation tactics.

But Miller-Kennedy-Harkin would have empowered union officials to impose monopoly bargaining through card checks automatically, with no recourse for any pro-Right to Work employee or employer.

This legislation was totally contrary to the policy views of the vast majority of citizens, including union members.

Last November 2, 31 Card-Check Bill Supporters Lost Their Re-Election Bids

“Over the years, polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly oppose union monopoly bargaining, period,” explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“The public certainly has no interest in backing policies designed to help Big Labor grab monopoly-bargaining privileges over millions of additional workers.”

On Election Day, 2010, the American people had their say about whether Washington, D.C., should be handing union bosses more power over workers and helping funnel more forced dues into union coffers.

“Last November 2,” noted Mr. Mix, “31 House and Senate incumbents who had voted for the card-check scheme lost their re-election bids. This was about as clear an electoral repudiation as any bill ever gets.

“Unfortunately, the forced-unionism zealots who now hold all but one of the four occupied seats on the National Labor Relations Board don’t seem to have noticed.

“Despite the fact that voters in last fall’s elections sent a clear message they oppose the imposition of new federal policies to help Organized Labor increase the share of workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control, the Obama NLRB last month unveiled its plan to achieve precisely that goal.”

‘Ambush’ Elections Would Deny Workers a Meaningful Vote

On June 22, Wilma Liebman, the ex-Teamster lawyer whom President Obama elevated to the NLRB chairmanship in 2009, and two other ex-union lawyers appointed by Mr. Obama to sit on the NLRB proposed sweeping changes to the current procedures through which Big Labor may obtain monopoly-bargaining privileges.

According to Peter Kirsanow, a former NLRB member and a Right to Work supporter, the proposed rules “would substantially shorten the time period between the filing of a petition for a union-representation election and the actual conduct of an election.”

Currently, the NLRB allows an average of 38-40 days from the time an employer is notified that a union is seeking monopoly-bargaining privileges over his or her employees to the time the workplace election occurs.

Employers often use that relatively brief period of time to make the case to their employees that unionization isn’t in their best interest.

But the “ambush” election rules proposed by the Obama NLRB would “shorten the time frame to a mere 10-20 days,” by Mr. Kirsanow’s assessment.

Mr. Mix charged: “Effectively, employees would be denied the opportunity to hear both sides of the story before voting on unionization, because employers would be denied enough time to make their case.

“The bottom-line impact of this bureaucratic sop to Big Labor would be very similar to that of the Miller-Kennedy-Harkin card-check mandate that union lobbyists tried unsuccessfully to ram through Congress from 2007 to 2010.”

Employee Phone Numbers, E-Mail Addresses Would Be Handed Over to Union Organizers

“In fact, as Mr. Kirsanow has correctly observed, the new rules would stack the deck against independent-minded employees so thoroughly that many employers would choose ‘not even to go through the expense’ of a rigged election, but ‘simply . . . recognize the union upon showing of authorization cards,’” Mr. Mix added.

In addition to effectively denying business owners and managers the opportunity to counter union organizers’ claims, the NLRB’s proposed new rules mandate that employee phone numbers and e-mail addresses be handed over to union organizers at the outset of each “ambush” election campaign.

“Current NLRB rules already seriously infringe on employees’ privacy by requiring their employers to hand over their names and physical addresses to union officials,” said Mr. Mix.

“But the new scheme would expose employees who don’t want to sign a union card or promise to vote for a union to even more intense Big Labor intimidation.

“And the new rules would also make it even more difficult for independent-minded employees and businesses to challenge election misconduct by union bosses and their henchmen.”

The NLRB’s proposed overhaul of union organizing campaign procedures wasn’t the only bad news for American employees and business owners who prefer to remain union-free to come out the week of June 19. The day before that plan went public, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced through her staff a reinterpretation of the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act.

This proposal would force employers to file federal reports whenever they seek outside help during union organizing campaigns, even if the consultants never communicate with any employees. Meanwhile, union organizers would continue to be exempt from reporting any hiring of consultants or lawyers.

In practice, the new Labor Department policy will, once it takes effect, encourage employers to capitulate to union organizing drives.

Committee President Vows to Back Legislation Thwarting New ‘Card Check’ Threat

“Thumbing their noses at the 2010 election results, President Barack Obama’s NLRB and Labor Department bureaucrats are now in the process of foisting ‘card check’ on American workplaces,” said Mr. Mix.

He vowed that the Committee would work closely with Capitol Hill allies to craft measures blocking implementation of the “card check” schemes introduced by the NLRB and the Labor Department last month.

“Enactment of legislation reining in such abuses will be a tall order in 2011 and 2012, due to the all but inevitable opposition of Big Labor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] and President Obama’s veto power,” Mr. Mix acknowledged.

“But it’s a battle Right to Work supporters can’t afford to pass up. Before we can make things better, we have to stop them from getting even worse.”

(Source: March 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Committee Calls on U.S. House Leaders to Block Union Power Grab

On February 4, President Barack Obama’s handpicked head of the Transportation Security Administration publicly announced he would help government union bosses grab monopoly-bargaining control over more than 40,000 airport screeners and other TSA employees.

John Pistole, who was sworn in as TSA chief in July 2010, made the move shortly after Republican John Boehner (Ohio) replaced Big Labor Democrat Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) as speaker of the U.S. House.

The changing of the guard at the House made it impossible, in all probability, for union lobbyists to ram through Congress legislation mandating union monopoly bargaining at the TSA.

Therefore, in order for the Obama Administration to hand federal union officials what they wanted, Mr. Pistole had to act administratively.

Agency Would Likely Become ‘Less Efficient and Flexible’

As a consequence of the Pistole edict, the honchos of one of two large government unions, either the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) or the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), could grab so-called “exclusive” representation power at the TSA within the next few weeks.

If this happens, the already much-reviled federal agency will likely become even “less efficient and flexible,” as National Review Associate Editor Robert Verbruggen pointed out in a February 11 commentary.

Under the Pistole scheme, officers of a recognized union would wield monopoly power to challenge the TSA’s disciplinary actions and negotiate shift bids and transfers.

All front-line employees, including those who don’t want a union and refuse to join, would be forced to rely on union bosses to air their concerns with managers.

Fully understanding that foisting a union monopoly on the TSA, an agency generally viewed as critical for national security, would be controversial and unpopular, the Obama Administration has claimed “security procedures” will not be subject to Big Labor obstruction.

However, matters of discipline, scheduling and overtime at an agency like the TSA obviously do affect managers’ ability to get passengers boarded on planes safely and efficiently. That’s why union “exclusive” representation is banned at national security-related agencies like the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service.

One of the few such agencies where monopoly bargaining is already authorized, the Customs and Border Patrol, lost a 2009 arbitration ruling over how it could discipline an employee for literally falling asleep on the job!

Committee Fights For House TSA Reauthorization Barring Union-Boss Takeover

Almost immediately after Mr. Pistole gave the go-ahead to government union organizers, National Right to Work Committee leaders coordinated with likeminded members of Congress a plan to halt the conquest.

On February 15, pro-Right to Work Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) fired a shot across the bow when he forced a floor vote on an amendment to the pending Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Bill (S.223) that would have prohibited union monopoly bargaining at the TSA.

Union-label Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) successfully corralled every Democrat senator present and voting to block the Wicker amendment. The amendment received 47 votes, and therefore was not added to S.223.

However, Mr. Reid’s inability to persuade a single Republican senator to go along with him, even among those who have sided with government union lobbyists in the past, underscored the fact that public sentiment is moving strongly against Big Labor control of the TSA.

Right to Work President Mark Mix and his team of federal legislative staffers are now pressing hard to ensure that an amendment analogous to Mr. Wicker’s is included in the House version of the TSA reauthorization.

Since Speaker Boehner’s GOP majority caucus, unlike Mr. Reid’s Democrat politicians, is not obsequiously committed to expanding union bosses’ privileges, whenever and wherever they can, there is cause for Right to Work optimism.

“If the House does the right thing and passes a TSA reauthorization rescinding the Obama Administration’s gift to the government union brass, then the battle will move to a legislative conference committee,” explained Mr. Mix.

“With American awareness of the harm inflicted by government union excesses on the rise, I think there is a good chance Right to Work advocates can ultimately prevail and send a reauthorization bill to the President that reverses the Pistole edict.

“Then it will be up to Mr. Obama to decide whether he really wants to keep defying public opinion regarding the TSA.”

This winter, as state legislatures across the country prepare to go into session, many elected officials are looking for a practical way to get skyrocketing tax expenditures for compensation of state and local government employees under control.

For many years now, Big Labor featherbedding and counterproductive work rules have been key factors in causing government payrolls to spiral at an alarming rate.

In fact, according to inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data, taxpayers’ aggregate real costs for compensation of state and local government employees soared by almost 30% between 1998 and 2008 — an increase more than 50% greater than the total real growth of private-employee compensation.

In 2009, even as the nation’s economy endured a severe recession, state and local employee real compensation rose by 2.6%. Meanwhile, businesses whose revenues were plummeting had no choice but to cut back real compensation for private-sector employees by 4.3%.

Right to Work States Haven’t Been Immune From Government Union Virus

And last fall, American voters expressed their alarm at this trend by ousting hundreds of government union boss-friendly legislators in state after state and replacing them with candidates pledging to revoke union monopoly-bargaining policies that favor government employment growth over business job growth.

Grossly bloated public payrolls haven’t been confined to notorious forced-unionism stronghold states like New York, Illinois and California. Even a number of states with Right to Work laws prohibiting forced union dues are suffering from somewhat less virulent strains of the same malady.

Right to Work Nevada is a case in point. Unlike neighboring forced-unionism California, Nevada has had strong private-sector job growth over the past decade (+14.4% from 1999-2009, vs. -1.4% for the Golden State).

Both states have been hit hard by the recent recession. But Nevada’s Right to Work law and its generally more job-friendly tax and regulatory climate can potentially help it recover smartly over the next couple of years — if policymakers succeed in slowing the growth of government payroll expenditures.

A big part of Nevada’s challenge stems from the fact that, unlike many other Right to Work states like Utah, Texas, North Carolina and Virginia, the Silver State has a monopoly-bargaining statute.

Nevada labor law denies school boards and other local elected officials the option to refuse to recognize government union bosses as public employees’ monopoly-bargaining agents. Consequently, it is extraordinarily difficult for local officeholders to reform Big Labor-backed work rules and other personnel policies that render the costs for public services far higher than they need be.

Largely as a result of Nevada’s monopoly-bargaining law, many of the state’s local governments have almost 85% of their revenues tied up in compensation costs, according to Stacy Woodbury, assistant chief of staff of outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons (R).

Genuine Reform Won’t Come Without a Bitter Fight

Having recognized that unwarranted increases in government payrolls are undermining Nevada’s ability to maintain vital services while keeping per capita state and local taxes at the national average (in dollar terms), Mr. Gibbons is now calling for repeal of mandatory monopoly bargaining.

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:

“Today in Nevada, like in many other states, Big Government has become Big Labor’s bread and butter. In this environment, laws and other policies handing union bosses monopoly power to negotiate with government employers over employee pay, benefits, and work rules result in catastrophic outcomes for taxpayers.

“Incoming Gov. Brian Sandoval [R] and Nevada legislators will have to fight Big Labor tooth and nail to repeal the monopoly-bargaining law. But that fight is absolutely necessary to keep the state safe for taxpayers.”

Committee Defeats Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Legislation

With the long-anticipated conclusion of the 111th Congress a few weeks ago, National Right to Work Committee members and supporters achieved a major legislative victory that had seemed a near impossibility at the Congress’s inception in 2009.

Just before Christmas, Congress adjourned without having rubber-stamped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) so-called “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act” (S.3991).

This was government union bosses’ “top legislative priority” in the 111th Congress, as International Firefighters (IAFF/AFL-CIO) union czar Harold Schaitberger admitted mournfully after the adjournment.

Seasoned Capitol Hill observers had confidently predicted the Reid legislation would pass into law before the end of 2010, and with good reason.

At the outset of the 2009-2010 Congress, the votes were there to pass the bill in both chambers of Congress. Furthermore, President Obama was publicly vowing to sign it as soon as it reached his desk.

The only possible hope of blocking the government union power grab was a Senate filibuster — and mustering the 41 votes needed to sustain one seemed to be a long shot at best.

Nevertheless, from the beginning, Committee members and supporters were ready to fight to the hilt, because the stakes were so high.

‘Already Strong Lobby’ Sought Even More Power

S.3991, referred to unofficially, but accurately, as the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, would have empowered Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) bureaucrats to survey all 50 states and identify which had failed to meet the legislation’s “core standards.”

And the key “core standard” was mandatory union monopoly bargaining. Localities in all 50 states would have been denied the option to refuse to grant a single public-safety union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who didn’t want to join.

Monopoly bargaining, euphemistically labeled as “exclusive representation,” would have been foisted on police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide. And in most states that already authorize public-safety monopoly bargaining, this legislation would have widened its scope.

As Wall Street Journal reporter Kris Maher noted late last spring, under legislation like S.3991, if any state had refused to institute monopoly bargaining and comply with other mandates, FLRA bureaucrats would have implemented them themselves.

Sen. Reid personally introduced two different versions of the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill. In April 2010, Mr. Reid sponsored S.3194, a bill he could bring to the floor at any time, without any preliminary committee action.

And during the “lame-duck” Senate session late last year, he introduced S.3991, a modest variation on his earlier measure crafted to garner more support through its exemption of sheriffs’ departments from the federal monopoly-bargaining mandate.

Yet another Senate version of the Police Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill was sponsored as S.1611 by Big Labor appeaser Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). In the House, union-label Congressman Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) introduced companion legislation as H.R.413.

In all its guises, the police/fire monopoly-bargaining legislation was a budget-busting power grab. In an astute editorial last June, the Washington Post summed up why this scheme was so dangerous:

“What this bill would do is impose a permanent, one-size-fits-all federal solution in an area — public-sector labor relations — that has traditionally been left to the states, and where state flexibility is probably more necessary than ever.

“. . . The bill further empowers an already strong lobby . . . .”

Harry Reid Nearly Succeeded Because of GOP Collaborators

Of course, Mr. Reid wasn’t troubled by the intense damage S.3194 and S.3991 would do to taxpayers or by how they would ravage state sovereignty.

The bottom line for him was that this legislation would empower and enrich union officials who are one the Democratic Party’s “most important constituencies,” as the editors of the New York-based biweekly National Review put it.

However, Democratic politicians, despite controlling the White House and substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress, were never expected last year to make the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, in any of its versions, the law of the land all on their own.

Since GOP Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.) took office last February, there were never more than 59 senators in Mr. Reid’s majority caucus. But it takes 60 to bring up a piece of legislation for a final vote if opponents seek to block it by launching an extended debate.

The reason Mr. Reid nearly succeeded last summer in making his pet scheme the law of the land was because six out of the 41 GOP senators were sponsoring S.1611, monopoly-bargaining legislation virtually identical to the Reid bill.

Last July 1, the House monopoly-bargaining legislation sailed through the lower chamber as an amendment to H.R.4899, a massive, unrelated defense spending bill. Union strategists eagerly anticipated the Senate passing the whole measure later that month.

All-Out Right to Work Mobilization Stalled Union Lobbying Blitz

But then, for several weeks in July, freedom-loving Americans mobilized by the National Right to Work Committee 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.

Firefighters union boss Schaitberger personally expressed alarm in an e-mail to union operatives that the “National Right to Work Committee” was “working the phones.”

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 were getting antsier and antsier about their next election.

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.

Of course, Harry Reid didn’t give up at that point, or even after voters ousted two Senate proponents of federally mandated public-safety union monopoly bargaining, Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), replacing them with 100% Right to Work supporters, in the November 2 general elections.

Right to Work Supporters Continued Turning up the Pressure on ‘Lame Ducks’

On December 8, the “lame-duck” Senate voted on Mr. Reid’s cloture motion to cut off debate by Right to Work proponents so that S.3991, his latest version of the police/fire union power grab, could get the Senate green light, then race through the House and go to President Obama’s desk.

But, thanks once again to intense grass-roots lobbying efforts by Right to Work supporters, Mr. Reid came up five votes short of the 60 he needed to achieve cloture, with three Senate Democrats and half-a-dozen Republicans who had previously supported the legislation voting “No.”

“Right to Work members and supporters nationwide never let down their guard until the 111th Congress adjourned for good on December 22,” observed Committee President Mark Mix. “That is how they pulled off a remarkable victory for independent-minded public servants and taxpayers.”

Independent Workers, Firms Face ‘Card-Check Lite’ Implementation

It’s been more than a century since Mr. Dooley, the immortal comic character created by Chicago-based journalist Finley Peter Dunne, opined that “th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns.”

In the High Court’s consideration of controversial legal cases over the years, it often really has seemed that majorities of unelected justices were reluctant, for good or ill, to ignore recent electoral results.

But Mr. Dooley’s adage doesn’t appear to have made any impression whatsoever on the forced-unionism zealots who now hold all but one of the four occupied seats on the powerful National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB.

(The fifth NLRB seat has been vacant for several months.)

Despite the fact that voters in the November 2 general elections sent a clear message they oppose the imposition of new federal policies to help Organized Labor increase the share of workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control, the Obama NLRB is signaling that is exactly what it intends to do.

For example, on October 21, when a wide array of polls were already showing that pro-forced unionism politicians would suffer major losses in both chambers of Congress on Election Day, NLRB member Mark Pearce publicly discussed one way the Board may make corralling workers into unions easier in 2011.

Mr. Pearce, until this year a union lawyer in private practice in Buffalo, N.Y., suggested in a speech at a law school in Boston that the NLRB may soon rewrite federal rules for unionization campaigns in order to tilt the playing field even more steeply in union organizers’ favor.

In particular, Mr. Pearce indicated that the NLRB may soon cease allowing an average of 38 days from the time an employer is notified that a union is seeking monopoly-bargaining control over his or her employees to the time the workplace election occurs, and instead allow only 5-10 days.

‘Quick-Snap’ Elections Would Deny Workers A Meaningful Vote

“Effectively, the kind of ‘quick-snap’ elections Mr. Pearce is talking about would deny employees the opportunity to hear both sides of the story before they vote on unionization by denying employers enough time to make their case,” charged Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“The bottom-line impact of this bureaucratic sop to Big Labor would be very similar to the impact of the mandatory ‘card check’ legislation, or S.560 and H.R.1409, that union lobbyists tried unsuccessfully to ram through the 2009-2010 Congress: more union power over workers and more forced dues in union coffers.

“On November 2, 31 U.S. House and Senate incumbents who had voted for the ‘card check’ scheme lost their re-election bids.

“This is about as clear an electoral repudiation as any bill ever gets.

“Unfortunately, the NLRB is ignoring voters’ unmistakable message and appears determined to foist ‘card check lite’ on American workplaces. Only determined congressional action can stop President Obama’s NLRB bureaucrats.”

Committee President Vows To Back Legislation Thwarting ‘Card Check Lite’

“‘Card check lite’ means more monopolistic unionism, and that in turn means fewer jobs and less income growth for private-sector workers,” Mr. Mix continued.

He vowed that the Committee would work closely with Capitol Hill allies to craft legislation blocking implementation of quick-snap elections and any other variety of “card check lite” by the NLRB.

“Enactment of legislation reining in NLRB abuses will be a tall order in 2011, given Big Labor Sen. Harry Reid’s [D-Nev.] continuing control over Congress’s upper chamber and President Obama’s continued veto power,” acknowledged Mr. Mix.

“But it’s a battle Right to Work supporters can’t afford to pass up. Before we can make things better, we have to stop them from getting even worse.”

But Big Labor Retains Hold Over U.S. Senate, Key State Assemblies

Not just on November 2, but throughout this past election year, voters across most of the country sent two clear messages to Big Labor politicians on Capitol Hill: They are dismayed by what the politicians have done at union lobbyists’ behest, and determined to stop them from doing more of the same.

One major object of voters’ ire was the controversial “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (ARRA), otherwise known as the “stimulus” package. In early 2009, AFL-CIO and Change to Win union lobbyists twisted arms to secure majorities in both chambers of Congress for this $800 billion legislation.

Since it became law, ARRA has bilked taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars to ensure that bloated, unionized government payrolls stay bloated, but furnished no detectable net benefit for America’s private sector.

Another key source of voters’ displeasure was ObamaCare.

More even than President Obama or any other elected official, top union bosses and their arm-twisting union lobbyists are responsible for Congress’s narrow votes to reconstruct America’s enormous health-care system in late 2009 and early 2010.

November 2′s exit polls clearly indicate that voters across the country punished vulnerable U.S. representatives and senators for doing what Big Labor told them to do.

Undoubtedly compounding the woes of many of the politicians who had voted for the government union boss-crafted “stimulus” package and ObamaCare was that they were also on the record in support of forced-unionism initiatives that, due to stiff Right to Work opposition, have yet to be enacted.

Millions of freedom-loving citizens were furious with their incumbent politicians for having backed Big Labor’s now-moribund “card check” forced-unionism bill and its so far-stalled scheme to federalize government union monopoly bargaining over state and local public-safety employees.

Big Labor Appeasers in GOP Were First Casualties Of Voter Backlash

While it was overwhelmingly Democrat politicians who paid the price on November 2 for having kowtowed to union bigwigs, the earlier casualties of the voter backlash against President Obama’s forced-unionism agenda were mostly Republicans.

For example, roughly 18 months ago, Republican Arlen Specter (Pa.) decided he had no choice but to abandon his efforts to obtain the 2010 GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate seat he had held for three decades.

Mr. Specter was no doubt correct in calculating that his long record of appeasing Big Labor, including a 2007 vote to shut down a Right to Work filibuster and ram the “card check” scheme through the Senate and an early 2009 vote for government union bosses’ ARRA, had become unpalatable to primary voters.

With the help of the Obama Administration, Mr. Specter tried unsuccessfully to do a quick pivot and capture the Democrat nod for his seat. Finally, on November 2, former GOP Congressman Pat Toomey, who has pledged to support Right to Work 100% on Capitol Hill, became Pennsylvania’s senator-elect by defeating the Big Labor Democrat who had defeated Mr. Specter in his new party’s primary.

The following spring, a second union boss-”friendly” GOP U.S. Senate primary candidate fell so far behind due to his avowed support for ARRA and his shiftiness on other key issues for Right to Work supporters that he dropped out and declared he would run as an independent.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s maneuver to capture his state’s open U.S. Senate seat was no more successful than Mr. Specter’s. On November 2, 100% pro-Right to Work Florida Republican Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate.

Blanche Lincoln and Russ Feingold Ignored Constituents For Too Long

The fact that several establishment incumbent Republicans like Mr. Specter, and establishment favorites for open GOP seats, like Mr. Crist, went down to defeat in congressional primary contests during the 2009-2010 cycle is clear evidence that issues, not party label, drove November’s results.

On Election Day, union-label incumbent Senate Democrats Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Russ Feingold (Wisc.) were ousted not because of their partisan affiliation, but because of their voting records. Both had voted for the “card check” bill in 2007, ARRA in 2009, and ObamaCare in 2010. Both also had repeatedly voted to federalize union monopoly bargaining control over public-safety employees.

As their poll numbers plummeted, Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Feingold adopted contrasting strategies.

Ms. Lincoln tried to backpedal from her past votes for the “card check” measure and other employee-coercing, economy-crushing schemes. Mr. Feingold dug in his heels and lectured voters that mandatory “card checks,” ARRA, and ObamaCare are all actually good policy.

Neither strategy worked. Voters weren’t fooled by Ms. Lincoln’s election-year “conversion,” nor were they persuaded by Mr. Feingold’s harangues. Republicans John Boozman and Ron Johnson, both of whom are pledging to support Right to Work consistently, will be the new senators from Arkansas and Wisconsin, respectively.

Despite significant setbacks for Big Labor in U.S. Senate primary and general elections, and despite steep losses for Big Labor in U.S. House and state-level contests (see pp. 3 and 6 of this Newsletter, respectively, for details), the 2009-2010 election news was not all bad for the union bosses.

Union Bosses’ Forced Dues-Fueled Machine Churns Out A Harry Reid Victory

In Washington State and in Colorado, the union political machine, which runs on dues and “agency” fee money extracted from millions of workers as a condition of employment, helped pro-forced unionism incumbent Democrats fend off strong challenges from candidates who vowed to support Right to Work.

But the biggest federal victory for the union brass was the reelection of their pet Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. As the head of a 53-member caucus in a 100-member chamber, Mr. Reid will continue to hold the Senate reins in January.

Another positive for the union hierarchy is its retention, despite experiencing very substantial losses in state races overall, of complete control over the legislatures and the governorships in California and Illinois, and possibly (pending recount results) in New York as well.

With the ample executive power of the Obama Administration (see p. 4 for more information), the Senate, and the governments of some of the largest states in the country still at their disposal, the union bosses are already plotting their comeback. Right to Work supporters must also prepare for the coming battles.

The Senate may soon consider a bill that would force states to allow for the unionization of public employees. In addition to the extraordinary amount of mandates imposed under President Obama, Congress has been attempting to extend the burden of collective bargaining imposed upon every state and local government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) recently reintroduced the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act in an attempt to rush it through Congress before Republicans take control of the House in January. This legislation would mandate collective bargaining for police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel—even in states that have passed laws to ensure this can’t happen.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty made headlines today with his editorial against government unions. It is no secret that unions have increasingly resorted to government employees to boost membership. Minnesota has362,000 union members, and Governor Pawlenty has had his fair share of battles to keep taxpayers from footing the bill.

Government is the easy way to avoid pesky things like efficiency and competition. In September, Heritage expert James Sherk exposed the fact that since last year, most union workers now collect a check paid for by taxpayers. Some of that money is automatically deposited into union coffers to pay for their dues. This is made possible through a taxpayer-funded payroll system.

The rise of government unions has had many troubling effects.

            • Federal workers already receive up to 22 percent more than their private counterparts, resulting in $47 billion in additional taxes.

            • Many states force government employees to join a union or lose their job.

            • Since the beginning of the recession, private sector employment has fallen while federal employment has risen. Government employees have not faced the same hard decisions that many Americans have confronted during the recent economic decline.

            • Unions are able to take the money they receive from their members and lobby for increased wages in the form of more taxes.

Congress should let each state decide whether it wants to force its taxpayers to fund overpaid union employees.

This evening, Senator Reid moved to proceed to the following bills and filed cloture on the motions:

- Calendar #662, S.3991, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 (commonly known as Police -Fire Fighters Forced Monopoly Bargaining Bill);

By unanimous consent, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar #662, S.3991 (the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009) will occur upon conclusion of the impeachment proceedings. We expect to complete the impeachment proceedings Wednesday morning.

********

Sen. Harry Reid is trying to repay his political debts and is attempting for move legislation that would give union bosses monopoly bargaining power over taxpayer money for police and fireman. The Detroit News adds their thoughts on the deal:

Having survived a near-death experience on Election Day thanks largely to massive donations from labor unions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is paying back his benefactors. The Democrat from Nevada says that during Congress’ lame duck session he will try to once again force through a measure giving police and fire unions the upper hand in dealing with local communities.

Reid will seek a cloture vote on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which despite its name has little to do with cooperation. Rather, the bill would be a federal clone of Michigan’s disastrous Public Act 312, which is blamed with ruining the finances of scores of communities, including Detroit, and pushing many to the brink of bankruptcy — that’s you, Hamtramck.

The bill would make it easier for police and firefighters to organize labor unions and force all officers to join, even in right-to-work states. That’s a brazen usurpation of state authority, and very likely unconstitutional.

In Michigan, where most major police and firefighters are already unionized, the largest impact would be in rural areas, since the law would also likely apply to volunteer fire departments. That would put most of those volunteer outfits out of business, and destroy an important grass-roots community protection network. These volunteers are often highly trained individuals who provide the only defense for their neighbors’ homes and property.

But the worse part of Reid’s union-buttering bill is that it would codify in federal law a state act that Michigan must get out from under if communities are to regain control of their finances.

Public Act 312 has been horrible for Michigan. The act — as would the Senate bill — requires that contract disputes between public safety unions and municipalities go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator is not required to consider a community’s finances when ordering a settlement, and would not be under the federal legislation, either.

This provision has severely limited the ability of local government to control operating costs. And it’s reduced the incentive of the unions to bargain. Why agree to a compromise contract when an arbitrator might award you the whole enchilada?

The act has been especially harmful for Detroit, where it has forced bad choices. Since the ability to negotiate concessions is so limited, the city’s option has been to reduce public safety manpower, which it can usually do outside of the contract.

Unions have gotten around that relief valve in many suburban communities by sponsoring ballot initiatives mandating minimum staffing levels.

We’ve noted a number of times that PA 312 was the work of the late Coleman Young when he was in the Legislature during the 1970s. When he became Detroit’s mayor, Young rued the act as the worst work he’d ever done.

Taking PA 312 national would amount to another unfunded federal mandate that would further erode the financial stability of communities already on the edge. That’s not what Congress is supposed to do.

We knew there was a reason we were rooting so hard against Harry Reid in the recent election. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is it.

Having survived a near-death experience on Election Day thanks largely to massive donations from labor unions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is paying back his benefactors. The Democrat from Nevada says that during Congress’ lame duck session he will try to once again force through a measure giving police and fire unions the upper hand in dealing with local communities.

Reid will seek a cloture vote on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which despite its name has little to do with cooperation. Rather, the bill would be a federal clone of Michigan’s disastrous Public Act 312, which is blamed with ruining the finances of scores of communities, including Detroit, and pushing many to the brink of bankruptcy — that’s you, Hamtramck.

The bill would make it easier for police and firefighters to organize labor unions and force all officers to join, even in right-to-work states. That’s a brazen usurpation of state authority, and very likely unconstitutional.

In Michigan, where most major police and firefighters are already unionized, the largest impact would be in rural areas, since the law would also likely apply to volunteer fire departments. That would put most of those volunteer outfits out of business, and destroy an important grass-roots community protection network. These volunteers are often highly trained individuals who provide the only defense for their neighbors’ homes and property.

But the worse part of Reid’s union-buttering bill is that it would codify in federal law a state act that Michigan must get out from under if communities are to regain control of their finances.

Public Act 312 has been horrible for Michigan. The act — as would the Senate bill — requires that contract disputes between public safety unions and municipalities go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator is not required to consider a community’s finances when ordering a settlement, and would not be under the federal legislation, either.

This provision has severely limited the ability of local government to control operating costs. And it’s reduced the incentive of the unions to bargain. Why agree to a compromise contract when an arbitrator might award you the whole enchilada?

The act has been especially harmful for Detroit, where it has forced bad choices. Since the ability to negotiate concessions is so limited, the city’s option has been to reduce public safety manpower, which it can usually do outside of the contract.

Unions have gotten around that relief valve in many suburban communities by sponsoring ballot initiatives mandating minimum staffing levels.

We’ve noted a number of times that PA 312 was the work of the late Coleman Young when he was in the Legislature during the 1970s. When he became Detroit’s mayor, Young rued the act as the worst work he’d ever done.

Taking PA 312 national would amount to another unfunded federal mandate that would further erode the financial stability of communities already on the edge. That’s not what Congress is supposed to do.

We knew there was a reason we were rooting so hard against Harry Reid in the recent election. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is it.

From The Detroit News:

Having survived a near-death experience on Election Day thanks largely to massive donations from labor unions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is paying back his benefactors. The Democrat from Nevada says that during Congress’ lame duck session he will try to once again force through a measure giving police and fire unions the upper hand in dealing with local communities.

Reid will seek a cloture vote on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which despite its name has little to do with cooperation. Rather, the bill would be a federal clone of Michigan’s disastrous Public Act 312, which is blamed with ruining the finances of scores of communities, including Detroit, and pushing many to the brink of bankruptcy.

In Michigan, where most major police and firefighters are already unionized, the largest impact would be in rural areas, since the law would also likely apply to volunteer fire departments. That would put most of those volunteer outfits out of business, and destroy an important grass-roots community protection network. These volunteers are often highly trained individuals who provide the only defense for their neighbors’ homes and property.

But the worse part of Reid’s union-buttering bill is that it would codify in federal law a state act that Michigan must get out from under if communities are to regain control of their finances.

(Source: October 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

With the results of the National Right to Work Committee’s federal Survey 2010 now in, Committee members from coast to coast keep turning up the heat on U.S. Senate and House candidates to publicly pledge 100% support for the Right to Work.

Committee members and supporters who receive the Newsletter through the U.S. Postal Service can find out whether and how their candidates responded to the Right to Work survey by consulting the Survey 2010 results roster enclosed with this month’s issue.

Pro-Right to Work Americans who have not yet received their Survey 2010 results may obtain a copy by contacting the Committee by e-mail – Members@NRTW.org  — or by dialing 1-800-325-7892.

By calling, writing, and visiting their candidates and urging them to declare themselves in opposition to forced unionism, Committee members are making forced unionism and the Right to Work red-hot issues in state after state this year.

Right to Work Activity Key to Stopping Big Labor

At this writing, just a few weeks remain until Election Day.

And reports from a wide array of pollsters and pundits indicate that the caucus of politicians who support Big Labor’s agenda on forced-unionism issues such as federally-mandated “card checks” will shrink significantly after voters go to the polls.

Consequently, union lobbyists may be hard-pressed in 2011 and 2012 to ram through legislation expanding union bosses’ coercive privileges over independent-minded private-sector employees and small businesses.

However, pro-forced unionism President Barack Obama will retain the power, for at least the next two years, to promote forced unionism by issuing executive orders and by appointing Big Labor shills to powerful federal agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Congress has the constitutional authority to thwart the President from unilaterally giving away the store, but doing so requires a strong commitment to principal on the part of senators and representatives.

Moreover, passage of Big Labor legislative schemes that do not blatantly attack private businesses and employees, including the AFL-CIO-backed Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, is likely to remain a grave threat in the 2011-2012 Congress regardless of the 2010 election results.

“Election results that are merely unfavorable for Barack Obama’s Democratic Party won’t nearly suffice to turn back the tide of forced unionism now that the President has already put Big Labor cheerleaders in charge of key agencies like the NLRB,” observed Committee President Mark Mix.

“And since several key legislative union power grabs such as the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill are backed by a significant number of GOP politicians as well as virtually all Democrat politicians, Right to Work supporters won’t be able to let their guard down on the legislative front, either.

“Whatever happens on November 2, Right to Work activity will remain critical for stopping Big Labor.”

Several Big Labor Senators Face Strong Challenges

This fall, Right to Work supporters hoping to enhance their ability to fight forced unionism over the next couple of years have multiple opportunities in U.S. Senate contests.

Just to start with, five current senators with pro-forced unionism records are, according to the latest polls, either trailing or running neck-and-neck in their re-election campaigns against 100% pro-Right to Work challengers.

Big Labor Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln is in the worst shape of all. Sen. Lincoln, who is seeking a third term, has a long track record of backing union special-interest legislation.

For example, in 2007 she voted to quash a Right to Work filibuster and help Big Labor ram through its notorious “Card-Check” Forced-Unionism Bill. And in the current Congress, she is a cosponsor of the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill.

Realizing too late that her history of subservience to Big Labor could kill her 2010 re-election hopes, Ms. Lincoln has tried to backpedal from her past votes for the “card-check” measure and other employee-coercing, economy-crushing schemes.

But freedom-loving Arkansans apparently aren’t fooled by the senator’s half-hearted gestures. Recent surveys indicate she is running well behind her GOP challenger, staunchly pro-Right to Work Congressman John Boozman.

Two other union-label senators, 2009 appointee Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and three-term incumbent Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), are also trailing their unabashedly pro-Right to Work challengers, Republicans Ken Buck (Colo.) and Ron Johnson (Wisc.), in recent polls, but by relatively small margins.

Yet another two union-boss lackey Democrats, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Patty Murray of Washington State, are statistically tied up with the across-the-board Right to Work supporters who are aiming to unseat them, Sharron Angle (R-Nev.) and Dino Rossi (R-Wash.)

Several ‘Open’ Seat Gains Likely or Possible For Right to Work Adherents

The number of Right to Work opportunities is even greater when it comes to “open” seats that have up to now been under union lobbyists’ control.

100% pro-Right to Work candidates are now narrowly leading in contests for “open” Senate seats now held by Big Labor water carriers in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

The candidates who are standing up to the union bosses are former U.S. Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.), former Congressman Pat Toomey (Pa.), and John Raese (W.Va.). Their Big Labor-backed Democrat rivals are Reps. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) and Joe Sestak (Pa.) and Gov. Joe Manchin (W.Va.).

Candidates who are vowing to support the Right to Work on all votes are also leading in races for two “open” seats that have been held by Republicans who only sporadically opposed union power grabs.

In Alaska, union boss-appeasing Republican Lisa Murkowski, a cosponsor of the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, was defeated in her primary contest this summer by forced-unionism foe Joe Miller.

Mr. Miller now leads both Big Labor favorite Scott McAdams (D) and Ms. Murkowski, who is running a long-shot general election campaign as a write-in candidate.

In Florida, former GOP Sen. Mel Martinez, who resigned last August, was another pro-union monopoly Republican. But the Republican nominee for the “open” seat, Marco Rubio, pledges full support for Right to Work.

Polls show Mr. Rubio leading over union-label “Independent” Gov. Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek. (Mr. Meek is currently a congressman.)

Finally, in one race for an “open” Senate seat now held by an anti-Right to Work Democratic politician, the pro-freedom candidate is currently trailing, but within striking distance.

Delaware GOP nominee Christine O’Donnell, a staunch Right to Work advocate, is fighting to catch up with Big Labor pet Chris Coons (D).

The National Right to Work Committee and its members (now 2.6 million, and growing) are determined to ensure that congressmen and senators who have carried water for Big Labor time and again are held accountable this fall.

Committee Rallies Members To Put Heat on CandidatesThe principal Committee program for holding politicians’ feet to the fire is the federal candidate Survey 2010.

The ongoing Survey 2010 consists of three phases.

In the first phase, candidates received questionnaires asking them how they intended to vote on a number of forced unionism-related issues, including mandatory “card checks,” federalized public-safety union monopoly bargaining, and national Right to Work legislation.

“The Committee’s goal is not just to secure enough support to block enactment of forced-unionism schemes like ‘card check’ legislation, but also to forge pro-Right to Work majorities in the Senate and House,” explained Committee President Mix.

“That’s why the Right to Work survey raises the pressure on candidates to oppose the expansion of Big Labor’s forced-unionism privileges, and also to support rolling those privileges back.”

In the second phase of the Survey 2010, Committee members called and wrote the candidates, asking them to answer their questionnaires 100% in favor of Right to Work.

In the final phase, the Committee, through TV and newspaper ads, e-mails and the postal service, is reporting back to members and friends at the local level on how their candidates responded. That keeps the heat on non-responsive candidates until Election Day to take a clear stand on the Right to Work issue.

“The aim of Big Labor’s billion-dollar, forced dues-funded electioneering program is to divert public attention from the damage that union-label politicians have wrought on America over the past two years and the even more severe damage they will do over the next two years if they can,” said Mr. Mix.

Public Doesn’t Support Compulsory Unionism

“Big Labor has far more money at its disposal than do Right to Work supporters, but the union bosses have one major problem: The general public, and even the workers they claim to represent, don’t support what they are selling,” Mr. Mix continued.

“Poll after poll shows that nearly 80% of Americans agree that no one should be forced to join or pay dues to a union, simply in order to keep his or her job.

“The Committee survey program works simply by ensuring that the Right to Work issue, which already has overwhelming public support, remains in the spotlight throughout the campaign season.

“With members’ generous support, I’m confident that this fall the federal survey will force candidate after candidate either to pledge to stop attacking employees’ Right to Work, or face serious repercussions at the polls.”

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.

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.

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.”

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Just before the U.S. Congress adjourned for a week-long Independence Day recess, Big Labor House members rubber-stamped legislation that would federally impose union monopoly bargaining over state and local public-safety employees.

The legislation (H.R.413), cynically mislabeled as the “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act,” would, at a time when government budget deficits are already sky high, hobble the ability of states and localities to keep their expenditures of taxpayer dollars under control.

Incredibly, the House voted July 1 to attach this scheme to a massive spending bill that provides funding for U.S. troops. The Senate is expected to take up this war supplemental bill, with H.R.413 attached, some time this month.

H.R.413 would empower Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) bureaucrats to survey all 50 states and identify which have failed to meet the legislation’s “core standards.”

And the key “core standard” is mandatory union monopoly bargaining. Localities in all 50 states would be denied the option to refuse to grant a single public-safety union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join.

Bill ‘Further Empowers An Already Strong Lobby’

Monopoly bargaining, euphemistically labeled as “exclusive representation,” would be foisted on police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide. And in most states that already authorize public-safety union monopoly bargaining, H.R.413 would widen its scope.

As Wall Street Journal reporter Kris Maher recently noted, under this legislation, if any state refused to institute monopoly bargaining and comply with other mandates, FLRA bureaucrats “would step in and implement” them themselves.

A wide spectrum of political observers, inside the D.C. Beltway and around the country, have blasted H.R.413 and its Senate companion, S.3194, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as a budget-busting power grab.

For example, last month both the liberal Washington Post and the conservative National Review ran editorials urging Congress to block H.R.413/S.3194.

“What this bill would do,” charged the Post’s editors, “is impose a permanent, one-size-fits-all federal solution in an area — public-sector labor relations — that has traditionally been left to the states, and where state flexibility is probably more necessary than ever. . . . The bill further empowers an already strong lobby . . . .”

The editors of National Review (online edition) were even more forthright:

“Government employees’ unions already maintain a death grip on the finances of most state and local governments, and a remarkably bad piece of legislation — the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act — threatens to tighten that stranglehold . . . .”

Of course, the fact that liberal, conservative and moderate analysts recognize H.R.413/S.3194 as bad in principle and extraordinarily ill-timed doesn’t trouble Mr. Reid and union-label Democratic Congressman Dale Kildee (Mich.), the lead sponsor of the House legislation.

Harry Reid Cannot Prevail Without GOP Collaborators

The bottom line for them is that their legislation would empower and enrich union officials who are one of the Democratic Party’s “most important constituencies,” as National Review’s editors put it.

However, Democratic politicians, despite controlling the White House and substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress, cannot make Kildee-Reid the law of the land all on their own.

At this writing, due to the death late last month of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mr. Reid’s majority caucus consists of 58 senators, 56 Democrats plus pro-forced unionism “Independents” Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.).

But, regardless of the total number of senators at any time, it takes 60 to bring up a piece of legislation for a final vote if opponents seek to block it by launching an extended debate.

And the National Right to Work Committee, which is leading the opposition to Kildee-Reid on Capitol Hill, and its Senate allies already have a plan in place to sustain an extended debate against this legislation.

That’s why Harry Reid must pick up several GOP votes, while holding on to the votes of several Democrats from strong Right to Work states, in order to ram H.R.413 through the Senate.

“At this time, six GOP senators are sponsoring S.1611, monopoly-bargaining legislation that is virtually identical to the Reid bill,” noted Right to Work President Mark Mix.

“To thwart the federalization of union monopoly control over public-safety officers, Right to Work supporters must convince at least three of these senators to back away from their support for this scheme, and also convince at least two or three Democrats to oppose H.R.413.

“One Senate Democrat, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, has already said publicly she will oppose the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, even though she usually votes with Big Labor. She reiterated her opposition just last month.”

History Shows Appeasement Won’t Insulate GOP Politicians

“Committee leaders are hopeful that, if pro-Right to Work constituents keep raising the pressure, they can ensure that Ms. Hagan keeps her word, and that a couple of other Democrats join her in opposing H.R.413,” Mr. Mix continued.

“But that won’t be enough to defeat the Kildee-Reid bill unless several would-be GOP appeasers of Big Labor reconsider their support for expanding government union bosses’ monopoly privileges.

“Right now, freedom-loving constituents are turning up the heat on all six GOP sponsors of S.1611, especially Sens. Scott Brown [Mass.], Mike Johanns [Neb.], and Lisa Murkowski [Alaska].

“Right to Work supporters are also reminding these senators that, in 2008 alone, four GOP senators who had tried to appease Big Labor by cosponsoring the 2007-2008 version of the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill were tossed out by their constituents.

“History shows forced-unionism appeasement won’t insulate politicians from Big Labor attacks — but will anger their constituents.”

Bill Would Pave Way For Union Monopoly Control Over All Public Employees

Mr. Mix acknowledged that Right to Work supporters face an uphill battle to block H.R.413 in the Senate. But this power grab is so dangerous, he added, that Committee members must do everything possible to stop it.

“Kildee/Reid would constitute a major step towards Big Labor’s decades-old goal of enacting a federal law that foists union monopoly bargaining on front-line state and local employees of all types across America.

“As union bigwig Anna Burger, head of the ‘Change to Win’ union conglomerate, recently boasted, H.R.413/S.3194 would ‘create a national collective,’ i.e., monopoly, ‘bargaining standard for all public workers.’

“In other words, if Congress federalizes union monopoly control over public-safety employees, the federalization of union monopoly bargaining over teachers, and state and local public servants of every other kind, will be next.

“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.”

Refusal to Respond to Right to Work Survey ‘Raised Concerns’

Just a few months ago, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson was widely considered the favorite to win the GOP nomination this year for the U.S. Senate seat now held by pro-Right to Work Republican Jim Bunning, who is retiring after two terms.

A number of pundits contended that the strong support of Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior U.S. senator and the head of the GOP minority in the upper chamber of Congress, would practically guarantee Mr. Grayson’s nomination.

However, the Grayson campaign made serious misjudgments during the final weeks before Kentucky’s May 18 primaries.

Most important to pro-Right to Work Kentuckians, Mr. Grayson refused to pledge to oppose several of the top power grabs now being advanced on Capitol Hill by Organized Labor, the #1 pro-Big Government special-interest group in America today.

More broadly, many voters who were deeply concerned about the rapid growth in federal spending under the George W. Bush Administration as well as under the current one became convinced Mr. Grayson lacked the intestinal fortitude to fight to reduce spending from its current stratospheric level.

‘Any Genuine Opponent of Big Government Would Eagerly Oppose’ Police/Fire Scheme

“One of the top items on Congress’s agenda this year is an intrusive federal mandate that would impair the ability of states and localities to keep their expenditures of taxpayer dollars under control,” noted National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Any genuine opponent of Big Government would eagerly oppose this scheme, union bosses’ Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill [S.3194/H.R.413].

“Yet Trey Grayson refused to say a word against this destructive legislation, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of Committee members and supporters in Kentucky asked him to do so, time and time again.

“And his silence was especially disturbing because a handful of Senate Republicans are already publicly supporting the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill. Even one more could potentially make the difference.

“Fortunately, in this election Kentucky primary voters had several other candidates to choose from who pledged to oppose public-safety union monopoly bargaining and support Right to Work 100%. And one of them, opthamologist Rand Paul, was a top-tier candidate.”

In the end, Mr. Paul, who had started out the primary campaign as the distinct underdog, soundly defeated Mr. Grayson by a whopping 59% to 35% margin.

Big Government Is Big Labor’s ‘Bread and Butter’

By handing Mr. Paul a decisive victory, Kentucky primary voters sent a clear message to Capitol Hill Republicans that they want candidates who really will fight against the expansion of forced unionism and the increased cost of Big Government it brings, and not just mouth “feel good” rhetoric about this serious and rapidly growing problem.

“Trey Grayson’s refusal to respond to his Right to Work candidate survey this year, especially to the questions concerning public-sector forced unionism, clearly raised concerns that he was going to be just another ‘Big Government Republican,’” observed Mr. Mix.

“Kentucky voters were right to be concerned.

“Over the course of the past few decades, public servants, especially state and local public employees, have become Big Labor’s bread and butter.

“By 2009, union officials wielded monopoly-bargaining power over 7.5 million state and local employees, nearly 43% of all such employees nationwide, compared to just 8% of private-sector workers.

“Moreover, for many years now, Big Labor featherbedding and counterproductive work rules have sharply increased real taxpayer costs for compensation of state and local government employees.

“In fact, from 1998 to 2008 alone, taxpayers’ aggregate real costs for compensation of state and local government employees soared at a rate nearly 50% faster than the total real growth of private-sector employee compensation!”

Mr. Mix continued: “S.3194 and H.R.413, sponsored, respectively, by Big Labor Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and union-label Michigan Democratic Congressman Dale Kildee, would sock it to taxpayers again.

“This legislation would impose a new federal mandate ensuring that government union bosses get monopoly-bargaining privileges over additional hundreds of thousands of state and local public-safety employees.

“And the reason it is now on the verge of passage is that a handful of Senate Republicans are siding with Mr. Reid. In the House as well, a minority of Republicans, along with practically all Democrats, are in favor of the monopoly-bargaining bill.

“But scientific polls and multiple election results show that citizens across America overwhelmingly oppose public-sector union monopoly bargaining.

“The stinging defeat Trey Grayson suffered in Kentucky, after the Committee had notified hundreds of thousands of citizens through the mail and the Internet about his pointed refusal to oppose Reid/Kildee, is only the latest example.

“I’m cautiously optimistic the Kentucky election results will serve as a wake-up call for the D.C. establishment regarding just how deeply unpopular the Reid/Kildee legislation is.”

System That Congress Wants To Expand Is Currently Bankrupting Los Angeles

Reid-Kildee would federally impose union monopoly bargaining by denying localities the option to refuse to grant a single public-safety union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join.

Monopoly bargaining, euphemistically labeled as “exclusive representation,” would be foisted on state and local police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide.

And in most states that already authorize public-safety union monopoly bargaining, S.3194/H.R.413 would widen its scope.

“In every political jurisdiction, public spending tends to grow faster than taxpayers’ incomes, rendering government costs more and more burdensome over time. But decades of experience shows public-sector monopoly bargaining greatly exacerbates this problem,” Mr. Mix commented.

“For example, this summer the skyrocketing costs of public-safety monopoly bargaining are frighteningly close to driving the once-great city of Los Angeles into insolvency. L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa [D], himself a former union organizer, has acknowledged the real possibility.

“Congress must not federalize the very system that is now bankrupting Los Angeles. It’s just that simple.”

May’s issue contains the following headlines:

Police/Fire Union Scheme Prepped For Floor Vote – Bill Would Herd Now-Independent ‘First Responders’ Into Unions

Iowans Again Defeat Forced-Union-Fee Scheme – But Hawkeye State’s Popular Right to Work Law Still Under Fire

New Jersey’s ‘Day of Reckoning Has Arrived’ — Government Union Monopolists Have Brought State to Brink of Ruin

Why Is Big Labor ‘Out of Touch’ With Workers? — Forced-Unionism Privileges, Not Fat Paychecks, Are the Root Cause

Forced-Unionism Expansion, by Hook or Crook — Big Labor ‘Organizing’ Strategy Reliant on Washington, D.C.

Fewer Bidders = Higher Costs For Taxpayers — White House Federal-Contract Policy Rewards Big Labor Patrons

To view these and other recent Committee Newsletter articles online, click here to go to the Committee’s “Newsroom” section where the 20 most recent newsletter articles can be easily viewed.