Considering the record electioneering by Big Labor in 2008, it should be no surprise that union bosses were well-represented at this week's convention. NEA President Reg Weaver was one of the many union officials awarded for his union's political expenditures with a prime speaking slot.

Larry Sand, a teacher for 27 years and former NEA member, sent Weaver an e-mail after listening to a gross misrepresentation of reality in Weaver's DNC speech:

In the first paragraph you say, "I am here today on behalf of 3.2 million NEA members to tell you why we support Barack Obama for President of the United States." Wait a minute. It sounds as if all 3.2 million members of the NEA are supporting Obama. Then in the last sentence, you leave no doubt. "That, my friends, is why the 3.2 million members of the National Education Association are organized, energized and mobilized to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America." This last statement is an outrage.

You have been quoted on more than one occasion that "the NEA is one-third Republican," which means that there are over one million Republican NEA members. It is audacity of the highest order to state unequivocally that these people will be "organized, energized and mobilized" to vote for a Democrat. I have been a classroom teacher for over 27 years and for many of those an NEA member, before resigning from the "Association" several years ago. I would strongly urge you to issue an apology to those Republicans still in the NEA and the American public in general for what really is a ludicrous statement.

If Weaver ever gets around to apologizing, he shouldn't only do so to the million-plus members who are Republicans since as many more are independents. Not to mention the countless Democrats who aren't in lockstep with the radical agenda of Weaver and the NEA's top brass -- many who may not even be supporters of Reg Weaver's presidential pick. And remember, these teachers are forced to finance the NEA's political activism.

As it happens, Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, has an op-ed on the problems of teacher union monopoly power in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Also check out this column in the Providence Journal from Gary Beckner, executive director of the Association of American Educators, a nonprofit professional teachers association that is entirely voluntary.

On behalf of the Foundation, I'd like to wish everyone a safe and happy Labor Day weekend. While I hope everyone enjoys their day off, now seems like an appropriate time to flag Foundation President Mark Mix's statement commemorating the occasion. Here's an excerpt:

“Meanwhile, many workers feel they have little choice but to pay for organized labor’s billion-dollar 2008 election campaign, and many workers are unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide seeking to get their money back. In fact, in October Foundation attorneys will argue their fourteenth case accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court – a case which defends the right of workers to refuse to pay for union activism using their mandatory union dues.

“This Labor Day, we commend those courageous American workers who are standing up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms of conscience, speech, and association. And we work toward the day when no American is forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

Read the rest of the statement (and download it as an Mp3) here or simply play the YouTube below from the Foundation's YouTube channel:

Workers from across the country have received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation. Now they're speaking out to encourage others to stand up for their rights in this latest Right to Work video:

As always, check back at the Foundation's YouTube channel for more Right to Work video updates. Many of the workers featured in this week's segment have appeared in previous Foundation video interviews describing their stories in greater detail.

Today, the Wall Street Journal editorialized on the fact that Big Labor “has won the intellectual battle for control of the Democratic Party and is reasserting its agenda in a way not seen since the 1970’s.” The WSJ notes Big Labor’s political influence, especially within the Democratic Party, has been steadily increasing over the years.

At the top of Big Labor's agenda is, of course, more compulsory unionism privileges to force workers into dues-paying union ranks:

[R]ewriting federal law to promote union organizing is now near the top of the Democratic agenda. The main vehicle is "card check" legislation, which would eliminate the requirement for secret ballots in union elections. Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation. This would arguably be the biggest change to federal labor law since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Democratic House passed card check last year, and Mr. Obama has pledged his support. With a few more Senators, it might pass.

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal "right to work" laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories.

Last week, the New York Times reported that Manhattan Federal District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. ordered a one-year continuation of governmental oversight of the New York City carpenters’ union, citing recent bribery convictions of several local bosses, extensive off-the-books work, and an incident where union militants beat up a worker outside a Catholic school until he was unconscious (because he had the gall to challenge the insiders in a union election).

The union has spent the last 14 years under government supervision after signing a consent decree in a civil racketeering case alleging organized crime figures were favored for high-pay but no-show jobs. Regardless, union officials felt it necessary to argue in court that they do not need supervision. Their thugs all but erased any chance of that when they assaulted a dissident candidate.

Judge Haight agreed with the United States attorney’s argument that supervision would end when the union’s corruption had been eradicated. However, as blogger Warner Todd Huston noted, “The judge did mention that the union had done better since it originally went into government oversight, but that it is way too early to claim that the Mob influence and corruption is excised from the union.”

Indeed, the only reliable way to end this union corruption would be to end compulsory unionism.

A few Right to Work-related updates from around the web:

1.) The Heritage Foundation's Foundry blog helpfully summarizes the corruption allegations surrounding Tyrone Freeman, head of California's SEIU chapter. What's worse, union mismanagement goes all the way to the top. According to the LA Times, SEIU national brass received word of Freeman's corrupt practices six years ago and still failed to act. (This is the same local union against which Foundation attorneys won a federal court settlement securing the return of almost $10 million in illegally seized forced union dues.)

Read the whole entry here.

2.) The New York Sun featured a great editorial yesterday on union bosses' half-hearted efforts at workplace "representation." Money quote:

But even as unions promote counterproductive economic policies, and push for legislation allowing them to essentially force more workers into their ranks, a look at union finances shows that many unions aren't looking after the members they already have — especially their retirement plans.

The Sheet Metal Workers International Union says prominently on its Web site that "Union Members Have Strong Retirement Plans."

But it turns out — as disclosed in unions' mandatory annual financial reports to the Labor Department — that the Sheet Metal workers' union pension plan is underfunded and so risks the future pensions promised to its members. Many other union pension plans are in similar straits.

This isn't an isolated incident, either. Check out the rest of the article for an in-depth look at the glaring disparity between union bosses' lavish salaries and the shortfalls facing rank-and-file workers' pension funds.

3.) Townhall.com has an article up on unions' efforts to ram the misleadingly-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" down workers' throats. The piece also mentions the Foundation's efforts to hold the SEIU accountable for a questionable political fundraising scheme:

In fact, alleged coercion for political gain is already occurring. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Department of Justice to investigate the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The basis for the request centers on this fact:

“The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in ‘local union funds’ equal to the ‘deficiency’ plus a 50% penalty.” (The Wall Street Journal, 7/28/08)

Can you name any other company or organization that could compel its membership to fund political organizations that rank and file membership may or may not agree with?

For more information on the Foundation's efforts to deter illegal union campaign fundraising, check out here, here, and here.