The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) recently published a fact sheet discussing U.S. Census Bureau data from 1999 to 2007 that shows the "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill and similar legislative "compromises" actually endanger workers' access to health insurance.

According to NILRR's observations:

As of 1999, according to economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, 10.2% of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation.  In 10 states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Washington -- 14% or more of private-sector employees were unionized. From 1999 to 2007, these states suffered an aggregate decline of 3.0%, or 1.44 million, in the number of people with private, job-based health insurance.

The 22 states with 1999 private-sector unionization of between 7.0% and 13.9% also experienced an overall decline in access to job-based insurance, but the decline was substantially less
severe. The employment-based insurance rolls in these states -- Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming -- fell by 843,000, or 1.2%, from 1999 to 2007.

Meanwhile, the 18 states with 1999 private-sector unionization of no more than 6.9% -- Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia -- had a very different experience. These least-unionized states enjoyed an increase of 2.96 million, or 5.2%,
in the number of people with job-based private health insurance.

NILRR sums up their findings by stating, "there is a strong negative correlation between the growth in the ranks of the privately insured within a state and the share of its private-sector employees who are subject to union monopoly bargaining."  In other words, in states where union bosses are more likely to hold their grasp on private-sector workers in the workplace by claiming monopoly bargaining privileges over them, the more likely the number of those employees and their families receiving private health insurance from their employer will decrease -- i.e. forced unionism threatens workers' access to private-sector job-based health insurance. 

Enter Big Labor's latest compulsory-dues power grab: card check forced unionism.  Card check forced unionism (and similar legislative "compromises" being floated in the U.S. Senate right now) intends to help Big Labor herd more workers into compulsory unionism by making it easier for union bosses to use coercion and intimidation to claim monopoly-bargaining power over millions of additional workers.  However, NILRR's research illustrates that President Barack Obama and Congressional compulsory unionism advocates are working steadily to sell out not only workers' rights -- but also their well-being -- to continue to dole out paybacks for Big Labor's political support.

For more on NILRR's findings, click here.

To regular readers of Freedom@Work, it's certainly no secret that Big Labor's union bosses, in the face of greater difficulty in winning workers over voluntarily, are always working to come up with new schemes to force workers into full-dues-paying union membership.

Of course, one major way union bosses get around this inconvenient truth is to use workers' forced dues for politics, essentially buying political power to steer our already intrusive Federal government toward coercive policy to force more workers into union ranks.

On Tuesday, Big Labor's upper echelon announced the formation of a committee dedicated to an alliance of our nation's 12 largest unions.   The unification committee is to be led by Big Labor front group "American Rights at Work" President David Bonior.  Their goal?  You guessed it:  wielding the power of the Federal government to coerce more workers into forced unionism.

Union bosses are prone to freely and constantly shift their associations with each other.  But every day they hypocritically infringe on workers' own freedom of association.

Last week, Big Labor's bought-and-paid-for politicians in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate introduced the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill. This Big Labor-endorsed compulsory unionism scheme is intended to give federal government bureaucrats the unprecedented power to impose wages and working conditions, including forced union dues, on employees and employers after workers are herded into union collectives without even a secret ballot election.

Neal Catlett, former union president at a Whirlpool plant in Arkansas, spoke out against Big Labor's card check coercion:

Catlett, now retired from Whirlpool, opposes card check. He told The City Wire that he has seen plenty of “nonsense” among Whirlpool leaders and union leaders to know that anything other than a secret ballot will lead to intimidation, coercion and corruption on all sides.

“I strongly support secret ballots. Period. It doesn’t matter at what level, whether it is voting for a union or the president or your congressman,” Catlett said. “Your ideas should be personal as to if you want a union or don’t want a union.”

Card check is a dangerous encroachment on workers' rights in the workplace and opens up the door for a flood of union intimidation and coercion to force more workers into forced-union-dues-paying ranks. Carlett, discrediting any claim that the legislation protects workers based on his own personal experience as a union president, hit the nail on the head when he stated:

“Doing away with the secret ballot is not good for the unions. It’s not good for any business... Open voting creates an atmosphere of intimidation. It creates an atmosphere where people will use your opinion against you. I’ve seen the threats and I’ve actually seen the physical conflict, if you know what I mean, come from the business side and from the union side,” Catlett said. “I just don’t see how any process that is not private will protect the worker.”

Frankly, we suggest Cartlett hire a bodyguard immediately.  We're not kidding.  Union retribution can be swift and ugly.

It's fascinating to examine the mindset of union partisans fighting to enact the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a Card Check Forced Unionism Act), which would virtually eliminate the secret ballot in workplace elections.

Jon Tasini, a union consultant and former union boss, supports Card Check Forced Unionism which would allow union goons to collect "votes" in public by repeatedly harassing workers at the job and at home.

But Tasini thinks the Card Check Forced Unionism does not go far enough. He'd rather just have absolute government-imposed forced unionism, like China, where the authoritarian regime simply tells companies "you have to have unions" -- and that's, that.

Read Tasini's entire post here.

Note that he doesn't even attempt to couch his support of the bill under the premise that card card is a better barometer of majority support than an election (which, of course, is absurd). In fact, there's no mention of majority support at all -- or even whether or not ANY of the workers at a company want to unionize.

Politico reports that House Dems are gearing up for a battle over the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee between Representatives Waxman and Dingell:

The race itself remains a tough one to call. “I’m not even sure the candidates know,” said Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, a Waxman supporter.

And most lawmakers dread picking sides.

Asked who she would be supporting, Rules Chairwoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York exclaimed, “Oh, it’s a secret ballot, thank the Lord.”

But while Slaughter literally praises God for the fact that she can vote in private, she also is a cosponsor of an effort to strip workers of their access to a secret-ballot vote for unionization. Does she even notice the rank hypocrisy?

In this special episode of the National Right to Work Podcast, National Right to Work Committee and Foundation President Mark Mix tells host Stefan Gleason about the ramifications of the power-shifting election.

Vice President Stefan Gleason sits down with Foundation Staff Attorney Glenn Taubman to discuss the ugly realities of coercive card-check organizing drives and Big Labor's efforts to make this process for unionization mandatory; Listen here:

For additional background, check out this op-ed from Foundation President Mark Mix.

You can also listen to the Foundation's podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.

[Note: Firefox users have reported that the audio is distorted when using the player above. To ensure the podcast plays correctly just click here to listen.]

Big Labor is spending north of a billion dollars to get their favored candidates elected, much of it from employees forced to pay dues to keep their job. Union bosses see it as a smart investment given the forced unionism power grabs that could quickly become law if their chosen candidates take office.

As detailed in today's Wall Street Journal, those power grabs would mean literally billions new forced dues dollars flowing into union bosses' coffers.  There is no question that Foundation attorneys will be overwhelmed with legal aid requests from workers seeking refuge from the onslaught:

Big Labor is hoping to have a big election next Tuesday, with a goal of building a majority to rewrite negotiating rules between unions and management. Though it has received little media attention, Barack Obama's pro-union agenda is the most ambitious in decades and has a real prospect of becoming law. His stated goal is to "strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions" by doing the following:

- Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Unions would be certified to negotiate pay, benefits and work rules simply by collecting signed "union authorization cards" from a majority of employees at a work site. The law passed the House in 2007 but didn't come up for a Senate vote.

Under current law, union organizers and management both have the opportunity to present the pros and cons of forming a union. A secret employee vote is then held. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, unions would be the sole provider of information to the employee, and the worker's decision whether to organize would no longer be private.

Unions say current law favors management, which can stall to a point where workers lose interest in organizing. But the median number of days between filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and holding an election has actually fallen over the past two decades. In 2007, more than 1,500 such elections were held, and unions won 54% of them, the same win rate of the early 1970s.

- Another labor-friendly provision of the Employee Free Choice Act is mandatory arbitration. Under current law, labor and management are required to bargain in good faith but aren't obliged to reach an agreement. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, if the parties can't settle on a contract within 120 days, the dispute goes to an arbitration panel which can impose a contract that is binding for two years.

As a practical matter, contracts typically involve dozens of provisions dealing with wages as well as seniority, grievances, overtime, transfers and promotions. Rarely is this accomplished in four months. The provision would notably shift bargaining power to unions, which would have an incentive to run out the 120-day clock and let an arbitrator impose a contract that is bound to include much of what unions demand.

- Mr. Obama also supports legislation to reverse the NLRB's "Kentucky River" ruling last year, which fleshed out the definition of a supervisor for the purposes of organizing. Unions usually prefer a narrow definition of management, because it increases the number of people potentially under their control. Conversely, labor has worked to expand the definition of "employee" to include everyone from temp workers to graduate-student teaching assistants.

- The Democrat also wants to bar companies from replacing striking workers -- a right that management has held for some 70 years. Unions made a similar push in the early 1990s, and a bill passed the House but was blocked in the Senate. Mr. Clinton issued an executive order that would have ended the provision for federal contractors. It was struck down in federal court. Mr. Clinton then tried to get the NLRB to make it more difficult to replace striking workers. The courts overturned that too. Mr. Obama says he will "work to ban the provision," but hasn't provided specifics.

- Mr. Obama supports the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act and has said he'd push for its enactment as president. The bill, which passed the House last year and already has 60 votes in the Senate, would force state and local governments to recognize union leaders as the exclusive bargaining agent for police, firefighters and other first responders. More than half of the states would have to change their laws. Thousands of public safety officers would no longer be able to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf.

Read the whole thing here.

For background on Big Labor's plans, listen to this Right to Work podcast with Greg Mourad of the National Right to Work Committee.

Here's a telling video of former union organizers describing the pressure, intimidation and even outright dishonesty that goes into collecting cards for a card check.

Today USA Today, the largest circulation newspaper in the country, editorializes against efforts to impose the coercive Card Check Instant Organizing on every worker in America:

Under the current system, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.

Under a major rewrite of U.S. labor law being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.

This misguided measure passed the House shortly after Democrats took the majority in 2007. But it needs several more votes in the Senate and a president who will sign it. Barack Obama supports it; John McCain does not. It's no surprise, then, that the AFL-CIO plans to spend an eye-popping $200 million this election cycle to support Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress. A win for Obama and big gains for Senate Democrats could remove the remaining obstacles to the euphemistically named "Employee Free Choice Act."

Cajoled choice is more like it. The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome.

Labor leaders [sic], such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney in the space below, argue that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.

Read the whole thing here. USA Today's editorial board joins a growing chorus of voices from across the political spectrum recognizing the horrible abuses involved in "card check" organizing.  Here, for example, is former United States Senator and leftist George McGovern writing about the dangers of Card Check Instant Organizing.