Last week, the pro-worker think tank National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released a Fact Sheet entitled “Negative Employment Growth Since November 2001” that details how highly-unionized states are suffering a "lost decade" in terms of private-sector job growth, while the least-unionized states have benefited from a nearly 1.5 million private-sector job growth:

As of 2001, the year of the last national recession prior to the current one, 9.7% of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation. But in 16 states – Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,. Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin – 11.0% or more of private-sector workers were unionized.

From November 2001, the trough of the last recession, through June 2009, the most recent month for which non-preliminary, state-by-state payroll jobs data are available at this writing, these 16 heavily unionized states suffered an aggregate private-sector job loss of 990,000 – or 2.2% of their November 2001 total. Ten of the 16 states, or nearly two-thirds, had fewer private-sector jobs in June 2009 than they had had nearly eight years earlier.

...

The overall job losses in states with average private-sector unionization were far smaller than in heavily unionized states, and the 16 states which had private-sector unionization of 6.0% or less in 2001 actually gained jobs.

These low union-density states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia. They gained an aggregate of nearly 1.5 million private-sector jobs from November 2001 through June 2009. That constitutes a 4.5% increase.

Even with recent setbacks taken into account, fifteen of the 16, or 94%, of the lowest union-density states have experienced net job gains since November 2001.

Putting aside the inherent abuse of workers' rights, the data clearly indicates that job growth is negatively impacted by Big Labor's government-granted monopoly bargaining special privileges.  Yet NILRR's findings should come to no surprise to regular Freedom@Work readers, as we reported recently:

NILRR recently found an especially strong correlation between a state’s Right to Work status and its job growth, while employees in Right to Work states are benefiting from faster job growth and higher real purchasing power than their compulsory unionism counterparts.

History clearly demonstrates how union monopolists have hindered the creation of new jobs with costly operating procedures and wasteful work rules, especially during times of financial hardship.  Meanwhile, union bosses use their monopoly bargaining and other special forced-dues privileges to fill their political coffers while proliferating Big Government-mandated regulations on job providers and higher taxes on employers and employees alike. 

Experts from the National Right to Work Foundation and Right to Work Committee took to the airwaves and opinion pages across America to remind us what Labor Day is really about —  the individual worker.

Mark Mix, president of National Right to Work, reminded Americans that "It's 'Labor' Day, Not 'Union' Day" in his nationally published op-ed which appeared in over 20 newspapers across the country.  In his article, Mix offers a stouthearted rebuke to the usual union boss propaganda which has become commonplace on Labor Day:

This Labor Day, big labor bosses will dish out their usual Labor Day propaganda about how awful our lives would supposedly be without them.  The reality is that millions of workers and indeed our economy are continuing to suffer greatly under the scourge of compulsory unionism.

...

Labor Day should be about honoring the hardworking Americans who make our country’s economy prosper — not union bosses who rely on forced unionism privileges for personal and political gain.

Mark Mix also took to the airwaves, appearing on The Dom Giordano Show, The Martha Zoller Show, and the national CBS radio network.  He also appeared on WFTL Morning News the morning after Labor Day.  Meanwhile, Mix's Labor Day statement was aired on at least 10 radio stations in Right-to-Work states and forced-unionism states alike. 

Mix was also published in the Detroit News discussing how union boss monopoly bargaining is bankrupting Detroit’s public schools -- pointing out the reality that "[t]he Detroit school district would be much better off if state legislators and [Michigan] Gov. Jennifer Granholm repealed or dramatically rolled back state policies promoting union monopoly bargaining in public schools."

Mix also was published on National Review Online exposing the stunning resemblance forced unionism has to the launching of President Barack Obama's political career:

Why is Obama so comfortable with this coercive approach to workplace organizing? Perhaps because his political career was launched under similar circumstances. Few remember it now, but Obama’s electoral debut came in 1996, when he won a seat in the Illinois state legislature. “Won” is a bit of a misnomer, however, as candidate Obama ruthlessly eliminated his opponents by disqualifying signatures collected for ballot eligibility.

As former National Review political reporter David Freddoso detailed in his 2008 book on Obama, voters’ signatures were thrown out for a variety of spurious reasons, including one woman’s failure to list her married name instead of her maiden name. Other voters were struck from the lists for printing instead of signing their names on the eligibility petitions. Obama not only had his main opponent disqualified, he also succeeded in forcing a protest candidate off the ballot. Obama has personally admitted he felt “uncomfortable” with this hardball political tactic, but success has evidently allayed any guilt. After his opponents were disqualified, Obama won a seat in the state legislature by default.

...

In 1996, Obama’s team of political operatives succeeded in bypassing an entire election. President Obama now seeks to end elections in every workplace in the country. He has already issued a series of executive orders designed to pressure government contractors to submit to compulsory unionism. Next up on the administration’s checklist: rolling back basic union financial-disclosure guidelines. Forced unionism via card check may not be far behind.

Under card check, employees would have only one choice: submit to unionization and forced union dues. As some Chicago voters discovered in 1996, having only one choice is not a real choice at all.

The National Right to Work Committee also capitalized on the Labor Day holiday to spread the message of individual liberty.  Committee Vice President Doug Stafford appeared on the Lars Larson Show on the lead up to Labor Day.  Stafford also sat down with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to talk of the dangers of card check forced unionism and Big Labor's political muscle.

The effort for workplace freedom continues.  National Right to Work will continue to expose the evils of compulsory unionism as we work toward a day in which no American if forced to be a member of, or pay tribute to, an unwanted union.

Contrary to the usual propaganda union bosses would like you to believe, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) -- an anti-compulsory unionism think tank that exposes the harm forced unionism inflicts on workers -- released a report today entitled "Union Monopoly Linked to Lower Purchasing Power" that details how workers in least-unionized states enjoy the benefits of higher cost-of-living-adjusted earnings and disposable incomes.

You see, not only does government-granted union monopoly bargaining privileges infringe on employees' individual liberty, it also harms employees' economic interests.

According to NILRR:

As of 2008, according to economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, 8.4% of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation. But in 15 states -- Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,. Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin --10.0% or more of private-sector workers were unionized.

...

In 2008, cost of living-adjusted average weekly earnings in the states with 10.0% or more of private-sector employees subject to union monopoly bargaining were $770.

That’s $48 less than the average in the states with private-sector unionization of 5.0% or less. (These low-union density states are: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.) That comes to a roughly $2500-a-year disadvantage for full-time workers in states with high monopoly-bargaining density.

Aggregate cost of living-adjusted weekly earnings for states with private-sector union density of 5.1% to 9.9% were $783, or, for full-time workers, nearly $700 a year more than in the highest-union-density states, but more than $1800 a year less than in the lowest-union-density states.

NILRR also reports that "disposable income data tell the same story."

The economic benefits of voluntary union membership should come to no surprise to regular Freedom@Work readers, as we reported last month in "Compulsory Unionism Bankrupting States: Workers Flee to Right to Work States for Jobs":

NILRR recently found an especially strong correlation between a state’s Right to Work status and its job growth, while employees in Right to Work states are benefiting from faster job growth and higher real purchasing power than their compulsory unionism counterparts.

To view NILRR's fact sheet "Union Monopoly Linked to Lower Purchasing Power", click here.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has just published an eye-opening fact sheet revealing the dangers of Big Labor's latest push to use the U.S. Congress to impose union monopoly bargaining and forced dues on public safety workers in cash-strapped states and localities.

Never satisfied with the special privileges already granted to them by their bought-and-paid-for lackeys at all levels of government, union bosses are pushing alarming new federal legislative proposals that increase their stranglehold on otherwise independent-minded workers, such as the draconian Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining bill (H.R. 413).  States have rejected similar legislation dozens of time in recent year.  (In fact, Big Labor-backed Democrat Governor Bill Ritter in Colorado vetoed such a bill at the request of cash-strapped mayors).

The Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining bill would allow public safety union bosses to seize monopoly bargaining privileges over public safety employees who otherwise have chosen to refrain from being represented by or  financially supporting a union. Union officials would gain new powers in 28 states to become  "exclusive bargaining agents" of all public safety employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving the employees of the right to make their own individual employment contracts.

According to NILRR:

The only policies acceptable under this measure are those that empower union bosses to bargain on behalf of police and firefighters who have refused to join the union and want nothing to do with it, as well as those who have voluntarily joined.

...H.R. 413 would rewrite the public-sector labor laws of the vast majority of the 50 states to make them more pro-forced unionism.

In states that don’t currently authorize public-safety monopoly bargaining, H.R. 413 would impose it, denying localities the option to refuse to grant a single union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join. And in most states that already authorize union monopoly bargaining, H.R. 413 would widen its scope.

To view NILRR's fact sheet, click here.

Employees Force Settlement in Precedent-Setting Federal Union Racketeering Lawsuit

Right to Work Foundation uses innovative legal techniques after company and union officials collude to enrich union bosses

Phoenix, AZ (July 22, 2009) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, five Phoenix-based employees who refrained from formal dues-paying union membership forced a settlement with the defendants in a federal lawsuit laying out how union agents conducted a corrupt scheme to divert sales commissions from the employees to union officials.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys used the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) anti-corruption statute (establishing new legal precedent in the process) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) to attack a scheme allegedly orchestrated by Qwest Communications and Dex Media, publisher of the yellow pages phone books, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1269 union bosses.

Evidence discovered in the lawsuit showed that IBEW Local 1269 union officials manipulated company procedures to receive greater compensation at the expense of the nonunion plaintiffs. Some of the methods used to increase the union agents’ compensation included reassigning accounts from nonunion employees to union officials, giving union agents “double commissions” for sales made by other workers, and allowing union officials to regularly sell lucrative “group ads” while denying similar opportunities to nonmember employees. By knowingly aiding union agents as they manipulated company rules to increase their performance-based pay, Qwest and Dex were accused of bribing union officials to act against workers’ interests in bargaining negotiations.

(Continue reading this news release...)

In this week's "Top 10 List" from Human Events, the staff of Human Events listed the "Top 10 Things On Big Labor's Agenda." The list is telling, as it describes Big Labor's outrageous plans to to grab more coercive power and erode employees' rights in the workplace. Of course, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act", more accurately called the "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill tops the list:

1. Employee Free Choice Act
In addition to the notorious “card-check” provision that strips union members of their right to a secret ballot, this bill also provides for increased penalties for employers who commit allegedly unfair labor practices...

Besides card check forced unionism, Big Labor is even toying with a relaunch of efforts to "Repeal...Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act [which] would take from states the right to enact Right to Work laws." Big Labor has wanted for decades to repeal this critical provision, and the most serious attempt to do so was in 1960s.

Not only is Big Labor trying to ultimately overturn laws in Right to Work states, but they "also seek the forced unionization of police, firefighters, and EMTs by federal fiat -- overturning the laws of more than two dozen states."

Other notable aspects of Human Events' "Top 10 List" includes Big Labor's nefarious plans of using the Federal government to force more employees into full dues paying compulsory unionism (see: #6, 7), concealing corruption (see: #8), and making it harder for employees to exercise their rights against the abuses of compulsory unionism (see: #9, 10).

Erin McKee, top boss of the Charleston Labor Council, has written a mind-numbingly ignorant (or intentionally misleading) response to an op-ed which outlines the mass rewriting of federal labor law Big Labor is hoping for after the 2008 election. Several of Boss McKee's assertions are just downright factually incorrect.

Lie #1:

Mr. Factor points out that [Big] labor's agenda is to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed, which is true. If a majority of employees have signed cards saying they want a union, it doesn't end there. They would then be allowed to have a fair election process and not be lied to, harassed and fired.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, the text of the misnamed EFCA reveals that once union organizers present the signed cards of even the smallest majority of workers in a unit, the National Labor Relations Board "shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative." In other words, card check does effectively eliminate the secret ballot from union certification drives. The less-abusive current election process would be replaced by one-on-one harassment from union goons.

Lie #2:

In a right to work state such as South Carolina, the union is forced to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. This means that everyone benefits, not just those who choose to pay the union dues for the benefits they receive. (If you think this is fair, let's try running our government this way and see what happens.)

Right to Work laws merely ensure that workers cannot be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union. Unfortunately, even non members are forced to accept the union's so-called representation, even when it works against them. It's illegal for workers to bargain with their employer on their own merits.

Further, federal law doesn't require that unions represent non-members, they seek and obtain monopoly bargaining status. Plus, as I have previously explained, if union bosses were serious about eliminating the so-called "free rider" problem, they would oppose federal and state monopoly bargaining statutes. They don't. They want them.

Lie #3:

Mr. Factor also seems to have a problem with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. He states that public-safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept a union's representation. Do local governments have the manpower to negotiate a bargaining agreement with each employee individually, or would it be more effective if management worked with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package?

Yes, they do actually. Municipalities all over the country do it. (For a good summary of the more-aptly titled Police & Fire Monopoly Bargaining Act, check out this month's Labor Watch article by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.)

Boss McKee's language in this passage is particularly revealing of Big Labor's patronizing attitude toward workers. Instead of each employee negotiating with the employer, union cheifs like McKee claim to want "management [to work] with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package." But what exactly is the difference? How is that not what is occurring when individual employees have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the employer? Why should a majority of the employee's co-workers get to pick the employee's representation? Even criminal defendants get to pick their own representation!

This month's issue of the Capital Research Center's Labor Watch newsletter features a cover story on Big Labor's attempts to force public safety officers nationwide into monopoly union collectives. The article details many unjust aspects of federal monopoly bargaining power grab, not the least of which is that it trumps state laws while stripping employees of their right to negotiate their own terms of employment or be rewarded for their individual merits.

While the National Right to Work Committee continues to lead the fight against the bill's passage, Foundation attorneys are preparing for a legal challenge if it becomes law. We have previously reported on this overall situation here.

One passage in the Labor Watch piece is particularly noteworthy:

Congressional Quarterly Today reported on May 30 that Sen. Reid still “intends to call up” H.R.980 for a Senate floor vote prior to this fall’s elections. Whether he actually does this may depend on what action is taken by Senate Republicans who oppose the legislation. If they hold firm, Reid will not be able to secure a final floor vote before the November elections without first allowing several right-to-work amendments to be considered and voted on. The most important of these amendments is sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). It would repeal all provisions in federal labor law that authorize the firing of employees for refusing to pay dues or “agency” fees to an unwanted union.

A Battle For Forced Dues

[Harry] Reid knows that if a right-to-work amendment like DeMint’s comes up for a vote, union officials will oppose it with all their might, and they will order their Senate supporters to oppose it as well. This will, in turn, demonstrate clearly that Big Labor’s battle for [mandated monopoly bargaining for Public Safety employees] is largely a battle for forced union dues. [emphasis added.]

Karen Ackerman, the national political director for the AFL-CIO, recently had this nonsense to say about the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act:

"Of course, employers are not happy about it," Ackerman said of the legislation. "Of course, employers are going to call it undemocratic.

"But, in fact, if people want to be members of the Republican Party, they don't have to have a secret-ballot election. If folks want to join a church or be a member of a Boys Club, they don't have to have a secret election," she said.

The Employee Free Choice Act, she said, is "a way to even out the system."

What she doesn't want to acknowledge is that my political party or church does not have special coervice powers granted by the government to compel other people to accept its "representation" and even to join or pay dues.

Even secret ballot elections for union certification are far from fair. That's because if a union is voted in, it is awarded the power to be the "exclusive representative" of all members of the bargaining unit -- even those workers who do not want to join (or be "represented by") the union brass.

Opponents of Card Check Instant Organizing shouldn't only rely on appeals to "democracy" in the debate against union officials and union-backed politicians. A democratic election may seem a better alternative to union goons misleading or coercing workers into signing authorization cards -- but one should not overlook the link between card check and the greater evil of monopoly bargaining.

If Ackerman were to be honest, she would look at the flip side of her own example -- I may be free to donate money to the Republican party, but she is also free NOT to do so. A worker should be free to join or pay dues to a union, but a worker should also be free NOT to support a union -- or to be "represented" by a union.

As long as there is monopoly bargaining -- whether it is imposed through an NLRB-supervised election or the even more abusive card check process -- there can be no real employee free choice.

The Heritage Foundation has just put up an interesting -- if at times confusing -- new web memo on possible alternatives to compulsory unionization. One of the more salient points the author raises is that the legislation governing workplace relations - the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) - is almost entirely obsolete. Times have changed since 1935 (the year the bill was first drafted), and the workplace now emphasizes cooperation over confrontation between management and labor:

That economy no longer exists. Businesses today rely on feedback and communication from employees. Employers do not simply give top-down orders, but incorporate bottom-up communication and employee discretion. The line between workers and management has increasingly blurred, and most workers want cooperative—not adversarial—relations with their employers.

Unfortunately, Big Labor hasn't changed with the times. If anything, union officials are promoting an increasingly adversarial relationship with management that relies on hate-the-boss rhetoric, vicious corporate campaigns, coercive card-check organizing drives, and scurious lawsuits to force companies to herd their employees into forced-dues-paying union collectives.

Would a more cooperative approach benefit employees? According to the memo, alternatives to the current system is certainly popular with American workers:

The fact that few workers want to join traditional unions does not mean that they do not want a voice in workplace relations. Surveys show that workers want to participate in decisions in the workplace and want to be heard by their supervisors, but they do not want hostile relations with management.

Ultimately, the policy prescriptions put forth in the web memo are unfortunately vague on the vital isues of compulsory union dues and monopoly bargaining.

If Heritage's proposed reforms eliminate forced dues, monopoly bargaining, or both, then they would be a step forward for employee rights. However, if the "reforms" do nothing to dismantle these extraordinary monopoly union privileges and make unionism more voluntary, then it is hard to see how trying to add "employee involvement" programs to the NLRA would be anything other than a gigantic waste of time and resources.