When Nashua, New Hampshire postal worker Philip Wakeman paid dues to the National Post Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers' International Union, he had no idea that union bosses would illegally launder his money into their political coffers.

In July 2006, Mr. Wakeman gave a check to the NPMHU union for the full amount of his annual union dues. On the "Memo" line at the bottom of the check, he wrote "Union Dues."  A union official later acknowledged receipt of the dues and everything seemed fine – that is – until he received a bizarre phone call.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger informed Wakeman that she found his information on the internet and suggested he do a "Google" internet search of his name. The search results were astounding:  Mr. Wakeman found his name disclosed as making a contribution in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues to the NPMHU Political Action Committee (PAC) – all without his knowledge.

Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union's PAC.  Wakeman contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Foundation attorneys filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. 

It is illegal for union officials to fund union PACs using "dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization."  NPMHU union bosses are also accused of violating federal election law by making a political campaign contribution in another person's name and failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.

To read the Foundation's media release regarding the FEC complaint, click here.

To read the FEC complaint, click here.

Big Labor apologist Mark Weisbrot had a piece defending the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act in Tuesday's Chicago Sun-Times. Money quote (emphasis mine):

This law would probably change Americans' lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security. The political influence of millions of new union members would also bring us closer to such basic reforms as universal health care. It's all long overdue.

Of course, millions of new forced dues paying union members would only increase union bosses' influence, not the workers' influence -- nearly half of whom do not support Big Labor's political agenda.

Meanwhile, American who agrees with Big Labor's political agenda can already choose to financially (or otherwise) support union-backed candidates and causes. But union bosses, you see, know better than the average worker. The average worker isn't giving enough support to the Far Left politicians prefered by union officials on his own. So union bosses want to use dues money, seized from workers' paychecks, to finance their own political activism.

Worse, an increase in Card Check forced unionism will open the doors for rampant intimidation of workers by union goons -- so much of the increased dues money going to these politics will be from workers who were pressured into union ranks through card check.

Employees should indeed have a free choice -- to determine their own representation and to decide for themselves if they want to join a union or fund its political activism.

Foundation VP Stefan Gleason has an op-ed up over at Human Events on union political activism in the wake of the Supreme Court's favorable Chamber v. Brown decision. Money quote:

Although the court ruled in favor of employer free speech and employee free choice, workers remain vulnerable to an onslaught of intimidation brought on by card-check organizing drives. In one article about the ruling, an AFL-CIO union lawyer snickered that the outcome would only encourage union bosses to pour more money into passing the erroneously titled “Employee Free Choice Act.” That bill passed the House this year, but a filibuster has stalled it in the Senate. Even if Big Labor and its allies in the Senate don’t get it through this year, you can be sure they’ll be back in ’09.

This legislative power grab—endorsed by union-label politicians and bankrolled by union political funds—is designed to allow union bosses to bypass government-supervised secret ballot elections in favor of card check, tilting the playing field in favor of union organizers.

Read the whole thing here.

Over the weekend, The Oregonian posted a genuinely disturbing piece on union political activism at the state and local level. According to the article, union officials poured massive amounts of money and resources into nearly every Oregon election this past May. The results were truly staggering (emphasis mine):

"Most candidates with union backing won . . . The net result was a monster victory for labor groups that helped solidify their role as one of the state's top power brokers.

Unions played key roles in statewide victories for secretary of state candidate Kate Brown attorney general candidate John Kroger and U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley. But they also got involved locally, helping Sam Adams win the Portland mayoral contest, Democrat Michael Dembrow win the House District 45 primary in Northeast Portland, and Dennis Doyle oust Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake.

The outcome left Republicans grumbling about the increasing influence of unions in state government. And it left little doubt that labor's agenda will get red-carpet treatment when the 2009 Legislature meets in January."

Unfortunately, Big Labor's success at the state and local level foreshadows what could be an even more impressive showing in national elections this November. As the most recent issue of Foundation Action (subscribe now - it's free!) explains, unions are going for " . . . the trifecta: the House, the Senate, and the White House," according to American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) head Gerald McEntee.

From a recent Wall Street Journal article, the scope of union political activism is truly astounding, even for an election year (emphasis mine):

"The AFL-CIO has approved a record political budget of $53 million to help fund 200,000 union workers on the street. Its affiliated national and international unions have pledged another $200 million. The National Education Association will throw $40 million to $50 million at races. The Service Employees International Union has marked off $100 million for politics, and intends to pay 2,000 union members the equivalent of their salaries to work on Democratic campaigns. Add in union money for federal or state political action committees, for 527s, and for local and state races, and some astute members of the business community – those who have seen this coming “tsunami” (as one puts it) – estimate union political spending may top $1 billion in 2008."

Big Labor's political priorities include an even more pliant NLRB and passage of the misleadingly-titled "Employee Free Choice Act," a piece of legislation that would allow union bosses to bypass secret ballot elections in favor of shady "card-check" organizing drives. If Oregon is a harbinger of Big Labor's coming political ascendancy, America and particularly lovers of freedom will be facing a dark period.

The New York Times has a devastating article up on the incestuous relationship between public sector union officials and the New York state legislature. The actual controversy is downright farcical: legislators relied on a public sector union accountant to determine the cost of proposed increases to the state's employee pension plan.

A reasonable observer might suggest that this arrangement represented a clear conflict of interest, but to New York state legislators it was just good book-keeping. According to the Times, the union actuary "reviewed" hundreds of bills for the state before being exposed by the paper's investigation. What's more, the Times reports that the actuary neglected to mention additional legislative costs of up $500 million in his original reports.

The Times' description of the actuary's "methodology" is particularly mind-boggling (emphasis mine):

" . . . in an arrangement that had not been publicly disclosed, Mr. Schwartz [the union actuary] was being paid by labor unions. He acknowledged in an interview that he skewed his work to favor the [union's interests], calling his job “a step above voodoo.”

As a result, legislative leaders said they would no longer rely on Mr. Schwartz’s work, and a disciplinary board affiliated with the American Academy of Actuaries has begun a review of Mr. Schwartz’s conduct.

The Legislature relied almost exclusively on Mr. Schwartz — a consultant to District Council 37, the umbrella group of municipal unions as well as to unions representing firefighters, teachers, detectives and correction officers — to determine the cost of pension bills involving New York City employees."

Fortunately, Empire State legislators swung into action to reasssure the Times that they were monitoring the situation all along. I'm sure New York taxpayers are greatly reassured by their representatives' scrupulous accounting procedures:

"Despite legislative leaders’ assertions that they undertake independent financial analyses of the pension bills, neither the Senate nor the Assembly could provide any records to bolster that claim."

Unfortunately, this sort of lax book-keeping is par for the course when it comes to union pension funds which are often managed for the benefit of union bosses, rather than the pensioners. The incident also highlights the dangerous potential for union political activism in the legislative sphere.

When things get too cozy, there really are no breaks on political corruption. In another instance, Schwartz analyzed a Big Labor supported bill and basically lied to the legislature -- saying it would result in no additional costs to taxpayers.

"Mr. Schwartz conceded in an interview last month that he knew the bill would actually have a significant cost, explaining, “I got a little bit carried away in my formulation.”

He added that he made his projections look “as cheap as possible” to favor his clients."

According to The Hill, NEA union officials are gearing up for an effort to dump between $40-$50 million dollars, much of it in compulsory union dues, into the 2008 elections. NEA chief Reg Weaver leaves no doubt about it:

“We plan to be very aggressive,” said Reg Weaver, the NEA’s president.

Perhaps many teachers would be better off if the NEA union and its affiliates were not so aggressive. For instance, the Ohio branch of the NEA told St. Marys district school teacher Carol Katter to "change religions" when she asserted her right to divert her mandatory dues from political causes she disagrees with on religious grounds.

However, with help from the National Right to Work Foundation, Katter struck down an Ohio law preventing such "religious objectors" from diverting such forced dues to charity unless they belonged to certain state-approved religions.

"I was not going to give one cent to those causes," Katter told the Ohio media. "I know where NEA money goes, and I never wanted to be part of that."