The alarming trend of politicians forcing workers into union ranks continues in Illinois as Governor Pat Quinn -- in order to win Big Labor's political support -- is resurrecting the sordid legacy of disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich (and Gray Davis of California) subverting workers' rights to benefit forced dues-hungry union bosses.

Quinn recently signed an executive order arbitrarily reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care providers as state employees -- thereby opening them up to forced unionism under state law.  Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union organizers, armed by the state with the addresses of Illinois's nearly 3,500 in-home health-care providers, are competing to corral home health-care providers into compulsory union membership by going door-to-door to solicit support for their respective unions.

Pam Harris, a mother who stays home to take care of her son with special needs, was visited by two aggressive out-of-state SEIU organizers at her front door.  Understandably, Ms. Harris is worried that the Detroit-style labor relations that destroyed America's auto industry could also destroy her right to care for her son as she wants. (To say nothing of the union dues she will be forced to pay for the "privilege.")

Because she does not live in a state with Right to Work protections, if SEIU union bosses are successful in corralling all home health-care providers into forced dues membership, Ms. Harris will be forced to pay tribute to union bosses just to continue to take care of her own son -- even if she refrains from formal union membership.

However, as many Freedom@Work readers may already be aware, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Just last month, National Right to Work President Mark Mix reiterated in the Wall Street Journal NRTW's previous warnings that union bosses are working to unionize the health-care industry and that under Obamacare, the very thing that is happening in Illinois will happen nationwide:

Following [the Davis/Blagojevich] playbook, pending government-run health care bills create a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation on hundreds of thousands of folks like Ms. Harris to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (CLASS)" reimbursement plan.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing federal health-care policy...

Though it doesn't get nearly as much attention as other high-profile appointments, President Obama has recently nominated several new members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency which oversees private sector labor relations and the federal policy of forced unionism.

These appointments have far-reaching implications for employee freedom, so it's important that NLRB nominees are thoroughly vetted before they take office.

Unfortunately, Obama's latest choice for the NLRB, Craig Becker, has radical views on the extent of union coercive power, and he comes directly out of the all-powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) whose bosses have been as thick as thieves with the notoriously corrupt Big Labor front group ACORN. Here's The Wall Street Journal on Becker's troubling history and his role in drafting Obama executive orders while on the SEIU union payroll:

One of Big Labor's priorities in Washington is to place allies in key government jobs where they can overturn existing labor policy without battles in Congress. This is a very good reason for the Senate to hold a hearing on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Mr. Becker is associate general counsel at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is most recently in the news for its close ties to Acorn, the disgraced housing shakedown operation. President Obama nominated Mr. Becker in April to the five-member NLRB, which has the critical job of supervising union elections, investigating labor practices, and interpreting the National Labor Relations Act. In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, written when he was a UCLA professor, Mr. Becker argued for rewriting current union-election rules in favor of labor. And he suggested the NLRB could do this by regulatory fiat, without a vote of Congress.

Read the whole thing here. As a member of the NLRB, Becker will be in a position to rewrite American labor law and achieve his stated goals of marginalizing employees from the process of deciding whether they are unionized. Allies of worker freedom should be extremely concerned about this nomination.

--

Previous Foundation coverage of Becker's radical views can be found here, here and here. 

Last Tuesday, Health Care for American Now (HCAN) - a radical coalition that includes bosses from the all-powerful SEIU union, the AFL-CIO, the humilated United Auto Workers (UAW) union and dozens of other unions, along with forced unionism-allies such as the corrupt ACORN group - declared a national day of action.

The expressed goal of this Big Labor/ACORN axis? To create "political villains" by demonizing health care providers across the country.

Every health care proposal proposed by the Congressional Majority is loaded down with Big Labor giveaways that will expand forced unionism, so union boss enthusiasm for health care "reform" shouldn't surprise anyone. To achieve this forced unionism takeover of American health care, union bosses are pulling out all the stops, including an astro-turfed campaign in collaboration with ACORN.

A Foundation source (who asked to remain anonymous for fear of union retaliation) filled us in on some interesting details about HCAN's "grassroots activism" in California. Apparently, SEIU bosses from the corruption-riddled "United Long-Term Care Workers" local bused in 300 purple-shirted protesters to harass Blue Cross employees at their offices in downtown Los Angeles.  (The corrupt SEIU Local 434(b) struck it rich in 1999 when Gov. Gray Davis approved a scheme to forcibly unionize home health care independent contractors.  This local union alone saw its revenues rise 5-fold to more than $25 million in forced union dues each year.)

Media reports missed it, but according to our on-scene sources, protesters admitted they were paid and actually promised a free lunch to participate in HCAN's theatrics.

Paying people to protest on behalf of the union bosses isn't uncommon, either. Big Labor frequently buses in paid operatives for vicious corporate campaigns supporting efforts underway across America to impose unions on more workers.

This time, however, union bosses have set their sights quite high -- indeed, on the entire American health care field, or roughly 16 percent of the country's struggling economy.

For more about how Big Labor hopes to impose union affiliation and forced dues on America's unsuspecting health care workers, check out Right to Work President Mark Mix's op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

Foundation President Mark Mix's latest op-ed takes aim at Obamacare's forced unionism provisions. From the introduction:

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

Read the whole thing here. For more information, check out Mix's interview on Lou Dobbs Radio. Click here to listen or use the embeddable player below:

As we told you last year, Far Left icon and former Democrat presidential nominee George McGovern came out in strong opposition to the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill in the Wall Street Journal.  In his op-ed, McGovern recognized that the union boss power grab would destroy the secret ballot, and he noted card check instant organizing drives are infamous for worker intimidation and dirty tricks by union organizers.

Now, McGovern has again taken to the pages of the Journal to criticize another disturbing provision of the card check bill: mandatory binding arbitration.

Last year, I wrote on these pages that I was opposed to this bill because it would eliminate secret ballots in union organizing elections. However, the bill has an additional feature that isn't often mentioned but that is just as troublesome -- compulsory arbitration.

This feature would give the government the power to step into labor disputes where employers and labor leaders cannot reach an agreement and compel both sides to accept a contract. Compulsory arbitration is bound to trigger the law of unintended consequences.

...

In a contract negotiation, each party typically perceives the other as too demanding. But no one loses their right to contract willingly or suffers being forced to agree to anything. Employees can strike if they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly, but it is a costly option. Employers are free to reject labor demands they find to be too difficult to accept, but running a business without experienced employees is itself difficult. Both sides have an incentive to press their demands, but they also have compelling reasons not to press their demands too far. EFCA would disrupt that balance by enabling government-appointed lawyers to decide what they believe is fair or reasonable.

A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case. Yet fundamental decisions on wages and benefit costs, rules for promotions, or even rules for exiting an unprofitable line of business could fall to federal arbitrators under EFCA.

Many labor contracts can run over 100 pages with their requirements of each party. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal, with no opportunity to approve the "agreement." Why should employees pay union dues to get such a contract?

Good points, but McGovern didn't think to add: the public sector binding arbitration experience proves arbitrators will usually include a forced union dues requirement in the imposed contract!

But it's worth remembering the even the secret ballot isn't a cure-all.  As long as individual workers are forced to accept a union-boss "representation," there is no true employee free choice.

Former solicitor of labor Eugene Scalia takes to the pages of today's Wall Street Journal to argue against Big Labor's Card Check scheme. His op-ed explodes the myth that jettisoning the secret ballot will somehow reduce workplace intimidation:

...unions don't want to eliminate voter intimidation -- they want a monopoly on it. If secret-ballot elections aren't required, then employers won't get automatic notice that an organizing campaign is underway. They will have less opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to speak to employees about the legitimate reasons that many workers choose not to unionize. Union organizers, on the other hand, could visit employees at their homes or stop them in the parking lot and "encourage" them to choose to unionize on the spot. Employees are still voting -- their authorization cards are binding -- but now their vote is supervised by union organizers, not the federal government.

EFCA's supporters argue that when a worker attends a company meeting and hears how his managers dislike unions, days later when he casts a secret vote in an election overseen by federal authorities, he'll be afraid to vote his conscience. Well if that's true, imagine how much "free choice" this gentle soul will feel when four of his co-workers surround him at the hardware store, stick an authorization card and pen in his hand, and ask if he's for them or against them.

Read the whole thing here.

With so much focus on the economic crisis, it's worth revisiting a Wall Street Journal article penned recently by National Right to Work Committee and Foundation President Mark Mix. The article explains how a massive expansion in forced unionism power played a key role in making the Great Depression longer and deeper:

By the mid-1930s, the U.S. economy appeared to be climbing out of the Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), which had bottomed out at 41 in 1932, was advancing. It increased 73% from the beginning of 1935 through the end of 1936, when it hit 180. The number of unemployed, 13 million in 1933, dropped to 9.5 million in 1935 and 7.6 million in 1936.

Then, in 1937, the DJIA plunged 33% in what is often called "a depression within a depression." Joblessness skyrocketed.

A principal factor in the meltdown that year was the U.S. Supreme Court's surprise 5-4 decision in early April to uphold the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, which had passed two years earlier. This measure, which is still the basis of our labor relations regime, authorized union officials to seek and obtain the power to act as the "exclusive" (that is, the monopoly) bargaining agent over all the front-line employees, including union nonmembers as well as members, in a unionized workplace.

As Amity Shlaes observed in her recent history of the Great Depression, "The Forgotten Man," within a few months after the Wagner Act was upheld, industrial production began to plummet and "the jobs started to disappear, with unemployment moving back to 1931 levels," even as the number of workers under union control was "growing astoundingly."

Given the reality of unions in the workplace, the law meant that efficiency and profitability were compromised, by forcing employers to equally reward their most productive and least productive employees. Therefore subsequent wage increases for some workers led to widespread job losses.

Pre-Depression-era growth and prosperity did not return to the private sector until the early 1950s, when the spread of state right-to-work laws prohibiting forced union membership and dues greatly reduced the detrimental effects of the Wagner Act.

The U.S. has just experienced another stock market crash, and Barack Obama, the candidate now favored to be the next president, is in favor of what amounts to a new Wagner Act.

If the mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," becomes law, it will likely have a similar effect on the economy as the original Wagner Act, transforming what could have been a recovery into a lengthy, deep recession, or worse.

(Read the entire article)

Far Left stalwart and former Democratic nominee for President George McGovern comes out swinging in the pages of the Wall Street Journal against Big Labor's demand for mandating coercive card check in union organizing drives:

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.

Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

[Emphasis added]

Good for McGovern for acknowledging a few basic truths about the abuses of card check that Big Labor apologists continue to deny.

McGovern points out, correctly, that card check runs "counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement."  Of course, so does forced unionism generally.  Samuel Gompers founded the AFL on the principles of volunteerism (as opposed to today's compulsory system).

It's important to note that, while the current process may be less abusive than mandated card check, majority rule by secret ballot (in the labor law context) is controversial and unjust in and of itself.  No worker should be stripped of his legal right to represent himself in private employment matters and be forced into a monopoly union collective by a vote of even the majority of his peers.

The National Right to Work Foundation's letters calling for an investigation of the SEIU union's apparently illegal scheme to coerce "donations" for its Political Action Committee (PAC) prompted this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

Now that editorial has caused a local union official to blow the whistle in this letter to the editor. Aside from cheering the Foundation's efforts, her letter alludes to another problematic aspect of the SEIU union's dirty political fundraising scheme.

Marlene Jones, a registered nurse who is also the head of her Pennsylvania-based SEIU local, writes the following:

I have been a member of the Service Employees International Union (1199P) for 27 years. I am the president of a local nurses union in Pennsylvania. Every day I experience the pressure for our local nurses union to have all of our members contribute to the Political Action Committee fund. SEIU even goes as far as telling its locals that if a percentage of its members contribute, they will receive 1% of their high union dues back to the locals.

[emphasis added]

So on top of the SEIU constitutional amendment penalizing SEIU locals by seizing dues money when they don't hit PAC fundraising goals, Ms. Jones says top SEIU bosses are promising conditional kickbacks of certain union dues seized from workers and sent to the International affiliate. But those kickbacks apparently do not occur if the local union fails to meet the SEIU's PAC fundraising mandates. This could be yet another way SEIU bosses are in violating federal law by securing PAC "contributions" with the threat of financial reprisals.

Nurse Jones ends her letter with the following plea:

When will it end? Good luck with the investigation. Our members do not want to contribute to the PAC fund.