An article in The New Republic points to the tens of millions of dollars being spent by union officials on politics and specifically focuses on the massive involvement by the so-called "Change to Win" union coalition in politics.

The article calls Change to Win's decision to endorse Obama an "about-face," citing Change to Win's early declarations that it would not focus on politics but on organizing. Yet, Change to Win's emphasis on politics (led by SEIU top boss Andy Stern) really wasn't that hard to predict.

In fact, back in 2005 when Change to Win union bosses split from the AFL-CIO union hierarchy National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason had this to say:

This political posturing within ultra-elite union hierarchies amounts to nothing more than a shell game by power-hungry union officials bent on control over more than $10 billion in compulsory union dues. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is steering Big Labor’s ship as long as individual workers continue to be strapped to the mast.

Ultimately, it is not Change to Win's flip-flop on its rhetoric about that political spending that is the real hypocrisy, but the split itself...

Change to Win left the AFL-CIO because Change to Win union officials objected to how dues money was being spent and they didn't like the representation they were receiving from the AFL-CIO. Yet, everyday individual employees who object to how their dues are being spent and to the representation that they are getting from union bosses are told to just pay up or be fired.

AFL-CIO top boss John Sweeney and Virginia AFL-CIO chief James Leaman recently had an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that shows just how union officials view the workers they claim to represent.

The headline of the article rhetorically asks: "Without labor unions, who speaks for the worker?"

The implication is that workers are incapable of representing themselves. This also implies that workers who reject union membership are too stupid to know what is best for them.

That contemptuous view of workers and their ability to look after their own best interests explains why Big Labor is constantly claiming to have employees' best interests in mind while trying to limit the ability of those very employees to exercise free choice when it comes to unionization.

According to the union boss mentality, forcing workers to be represented by the union (as happens nationwide under monopoly bargaining), forcing workers to pay dues to a union (as happens in non-Right to Work states), and eliminating the protection of a secret ballot (as happens in a card check drive), are all just ways of coercing workers into doing what the union bosses think is best for them.

With such a condescending view of the workers they want to represent, it is no wonder that when actually given the choice, fewer and fewer employees are choosing unionization. Unfortunately, the union bosses are intent on "solving" that problem by eliminating that choice.

Carl Horowitz has an article up today at National Review Online about the SEIU union and its top boss, Andy Stern. The article plays up the supposed split in organized labor between the so-called “Change to Win” coalition (led by Stern’s SEIU) and the AFL-CIO over whether to emphasize politics and lobbying or more aggressive organizing through the abusive card check scheme.

Horowitz’s article deals mostly with the SEIU’s immigration policies, but the most important thing to take away is that both “Change to Win” and the AFL-CIO really have only one goal: sweeping more workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and using card check to do it.

This is illustrated clearly by Horowitz who describes a secret sweetheart deal the SEIU struck to get employer assistance in forcing workers into union ranks:

In a secret 2003 agreement with California nursing-home chains — according to Bay Area alternative newspaper SF Weekly — the SEIU committed to: discouraging patients and their families from suing for negligence; and supporting a four-year, $2 billion increase in MediCal subsidies to nursing homes. In return for supporting these industry-backed measures, the union retained the right to organize other nursing homes.

In other words, whether pushing for the card check bill in Congress, or joining industry lobbying efforts in exchange for handing sweeping access to employees, the end is always the same: more forced dues dollars in the pockets of union bosses.

Syndicated columnist Doug Bandow has a piece out detailing efforts by the AFL-CIO brass to enlist the help of the United Nations affiliate International Labor Organization (ILO) in attaining more special privileges to corral workers into forced unionism.

Bandow cites that union officials are:

"...no longer are satisfied playing solely by U.S. rules."

How true. The column also addresses the controversy over the forced unionization of TSA screeners, an issue the National Right to Work Foundation has weighed in on during past years.

The AFL-CIO hierarchy has taken its latest beef with Right to Work attorneys' victory for employees up with the International Labor Organization (ILO). About the complaint, AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney says:

"The Bush NLRB is kryptonite for America's workers."

This is like Lex Luthor complaining that his kryptonite doesn't work well enough. While the recent Dana victory was an encouraging step forward for employee freedom, the Bush NLRB still has lots of work left to do.

And as we see everyday, compulsory unionism abuse is the real kryptonite for America's workers.

AFL-CIO head honcho John Sweeney and SEIU chief Andy Stern both chimed in about last week's victory on behalf of employees by Right to Work attorneys. Sweeney cites a previous NLRB decision calling coercive card check unionization drives "a favored element of national policy."

What a joke. As previously cited, the Board in this decision cited:

“Card checks are less reliable because they lack secrecy and procedural safeguards… union card-solicitation campaigns have been accompanied by misinformation… workers sometimes sign union authorization cards…to get the person off their back.”

Stern, however, gets one thing right when he says:

"The NLRB has become a caricature of itself, and as a nation, we should be embarrassed by governing bodies that fail to consider even the most basic needs and rights of workers.”

How true. The NLRB has failed America's workers in many other Foundation cases. Here are just a few.

With the strike ordered by UAW officials against GM ending early this morning, it's important to draw a few lessons.

As Patrick noted Monday, the UAW hierarchy was willing to sell out some rank-and-file workers on wages so long as GM promised union officials the ability to organize its nonunion suppliers to bolster compulsory dues revenues.

Second, despite the misconceptions held by some, the fact that union officials can shut down nationwide employers and industries demonstrates that they are clearly still relevant. The widespread impact and attention the strike attracted is proof positive.

Addtionally, because of their ability to compel dues from workers in the 28 states without Right to Work laws, union officials are major players politically. Why just last friday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to deploy 200,000 union operatives and $200 million to influence the 2008 elections.

Yesterday, longtime number-two union boss at the AFL-CIO, Linda Chavez-Thompson announced she would be retiring later this month. Amazingly, in a 1999 interview Chavez revealed that she had no idea what Right to Work means:

Of course, Right to Work protections have nothing to do with at-will employment. Rather, Right to Work laws – like the one in Texas – simply guarantee that employees cannot be required to pay dues to a union to get or keep a job.

Perhaps that ignorance of the concept of employee freedom of choice made it easier for Chavez to collect her salary of over $240,000 funded by individual workers who would fired if they refused to pay.

Set to replace Chavez is another longtime union official Alrene Holt-Baker who came over to the AFL-CIO with Chavez-Thompson from the AFSCME union in 1995. Holt-Baker, who already collects over $100,000 a year, can expect a sizable raise for her new position – funded, naturally, with forced union dues taken from workers under threat of termination.