Here's an interesting story (via EIA) from Nevada where teacher union officials are gathering signatures to put a massive tax increase on the ballot in November.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, union political operatives, who need to collect tens of thousands of signatures in order to put the tax hike on the ballot, are having trouble getting people to sign because "blockers" who oppose the tax increase are voicing their opposition to prospective signers during the collection process.

The article quotes one such "blocker" as saying "Say no to the tax grab! Think before you ink!" until the individual who might have signed the union operative's petition decides against it and leaves. Nevada's top teacher union official Lynn Warne denounced the actions as "thug tactics" (which is ironic because according to this website, the tactic was invented by union organizers in Oregon).

Normally there wouldn't be much to add to this story, but a closer look reveals another example of a nasty pattern: Union bosses have realized that absent opposing viewpoints or the privacy of the secret ballot, they have no problem getting anyone to sign anything.

However, when employees or employers insist on providing an opposing viewpoint or demanding a secret ballot election union officials have considerably more trouble selling their power grabs. Rather than persuade workers (or in this case registered voters in Nevada) on the merits, they'd rather hoodwink or pressure them into signing -- while denouncing the presentation of an opposing viewpoint as "thug tactics."

Senator Ted Kennedy responds to the Wall Street Journal's recent piece that among other things, exposed the coercive nature of "card check" union organizing. He brands the process "simple and fair," but maybe he should watch the video below, which we posted a few weeks back. The only thing simple about such campaigns is how unfair to employees they are. Read more in this letter to the editor from today.

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.

That's just one of many propsed rule changes being suggested at the National Labor Relations Board. Late last week, the National Right to Work Foundation filed comments opposing the changes which would further undermine employees' freedom to choose whether or not to unionize.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap unionization election even when no employees have expressed any interest. The proposed changes would also severely undermine employees' ability to challenge any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubber stamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

Sounds like the proposed changes a real loser for employee free choice.

Following up on the internal power struggle within the SEIU union, the gnashing of teeth continues. Today's San Francisco Chronicle says that a new letter from SEIU chief Andy Stern accuses his lead critic Sal Rosseli of misconduct. The article cites Rosseli and others:

"...said the allegations appear to be a prelude to a trusteeship, under which Stern would replace the union's elected leaders with his own appointees."

Sounds like quite the consolidation of power. Stern is a leading proponent of pouring massive amounts of forced union dues into coercive "card check" union organizing, and the outcome of this power struggle could have serious implications for American workers victimized by such campaigns.

If you haven't already, be sure to take a look at this video detailing the coercion inherent in union "card check" campaigns, and how the National Right to Work Foundation is helping employees fight back.

Read all about the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's upcoming 14th U.S. Supreme Court battle on behalf State of Maine employees led by Mr. Dan Locke (pictured) in the March/April edition of Foundation Action, available first here today.

To sign up for a free hard copy version of this bi-monthly newsletter, sign up here. And to sign up for regular email updates on the battle against compulsory unionism, sign up on our home page.

Finally, don't forget to check out all the latest videos on the Right to Work YouTube channel.

Oral arguments take place this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court in a key case in which the Ninth Circuit reversed two of its earlier rulings and found that employers that receive state funds can be forced to implement coercive union organizing, including "card check" drives.

When the Supreme Court took up the case in November, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason had this to say:

“California officials are using the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies seem to be having difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in
order to maintain the flow of forced union dues."

Many other states and municipalities have passed similar special interest legislation, prompting the High Court review. To read the rest of Stefan's statement, click here.

Speaking of "card check," a Washington State University student is calling out the United Auto Workers union on its recent use of a deceptive "card check" drive to forcibly unionize academic student employees. The student writes:

Several students were led to believe they were signing to get
information or support exploring the efficacy of students unionizing.
With a sense of urgency and high pressure tactics, many students filled
out cards.

In addition to noting that students would be forced to pay dues if the UAW was installed, the student adds:

We find it insulting to our intelligence and levels of educational
achievement to mislead, misrepresent and misinform us to gain student
support.

As Karen Mayhew, a National Right to Work Foundation-aided employee from Portland, Oregon, told Congress last year:

...union abuses of a wide variety are the rule in 'card check' campaigns, not the exception.

All the more reason that employees should be aware of their rights during a "card check" drive.

A group of Dana Corporation employees from Albion, Indiana, recently fought their way free of the unwanted United Auto Workers union capitalizing on a ruling won by the National Right to Work Foundation.