For two weeks now, Freedom @ Work has covered the indictment of twelve union officials in Upstate New York for a laundry list of criminal activity that includes a stabbing and death threats. Nonunion employers and employees were targeted in an effort to push more workers into the union officials' forced dues-paying ranks.

A local paper even compared the acts depicted in the indictment to an episode of the HBO hit TV show The Sopranos.

The latest video added to the National Right to Work Foundation's YouTube video channel shows just how brutal these union officials' acts were by simply quoting word for word from the 62-page indictment.

Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman filed official comments with the Department of Labor regarding a proposal to mandate public financial reporting for union trusts.

As yesterday's post on $25 million that was misused from five union pension funds makes clear, these trust funds can be used to funnel money to things ranging from the Democrat party to strip clubs and horse farms. Any increased disclosure would be a step (though perhaps only a small one) in the right direction.

One area that the Foundation's comments focus on is the loophole for so-called "sensitive information":

This "sensitive information" exception to full disclosure is simply a loophole allowing union and trust fund officials to unilaterally determine what disclosure must be made public, and then hide a vast array of questionable expenditures. Financial reports of trust fund operations and expenditures can never be considered "confidential" information, because this money is owned by the employees, not the union or trust fund officials. Fiduciary agents have no right to maintain secret record or engage in secret transactions that are purposefully hidden from principals - the employees who are the actual owners of the funds.

Expect Big Labor to fight tooth and nail any proposal that would give employees better access to information about the money they are being forced to hand over to union and trust fund officials.

The Chicago Sun Times reports that $25 million from five union pension funds have been misused by a Chicago firm that specializes in managing union pension funds. Such funds are funded from employees' paychecks and normally all employees under a union contract - even if they don't want to be - are forced to pay money in. Often the pension funds are then used as de facto slush funds for union officials.

According to reports, one million dollars were funneled into political organizations including "Citizens for a Greater Detroit" and the Michigan Democrats. Money was also used to buy a Detroit strip club, a Michigan horse farm, and millions were used for "travel and entertainment" for clients including private jets, Vegas nightclubs and Super Bowl tickets.

Since the firm specializes in managing union pension funds, the "clients" being entertained were likely union officials who were effectively ripping off the very employees they claim to represent. It is also unlikely that it is a coincidence that the political money went to the union's political allies.

The Department of Labor is suing the firm to try and recover the funds, but if unions didn't have the power to force employees to accept their "representation," employees would not have been compelled to fund these pension plans in the first place.

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.

Following up on forced dues for foster parents in Washington State, another op-ed in the Seattle P-I this week says that the California Legislature wants to "unionize Grandma." The article states:

A bill pending in the Senate would create a union to organize family
members who provide child care for their kin and are paid by the state
so that mothers can work outside the home.

Furthermore:

Child-care providers who did not want to join the union would still
have to pay fees -- likely in the same amount as the union dues.

Most disturbingly, this extension of compulsory unionism is part of a broader trend:

The move in California is part of a nationwide strategy by SEIU and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Since
2005, governors in eight states have issued executive orders or taken
other action giving family child-care providers the right to unionize
and bargain as a group.

And in all of those states without a Right to Work law, those care providers must pay union dues. What a tell tale sign that this is all about the money that union officials must stoop to compelling payment of union dues from people taking care of their own families.

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."

You heard it right. According to an op-ed just run by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Washington State is considering subjecting foster parents within the state to compulsory unionism, which could cause some serious problems. The piece cites:

If forced to join, I predict foster parents already fed up with the
system will depart in droves. If even 20 percent leave already thin
ranks, it will be a foster care disaster.

The author also brands the idea as a "beachhead," and that:

Once a precedent is set, it will be easy to expand the scope because virtually all children in foster care are special needs.

Sounds like union officials in Washington are once again using the legislature to expand their special privileges rather than soliciting voluntary support of those they seek to organize. Not to mention the fact that these are foster parents we're talking about here.

The National Right to Work Foundation gives free legal help to thousands of American workers each year that are victims of forced unionism abuse. Here are just a few in their own words:

Montana timber trucker Michael Weller, who received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, won an agreement that requires Teamsters Local 2 union officials to reimburse him all forced dues and initiation fees, plus interest.

The Associated Press reported:

Weller said he paid the [forced dues] charges out of fear of losing his job, and sought financial disclosure documents from the union to determine if he was paying the correct amount.

However, even though it was an encouraging victory for Weller, without a Right to Work law in Montana, there are countless more workers who are forced to pay hundreds of dollars to an unwanted union each year or lose their jobs.

The Daily Inter Lake and the Flathead Beacon also covered Weller’s victory.

Following up on last week's post, Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research spoke out last week against a recent executive order in Colorado extending union monopoly bargaining over state employees. (NRTW Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr. spoke at the event.)

According to an article in the Denver Business Journal:

Greer also said that even if legislators approve a law prohibiting
government workers from striking -- and Ritter signs it -- 48 percent
of public sector strikes are technically illegal, meaning that
legislation is not an effective deterrent against strikes.

"By all economic measures, Colorado would be better off without
forced dues and fees and everyone would be better off with right to
work laws."

How true- if strike prohibitions work, how did union officials shut down New York City just before Christmas in 2005" They didn't seem to mind the illegality of that strike. The imposition of forced union dues has also prompted state employees in Washington and Maine to fight back.