The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today opposing the federal imposition of monopoly bargaining on America's firefighters, police, and EMTs.

The article lists many compelling reasons to be against monopoly bargaining, but never fully lays out the case for opposition to this form of compulsory unionism as a fundamental issue of employees' individual rights.

The fact is freedom of association should preclude union bosses from being able to force employees to accept their so-called "representation," thereby stripping individuals of their freedom to contract. Even worse, union bosses force employees -- union members or not -- to pay money for the "privilege" of losing their right of self-representation.

Even convicted criminals have the right to choose their own representation. It's deplorable that Congress would try to force states to strip first responders of their freedoms.

The Rocky Mountain News recently published a misleading op-ed by union organizer James Hansen. The article contains a number of misleading claims, but the following passage’s description of a Right to Work law is so fundamentally wrong that it has to be addressed:

“A right-to-work [sic] law would allow the government to intervene in labor-management relations, undermining the freedom that employers and workers now have to negotiate the best agreement possible for both sides.”

Union officials in Colorado already have government granted power to force every employee - member or not - to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their job (or getting a job in the first place). No other organization or association is allowed to extort forced fees from individuals.

State Right to Work protections simply eliminate this extraordinary government intervention, which is the exact opposite Hansen’s claim.

Further, if Hansen was really concerned with government intervention into employer-employee relations, he would call for the repeal of government imposed monopoly bargaining (that allows union officials to forcibly represent every employee) or the numerous other special government-granted powers that unions have.

But contrary to Hansen’s assertion, union officials are not at all concerned about preventing government intervention into employee-employer relations, as they long ago rejected AFL-CIO founder Samuel Gompers' call for purely voluntary unionism. For the better part of the last 100 years, union bosses have built their empire on special government-granted powers, with forced dues as the most glaring example of the power.

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.

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.

Right to Work President Mark Mix made a national TV appearance on "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel last week. He discussed the so-called "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act" with Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA).

Currently in Congress, Big Labor politicians are pushing a bill that would strip thousands of police, firefighters and other public-safety employees of their right to negotiate contracts with their local city and state governments for themselves. The bill would federally impose monopoly bargaining onto the state and local government employees, instead of the current system under which each city determines whether or not to impose monopoly bargaining.

But in addition to eliminating the public-safety officers’ right to negotiate for themselves, the bill also helps put these employees’ lives at greater risk, as evidenced by a recent incident in Boston where such monopoly bargaining is already law:

There are a lot of troubling questions regarding the reported autopsy results showing alcohol and cocaine in the blood of two Boston firefighters killed in August…

The results of the autopsies, which are not considered public documents, reportedly show that Cahill, a father of three, had a blood alcohol content of .27, more than three times the legal limit for driving.

Payne’s autopsy showed traces of cocaine in his blood, but it is unclear what the amounts were or how long before his death he ingested the drug.

Boston, like many other fire departments, does not have mandatory random drug testing because of collective bargaining agreements. That’s not to say that the tests would have found the men impaired, but the threat of testing would be a way to reduce the possibility.

[Emphasis added.]