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."

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.

Leaders of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe are up in arms because Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America union officials filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board for a representation election of their casino security personnel only to pull the plug at the last minute.

Meanwhile, SPFPA officials told The Morning Sun that they never had any intention of going through with the election:

"...the union simply wanted to get the list of names and addresses of
the casino security and surveillance personnel the union hopes to
organize."

Tribe representatives called the move a "manipulation" of the system, point out that two previous organizing attempts have failed, and question the NLRB's jurisdiction over their employees in the first place.

Most likely, collecting employees' personal information is geared at pressuring them individually to support unionization through a potential "card check" drive. Sadly, this situation shows that many times, when employees reject unionization, it's just the beginning.

Further undermining what little credibility it may still have, the American Bar Association held its annual labor law conference and loaded up the agenda with another one-sided panel discussion to attack the concept of employee free choice.

For the 4th year in a row, ABA political hacks have pointedly refused to allow the perspective of employees who may, God forbid, not want a union to dominate their workplace. Once again, a hot topic at the conference was the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's cases defending employees whose rights are abused during card check organizing drives.

And yet again, the ABA meeting planners refused to allow the perspective of workers or their Right to Work attorneys to be heard -- instead selecting speakers representing Big Labor and a small faction of squishy, union-boss-friendly management lawyers. (Of course, the views of the speakers were rejected by the NLRB in its recent Dana/Metaldyne ruling, and the views of Foundation attorneys were embraced. Just a technicality, I guess.)

The ABA's intellectual dishonesty continues to be an embarrassment to America's legal profession.

If "UNITE-HERE" union officials have their way, employees of Donald Trump's new Windy City hotel may soon be hearing "you're fired" if they refuse to pay union dues. According to Crain's Chicago Business:

The Trump International Hotel & Tower offers both a high-profile target and an opportunity to bring 300 or more employees into the union fold. UNITE HERE wants Trump to approve a so-called neutrality agreement, which would permit organizers to try to persuade workers to sign cards supporting union representation.

So called "neutrality agreements"are anything but- they often require employers to assist union officials in organizing employees. Under such pacts, employers must often grant union organizers sweeping access to employees, hold "captive audience" meetings, and even hand out employees' personal information.

Notice too as you read the article, as is common in many similar situations, that union officials are targeting the hotel's employees rather than vice versa. Makes sense, since without a Right to Work law, union officials can force employees in Illinois to pay dues. Looks like it's all about the forced-dues cash.

The National Right to Work Foundation just filed a "friend of the court" brief supporting employee free choice at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Chamber v. Brown case. At issue is a controversial 9th Circuit decision that basically forces coercive union organizing on private companies receiving state funds.

Foundation attorneys have successfully helped contest similiar laws in Wisconsin, and through this brief in New York. Additionally, with 13 trips to the U.S. Supreme Court on record, most recently the 2007 Davenport defensive victory, Foundation attorneys are no strangers to the highest court in the land.