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.

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.

A top official – Steven T. Thomas – at the Laborer’s International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 500 in Ohio was fired for spending thousands of dollars on personal entertainment using the union’s credit card.

Of course, the credit card debts are paid by forced dues-paying workers the union local supposedly “represents.” And according to this union boss, there’s apparently no better way to represent the working interests of those employees than to spend the money in multiple gentlemen’s clubs.

The Toledo Blade reports:

[Steven T. Thomas] charged the union $17,414 for 96 separate visits in 2004 to Scarlett’s in Toledo and Kahoots Gentlemen's Club in Columbus, according to report obtained by The Blade.

Thomas, the business manager of the union local, was removed in May 2007 for the misuse of funds.

But in an ironic twist, Judge Nadine S. Pettiford of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission recently ruled that Thomas was not fired with just cause from his job and ordered that Thomas’ unemployment benefits be reinstated.

The outcome of this story is entirely amazing, as it highlights yet another reason why compulsory unionism and corruption go hand-in-hand and why labor bosses often barely receive a slap on the wrist when they misuse union dues.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the importance of the National Right to Work Foundation's Beck U.S. Supreme Court victory:

That ruling -- Communication Workers v. Beck -- is soundly grounded in the First Amendment. No one can be required to hand over money to someone else, if those funds will then be used to promote political views or causes which are anathema to the person whose money is being used.

Unfortunately, union officials commonly ignore and violate that principle, as borne out by the number of Beck enforcement cases the Foundation has. However, the article recognizes that as a Right to Work state, employees can go beyond cutting off union dues for politics.

Because no Nevadan can be required to join a union just to get or keep his or her job, disgusted union members here have an even more effective option. They can keep their jobs and quit the union.

With union officials in this context squabbling over which candidate to support, employees in Nevada deserve to know that they can not only cut off their dues going towards union political activities- they are free to pay none at all.

Following up on last week’s post on Big Labor’s push for mandating coercive “card check” organizing, the New York Post had a great article about the dangers of the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Tim Miller wrote this after one presidential hopeful promised to go “10 rounds with anybody” in order to help union officials:

“EFCA would strip employees of the right to a secret ballot vote, and make it much easier for union organizers to push employees into union membership - which in turn means more dollars for labor leaders.

In other words, ‘going 10 rounds with anybody’ involves sucker-punching working Americans.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

If you haven’t already, take a look at this site that shows a unique take on the employees that the National Right to Work Foundation helps.

This page, called “Employee Profiles” highlights just a few of the courageous employees who have stood up against compulsory unionism abuse with the Foundation’s help. The interactive site gives a brief look at their stories and experiences, along with personal quotes, pictures and news.

You may find 16-Year-Old Danielle Cookson’s story inspiring, as she stood up against union bosses who were threatening her job. Or, former history teacher Gary Davenport’s Supreme Court fight might provide some insight on your First Amendment rights and union officials using forced dues for politics.

The 10 brave individuals featured on the site, who have boldly stood up to defend their rights in the face of union coercion, have provided hope for those workers throughout the nation who believe in the principle that no American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union.

More profiles will be added to this site soon.

When hard-working employees object to paying forced dues for politics, they mean it.

But despite such opposition, union officials will try to find every way possible to demoralize and hamstring employees so that their forced dues money continues to follow into union political coffers.

Take a look at Robert Prime from Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Prime works at the Naval Air Station. In December 2003, he filed charges with help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation after IAM union officials told him he had to object every single year to paying for union political advocacy.

IAM union officials refused to acknowledge that his objection should apply continuously. And while Mr. Prime fights for his objection to be honored, he and his coworkers are forced to oblige to a burdensome and discriminatory policy until a decision is issued after a hearing scheduled for the end of this year.

It took nearly four years for him just to get that far. But Mr. Prime and his coworkers in Florida are not alone.

Just months ago, the NLRB delayed another ruling where George Gally, a 40-year veteran at Colt Firearms, requested that the federal board rule on his case under similar circumstances.

Right to Work attorneys helped Mr. Gally of Connecticut originally file unfair labor practice charges in 2003. His charges challenged the United Auto Worker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of requiring employees to object annually in order to receive refunds of forced union dues spent for union political activities.

But the NLRB, with its reputation for dragging its feet, refused to rule on Mr. Gally’s precedent-setting case and punted the decision back to a Regional Director for further review.

As a result, Mr. Gally has no choice, like Mr. Prime, to wait longer for a ruling as union officials continue to enforce bogus hurdles designed solely to keep rank-and-file workers in line.

Union officials do not require the same of their members. So why do they require those employees – who do not want to pay for union political activities – to object every year?

The answer can surely be heard in the “cha-ching” of union bosses’ coffers.

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, Democrat Presidential contenders addressed SEIU officials at a candidates’ forum in Washington,DC. The Presidential wannabes all know the massive financial support that can come from the support of union officials and their forced-dues coffers.

And if past experience is an indicator, an endorsement by SEIU officials is particularly lucrative.

After all it was SEIU officials that in 2004 sent $26 million, much of it seized from employees as a condition of employment, to the 527 group Americans Coming Together (ACT). After a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Foundation, the Federal Election Commission fined ACT for illegally spending the money on partisan electioneering… and that’s just one union’s electioneering efforts with one outside group. (Total estimates for the amount spent by union officials to influence the 2003-04 political cycle are nearly a billion dollars.)

But, as former-New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson showed, kowtowing to union officials can be quite confusing, what with so many union officials and so little time. That’s why Richardson undoubtedly left union operatives scratching their heads when he ended his speech to the SEIU exclaiming “Thank you AFSCME!”

In the Sacramento Bee, Daniel Weintraub observes the legislative efforts of United Farm Workers union officials to eliminate the secret ballot elections for California’s farm workers:

Thirty years ago, legendary union organizer Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers made history by winning the right to a secret ballot for migrant field hands in California who wanted to join a union. Today, in an odd twist, the UFW is trying to take that right away.

The article echoes a 2001 letter written by George Miller (D-CA) and a group of other Congressmen urging Mexico to adopt the secret ballot for its unionization elections. In it Miller wrote:

[W]e feel that the secret ballot election is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.

Now Miller is the sponsor and lead advocate of Big Labor’s “card check” bill that would eliminate the secret ballot election for unionization here in America.

Sure the hypocrisy is overwhelming, but upon further review it is not so surprising.

Unions were granted powers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that remain unparalleled for a private organization. Among other unique special legal privileges, unions can forcibly represent people and then force those already coerced workers to pay, under threat of termination, for the unwanted “representation.”

Back when the New Deal-era NLRA passed, unions shrouded their extraordinary powers over individual workers with a secret ballot election in attempt to legitimize their ability to coerce employees.

Now, having used the forced dues collected with their extraordinary powers to amass the political influence necessary, union officials are scrapping the secret ballot altogether in an effort to further expand their power to coerce individual employees.

It’s a move Tony Soprano would be proud of.