Forced-Unionism Issue Looms Large For 2012

Forced-Unionism Issue Looms Large For 2012

Right to Work Committee Begins Lobbying Presidential Hopefuls (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) This summer, New Hampshire is the site of an extended battle over the Right to Work issue, as pro-Right to Work citizens seek to secure two-thirds majority votes in the state House and Senate to override Big Labor Gov. John Lynch's veto of legislation (H.B.474) prohibiting compulsory union dues and fees. Because Right to Work has been in the New Hampshire news since both chambers of the state's General Court approved H.B.474 earlier this year, WMUR-TV (ABC) news anchor Josh McElveen decided to bring up the issue at the June 13 GOP presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. Mr. McElveen asked former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, one of the seven 2012 presidential hopefuls participating in the debate, whether he would, if elected, support "a federal Right to Work law." Mr. Pawlenty ignited the debate's longest and most enthusiastic round of applause with his response: "We live in the United States of America, and people shouldn't be forced to belong [to] or be a member in any organization, and the government has no business telling people what group you have to be a member of or not. "I support strongly Right to Work legislation."

Forced Unionism on the War Path

The National Labor Relations Board has become nothing more than puppets for the union bosses who were unable to achieve their goals legislatively and have now set their sights on forcing workers into unions administratively. WFI's Fred Wszolek looks at the three-headed monster of schemes the board is proposing to foist coercive unionism on workers across the employment spectrum. The NLRB and DoL are working to enact three sweeping rule changes that would restrict the freedoms of employers, while significantly shifting workplace power into the hands of Big Labor. Workers who would be directly and negatively affected by these changes are largely unaware that Washington, D.C. has declared war against them and jobs by advancing bureaucratic regulations that will increase unemployment and restrict hard-won liberties. The NLRB is currently pushing two changes: quickie union elections and the formation of micro units. Both of these change decades-old board law and procedure that have not hurt unions, instead allowed them to win the majority of organizing elections and strengthened the collective bargaining unit that has been formed. Successful union elections are still taking place with a 67.6 percent success rate. It is reported that unions brought in $8.8 billion in dues in 2010. So why the need for these rules changes? A closer examination shows that, quite simply, the Obama Administration is bailing out Big Labor with little to no regard for implications on workers due to the fact union membership has declined. The proposed quickie election rule shortens the time for union elections from a median time of 38 days to as little as 10, depriving employees of the ability to make an informed choice on perhaps the most important issue they will face in the workplace: whether to unionize. The aim? To catch businesses off guard and leave them scrambling so that a vote happens before employees can study the facts. During an already difficult economic time, the proposal for quickie elections would place additional costs and burdens on small business owners, who lack the resources and legal expertise to navigate and fully comprehend the NLRB’s election processes.
What does the $2.2 Billion Big Labor spent on politicians buy labor bosses?

What does the $2.2 Billion Big Labor spent on politicians buy labor bosses?

BigGovernment.com reports that $2.2 Billion was spent by Big Labor during the last two election cycles from its forced-dues fed treasuries.  This by far exceed Big Labor's $1/2 Billion 20-year cumulative political contributions found at OpenSecrets.org. The big question: What does the $2.2 Billion Big Labor spent on politicians buy labor bosses?  The list is so extensive that it deserves a blog post of its own.  Please consider commenting with your own suggestions for the list that may be added to the upcoming related blog post. From BigGovernment.com: The [Professor Anthony Davies’ series of charts] represent dollars flowing to politicians from the “Top-100” special interest donors over the last 20 years.  [In Davies' chart Big Labor spent $500 million combined over a 20-year time period.] Further investigation reveals that the money represented on this chart is only the tip of the iceberg. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Big Labor spent $2.2 Billion on political activities during the 2008 & 2010 election cycles alone — eclipsing by four times the 20-year $1/2 Billion from the chart. But, then no one should be shocked by this. You see Big Labor has special powers above all other special interests..