It’s ‘Labor’ Day, Not ‘Union’ Day

National Right to Work President Mark Mix makes the critical distinction between "Labor Day" and "Union Day," a distinction that union bosses chose to ignore: By Mark Mix Most Americans realize that Labor Day is about celebrating workers, not union bosses, but that won’t stop Big Labor’s apologists from stealing to spotlight to demand more power. The fact is that modern unions are built on the legal privilege of compulsion. In 28 states without Right to Work laws, nonunion employees can be fired for refusing to pay union dues. Millions more nonunion workers have no choice but to accept union bargaining over their wages and working conditions. What’s more, union officials routinely funnel nonunion workers’ dues into political campaigns aimed at defending or expanding their already extensive special privileges. As legislators from Wisconsin to Ohio can attest, this perverse cycle has made it extremely difficult to roll back union bosses’ workplace powers. Big Labor thrives on a system of government-granted special privileges. But what do workers get out of this arrangement? According to union apologists, they’d be helpless without it. But the facts reveal a different story. Compulsory unionism makes union bosses unaccountable to rank-and-file workers, whose financial support is absolutely mandatory. After all, why should union officials bother with the hard work of representing employees if they’re sitting on a forced-dues revenue stream guaranteed by the government?

Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

  Chairman Wilma Liebman and other Big Labor members of President Obama's NLRB have proposed radical new rules for union organizing campaigns that would drastically curtail independent minded employees' ability to resist unionization. Credit: Radaris.com President's Handpicked Bureaucrats Ignore 2010 Election Results (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 Congresses, Big Labor's top objective was a rewrite of federal labor law making it even easier for union bosses to seize monopoly-bargaining power over millions of employees in the American private sector. Union strategists' legislative vehicle was the cynically mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," introduced by pro-forced unionism Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). After Mr. Kennedy died in 2009, union-label Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin took over as the lead Senate sponsor. The Miller-Kennedy-Harkin measure was more accurately called the "Card-Check" Forced-Unionism Bill. Even without a federal card-check mandate, union bosses have long been able to acquire "exclusive" (monopoly) power to negotiate employees' pay, benefits, and work rules solely through the acquisition of signed "union authorization cards." Consequently, individual workers under the peering eyes of union organizers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control. However, as stacked as current law is in favor of Big Labor's monopoly-bargaining power, employers nevertheless retain the right to stand up for their employees against union-boss intimidation tactics. But Miller-Kennedy-Harkin would have empowered union officials to impose monopoly bargaining through card checks automatically, with no recourse for any pro-Right to Work employee or employer. This legislation was totally contrary to the policy views of the vast majority of citizens, including union members. Last November 2, 31 Card-Check Bill Supporters Lost Their Re-Election Bids "Over the years, polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly oppose union monopoly bargaining, period," explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

  Chairman Wilma Liebman and other Big Labor members of President Obama's NLRB have proposed radical new rules for union organizing campaigns that would drastically curtail independent minded employees' ability to resist unionization. Credit: Radaris.com President's Handpicked Bureaucrats Ignore 2010 Election Results (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 Congresses, Big Labor's top objective was a rewrite of federal labor law making it even easier for union bosses to seize monopoly-bargaining power over millions of employees in the American private sector. Union strategists' legislative vehicle was the cynically mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," introduced by pro-forced unionism Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). After Mr. Kennedy died in 2009, union-label Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin took over as the lead Senate sponsor. The Miller-Kennedy-Harkin measure was more accurately called the "Card-Check" Forced-Unionism Bill. Even without a federal card-check mandate, union bosses have long been able to acquire "exclusive" (monopoly) power to negotiate employees' pay, benefits, and work rules solely through the acquisition of signed "union authorization cards." Consequently, individual workers under the peering eyes of union organizers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control. However, as stacked as current law is in favor of Big Labor's monopoly-bargaining power, employers nevertheless retain the right to stand up for their employees against union-boss intimidation tactics. But Miller-Kennedy-Harkin would have empowered union officials to impose monopoly bargaining through card checks automatically, with no recourse for any pro-Right to Work employee or employer. This legislation was totally contrary to the policy views of the vast majority of citizens, including union members. Last November 2, 31 Card-Check Bill Supporters Lost Their Re-Election Bids "Over the years, polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly oppose union monopoly bargaining, period," explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

Obama's Secretary of Labor sued for aiding union bosses concealment of personal benefits

With the help of National Right To Work Legal Defense Attorney Bill Messenger, UFCW former union steward Chris Mosquera seeks to force U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to reverse her regulations that rescinded disclosure of union boss benefits, insider deals, and sources of receipts.  Forced-dues fill Big Labor treasuries with cash that all-too-often union bosses turn into private slush funds awarding themselves handsome benefits. From the Mosquera's Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner:  Without stringent disclosure requirements, union members and nonmembers alike are left at the mercy of union officials who have the power to collect dues without being held accountable for how that money is spent. The public reporting guidelines Solis jettisoned included several common-sense additions to the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959. Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams. The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements. Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.

Obama's Secretary of Labor sued for aiding union bosses concealment of personal benefits

With the help of National Right To Work Legal Defense Attorney Bill Messenger, UFCW former union steward Chris Mosquera seeks to force U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to reverse her regulations that rescinded disclosure of union boss benefits, insider deals, and sources of receipts.  Forced-dues fill Big Labor treasuries with cash that all-too-often union bosses turn into private slush funds awarding themselves handsome benefits. From the Mosquera's Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner:  Without stringent disclosure requirements, union members and nonmembers alike are left at the mercy of union officials who have the power to collect dues without being held accountable for how that money is spent. The public reporting guidelines Solis jettisoned included several common-sense additions to the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959. Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams. The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements. Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.