(Correction: We misidentified Connell as a man in the original post and have now corrected the gender-specific references. I apologize for the mistake. All the other points stand.)

At the AFL-CIO blog today, labor gal Tula Connell reacts to the arguments by University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein (published recently in the Wall Street Journal) that the Employee Free Choice Act is unconstitutional. Connell doesn’t really respond or argue against Epstein’s legal case, she insults and then changes the subject. And then there’s this:

Some opponents of workers’ freedom to form unions seem to have forgotten that forming groups outside government—and corporate—purview is critical to a free nation. In Big Brother-speak, these corporate hacks are attacking the proposed Employee Free Choice Act—which would enable more workers to have the freedom to form unions—as unconstitutional.

“Big Brother-speak?” Snort. That term comes from a proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill designed to DEPRIVE workers of the free choice made possible by a secret ballot.

Connell’s basic message is war is peace, and now she’s accusing opponents of using Orwellian rhetoric!  

It’s as if she believes ignorance is strength.

Connell also calls Richard Epstein a “corporate hack.” Richard Epstein? Principled disagreement based on law and philosophy is apparently impossible in Connell’s world. But as we’ve said before, organized labor often goes too far, prefering to bully and shout instead of engage. Well, in the case of the Employee Free Choice Act that approach makes political sense, because labor can’t win on the merits. Better change the subject.

Which explains why Connell all but ignores the constitutional arguments made by Epstein. If we read it right, she suggests that freedom of association always trumps all other constitutional considerations, including freedom of speech. That’s not how we understand the law. But then, in Connell’s Oceanic world, freedom is slavery, so maybe there it does.

UPDATE (11:30 p.m.): Michael Janson, who recently earned a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, disagrees with Epstein, arguing on the merits in this letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal.

So reports AP. Here’s her bio from the NAM’s website:

Born in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Calif, October 20, 1957; B.A., California Polytechnic University, Pomona, Calif., 1979; M.A., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1981; White House Office of Hispanic Affairs; analyst, Office of Management and Budget; member of the Rio Hondo, Calif., Community College board of trustees, 1985-1992; member of the California state assembly, 1992-1994; member of the California state senate, 1994-2001; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Seventh Congress (November 2000-present).

Here’s her voting record on NAM Key Votes:

110th Congress: 20 percent
109th Congress:   4 percent
108th Congress:   0 percent
107th Congress:   0 percent

Here’s the Congressional biography, from her website:

First elected in 2000, Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis is serving her fourth term in Congress representing California’s 32nd Congressional District, which includes Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Irwindale, Rosemead, South El Monte, and West Covina and portions of Monterey Park and East Los Angeles. Solis’ priorities in Congress include expanding access to affordable health care, protecting the environment, and improving the lives of working families.

Solis is the first Latina to serve on the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where she is Vice Chair of the Environment and Hazardous Materials (EHM) Subcommittee and a member of the Health and Telecommunications Subcommittees. From 2003-2006, she served as the Ranking Democratic Member of the EHM Subcommittee. Solis also serves on the House Committee on Natural Resources and in March 2007 was named a member of the newly created House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Solis also serves as Co-Vice Chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. She is a Senior Whip, as well as a Regional Whip for Southern California. Solis is also Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Health and the Environment, under which she spearheads annual summits across the country about racial and ethnic health disparities.

She’s certainly not one of the names that had been talked about in political and business circles. Her committees aren’t ones you normally think of as “labor” committees, either.

Oh, it goes without saying that Rep. Solis voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. Only two Democrats voted against it in the House.

UPDATE (1:40 p.m.): That completes President-elect Obama’s Cabinet appointments, doesn’t it? Very impressive, very well organized and presented.

UPDATE (1:55 p.m.): According to the AFL-CIO voting records, she voted with the pro-union point of view 24 out of 24 times, for a perfect 100 percent in 2007. Her lifetime AFL-CIO voting percentage is 97 percent.

Also, from her website, her position on labor and employment issues.

The Employee Free Choice Act has prompted a number of public opinion surveys from supporters and opponents of the legislation, with the laborite supporters often making these argument: Polls show that the public supports unions, therefore the public supports the Employee Free Choice Act.

It’s specious, obviously, akin to arguing that because the public supports chocolate, members of the public demand to have big slabs of chocolate cake crammed down their throats until they choke to death.

Not satisfied with flawed syllogisms, Bret Jacobsen of Maverick Strategies LLC actually examined recent labor claims based on a Gallup Poll and found much overreaching. Yes, 59 percent of the public approves of unions, but there’s more. From today’s D.C. Examiner, “Numbers Don’t Add Up for Big Labor’s Main Goals in 2009“:

Unfortunately for union bosses, the Gallup union-approval numbers show that only one-third of Americans want unions to have more influence. That means two-thirds want unions to maintain or reduce their current level of power in society. Notably, independents show a slight preference for less union influence, rather than more.

Dueling polls from labor and business interests aside, the well-respected Gallup poll delivers no real mandate to hand union officials more power. That means voters aren’t asking for EFCA. Congress shouldn’t, either.

Not satisfied with overreach, the unions are also engaging in their SOP calumny on the card check issue. At the AFL-CIO blog, one writer asserts the conservatives who voted against financial aid to the Detroit-based automobiles did so because of the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s a shoddy assertion based on weak reporting by the L.A. Times: “As the L.A. Times reported today, conservatives circulated ‘an action alert’ calling for lawmakers to ’stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor.” We don’t even know what group or how widely the e-mail was circulated, but in any case, an outside group sending an e-mail does not translate into the grand conspiracy that labor’s blogofringe claims is under way. (And Democrats voted against the aid, as well.)

From the AFL-CIO blog:

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland, one of the largest environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, announced its support of the bill, which would level the playing field by allowing workers to choose how to join a union. Also at the conference, the Sierra Club reiterated its support.

It’s baffling why the AFL-CIO would tout the endorsement of its legislative priority by a group that fights economic growth tooth and nail and fang and claw. The radical NRDC hates domestic oil production, despises the coal industry, regards the chemical industry as dangerous and depraved, and accuses the productive sectors of the economy of racism.

In short, the NRDC wants to close down vast sectors of the manufacturing economy, in the process putting millions of AFL-CIO members out of work.

So why in the world would the unions make common cause with the environmentalist left on card check? The AFL-CIO’s leadership must have decided that actually representing their current membership’s interests is not a priority. Better to force unwilling employees into union membership to extract dues from them.

Strange that the rank and file would acquiesce to their leadership’s alliance with the jobs-destroyers.

More measured commentary from The Huffington Post, in this case the long-time labor activist and writer, Jonathan Tasini:

McDonald’s really knows how to celebrate liberty and justice. On the eve of the international recognition Human Rights Day, McDonald’s announced it will launch a massive campaign to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. So, let’s respond in kind: boycott McDonald’s.

Jonathan, it’s not just McDonalds, or restaurateurs, or the hospitality industry. You’ll be hard pressed to find ANY employer in the private sector — manufacturing, retail, service — who supports the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s a rare employer indeed who would welcome a law that organized labor will use to browbeat unwilling employees into joining a union, leading to higher labor costs and, even worse, restrictive work rules that will tie the hands of business in the competitive marketplace.

If the Huffington Post’s readers applied your reasoning consistently, they’d have to boycott almost EVERYTHING. Makes for a dark and cold Christmas, warmed only by the fires of zealousness.

P.S. Give Tasini points for honesty, though. He admits he doesn’t eat fast-food burgers.

P.P.S. There’s a lot of dishonest huffing and puffing this week from laborites about Human Rights Day, claiming that the United States is some sort of human rights violator because employees and employers have the right to request a secret-ballot election when determining a workplace’s union status. The right to NOT join a union, to NOT be compelled into membership is also a human right. So spare us the sanctimony and moral equivalency.

Excellent post at The Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog, “The Ugly Face of Progressive Corporatism“:

Unfortunately, this shakedown mentality is all too common to the Service Employees International Union’s way of doing business. A Democratic source confirms that SEIU President Andy Stern is the “SEIU official” referred to in the federal complaint against Blagojevich. Since taking his union out of the AFL-CIO and forming the Change to Win federation in 2005, Stern has sought to assert his union’s influence over private equity firms, centralize his authority within the union by forcing various locals to merge, and negotiate large deals with employers without member participation.

All of this union-related corruption comes at a crucial point in U.S. public policy. Organized labor has a tall wish list for Obama’s administration, including the abolition of secret ballot voting in union organizing elections and ensuring that as much of the $1 trillion Obama plans to spend to stimulate the economy goes to Davis-Bacon compliant jobs. Our economy simply cannot afford organized labor’s priorities to be placed above strong economic growth.

Davis-Bacon. Right, the guaranteed way to get less stimulus bang for the buck out of any infrastructure plan.

U.S. Rep. Health Schuler (D-NC) providing guidance to freshmen House members on how on how to vote on hotly disputed caucus races for chairmanships of importance committees:

Keep your vote close to vest, don’t make either chairman upset or mad, and go cast your secret ballot.

(And here’s the sound bite, from Power Breakfast, a news segment on WAMU radio.)

Elsewhere, Washington Times, “Unions sure organizing bill will pass,” based on an interview with the AFL-CIO’s government affairs director, William Samuel.

Under current law, whenever 30 percent of employees in a workplace sign union-authorization cards, employers have the right to demand a secret-ballot election. Under provisions of the unions’ proposed legislation that right would be revoked.

UPDATE by Keith Smith (12:05 p.m.): Schuler isn’t the only Member of Congress speaking up in support of secret ballots. Rules Committee Chair Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said yesterday when asked about the contested race to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee: “It’s a secret ballot. Thank God.” If Members of Congress feel the need to vote in private, then they shouldn’t take away that right from America’s workers.

The AFL-CIO’s Executive Council issued a statement calling on Congress and the new Administration to pass the outrageously named Employee Free Choice Act in light of the current financial crisis.
 
In their words:

“Unless we restore the power of working people to bargain with their companies for a better life, economic growth will not be broadly shared and income inequality will not diminish” 

Recently the NLRB released statistics that show labor unions won two-thirds of the union representation elections held in the first part of 2008. Last year unions won just more than half of these elections. Plain and simple – the current system works.
 
Contrary to what Labor leaders at the AFL-CIO will assert, union members aren’t sold on EFCA and do not want to lose their right to a secret ballot. In fact, recent polling has found widespread opposition among union household voters (69 percent) to card check legislation, which would replace a federally supervised secret ballot process with one that requires a majority of workers to simply sign a public card to authorize a union.
 
The AFL-CIO realizes that they are facing concerns from within their ranks, in their statement they indicate that they plan to educate their members on the legislation in order to have them contact Congress. From their release:

“Starting in December, hundreds of state federations and local labor councils will conduct member education and mobilization meetings”

(Note: NAM’s Executive Vice President Jay Timmons is at the National Democratic Convention in Denver this week, and he’ll be blogging events, adding his insights as both a veteran of Senate and campaign politics and as a top representative of the U.S. manufacturing economy.)

Big Labor Bosses are flexing their muscles at the Democratic Convention, proving how vital the dues they collect from unionized workers are to Democrat political objectives.

Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO political director, gave a sneak peak yesterday at the massive $53 million the union will unload to influence unsuspecting voters.

Here are a few of the highlights:

• One million pieces of mail going out today in four target states: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
• A goal of 10 million doors to be knocked on
• Over 25 million pieces of mail before election day
• 70 million phone calls
• 250,000 volunteers

The focus of today’s mailer, according to Ackerman, is to build awareness of the Obama record in the Senate showing that “he is a partisan and will not cave.” (So much for letting the nominee move to the political center to attract independent voters.)

Overall, the AFL-CIO Big Labor Bosses say they will engage in 510 races from statehouses to the White House to “build a sustained movement,” including 61 U.S. House campaigns and 11 U.S. Senate campaigns.

Ackerman also indicated that the unions will deploy union lawyers and poll watchers on Election Day as part of a “voter protection program”. Given their focused determination to eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing efforts, voters might want to be a little concerned about the “protection” the Big Labor Bosses want to provide.

More:

• Rocky Mountain News, “Fractured labor unions displays unity at DNC rally“
• Financial Week, “AFL-CIO unveils $50 million campaign for Obama “
• AFL-CIO events during Democratic National Convention
• The AFL-CIO blog, reporting from Denver.

As a native Rochestarian, and proud University at Buffalo alum, I was a bit surprised to see one of the Democrats  campaigning for the  local Congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Reynolds being rejected by the AFL-CIO , especially given the candidate’s otherwise pro-labor positions. A tough primary battle  is under way in Western New York  between Jack Davis (who lost to Reynolds in 2006) and John Powers.   Despite exports ’ role in keeping our economy afloat Davis has toed labor’s line that trade agreements harm workers  and made trade a cornerstone of his campaign. Organized labor traditionally rewards those who stick with them on such a priority issue.

Not this time.  The local union bosses weren’t ashamed to demonstrate  that there’s only ONE priority this year, and it’s taking away secret ballots  in the workplace . As reported by the Buffalo News, Angelo Vellake, president of the Western New York Area Labor Federation of the AFL-CIO said “[Davis] opposes the Employee Free Choice Act, and that’s a litmus test.”

I find it interesting that the Powers campaign actually said: “Voters want a serious leader who will work with others in Congress to protect the American worker”. I wonder how voters will feel when they realize that Powers actually supports taking away the right of American workers to secret ballot elections when determining whether they want to have a labor union represent them.  

To get a better idea of what’s at stake here, please look to this Fox News clip (available here) from last night that highlights the “card check” issue a bit better. It features former Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern telling his political friends that it’s wrong to destroy the secret ballot and argues “that union elections should be just like presidential and congressional elections by secret ballot.”