I think there are a couple of problems with your marketing concept though. First, Union Worker Rights is too short to sound important; it almost sounds like a give. Second, how in the world would you pronounce UWR? urrrr sounds awfully indecisive, tentative, and downright weak.

What you need is something like A Bill to Protect Organized Workers’ Empowerment, Rights, and Security. Protection has a high-minded sound and, in some circumstances, is even a proper function of government. “Organized Workers” seems to identify a class deserving protection – nothing like another victim class to garner support for legislation – without the negative baggage that “Union” has acquired over the years. “Empowerment, Rights, and Security” are more favorite buzzwords of the left; what progressive could stand against these shibboleths? Finally, POWERS is a relatively common, easily pronounced word that just drips power (pun intended).

I read in WaPo about Obama’s uphill battle to reform government. The single biggest obstacle Obama faces to accomplishing any meaningful reform in how government works is himself.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.–Marcus Aurelius, 14th Roman Emperor

Further, the question is not workers getting information, it is about a special interest group having access to influence government.

Your point about corporations is valid. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Their are cockroaches in the cupboards and they need to be cleaned out.

We are a very long way from taking up arms or even any such discussion.

Short of that lofty goal, it seems one way to improve union political abuse is to require that Union activities accurately reflect the full private political spectrum and wishes of their membership. In other words, unions activities would have to more accurately reflect the full spectrum of their membership, not just the presumed majority (Democrat) perspective.

Union leaders could no longer leverage union dues to their own political whims. They’d have to poll their membership in a fashion that preserves member privacy and spread the union political wealth accordingly. One might even make the case any polls would have to designed in an unbiased fashion so results accurately reflected membership, not push polls dedicated to getting a particular result of those commissioning the polls. Of course this would also apply to keeping other union votes private (aka no card check)…

An example of how this might work exists in how the NFIB (the largest small business lobby in the US) works to poll it’s membership about issues of the day. NFIB polls have a decently balanced pro and con arguments about timely issues, frequently with links to more info and details, for members to use to help make their polling decisions.

As I understand it, the NFIB doesn’t make a stand on anything that doesn’t get a significant clarity when polling it’s ‘volunteer’ membership — something like 80% or higher. The reality here is the NFIB are volunteer members who can leave if they don’t like the NFIB actions… While the cat’s meow would be for union workers to have the same right to walk away from left leaning unions, the next best thing would perhaps be to minimally bog union political thuggery down with rules and regs that make the leadership pay more attention to their members, than to the leader’s own whims.

Then there’s marketing the concept — Call it something catchy that will put Union leadership on the wrong side of fighting it — something like Union Worker Rights…