Across the country, state governments have righted the ship from the brink of numerous fiscal disasters by decreasing the power of unions to coercively force members to join and to collectively bargain on non-salary issues (and thus hide budgetary costs). Within the private sector, the evidence continues to mount that unions are bad for the economy, bad for good employees, and bad for all workers in that they reduce the pool of available jobs.

Whatever the usefulness of unions in days past, in present day America they serve three purposes: 1) enriching union heads, 2) protecting lazy/bad employees, and 3) forcibly confiscating workers’ pay and using it to elect Democrats. Thus it is no surprise that at a time when union membership and popularity is at an all time low, Democrats are doing everything in their power to help unions, with the aid of the force of law, to coerce workers into joining unions and paying dues. As my #BATF colleague F. Bill McMorris notes:

House Republicans are moving to block President Obama’s top labor arbiter from implementing new union election rules that would give labor groups an advantage in unionization campaigns.

[mc_name name=’Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’B001289′ ] (R., Ala.) told the House Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Tuesday that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would “radically alter” the labor landscape through regulation rather than legislation. Byrne and congressional Republicans are employing the Congressional Review Act to attempt to block the NLRB from implementing changes they say are contrary to the law passed by Congress.

“The Board’s real goal is to dramatically tilt the outcome of elections in favor of union leaders by ambushing employers and workers without allowing them to fully understand their decision. The American people are on the losing end of the Board’s extreme culture of union favoritism,” he said.

* * *

Unions can spend months and even years wooing employees to sign petitions for election. Employers can encounter accusations of interference if they attempt to sway the process during this time. The existing process gives them time to present workers with the potential downsides of unionization. A speedier election limits a company’s ability to make the case against organization.

Byrne said in his opening remarks that the NLRB’s actions follow a trend of executive overreach from the White House.

“The Board’s rule eviscerates the right of employers to speak freely to employees during an organizing campaign,” he said in his prepared statement. “Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act to ensure employers have an opportunity to communicate with employees about union representation. Congress took this action not only to promote the voices of employers, but also to protect employee choice through a robust debate of important issues. The Board is overturning, by executive fiat, what Congress has expressly permitted by law.”

At the end of the day, Congress’ action is probably going to end up getting vetoed by the President. And even though, yet again, this executive action clearly exceeds the NLRB’s authority under the law, Democrats will doubtless vote to uphold Obama’s veto because we do not have a functioning Congress that can act in any way towards Obama other than that of a cringing, servile dog.

Nevertheless, it is useful for the American people to know exactly whose side the Democrats are on. And it’s not on the side of prosperity, workers, the economy, or the rule of law. It’s on the side of union thugs and their confiscation of hard earned worker money to line Democrat campaign coffers.