A judge from the National Labor Relations Board has overturned a union election at a Target store in New York in which workers ostensibly voted against becoming the first of the retail giant’s locations to organize. The judge ordered Target, which is notorious for its anti-labor practices, to hold a new election after agreeing with the United Food and Commercial Workers, who had accused the company of intimidating workers ahead of the election, Bloomberg Businessweek reports:

The decision comes almost a year after The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500 contested the 137-85 vote against unionization in June 2011. It argued that Target illegally intimidated workers for months leading up to the vote. Target denied the allegations. [...]

“Target completely poisoned the democratic process from day one,” said Patrick Purcell, assistant to the president of the UFCW Local 1500 in an interview with The Associated Press. “And now a judge agreed with everything we said.”

UFCW workers complained of intimidation immediately after the vote last year, and in November, the NLRB found additional evidence that Target officials illegally threatened to close the store if workers organized. It also found that Target supervisors “interrogated workers about their union activity,” complains the judge apparently found to be true.

In March, Target announced that it was temporarily close the store for six months for renovations, a move workers alleged was in retaliation for their organization efforts (1,100 Target stores are undergoing renovations nationwide, but most will remain open throughout the process). According to workers who filed the complaint, those who were the most vocal in their union support were deemed ineligible for transfers to other stores or for re-hire once the store re-opened, and they were given paltry severance packages to boot.

Target, however, says it “respectfully disagrees” with the decision and that its actions leading up to the election were “fair and legal.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) didn’t campaign on union busting, and claimed that his now-infamous bill stripping collective bargaining rights from public sector unions was about fixing the state’s finances, not attacking organized labor. Indeed, it was called the Budget Repair Bill and Walker and his allies said it was a purely fiscal issue.

“You see,” Walker said in a February 11, 2011 speech. “Despite a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard over the past 11 days, the bill I put forward isn’t aimed at state workers, and it certainly isn’t a battle with unions.”

Labor activists and Democrats, of course, claimed that the legislation’s true purpose was to break unions in the state, in order to help ensure more Republicans would get elected in the future. Now, a video released today by a Wisconsin documentary filmmaker should put any doubt to rest and show that Walker was lying through his teeth the entire time that he claimed his bill had nothing to do with undermining unions.

In the video, shot on January 18, 2011 — just before Walker introduced the Budget Repair Bill and a month before his speech — Walker tells a billionaire campaign contributor that the forthcoming budget bill is the first step in an elaborate strategy to “divide and conquer” unions in the state.

Speaking with Wisconsin billionaire Diane Hendricks, who has since become Walker’s single-largest campaign contributor and the biggest donor in Wisconsin history, Walker says the bill will help make Wisconsin a right-to-work and “completely red” state. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which first reported the exchange, transcribed the conversation:

“Any chance we’ll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -” [Hendricks asked]

“Oh, yeah,” Walker broke in.

“- and become a right-to-work?” Hendricks continued. “What can we do to help you?”

“Well, we’re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill,” Walker said. “The first step is we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.”

Watch the exchange, which is part of a documentary to be released soon:

While it’s by now almost universally understood that Walker’s intentions all along were to deliver a body blow to labor, the video confirms definitively that Walker pushed the legislation under false pretenses and in bad faith. This is, unfortunately, hardly shocking, as even Walker tacitly acknowledges it now, but shows that Walker intentionally deceived the legislature and the public.

Walker also claimed publicly all along that he’s not interested in making Wisconsin a “right-to-work” state, telling the Journal-Sentinel just last month, “Private sector unions are my partner in economic development.”

Thanks to this bill, Walker is now facing a recall election against former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), who said of the video, “This is another colossal bait and switch that goes directly to his honesty.” “What he claims he is not in favor of publicly, to the person who has made the largest contribution in state history, he says exactly the opposite. You can’t trust him,” Barrett added.

The ability of American workers to be upwardly mobile in the economy depends heavily on where they live, according to a state-by-state analysis from Pew Charitable Trusts. The study, the first of its kind, found that workers in a group of states largely clustered in the Northeast and Midwest are more likely to achieve upward mobility, while workers in southern states are far less likely.

For the most part, the states in each group differ on one major characteristic: the states where upward mobility is more likely are almost all union states, while the states where mobility is less likely almost all are not. Of the eight states that outperform the national average for upward economic mobility, seven are union states, with Utah the lone exception. Eight of the nine that underperform the national average, however, are so-called “right to work” states, with Kentucky the only exception:

When relative mobility is considered, union states look even better. Every state but one (Utah) that outperforms the national average on relative mobility, defined as the percentage of residents starting in the bottom half of the national distribution who move up 10 or more percentiles in a 10-year period, is a union state. Meanwhile, 14 of the 15 states that come in below the national average are right-to-work states, with Missouri the only exception:

Though the study didn’t find (or attempt to find) a direct correlation between union representation and mobility, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Michigan told USA Today that higher mobility there is likely linked to higher wages in manufacturing and public sector jobs, both of which tend to be more heavily organized. Those ties also exist in the other union states, which rely more on manufacturing than the right-to-work states.

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, unions played a significant role in the construction of the American middle class, boosting the mobility of lower-income workers. The decline in union representation, meanwhile, correlates closely with a sharp rise in income inequality over the last 40 years. Other studies have shown that workers who join unions earn higher wages and are more likely to have health and retirement benefits, and that union membership increases the likelihood of upward economic mobility.

Nearly eleven years after terrorists brought down the Twin Towers, the World Trade Center can again boast of itself as New York City’s tallest building. One World Trade Center, built to replace the towers, surpassed the Empire State Building yesterday afternoon, and by the time it is finished sometime next year, it will be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere and the third tallest in the world.

The reconstruction of the World Trade Center was done almost entirely with union labor. More than 3,200 workers were involved in the reconstruction effort, and as American Rights At Work notes, labor unions have been connected to the site since 9/11:

It’s fitting: union members were among the first responders; union members served in the immediate cleanup; and now union members are part of the rebuilding.

When One World Trade Center is completed, it will stand exactly 1,776 feet tall to mark America’s independence. Its roof, at 1,368 feet tall, will match the height of the original World Trade Center’s North Tower.

“The latest progress at the World Trade Center is a testament to New Yorkers’ strength and resolve, and to our belief in a city that is always reaching upward,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement. “This building has been a labor of love for many, and I congratulate the men and women who have worked together to solve the challenges presented by this incredibly complex project. Today our city has a new tallest building, and a new sense of how bright our future is.”

Our guest blogger is Karla Walter, a Senior Policy Analyst with the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow on whether to block a commonsense rule that creates a standard process for union elections and gives workers a fairer way of choosing whether to form a union. Unions boost incomes for all middle-class households — union and nonunion alike — so this vote is an attack not just on workers who would like to join a union, but on the entire middle class.

The new rule is needed because there is currently no limit on employers’ or unions’ ability to demand a pre-election hearing on most any issue, which can be used to delay an election. Workers who want a union too often give up due to these delays. According to research by John-Paul Ferguson of Stanford Business School, 35 percent of the time that workers file a petition for an election, the election does not end up happening.

The National Labor Relations Board issued the rule last winter. Now, Senate Republicans and their conservative allies are bending the facts on what the rule does to suit their argument.

Katherine Lugar of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which petitioned the Senate for a vote on the rule, claims that it will have a “dramatic effect on American businesses’ ability to grow jobs.” But the idea that workers’ rights and the NLRB are causing our economic problems is absurd. Unions are a shrinking factor in the economy, and when they were at their strongest, the U.S. economy was at its strongest. Moreover, the NLRB has been around for more than 75 years, during which the United States experienced tremendous investment and job growth.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), the main sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 36 to block the union elections rule, is claiming it will “force employees to make the critical decision about whether or not to form a union in as little as seven to 10 days.” But this is just plain wrong. The rule does not specify a time frame for elections, but rather it helps ensure that workers who want a union election get one by addressing roadblocks that commonly are thrown up when the NLRB attempts to set up an election.

Enzi’s inaccurate claims don’t stop there. He also asserts that employers will be required to turn over workers’ email addresses and phone numbers to union organizers under the new rule. This is generally a good idea that allows organizers to communicate using modern technology, but it’s not a requirement of the final rule. A draft version of the regulations did consider these provisions, but the National Labor Relations Board did not include them.

Last summer, employees at the Target store in Valley Stream, New York came together to organize a union to address a number of issues they were facing, in particular the startling reality that “many of them earned too little to support a family or afford health insurance, forcing some to rely on food stamps and Medicaid for their children.” The Valley Stream store would have been the first Target in the country to unionize.

For years, Target has enjoyed a reputation as the antithesis of Walmart. But like its big box counterpart, Target is notoriously anti-union — the company reportedly shows new hires a video warning against unionizing, threatening them with fewer promotions and less flexible hours if they were to organize.

When the workers in Valley Stream came forward with the idea of organizing under United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1500, Target ramped up its efforts to stifle the movement. Ultimately, the workers’ vote to unionize failed, due in large part to intimidation tactics employed by the company to strong-arm them into caving. In fact, Target is currently under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board for illegally interrogating and threatening Valley Stream employees.

Yet, Target’s campaign against the workers in Valley Stream presses forward. Last week, company management informed employees at the Valley Stream location that the store will be temporarily closed for six-months for renovations. Employees feel the move is in retaliation for their attempts to unionize; while the Valley Stream location is one of 1,100 other stores currently undergoing renovations, the majority of those locations are slated to remain open throughout.

And while “eligible employees” have been invited to transfer to other Target branches or take an unpaid leave of absence until renovations have been completed, “the most vocal pro-union employees have not been deemed eligible to return:”

Sonia Williams, one of the most active pro-union employees who has frequently spoken to the media, including The Huffington Post, found out last week that she wasn’t eligible to transfer or apply for unpaid leave, she said. She was offered, however, a severance package for her nearly 10 years of work that amounts, after taxes, to about $800, Williams said.

Management told her she was “on final warning,” but did not explain why, Williams said, noting that she had received no prior written or oral notice. Management had met with her once previously about one matter but her manager told her it had been resolved, she said.

UFCW Local 1500 is seeking to block the closure and possibly overturn the results of last year’s election with the aim of conducting a new vote. “This is just as horrible as it gets,” said Pat Purcell, assistant to the president of Local 1500. “It’s right out of the Walmart playbook. That store is being closed in retaliation for union activities of workers.” A Target spokeswoman, on the other hand, maintains that the plans for remodeling have been in the works for “a year and a half or two,” conveniently predating the union’s campaign.

– Fatima Najiy

Indiana Republicans ignored protests from labor groups and even National Football League players this winter and became the 23rd state to adopt a so-called “right-to-work” law. Despite having no evidence that the anti-union legislation would create jobs, Republicans claimed it would, and Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed it into law.

Less than two months after he signed the bill, Daniels is already touting its success. Daniels claims more than 30 companies have asked about moving to Indiana, but so far he’s only named one, MBC Group, that added Indiana jobs. Unfortunately for Daniels, it seems he jumped the gun:

The Indiana Economic Development Corporation issued a statement in which company president Eric Holloway said expanding its Brookville, Ind., site was a “no-brainer” because of right-to-work and other factors.

Holloway says he did not notice the reference to right to work when he approved the statement and says the law had no effect on his decision to expand.

Indiana, of course, has tried “right-to-work” once before, passing a similar law in 1957. The law was so unpopular that voters demolished Republicans at the polls in 1958, and Democrats repealed it in 1965.

The law is again unpopular — 71 percent supported an effort to put it up to a referendum vote on the November ballot — likely because studies are again showing that it is bad for workers and won’t actually help Indiana create jobs.