Insider tip: Cabbage Patch Kids or the Rubik’s Cube may be poised for a comeback, at least if politics provides any hints on trends in popular culture. It’s about to be the 1980s all over again as the right-to-work issue becomes a serious topic of discussion. More than two decades ago, lots of political blood was spilt as labor and business fought this issue to a near-draw nationally. Today, there are 22 pure right-to-work states and 29 union-shop states. Colorado alone has a hybrid or modified union-shop law.

Since 2001, when Oklahoma adopted right-to-work after an expensive and contentious referendum, there has been, for the most part, a détente in this fierce battle. Occasionally, legislators in both sets of states have filed bills for changes. Or, in lieu of warring over right-to-work, there have been skirmishes over “paycheck protection,” a conservative initiative to safeguard union workers from having their dues spent on political activities they oppose. But the status quo on right-to-work persisted, until now. Once the Democrats solidified legislative majorities in Colorado and Iowa last November, they have started forcefully nudging both states toward the union-shop column.

Looking at where labor unions are growing fastest, right-to-work may soon be under assault in other states, too. Although unions claim right-to-work hamstrings organizing, the data paint a different picture. The 10 states with the fastest-rising union membership rolls in 2006 were, in order, South Carolina, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah (tied), Idaho, North Carolina, Kansas, Nevada and Montana. Guess what? Every one of those states except last-place Montana is a right-to-work state. So unions can’t claim that open shops doom their efforts to lasso workers. If anything, conservative and business interests may look at the growth in union muscle in these “anti-labor” states as a warning that the political worm may be turning. In right-to-work states, where the legislative balance is closely contested (especially if there is a Democratic governor), we might see labor stepping up efforts to win majorities in state legislatures, as they did in Iowa and Colorado.

But did the Democrats in Iowa and Colorado really win a mandate to upset the labor-law status quo? Or are they just acting like bullies who take other kids’ candy just because they can? Yes, they now have the power to get whatever treats they crave. But having the power doesn’t mean you have a mandate. If Democrats are honest, they’ll acknowledge that few voters were awarding them power last November to close labor markets.

The polling on this issue couldn’t be clearer. By overwhelming majorities, voters reject the notion that any worker must be forced to join a union in order to get or hold a job. I have never seen any public or private polling using fair or biased questions that shows anywhere near a majority of ordinary voters in support of the closed, union-shop concept. Perhaps in a few union-dominated states you might approach a majority, but I haven’t seen it. Yes, there are some unionist approaches to the topic that garner broader support. For example, polls show that a sizeable percentage of voters are uncomfortable with non-union workers benefiting from gains won through a union’s collective bargaining efforts. This is why the Iowa initiative is aimed at making non-member workers pay for union victories, forcing workers to pay something like dues even if they don’t want to join. But even this tack doesn’t get clear and consistent support from the electorate.

The Democrats know all this. Democrats hid their pro-big-labor agenda from voters until they got elected.  Such deception about their mandate might put Democrats back into the minority sooner than they’d like.

Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.