Right to Work Blog

With polls suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama will become the next President of the United States, more and more commentators are beginning to examine the impact Obama’s election will have on the legislative agenda of the Big Labor bosses. The Wall Street Journal’s take:

Big Labor is hoping to have a big election next Tuesday, with a goal of building a majority to rewrite negotiating rules between unions and management. Though it has received little media attention, Barack Obama’s pro-union agenda is the most ambitious in decades and has a real prospect of becoming law. His stated goal is to “strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions” by doing the following:

- Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Unions would be certified to negotiate pay, benefits and work rules simply by collecting signed “union authorization cards” from a majority of employees at a work site. The law passed the House in 2007 but didn’t come up for a Senate vote.

Under current law, union organizers and management both have the opportunity to present the pros and cons of forming a union. A secret employee vote is then held. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, unions would be the sole provider of information to the employee, and the worker’s decision whether to organize would no longer be private.

Unions say current law favors management, which can stall to a point where workers lose interest in organizing. But the median number of days between filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and holding an election has actually fallen over the past two decades. In 2007, more than 1,500 such elections were held, and unions won 54% of them, the same win rate of the early 1970s.

- Another labor-friendly provision of the Employee Free Choice Act is mandatory arbitration. Under current law, labor and management are required to bargain in good faith but aren’t obliged to reach an agreement. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, if the parties can’t settle on a contract within 120 days, the dispute goes to an arbitration panel which can impose a contract that is binding for two years.
As a practical matter, contracts typically involve dozens of provisions dealing with wages as well as seniority, grievances, overtime, transfers and promotions. Rarely is this accomplished in four months. The provision would notably shift bargaining power to unions, which would have an incentive to run out the 120-day clock and let an arbitrator impose a contract that is bound to include much of what unions demand.

- Mr. Obama also supports legislation to reverse the NLRB’s “Kentucky River” ruling last year, which fleshed out the definition of a supervisor for the purposes of organizing. Unions usually prefer a narrow definition of management, because it increases the number of people potentially under their control. Conversely, labor has worked to expand the definition of “employee” to include everyone from temp workers to graduate-student teaching assistants.

- The Democrat also wants to bar companies from replacing striking workers — a right that management has held for some 70 years. Unions made a similar push in the early 1990s, and a bill passed the House but was blocked in the Senate. Mr. Clinton issued an executive order that would have ended the provision for federal contractors. It was struck down in federal court. Mr. Clinton then tried to get the NLRB to make it more difficult to replace striking workers. The courts overturned that too. Mr. Obama says he will “work to ban the provision,” but hasn’t provided specifics.

- Mr. Obama supports the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act and has said he’d push for its enactment as president. The bill, which passed the House last year and already has 60 votes in the Senate, would force state and local governments to recognize union leaders as the exclusive bargaining agent for police, firefighters and other first responders. More than half of the states would have to change their laws. Thousands of public safety officers would no longer be able to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf.

- Last year Congress raised the minimum wage, which is set to rise to $7.25 an hour next year from the current $6.55. But Mr. Obama wants to raise it again, to $9.50 per hour by 2011, and index it for inflation. Mr. Obama says further increases are necessary so that “full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.” According to Census data, less than 1% of workers over 25 are earning the minimum. And rather than family heads or full-time workers, they tend to be young single adults, teenagers living at home or spouses providing a second income.
John McCain has not made labor issues a major part of his campaign, but he opposes both the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The Republican has also gone on the record in support of national right-to-work legislation that would repeal all current federal laws that authorize the firing of employees for refusing to join or pay dues to a union. Some 22 states currently have right-to-work laws, which Mr. Obama opposes.

First, Big Labor unions in Michigan drive up the cost of making an American automobile to the point where they are not competitive in the marketplace. Then, union bosses demand the taxpayers provide the auto companies with $50 billion in loans — with no reforms. Here is an idea — tie the loans to enactment of a Michigan Right to Work law. That would help Michigan workers, allow the companies to compete in the future, and ensure that the taxpayers won’t be on the hook again.

Right to Work President Mark Mix reminds Americans that “You Don’t Have to be Trodden by Unions.”

Jennifer Rubin at Contentions Blog is correct in chastising Democrats’ support for the Card Check Scam Bill. She points out that support for the bill “. . . is one more instance in which Democrats have confused the interests of union power brokers with the interests of working-class voters. Unions may want to do away with workplace democracy, but real workers do not.”

Not to be picky, but Democrats’ support for Union Bosses extends well beyond this “one instance.” Until politicians of both parties stand up for workers’ choice and support a National Right to Work law, they will be putting the power brokers’ interests ahead of the interests of workers.

Here we go again.

It is a good thing that the U. S. Supreme Court “has . . . granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for a group of twenty Maine state employees objecting to the misuse of their compulsory union dues.”

Taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court is one of the few ways non-union victims of Big Labor’s gluttonous misuse of their federally granted forced-dues powers can seek redress.

The case, Daniel Locke et al. v. Edward Krauss et al., will directly address whether non-union employees can be forced to pay for litigation activities far removed from their workplaces. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling may provide much-needed clarity to the criteria it had established previously that determine what union activities employees can be lawfully forced to fund.

Though necessary under current law, this piecemeal approach to deciding just how much forced-dues money can be conscripted from non-union workers’ earnings is costly, time consuming, and retroactive. What is really needed is a National Right to Work Law protecting a worker’s right to decide for himself or herself whether or not he or she wants to join, or pay dues or fees to, a union in the first place.

To read more about the case go here.

Pro-forced unionism Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is a proponent of the so-called “Patriot Corporation Act,” a bill that says if you take away an individual’s right to vote for or against a labor union, force an employer to remain silent, and eliminate an individual employee’s right to get information about unionization from anyone other than a union organizer, you will get preferential treatment for government contracts – and reach the lofty status of a “Patriot Corporation.”

It seems that Senator Brown is worried about maintaining and, in fact, dramatically increasing Big Labor’s monopoly power over workers as a solution to job losses in his home state. There is another solution – pass the National Right to Work Bill which would simply eliminate the federal authorization that allows union officials to have workers, who refuse to pay dues or fees to a union, fired!

There is another cosponsor of the “Patriot Corporation Act” – Sen. Barack Obama.

When Rep. Paul Gilmore died, the Governor set up a special election for his position on December 12 for the fifth congressional district. The race pits State Representative Bob Latta (R) against Robin Weiraugh (D). We weren’t surprised to see the officials of the AFL-CIO supporting Weiraugh, but it’s interesting to see her beg for Big Labor’s support in a YouTube video.

On tape, she asks for their money and tells them exactly what she needs them to do — down to the number of lines that need to be filled. Almost in the same breath, she goes on to promise support for their efforts to take away a worker’s right to vote on unionization by enacting the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill, and to forcefully oppose Right to Work, a bill which simply gives workers the right to join or support a union.

So much for the workers.

The Blogger News Network has compiled the top five reasons why Congress should enact a National Right to Work Law. It’s a nice start!

Here are five reasons why forced association with unions breeds corruption and why right to work laws are good to stem that coercion.

1. Freedom to Associate Also Means Freedom Not to Associate - The average man on the street, as well as constitutional scholars, understands that any genuine personal right should include the freedom to refrain from exercising that right.

2. Right to Work Bolsters Job Creation, Personal Income Growth - In addition to freeing millions of Americans from the yoke of forced union dues, a national Right to Work law would at the same time help to improve our nation’s economy.

3. Right to Work’s Benefits Reach Citizens at All Income Levels - In addition to protecting the freedom of association and promoting economic development, Right to Work laws are an anti-poverty program with a proven record of success.

4. Passage of a National Right to Work Law Would Eliminate All Forced-Dues Politicking by Private-Sector Union Bosses - Not passing a national Right to Work law means not only that American workers will be denied a brighter economic future. It also means that millions of private-sector workers will continue to be forced to contribute to political candidates they do not wish to support.

5. A National Right to Work Law Would Reduce Union Corruption - The incestuous relationship between forced union dues and corruption was captured perfectly by the late U.S. Sen. John McClellan (D-Ark.): “Compulsory unionism and corruption go hand in hand.” McClellan was referring to the corruption inherent within labor organizations that depend on the forced tribute of workers.

House Member and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has called for enactment of a National Right to Work bill.

The Des Moines Register reports that Tancredo “voiced his support for such a law at an informal afternoon meeting with five members of the Professional Educators of Iowa….Tancredo, who worked as a civics teacher for eight years in Jefferson County, Colo., before entering politics, said he worked to form a group similar to PEI in his state. He encouraged PEI members to expand their group and continue their opposition to the ‘fair share’ legislation leading into next year’s legislative session.”

Hopefully, Tancredo’s support for workers choice will extend to the other candidates in the race as well. But in the meantime, kudos to Rep. Tancredo.

The Right to Work movement and independent-minded workers across America have many friends, but perhaps none more dedicated and supportive than Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.

She, once again, showed leadership on behalf of working families when she went to the House Rules Committee and pushed for consideration of a National Right to Work law. As expected, the Democrat majority shut down her amendment designed to restore volunteerism as the basis of union membership.

She knows, like AFL founder Samuel Gompers knew, that no lasting gain can be achieved through compulsion — the workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions — anything else is a menace to their rights.