Who could fault a worker who did not pay dues to the Teamsters? In the past two years the Department of Labor has charged or convicted of corruption 11 Teamsters officers. A government monitor recently accused the union’s president, Jimmy Hoffa, of trying to bribe election opponents with Teamster funds.

Should a worker be fired for not paying union dues? Unions think so. They negotiate contracts that force workers to pay union dues or lose their job.

Some workers object to their union’s political spending. Other workers could earn more than their union negotiated for them. Still others feel their union is corrupt.

Right-to-work has returned to the national agenda. Twenty-two states have passed right-to-work laws that let workers decide whether to support unions or not.  It protects employees’ right to work, whether or not they support unions.

New Hampshire legislators narrowly failed to override their governor’s veto of right-to-work. The Indiana legislature will soon debate whether to make the Hoosier state America’s 23rd right-to-work state.

They should. Right-to-work benefits the economy as well as personal freedom. Unions organize more aggressively in non- right-to-work states. It is worth it to attempt to unionize any business they have a shot at. If a state becomes right-to-work, however, expensive organizing drives at good employers becomes less worthwhile — unions cannot force content workers to pay dues.

Businesses want to know that, if they treat their workers well, unions will leave them alone. Right-to-work makes that more likely — and businesses notice.

Studies show right-to-work laws are a major factor in business location decisions. Most new auto plants have been built in right-to-work states. More investment means more jobs.

Nonetheless, the union movement strongly opposes right-to-work. They want dues. Making dues payments voluntary would cost them millions. The union movement justifies forcing workers to pay dues by arguing non-union employees would otherwise “free ride” — enjoying the benefits of a union contract without paying for it.

However, union contracts do not have to cover non-union employees. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed unions’ ability to negotiate “members only” contracts. Unions voluntarily negotiate contracts covering all workers, members and non-members alike.

They do so because union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Unions do not want to let the workers they hurt opt out. Seniority systems, for example, hold back better workers. If a union negotiated a members-only seniority system, high performers would not join. They would opt for performance-based promotions, leaving fewer positions and less money for the union’s members. Unions want everyone under their contract, especially those they hold back.

That may be legal, but workers should not be forced to pay for it. Especially not now, when millions of unemployed Americans need the jobs right-to-work encourages businesses to create. Workers should be allowed to choose whether to pay for Jimmy Hoffa’s union representation.

So, will  Big Labor convince the Democrats to flee to Illinois again in effort to hide from their legislative responsibilities? We don’t know that answer, yet.  But, we do know Big Labor is planning for a January collective hissy fit at the Indiana capitol building.

From Associated Press writers Charles Wilson and Ken Kusmer:

Indiana’s Republican House leader on Tuesday promised swift movement on a push to make his state the first in more than a decade to ban labor contracts that require employees to pay union fees.

Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis told The Associated Press he is confident he can push the “right-to-work” bill through his chamber during the 2012 session that begins Wednesday and is spending a lot “personal capital” to do so.

Bosma, who has been the measure’s most ardent supporter, said he hadn’t yet taken a formal tally of supportive votes, but added he “also wouldn’t bring it forward if I wasn’t confident of success.”

The proposal would bar private employee unions from seeking contracts that mandate all workers pay union fees regardless of whether they are members. Supporters say the law would help attract new business to the state.

Indiana’s House Democrats successfully blocked the measure last year with a five-week walkout that denied House Republicans the numbers needed to conduct daily business. Democratic leaders have so far declined to say whether they will walk out again this session.

Indiana would become the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law, the first to do so since Oklahoma in 2001.

Republicans hold wide margins in the Indiana Assembly: 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate and GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels has come out with strong support for the measure.

“There’s nowhere we are we closer than we are in Indianapolis,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which pushes the measure in Statehouse’s across the country.

The group has maintained a state executive director to coordinate volunteer support for the measure over the last few years and recently sent three or more new staff to shore up support in tough districts Indiana.

The procedural push starts in earnest with a joint hearing of the House and Senate labor committees Friday, just two days after lawmakers return for their 2012 session. But Bosma has been pushing the measure hard since the middle of November, when he declared it would be his top legislative priority.

Bosma calls “right to work” the “jobs bill” of the session, saying that it will attract new business to the state. Like Daniels, he has gone up on the air with TV ads pitching the bill as a tool to combat the state’s 9 percent unemployment rate.

“This is a partisan smack at organized labor that is aimed to gut unions … one of the last organizations standing in the way of corporate control,” said Jeff Harris, Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman.

November-December 2011 issue headlines:

Capitol Hill Support For Right to Work Growing — More Senators, Representatives Cosponsor Compulsory-Dues Repeal

Obama Bureaucrats Bolster Monopolistic Unionism — Labor Board Chipping Away at ‘Choice to Remain Unrepresented’

United Way Chief: ‘Please Support Your AFL-CIO’ — Brian Gallagher Prods Charity Workers to Assist Union Lobbyists

Lafe Solomon ‘Did What IAM Bosses Told Him To’ — E-mails Reveal Why Top NLRB Lawyer ‘Screwed up the U.S. Economy’

College Graduates Flock to Right to Work States — States Seeking a ‘Brain Gain’ Should Bar Compulsory Union Dues

All in All, ‘a Hopeful Year For America’ — Big Labor Bosses Fume as Benefits of Wisconsin Reform Spread

From the Chicago Tribune:

If you’re a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children,  you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family’s monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU.

Michigan Department of Community Health Director Olga Dazzo explained the process in to her members of her staff.  ”MQC3 basically runs the program for SEIU and passes the union dues from the state to the union,” she wrote in an emailobtained by the Mackinac Center. Initiated in 2006 under then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., the plan reportedly provides the SEIU with $6 million annually in union dues deducted from those Medicaid subsidies.

“We’re not even home health care workers. We’re just parents taking care of our kids,” Robert Haynes, a retired Detroit police officer, told the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Our daughter is 34 and our son is 30. They have cerebral palsy. They are basically like 6-month-olds in adult bodies. They need to be fed and they wear diapers. We could sure use that $30 a month that’s being sent to the union.”According to the Mackinac Center, the theoretical public employer for whom the Haynes’ work is the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3), an entity within the DCH that continues to operate, even though the state legislature has defunded it. Even the MQC3 calls the families hiring in-home health care providers”employers of providers,” but these health care providers are also treated as employers of MQC3 when it comes time each month to take dues out of their Medicaid payment and send it to the SEIU.

Mr. and Mrs. Haynes, of course, are both the parents (the employer) and the health care providers for their children, but they still lose money to the SEIU every month, despite having no interest in joining the union. They have been arbitrarily classified as state employees so that the union can take money from them.

Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., already ended a similar scheme to provide unions with new “public employees” in the area of child care. His predecessor, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had classified in-home daycare providers as public employees — a designation that forced them to pay union dues but conferred no other benefits upon them. Snyder’s director of the Department of Human Services ended that program. “[We] will stop all funding and, because these providers are not state employees, will also cease collecting union dues,” DHS director Maura Corrigansaid at the time.

Michigan’s state House has already passed a bill to prevent this sort of rent-seeking by public-sector unions, but it has stalled in the state Senate.

Forced-dues funding radical left extremists.

But National Forced-Dues Repeal Measure Still Being Held Back

(Source: September 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Not long ago, Big Labor was crowing about having thwarted citizen efforts to pass new Right to Work laws in Indiana and New Hampshire this year. But it’s now clear that the boasts of the union bosses were premature.

Legislative support for abolishing compulsory union membership, dues and fees has been and remains strong in both the Hoosier and Granite States. Union lobbyists have therefore had to rely heavily on Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) and union-label Gov. John Lynch (D-N.H.) to prevent enactment of America’s 23rd and 24th state Right to Work laws.

But now Mr. Daniels, under increasing heat from thousands and thousands of freedom-loving Hoosiers, including many who have supported him in the past, is signaling that he may reconsider his opposition to legislative votes on Right to Work measures in Indianapolis next year.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lynch’s late-spring veto of H.B.474, which would prohibit the firing of New Hampshire employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union, may now potentially be overridden because of a sustained Right to Work lobbying campaign.

States Can’t Afford to Ignore Fact That Compulsory Unionism Hinders Economic Growth

“In the two years since the severe 2008-9 national recession officially ended, most state economies have recovered only feebly, if at all,” commented National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“That’s why many Indianans and New Hampshirites, along with the citizens of a number of other states that have yet to enact Right to Work laws, are now emphatically telling their elected officials that they can’t afford to ignore the fact that compulsory unionism hinders economic growth.

“Trends in employee compensation, that is, wages, salaries, bonuses and benefits, illustrate well the Right to Work growth advantage.

“From 2000 to 2010, the inflation-adjusted outlays of private-sector businesses for employee compensation increased by an average of 11.8% in Right to Work states. That increase is nine times as great as forced-unionism states’ combined 1.3% rise over the same period.

“Twenty of the 22 Right to Work states experienced a real compensation increase greater than the national average of 4.9%. And 14 of the 15 states with the lowest real compensation growth lack a Right to Work law.”

Mr. Mix added that faster growth constitutes only a part of Right to Work states’ edge.

Adjusting for regional differences in living costs with the help of indices created by the non-partisan Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC), in 2010 the average compensation per private-sector employee in Right to Work states was $56,830. That’s roughly $1100 more than the average for forced-unionism states.

Cost of Living-Adjusted Compensation Higher In Right to Work States

Indiana’s cost of living-adjusted compensation per private-sector employee was roughly $2000 below the Right to Work state average; New Hampshire’s was more than $8000 below the Right to Work state average.

“No wonder pro-Right to Work employees and business owners and other concerned citizens in Indiana, New Hampshire, and other states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Montana, Kentucky, Missouri and Maine are pushing harder than ever before for enactment of laws banning forced union dues and fees,” commented Mr. Mix.

“In response to the mounting public pressure, legislative hearings on proposed Right to Work laws took place this summer in the Indiana and Pennsylvania capitals, and hearings in Michigan’s capital are now expected this fall.

“Even more important, if Gov. Mitch Daniels changes course late this year and stops standing in the way of legislative action on Right to Work, as he is now publicly indicating he may do, the Hoosier State may well outlaw forced union dues in 2012.

“Furthermore, a number of the handful of Big Labor-appeasing GOP representatives in New Hampshire who have so far sided with union-label Democrats in supporting Gov. Lynch’s veto of H.B.474 may ultimately opt to heed the pro-Right to Work constituents who keep contacting them when the override vote occurs this fall.

“If enough switch over, that will make New Hampshire the first Right to Work state in the Northeast.”

Right to Work Hearing in Michigan, But Not in GOP-Controlled U.S. House?

In view of the Right to Work advances now being made in historic Big Labor-stronghold states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, Mr. Mix noted, it is disappointing that federal forced-dues repeal legislation is still being held back in the U.S. Congress.

“That Big Labor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] refuses to allow hearings or a vote on S.504, the Senate version of the National Right to Work Act, is unfortunate, but not surprising,” Mr. Mix acknowledged.

“But why is House Speaker John Boehner [R-Ohio], who just last year made a campaign vow to support holding hearings and recorded votes on national Right to Work legislation, now keeping H.R.2040, the House forced-dues repeal measure, bottled up in committee?

“The federal labor law provisions that authorize and promote compulsory union dues and fees represent a gross violation of the individual employee’s freedom of choice. They are also an economic albatross as our nation struggles to recover from the worst recession in decades.

“Americans deserve to know which of their politicians, federal as well as state, support the unjust, economically unviable forced-unionism system. It’s long past time for John Boehner to let H.R.2040 receive full House consideration.”

The LA Times notes:

As this year’s legislative session entered its final week Tuesday, state lawmakers pursued one measure that would help politically powerful unions bolster their ranks … In unveiling the last-minute labor measure, Democratic leaders proposed allowing the unionization of nearly 40,000 people who receive state money to provide child care in their homes. That would vastly expand the dues-paying ranks of unions that contribute heavily to Democratic causes.  Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed three earlier versions of the proposal. It is unclear what action Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, would take….

The bill is modeled on a measure that allowed the unionization of workers paid by the state to provide in-home care for disabled patients. That law added more than 75,000 members to California unions and helped them become a dominant force in state politics.  Paul McIntosh, a lobbyist for the California State Assn. of Counties, said the new measure would require counties, which administer the state grants, to form entities to bargain with the unions. ”It would certainly drive up administrative costs if counties have to hire someone to negotiate contracts,” he said.

Dr. Moe: As long as monopolistic teacher unions “remain powerful,” effective schools “will be short-changed.”

Stanford Professor Lambastes Monopolistic Teacher Unionism

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

On June 1, Tennessee achieved a legislative milestone when its elected officials effectively repealed a 33-year-old state statute authorizing and promoting union monopoly-bargaining control over teachers and other K-12 public school instructional employees.

Under the new K-12 reform law approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Bill Haslam (R ), no union or other organization will be handed a legally protected monopoly over all “employee” input in discussions with school boards over working conditions.

Once this law, known as the Collaborative Conferencing Act, takes effect, teachers who choose not to join any union will, for the first time in decades, have a voice in discussions throughout Tennessee regarding salaries, benefits and grievances.

Tennessee revoked teacher union bosses’ monopoly-bargaining privileges last month largely thanks to persistent lobbying by the roughly 46,000 National Right to Work Committee members and supporters in the Volunteer State.

And, according to Stanford University political scientist and education specialist Terry Moe, the Tennesseans who helped pass the Collaborative Conferencing Act have done an enormous favor for their state’s schoolchildren.

From Children’s Standpoint, Union Boss-Perpetuated Salary Rules ‘Make No Sense at All’

In his new book Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools (Brookings Institution Press), Dr. Moe documents how teacher union monopoly bargaining, still statutorily enshrined in more than 30 states, impairs school outcomes while sharply raising the cost to taxpayers.

In practice, charges Dr. Moe, “exclusive” union bargaining routinely produces “key decisions that depart from — and are systematically biased against — what is best for kids and effective organization.”

One example among many are so-called “single salary schedules” that furnish teachers with extra pay for additional degrees and course taking, even though “research has consistently shown” that simply accumulating degrees and/or additional course credits, “does not make teachers more effective.”

From “the standpoint of what is best for children,” such Big Labor-perpetuated salary rules “make no sense at all” (emphasis Dr. Moe’s). But teacher union officials ferociously defend “single salary schedule” rules, because they keep educators dependent on the union for securing better pay and career advancement.

Monopolistic Unionism Can Never Be ‘Reform Unionism’

In today’s America, Special Interest goes on to point out, many education policymakers and other leaders “recognize that teacher unions are standing in the way of effective schools,” but mistakenly believe that union officials “can be persuaded to do good things with their [monopolistic] power.”

This is the false hope of what is commonly called “reform unionism.”

Of course, in the current political environment, with millions of Americans demanding major changes in schools that consume a higher and higher share of taxpayers’ incomes even as school enrollments and standardized test scores stagnate, it often behooves teacher union bosses to feign openness to reform.

But “when the details are ultimately hashed out,” supposedly “reformist” teacher union bosses like American Federation of Teachers (AFT/AFL-CIO) union czarina Randi Weingarten “will ultimately weaken, limit, and dissipate reform” to protect core teacher union institutional interests.

“National Right to Work Committee members and supporters have long known that eliminating teacher union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues is an indispensable precondition for achieving genuine, significant education reform,” commented Committee Vice President Mary King.

“But Terry Moe is to be commended for thoroughly explaining how monopolistic teacher unions are destroying educational opportunities for millions and millions of schoolchildren and ripping off taxpayers.

“I’m hopeful that Special Interest will receive a wide distribution, and inspire even more freedom-loving Americans to press their state legislators to emulate their counterparts in Tennessee by prohibiting union monopoly bargaining in public education.”

(Video: Watch this video on the post page) 

The state came close to living up to its motto when it passed, by large majorities, Right To Work legislation this Spring.  But, Big Labor Gov. John Lynch vetoed the legislation and chose to continue to allow union bosses to forcibly take union dues from New Hampshire workers’ paychecks.

However, New Hampshire legislators are preparing to override the Lynch veto of worker freedom. Before the summer is over, there could be a 23rd Right To Work State. Judging by the enthusiastic response in the debate, the veto override clearly has momentum.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helping workers and former Machinist union president challenge attempt to send jobs to Washington

Washington, DC (June 2, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Charleston-area Boeing Corporation employees are asking to intervene in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) unprecedented case targeting Boeing for locating production in South Carolina in part due to its popular Right to Work law. That law ensures that union dues and membership are strictly voluntary.

The NLRB’s complaint, if successful, would eliminate over 1,000 existing jobs in South Carolina, not to mention several thousand more jobs that would be created once the Boeing plant reaches full production capacity. Further, the case could set a dangerous precedent that allows union bosses to dictate where job providers locate their facilities.

In 2009, Boeing, after experiencing repeated International Association of Machinists (IAM) union boss-instigated strikes in the forced unionism state of Washington, decided to locate a new production line for the 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina, partly because South Carolina is a Right to Work state. IAM union bosses in state of Washington cried foul and filed unfair labor practice charges against Boeing.

The NLRB’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon sided with IAM union bosses and decided to prosecute Boeing in late April. Ironically, workers in Boeing’s South Carolina plant booted IAM union bosses from their plant to attract the Dreamliner production, as the workers did not want union bosses interfering with their job prospects.

Boeing employees Dennis Murray, who led the effort to remove the union from the Charleston plant; Cynthia Ramaker, the former president with the local union which was removed from the plant; and Meredith Going filed their motion to intervene in the case with the NLRB regional office in Seattle, where the NLRB’s case is pending.

“This case is nothing more than an attack by the Obama Administration on Right to Work laws and all workers in Right to Work states where employees cannot be forced to pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “Workers in South Carolina should not be denied the opportunity to continue providing for their families to satisfy the outrageous forced unionism demands of union officials in Washington state.”

“The National Labor Relations Board’s complaint is just the latest giveaway to Big Labor by an Obama Administration that has already erased union financial disclosure requirements and kept workers in the dark about the right to refrain from union membership, and is poised to eliminate workers’ ability to challenge a coercive card check campaign with a secret ballot vote,” added Mix. “Once again the Obama Labor Board is putting union boss priorities ahead of the rights and well-being of individual employees.”

###

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. Its web address is www.nrtw.org.

From the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation news release:

Union Forced Dues Threats against WRTV Anchor Highlight Need for Indiana Right to Work Law

Union hit with federal labor board charges for demanding TV anchor pay union dues despite lack of valid contract between her employer and the union

Indianapolis, IN (May 19, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, WRTV anchor Patricia Shepherd has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) union.

Shepherd’s charges allege that AFTRA officials demanded she pay dues despite the fact that she is not a union member and the union has not had a contract with her employer for the past two years.

Because Indiana lacks a Right to Work law, employees can be forced to pay union dues for the purposes of workplace bargaining just to get or keep a job. In recent months, Indiana legislators were considering a law to make union dues payments strictly voluntary, but Governor Mitch Daniels and House Speaker Brian Bosma, despite strong majorities on record in favor of a Right to Work bill in both chambers of the state legislature, ultimately killed the legislation.

In this case, the AFTRA union has not had a contract with WRTV since March 2009 and therefore is not entitled to collect dues for negotiations with management. Moreover, the last contract between the union and the television station indicated that joining AFTRA or paying union dues was not a condition of employment at WRTV.

Although the union’s own contract includes language stating that dues payment is not a condition of employment, AFTRA officials continue to insist that Shepherd pay union dues. The union has gone so far as to refer Shepherd’s name to a professional collections agency in Pennsylvania.

Shepherd’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“The decision by Speaker Bosma and Governor Daniels to block a vote on an Indiana Right to Work law means that union bosses will continue to order employees fired for refusing to pay union dues,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “In this case, union officials broke the law by attempting to collect dues without a valid forced unionism clause, but other Indiana union bosses are still empowered to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from workers who face termination if they don’t pay up.”

Semmens continued: “Ultimately, a Right to Work law for the Hoosier State would be the best way to end this injustice, ensuring that union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.”

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. Its web address is www.nrtw.org.

Bill Gould, a Clinton Administration Board member is “mystified” by the NLRB’s actions. “The Boeing case is unprecedented,” he says. “I agree with much of what this board has done and is likely to do, but I don’t agree with what the general counsel has done in the Boeing case. The general counsel is trying to equate an employer’s concern with strikes that disrupt production and make it difficult to make deadlines—he’s trying to equate that with hostility toward trade unionism. I don’t think that makes sense.”

From the Slate post, Air Rage by David Weigel:

Bill Gould has some advice for the labor movement: Turn back. Turn back before it’s too late.

“The administration is acting like a bunch of thugs,” said Sen. Jim DeMint. “If this is checks and balances, God help our country,” said Gov. Nikki Haley. “This is nothing more than bullying by the labor unions. This is President Obama and Harry Reid carrying their water.”

First, the brigade of Big Labor’s Bullhorn Bullies failed to keep the Wisconsin legislature from operating when it used intimidation in an attempt to bypass the November 2010 democratic election, and all-the-while chanting the anarchist chant: “This Is What Democracy Looks Like.”

Then, having failed with their weeks of harassment, those same forced-dues financed bullies poured $3 million-plus into JoAnne Kloppenburg’s campaign for the Wisconsin Supreme Court against Justive David Prosser. The goal: overturn democracy and the legislative results that flow from it.

Yet, even with union pouring in campaign money and paying for precinct workers, the voters of Wisconsin again rejected Ms. Kloppenburg, who so actively embraced Big Labor’s myopic vision on compulsory unionism that she ended the public’s ability to ever see her again as an impartial jurist.

In the end, it appears Wisconsin has shown us what democracy looks like. State employees, at least, will have the choice to continue to contribute or not contribute to the same union officials who organized the chaos in Wisconsin. And, isn’t choice and freedom what democracy looks like verses intimidation and compulsion?

Time For Politicians in Both Parties to Own Up to Their Mistakes

In late February, many concerned Americans in other states were paying close attention to the fierce, and still unresolved, battle over public-sector union monopoly bargaining in Wisconsin.

Many observing the Madison showdown from their homes inwere undoubtedly amazed by what they saw.

These five states, like roughly a dozen others, have no statutes on the books empowering government union officials to act as state and local public employees’ monopoly-bargaining agents.

When elected officials in such states make a judgment that a reform in public-employee compensation packages and work rules is necessary and can be prudently implemented to give taxpayers a better return on their money, they have the power to proceed.

It is then up to the voting public to judge whether the reform was a good idea or not.

In Wisconsin, however, like in other states which statutorily mandate union monopoly bargaining over public employee pay, benefits, and working conditions, elected officials from the governor on down have far less control over the roughly 50% of public expenditures that go into employee compensation.

In the Badger State, half of state and local government employees are unionized. Elected officials and their appointees cannot make any significant changes in the way these employees are compensated or in how they are instructed to do their jobs without government union bosses’ approval.

Today, millions of Americans whose state and local governments operate free from Big Labor constraints appreciate, after watching the bitter struggle in Wisconsin unfold, better than ever before the importance of keeping union monopolists out of the government workplace.

Only Intense Right to Work Lobbying Blocked Monopoly-Bargaining Bill

What most freedom-loving Virginians, North Carolinians and Texans probably don’t realize is that, just last year, the U.S. Congress came within a hair of taking away their prerogative to decide how their state and local government workplaces are run.

At the outset of the 2009-2010 Congress, the votes were there to pass the so-called “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act” in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, President Obama was publicly vowing to sign this legislation as soon as it reached his desk.

This measure, more accurately labeled the “Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill,” would have foisted Wisconsin-style labor relations on state and local public-safety departments in all 50 states.

When the House first voted on this legislation in 2007, nearly 99% of the Democrats voting sided with Big Labor, and 98 GOP congressmen also voted for it.

Naturally, many Washington insiders considered approval of federally mandated union monopoly bargaining a sure thing after Barack Obama became President.

But an intense, two-year-long lobbying and public mobilization campaign by the National Right to Work Committee kept this power grab from ever reaching Mr. Obama’s desk in 2009 or 2010.

Recent Past Should Not Be Forgotten

Fortunes change swiftly in politics, and today the momentum is on the side of proponents of rolling back compulsory unionism in government, not expanding it. (See, e.g., this month’s Newsletter cover story.)

But in fighting for a brighter future, pro-Right to Work citizens should not forget the recent past.

Politicians in both parties who recently supported federalizing monopolistic government unionism should be held accountable for what they almost succeeded in doing.

As a start, Right to Work members (especially constituents) are urged now to contact the U.S. representatives listed below.

Actuaries trying to accurately reflect the state of the California pension system were rebuffed by the CalPERS Board lead by Neal Johnson of the Service Employees International Union who told the Board it was better to hide reality. “I was afraid we were going to throw gasoline on the fire in the public pension debate,” Johnson told a CalPERS committee after a key vote.

Wouldn’t union members and pensioners rather know the true state of the pension fund?

(Source: February 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Unjust Firing Helped Make Frank Partin a Right to Work Leader

There are many paths to becoming a leader in the Right to Work movement. Frank Partin’s was an unusually difficult one.

In 1973, Mr. Partin was working for Philco-Ford at the New Hampshire Satellite Tracking Station in New Boston, when the facility was targeted by International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union organizers.

Mr. Partin’s Efforts to Keep His Job Honorably Ran Into Big Labor Wall

The Big Labor campaign soon succeeded, and in short order IAM officials obtained from Philco-Ford a forced-unionism contract with a clause requiring the termination of any employee who refused to become and remain “a member in good standing of the Union” once the contract had been in effect for 30 days.

Mr. Partin’s problem was not simply that he didn’t want to join the IAM union, but that he couldn’t do so without compromising his faith in God.

He was then, and remained for the rest of his life, a member of the Church of the Kingdom, a Christian denomination that teaches, as a matter of doctrine based on its understanding of the Bible, that no member may belong to, join, or participate in any labor union.

But Frank Partin still hoped, for a time, that IAM officials would accept an alternative arrangement he proposed and thus allow him to keep his job without going against the doctrine of his faith.

‘We Have No Alternative But to Process Your Termination’

In a letter to the secretary-treasurer of his IAM local, Mr. Partin offered to “donate to the union the equivalent of initiation fees and monthly union dues if it was understood I was not a member of the union, and the union in turn donated that amount to a bona fide charitable organization.”

IAM Local 2503 Secretary-Treasurer Dwight Mercer was unmoved.

Even a signed affidavit from Mr. Partin’s pastor certifying that he was a member of the Church of the Kingdom and could not remain one if he joined or participated in a labor union did not cause Mr. Mercer to budge.

In an icy letter, dated March 19, 1973, Mr. Mercer sneered that Mr. Partin’s “current alleged religious beliefs” did not give him any protection from forced payment of a union initiation fee and full monthly dues. And IAM bosses would spend the conscripted money exactly as they wanted.

Frank Partin refused to compromise his faith in the way the IAM hierarchy demanded. Consequently, on March 28, 1973, he received a letter from Philco-Ford stating that, in accordance with Article II of the union contract (the forced-unionism clause), “we have no alternative but to process your termination as soon as possible.”

‘He Was the Kind of Guy Who Really Loved Life’

Subscribe to The National Right to Work Committee® Website Updates by Email

“A lesser man would have been embittered by what happened to Frank at Philco-Ford, but not him. Instead, he picked up the pieces and found another job he could hold in good conscience, without paying tribute to Big Labor,” commented John Kalb, executive director of New England Citizens for Right to Work and a friend.

“His unjust firing at Philco-Ford did change Frank, but not in a negative way. It helped him decide to become a leader in both state and federal efforts to protect all workers from being forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union as a condition of employment.

“Frank went on to become president of the New England Right to Work organization and a board member of the National Right to Work Committee. He was always ready to speak up for the cause, even when he knew he was fighting an uphill battle.

“You rarely saw him without a smile. He was the kind of guy who really loved life.”

Right to Work Advocates Have Suffered a Great Loss

On December 26, Frank Partin died suddenly of a heart attack while shoveling snow outside his home in New Boston.

His wife Jean recalls that he “looked as if he’d seen Heaven’s welcoming committee and gone home — no sign of pain at all.”

“I knew Frank thanks to his unflagging Right to Work activism,” said Mr. Kalb. “but he was even more dedicated to his faith and family members.” A passionate striper fisherman, Mr. Partin went on many fishing trips with his sons Chris and Andy.

Supporters of the individual employee’s Right to Work, as well as his wife, children, step-children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and other family, have suffered a great loss with the passing of Frank Partin.

Wisconsin demonstrates the monopoly power of government unions can be broken and the Wall Street Journal takes notice:

Congratulations to Wisconsin Republicans, who held together this week to pass their government union reforms despite unprecedented acting out by Democrats and their union allies. Three weeks ago we described this battle as a foretaste of Greece come to America, but maybe there’s hope for taxpayers after all.

The good news is that Governor Scott Walker’s reforms have been worth the fight on the policy merits. The conventional media wisdom is that Mr. Walker “overreached” by proposing limits on the ability of government unions to bargain collectively for benefits. But before he offered those proposals, Democrats and unions had refused to support his plan that public workers pay more for their pensions and health care. Only later did they concede that these changes were reasonable and will spare thousands of public workers from layoffs.

Unions can still bargain for wages, but annual increases can’t exceed the rate of inflation. Unions will also have to be certified each year, which will give their dues-paying members a chance to revisit their decision to unionize. No longer will it be one worker, one vote, once. Perhaps most important, the state will no longer collect those dues automatically and give them to the union to spend almost entirely on politics. The unions will have to collect those dues themselves.The collective bargaining reforms also mean that this won’t merely be a one-time budget victory. Government unions know that financial concessions (and layoffs) they agree to during recessions are typically won back when tax revenues increase and the public stops paying attention. They merely need to elect a friendly governor. Mr. Walker’s reforms change the balance of negotiating power in ways that give taxpayers more protection.

If Mr. Walker’s effort can be faulted, we’d say it’s for not stressing enough the value of these collective bargaining changes for taxpayers, and how public unions too often end up on both sides of the bargaining table. Instead, he stressed the short-term fiscal benefits of his bill. Yet his changes will pay off in future years in Wisconsin in ways that reforms by GOP Governors in Michigan or even New Jersey will not. A future Wisconsin legislature can change these laws again, but not without a big political reversal.

That’s exactly what Democrats and unions now want to engineer, as they promise to launch recall campaigns against state senators who voted for the reforms. Our email inbox has been filling up all week with Democratic fund-raising appeals screaming about Wisconsin. Mr. Walker’s poll numbers have slumped amid the raucous debate, and unions will go all-in to punish the GOP.

But under Wisconsin law, only eight of the 18 Republican senators who voted “aye” have served the requisite one year to be subject to recall. And only one of those is in a truly vulnerable district. Republicans would continue to hold 60 of the 99 seats in the state assembly, and if Wisconsin’s budget is balanced and the economy is growing a year from now, voters may dismiss the predictions of Apocalypse as hyperbolic.

The real game for unions and Democrats is 2012. After their rout in 2010, they are pursuing what we’d call the Mayhem Strategy to mobilize their base and sour independents on the GOP. Cry havoc and create enough tumult, and many voters may sue for labor peace. This is exactly the strategy that government unions have used to block any welfare-state reforms in Europe. The public is held hostage to government workers who shut down services to stop even modest changes in their workload or benefits.

Mr. Walker and his allies have won a rare victory for taxpayers, one which should be a lesson for other states and Governors. The monopoly power of government unions can be broken.

Why are Democrats in Wisconsin and Indiana fleeing the state rather than vote on reform measures? It’s because Big Labor and the Democratic Party are completely codependent upon each other, the Investors Business Daily opines:

The fleeing Democrats in Wisconsin and Indiana say they are protecting state workers, but they have plenty of self-interested reasons to hit the road. Their self-imposed exile and national Democrats’ support show just how key Big Labor is to their fortunes.

Unions have long been a backbone of support for the Democratic Party. They have become even more important in recent years as they ramped up campaign efforts. Without them, Democrats have no chance of reversing the GOP’s 2010 gains.

The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the top public-sector union, spent a reported $87.5 million nationally in the 2010 election cycle — 99% for Democrats. The Chamber of Commerce, by contrast, spent $75 million.

The National Education Association spent $40 million, and the Service Employees International Union spent $44 million.

That doesn’t count the unions’ importance in get-out-the-vote efforts, in organizing rallies and in other election activities.

There will be 91 electoral votes at stake in the seven upper Midwest states from Minnesota and Iowa to Pennsylvania (excluding President Obama’s home state of Illinois).

In 2008, Obama won all those states, including a narrow victory in Indiana. But in 2010, Republicans in the area had their best election in decades, picking up 16 House seats, two Senate seats, and five governorships. Only Minnesota’s governorship flipped from Republican to Democrat.

“The (fleeing) state senators in Wisconsin and now Indiana are doing so to protect a constituency that is important to them,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a labor-backed activist group.

Hickey was quick to add that the lawmakers view the bill as fundamentally unfair to state-worker unions.

Labor sees it as a moral crusade and a matter of survival.

“The governor of Wisconsin is not waging a budget battle. He is waging a battle against middle-class working folk by attempting to eviscerate their voice. And that is why the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate left,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 20,000 people in the state. “The voice is economic collective bargaining rights.”

But Steven Malanga, senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, says that’s because the two are co-dependent.

“The unions really have become the Democratic Party, and that’s why they fled,” he said.

Public-sector employees have become an increasingly important part of Big Labor. While unions represent just 6.9% of the private sector, they represent 36.2% of the public sector, according to Labor Department data. Public-sector union membership of 7.6 million now tops the 7.1 million private-sector union members.

Often in the battle for media attention, the moral argument for Right To Work laws can be lost.  As a reminder, here are but a few quotes from the late Notre Dame Professor Father Edward A. Keller, C.S.C.:

Right-to-Work in the American sense means that any worker, having the necessary qualifications, has the opportunity to seek work for whom he wishes, where he wishes and without undue interference. Because normally, a job is necessary for livelihood and therefore necessary for life itself, right to work is simply the extension of the inalienable right to life as announced in the Declaration of Independence.

“Right-to-Work” laws, therefore, do not pretend to create work or give a right to an actual job; these laws seek merely to protect the constitutional and natural right to work from the restriction of compulsory union membership, which restricts the exercise of the right to work only to members of a union.

It should be emphasized that the right not to join is a necessary corollary of the right to join, for without a right not to join there can be no such thing as a right to join. Freedom rests on choice, and where choice is denied freedom is destroyed as well.

Voluntarism is at the foundation of our Christian and constitutional heritage. To deny it in an area as broad and important as labor, could so weaken that foundation as to threaten all our cherished natural and constitutional rights. This would be “selling our heritage for a mess of pottage.”

– Excerpts taken from Father Keller’s Book: The Case for Right-to-Work Laws, A Defense of Voluntary Unionism (The Heritage Foundation, Inc., 1956).