For the past two weeks, Big Labor bosses around the country have had their eyes on the Indiana capitol — watching in horror as the General Assembly passed a right-to-work bill with commanding majorities.

The passage of Indiana’s right-to-work law is an extraordinarily bitter defeat for the union brass. Less than a year ago, despite the fact that Hoosiers had elected substantial pro-right-to-work majorities to both chambers in 2010, union strategists remained confident they could preserve the forced-unionism status quo.

Last year, union bigwigs convinced the entire Democratic caucus of the Indiana House of Representatives to flee the state for five weeks in order to deny the body a quorum it needed to bring up and pass right-to-work legislation. Big Labor clearly believed whatever it lacked in legislative numbers it could make up for in zeal.

But polls showed Hoosiers overwhelmingly disapproved of the “fleabagger” tactic, and right-to-work supporters kept turning up the pressure on Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels and GOP legislative leaders to fight back against Big Labor.

Thanks to legislation passed after last year’s walkout, House members failing to show up to do their jobs when the General Assembly is in session may be hit with $1,000-a-day fines.

In the opening weeks of the 2012 session, House Democrats went public about their reluctance to jump over a cliff again for the union hierarchy. Finally, on Jan. 24, House Minority Leader Pat Bauer announced an end to his caucus’ boycott of the bill. It passed the next day.

Ever since, the caterwauling by Big Labor and its allies has resounded across the state. But what’s so bad about a law that merely says an individual shouldn’t be forced at the workplace to support financially an organization that he or she doesn’t believe acts in his or her interests?

Rather than address this question, union propagandists skirt it. Union officials never act contrary to the interests of any employee, they implicitly argue. Any employee who says otherwise they brand as a hypocritical “freeloader”!

For the stewards of a so-called “workers’ movement,” labor bosses have an unbelievably antagonistic attitude toward workers.

American charities collectively took in nearly $300 billion in 2010. Yet American workers can’t be trusted to support unions that supposedly represent their interests unless they are forced to do so? No law forces two-thirds of Americans to give to charity. And yet they do.

Union officials and their friends won’t acknowledge that being forced under federal or state law to accept a union as your monopoly-bargaining agent with your employer when it comes to pay, benefits and work rules is actually not in the economic interest of many employees.

Union organizers verbally abuse Marriott employees and spy on workers in changing rooms after striking backroom deal with company officials

New York, NY (January 19, 2012) – A group of New York City Marriott (NYSE: MAR) employees – acting on behalf of their coworkers – have filed federal charges against the company and a local union for workplace intimidation and harassment.

The three SoHo Marriott employees filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.

New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council Local 6 union organizers entered into a backroom deal with company officials that allows union organizers unfettered access to the employees in order to install a union in the workplace.

Abusing this privilege, union organizers are attempting to browbeat the workers into supporting the union through a prolonged campaign of intimidation and harassment.  Meanwhile, company officials deny workers’ attempts to meet on company grounds.

Union officials have used video cameras in employee changing rooms, accessed employee lockers and handled employees’ personal possessions, and have even resorted to verbal abuse.  Union officials even took photographs of a female employee without her consent while she was changing her uniform in an employee changing room.

Moreover, company and union officials are retaliating against workers who dare to exercise their right to refrain from union affiliation.  For example, at least three workers were illegally interrogated and disciplined by company officials at the behest of union bosses.

In response, the workers unanimously signed a petition showing that they do not support the union hierarchy’s presence in the workplace.

“Union and company officials have colluded to force the union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ on these workers,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work.  “Marriott workers are being subjected to a vicious campaign of intimidation – including sexual harassment – at the hands of forced-dues hungry union bosses and with the approval of weak-kneed company officials.”

“New York desperately needs a Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses like this in the future,” added Mix.

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.

It is worth remembering that Illinois has become the belly of the beast when it comes to pleasing the union bosses at expense of the taxpayer.  Even after raising taxes at the demand of union activists, the state is still suffering through an economic crisis.  This is the point that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been making — we can’t balance state budgets without reforming the power of the union bosses.  The Wall Street Journal notices the difference between Illinois and Wisconsin in a recent Op-Ed:

Run up spending and debt, raise taxes in the naming of balancing the budget, but then watch as deficits rise and your credit-rating falls anyway. That’s been the sad pattern in Europe, and now it’s hitting that mecca of tax-and-spend government known as Illinois.

Though too few noticed, this month Moody’s downgraded Illinois state debt to A2 from A1, the lowest among the 50 states. This wasn’t supposed to happen. Only a year ago, Governor Pat Quinn and his fellow Democrats raised individual income taxes by 67% and the corporate tax rate by 46%. They did it to raise $7 billion in revenue, as the Governor put it, to “get Illinois back on fiscal sound footing” and improve the state’s credit rating.

It’s worth contrasting this grim picture with that of Wisconsin north of the border. Last winter Madison was occupied by thousands of union protesters trying to bully legislators to defeat Republican Governor Scott Walker’s plan. The reforms passed anyway.

In contrast to the Illinois downgrade, Moody’s has praised Mr. Walker’s budget as “credit positive for Wisconsin,” adding that the money-saving reforms bring “the state’s finances closer to a structural budgetary balance.” As a result, Wisconsin jumped in Chief Executive magazine’s 2011 ranking of each state’s business climate—moving to 17th from 41st. Illinois dropped to 48th from 45th as ranked by the nation’s top CEOs.

Yet Mr. Walker, who balanced the budget without new taxes, is the governor facing a union-financed attempt to recall him from office this year. If Wisconsin voters want to see where a state ends up without the kind of reforms that Mr. Walker made, they need only look to the Greece next door.

From The StarTribune article by Jim Ragsdale and Paul  Walsh:

Opponents of the drive to unionize in-home child care providers have filed a second suit aimed at blocking a union vote.

A group of 12 child-care providers, aided by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed suit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis against Gov. Mark Dayton’s executive order authorizing a union election. The group argues that the order is unconstitutional because it could ultimately require all providers to be represented by the union, whether they want to or not.

The federal complaint says that if either or both unions win the elections in their geographic areas, the union would become the “exclusive” representative of all providers. It said the providers who filed the suit do not want to associate with either union “in any way” and “wish to retain their individual right to choose with whom they associate to lobby the state.”

“In the order, the state is going to designate a representative of these providers for the purposes of petitioning the state,” said William Messenger, an attorney for the foundation, based in Springfield, Va. “It infringes on the freedom of association — the First Amendment protects to right to associate or not associate.”

After an organizing drive by the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Dayton issued an order setting a union election for those providers who care for children with state subsidies — about 4,300 of the state’s 11,000 licensed in-home providers.

The foundation is focused on fighting what it considers “compulsory unionism,” such as workplaces where employees are required to be members. It is providing legal work on the lawsuit for free, Messenger said.

From the related National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation press release:

Minnesota Child Care Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme

Child care providers fight against Governor Dayton’s dictate that pushes childcare business owners into union

Minneapolis, MN (January 19, 2012) – A group of home-based child care providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Governor Mark Dayton’s recent executive order designed to forcibly unionize the state’s providers.

Jennifer Parrish from Rochester filed the suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Parrish and other providers seek to halt Dayton’s executive order intended to designate American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials as the monopoly bargaining and political representatives of thousands of providers in the state.

Home-based child care and personal care providers are challenging similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in numerous states across the country, including Michigan and Illinois.

Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate the providers’ First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, association, and petition of government guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because the government does not have the power to force citizens to accept the government’s handpicked political representation to lobby itself.

“This union boss power grab scheme is nothing more than pure political payback and was popularized by disgraced Governors Gray Davis of California and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work.  “The forced political association that is occurring in the North Star State as a result of Governor Dayton’s dictate is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear.”

The lawsuit is the second legal challenge to Minnesota’s child care provider unionization scheme, but the first in federal

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker’s public union reforms are pummeling the Big Labor narrative by saving taxpayer dollars and teachers’ jobs. Meanwhile, the professional class-warriors who get rich pushing “solidarity” force districts into layoffs by refusing to revisit unaffordable contracts.

After similar reforms failed in Ohio thanks to a smear campaign exceeding $30 million, Ohio’s public workers are enjoying the sort of union victory that’s often accompanied by a pink slip.

A month ago I shared stories from around the state of firings caused by the same union bosses who screeched against Governor Kasich’s “attack on workers.” To the surprise of neither of my website’s readers, this avoidable trend continues.

Voters who opposed reform have caused the very problems Big Labor insisted reform would create:

Marion Police say they are committed to answering the city’s 9-1-1 calls but come the [sic] January 1st, callers could see delays in response times. That’s because the [sic] 15 officers are being cut from the department.

In Lorain, millions in cuts plus millions borrowed from the state aren’t enough:The cuts would be in addition to laying off 18 teachers and nine teachers’ aides, which was approved Wednesday night by board members and would save $1.5 million. The layoffs take effect Jan. 23.

In Wapakoneta, home of Neil Armstrong, the teachers’ union is preparing to strike over a pay freeze and increased benefit costs, although administrators and non-union staff have already taken a pay freeze. The district, like many, has faced difficult financial times. It had $1.2 million of deficit spending last fiscal year and is projected to spend $1.6 million more than its annual revenue this year.

The Gallia County Schools union has also threatened to strike if they’re asked to payanything towards their insurance.

In Hancock County, the Van Buren Education Association threatened a strike when their school board voted to impose a  1.12 percent raise in the 2012-13 school year.

Threatening to strike when asked to pay slightly more towards insurance is a common public union tactic because it works. For Exhibit A in the National Education Association’s top-down mastery of class warfare, refer again to the results of the Ohio union reform campaign.

Exit survey: How un-frozen has your salary been over the past few years? When is the last time you heard a public employer suggest a pay cut? What do you expect will happen to teachers without seniority when local unions squeeze school boards into contracts they cannot afford?

Gigot:  The first big labor fight of the year is taking shape in the Hoosier State. How Indiana’s right-to-work push could change the political and economic landscape in the Midwest.

Gov. Mitch Daniels: The idea that no worker should be forced to pay union dues as a condition of keeping a job is simple and just. But the benefits in new jobs would be large. A third or more of growing or relocating businesses will not consider a state that does not provide workers this protection.

Gigot: He was reportedly booed by protesters in the statehouse hallways for those remarks in his annual State of the State Address this week, but Gov. Mitch Daniels is hoping to make Indiana the first state in more than a decade to approve right-to-work legislation. It would allow individual workers to decide if they want to join a union and ban contracts that require nonunion members to pay dues once their work site is organized. Republican leaders in the state have made it their top legislative priority this year, but Democrats and their union allies aren’t giving up without a fight.

So, Collin, we heard last year, after the brawl in Wisconsin, that somehow this was over for a union reform movement. What’s–why is it happening in Indiana now?

Levy: Well, I mean, I think it is a really interesting situation you see happening in Indiana, because Indiana’s this sort of industrial state of the Midwest. And you have a particular situation now where Indiana is poised to achieve enormous competitive advantages over states in the Midwest like Michigan, like Illinois. These are high-taxed, unionized states. And Gov. Daniels has taken this moment to say, “You know, we’ve already made sort of some significant gains in terms of improving the business climate here. We saw what happened in Wisconsin. But, look, you know, we have an opportunity to lure an awful lot of businesses here if we can make it clear that workers can act as free agents,” you know? Unions are portraying this as a radical change, but it’s really just about worker freedom.

Gigot: Kim, the nearest right-to-work state in the Midwest is Iowa. So how much economic benefit could there be here, really, when you get down to it, for Indiana?

Strassel: It’s huge. When Mitch Daniels talks about this, he is looking at the South. That is where the epicenter of most right-to-work states have been and where there has been a flood of manufacturers who have moved from the North to the South over recent decades to take advantage of those lower-cost, nonunionized states. And if Indiana could do this, it would be a sort of central pole for people to remain in the Midwest and locate and give an enormous advantage over competitors.

Gigot: The last state to try to do this was New Hampshire, believe it or not, which had elected huge Republican legislative majorities in 2010. Tried to pass right-to-work. They did. It was vetoed by the Democratic governor. Indiana Republicans also have big majorities, and it looks like they are poised to do it.

Henninger: And I hope they do. I mean, I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana’s workforce is in manufacturing. That’s the highest percentage in the United States.

Gigot: Wow.  Manufacturing is only 11% of the entire U.S. economy.

Henninger: It’s about 20% in Indiana. They make elevators, refrigerators, mobile homes, engines–Cummins Engine is there. They attracted Toyota, they attracted Honda to the state. But if you’re in manufacturing, that’s about half of your costs–labor costs–about half of the total cost of a company. They have got to be competitive with the southern tier of states that we just saw in that map, or those companies will inevitably migrate. There’s a lot of outmigration in Indiana right now. The level of real incomes is falling because all the manufacturing is going to the South. It is a make-or-break deal for Indiana, Paul.

Gigot: Collin, Democrats are trying to play a game of hide-and-seek in Indiana, again trying to go out–leave the state or leave the–not provide a quorum for Republicans to pass this. Is that likely to succeed?

Levy: No, it’s not. And one of the reasons is, if you recall, after the Wisconsin battle last year and the walkout there, you also had about a five-week walkout by Indiana’s Democrats, after which time, Republicans in the Legislature passed a law that said if you’re gone from work for more than three days, guess what, there are consequences. There’s about a thousand-dollar personal fine. So what you’re seeing now are these sort of rolling walkouts, where they’re here for a few days and gone for another day, and so that’s what’s been happening. But I don’t think that that’s going to hold. They–basically, the Democratic leader has acknowledged that this is probably going to go forward.

Gigot: Kim, quickly, what would be the impact nationally, and on the presidential election in 2012, if Indiana passes this?

Strassel: It puts the union issues back in here. And just on the political point, Paul, I want to point out this is different than what happened in Wisconsin. The tough thing for Scott Walker in Wisconsin was union guys could say, “You’re attacking the middle class, taking away benefits.” This is an issue in Indiana that really resonates with Americans that are saying, “Are you going to be forced to join a union and pay dues?” Most Americans don’t agree with that. If Republicans can frame that in a national debate, it definitely helps them.

The labor reform story of the year is unfolding in Indiana, which Republicans who dominate the legislature are trying to make the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state. Democrats are resorting to the old run-and-hide ploy, but this could be a huge economic boon to the Hoosier State.

Big Labor portrays right to work as a radical change, but it merely lets individual workers decide if they want to join a union. In non-right-to-work states, workers typically must pay union dues once their worksite is organized—whether they want to pay or not. This enhances union clout and the cash to dominate state politics.

Many industrial and manufacturing businesses only consider right-to-work states as locales for expanding their operations. The nearest right-to-work state in the Midwest is Iowa, so Indiana could set itself further apart from such high-tax, unionized havens as Illinois and Michigan.

According to Chief Executive Magazine’s annual CEO survey, Indiana has climbed to sixth from 16th among state business climates, thanks to reforms since 2004 under Governor Mitch Daniels. But the state’s biggest liability remains its labor market. A Forbes survey last year ranked Indiana 34th in business climate, partially because of a dismal 44th rank in labor “supply,” which includes unionization.

Democrats in the state House played hooky for three days last week in an effort to deny a quorum for voting on the law. They returned to work yesterday after Democratic leader B. Patrick Bauer acknowledged that they “can’t stay out forever.” House members face penalties of $1,000 per day for walkouts longer than three days, so the obstruction could get expensive.

House Republicans have scheduled a vote for Tuesday morning, though Democrats may once again try to split town. Democrats say their vanishing stunt is merely to give Hoosier voters time to consider the measure, but this is hardly the state’s first brush with union reforms. In 1995 the legislature passed a right-to-work law for teachers over the veto of then Democrat Governor Evan Bayh. Right to work was also debated for a time last year, but Republicans decided to press a state-wide school choice reform.

Similar legislation passed a committee of the state Senate on Monday. Unions have spent heavily on TV and radio ads to scare up opposition, and a handful of Republicans are still on the fence, though not enough to kill the bill if Democrats show up to provide a quorum.

The last state to pass a right-to-work law was Oklahoma in 2001. New Hampshire Republicans tried last year, but their bill was vetoed by Democrat Governor John Lynch. If Indiana joins the club, it would send a message that even voters in industrial states realize that their overall business climate must take precedence over union power. If President Obama really wants to revive U.S. manufacturing and exports, he’d make all of America right-to-work. But Indiana would be a splendid new precedent.

(Source:  November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter)

Early this year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) infuriated the union hierarchy, in his own state and nationally, when he introduced legislation (S.B.11) that would abolish forced union dues for teachers and many other public employees and also sharply limit the scope of government union monopoly bargaining.

In response, teacher union bosses in Madison, Milwaukee, and other cities called teachers out on illegal strikes so they could stage angry protests at the state capitol and at legislators’ residences.

Government union militants issued dozens of death threats against Mr. Walker, members of his administration, and their families. Fourteen Big Labor-backed state senators, all Democrats, temporarily fled the state to deny the pro-S.B.11 Senate majority a quorum to pass the bill.

In raucous demonstrations, union bigwigs and their radical followers actually suggested Mr. Walker’s support for public employees’ Right to Work made him similar to Mubarak, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, or even Satan.

(This fall, national AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave his personal imprimatur to such ugly vituperation when he likened the Wisconsin governor to “Lucifer” in an interview published in Esquire magazine.)

Thanks in part to public support mobilized by the National Right to Work Committee’s e-mail and telecommunications activities, pro-Right to Work legislators were able to withstand the Big Labor fury and send S.B.11 to Gov. Walker’s desk. On March 11, he signed into law the measure now known as Act 10.

Forced-Unionism Supporters Pumped More Than $40 Million Into 2011 ‘Recall’ Elections

Act 10, formally known as the Budget Repair Act of 2011, took effect in June after fending off a union boss-inspired legal challenge in state court.

Act 10 now protects most public employees from being fired for refusal to bankroll an unwanted union, but leaves untouched the forced-dues privileges of most public safety and transportation union bosses.

“Despite its unfortunate exclusions, this law represents a step forward for public employees’ free choice,” said Committee President Mark Mix.

“Not surprisingly, union bigwigs are out for revenge against Mr. Walker and the legislators who helped pass the Budget Repair Act.”

As part of its ongoing campaign to obtain vengeance and ultimately repeal the Budget Repair Act, early this year Big Labor launched petition campaigns for “recall” elections of many Senate supporters of the measure.

In August, special recall elections in which pro-forced unionism candidates challenged six pro-Right to Work senators took place. Three union-label Democrat senators who had opposed Act 10, and temporarily fled the state to stop it from passing, also faced recall votes this summer.

Union bigwigs and their Democratic allies pumped more than $40 million into the nine state Senate races.

In the end, the unprecedentedly expensive legislative recall push by Big Labor enjoyed some success, as two of the six pro-Act 10 senators went down to defeat, while all three forced-unionism senators held on to their seats. However, the union political machine fell short of capturing the three seats it needed to relegate pro-Act 10 Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (Juneau) to minority status and reassume control of the chamber.

Democratic Mayor: Under Act 10, Milwaukee Will Save ‘At Least $25 Million a Year’

And that same month, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Scott Walker’s Democratic opponent in 2010 and a bitter foe of Act 10, publicly admitted that, thanks to this very legislation, his city would save “at least $25 million a year — and potentially as much as $36 million in 2012 . . . .”

In addition to significantly reducing the fiscal strain on local governments, Act 10 has enabled Wisconsin to eliminate, without increasing taxes, a gaping state budget deficit that was projected this February to reach $3.6 billion over two years.

Finally, unlike localities in a number of other states in the Midwest and elsewhere where politicians have refused to take on government union bosses’ monopolistic special privileges, Wisconsin cities, towns and counties are not being required to resort to massive layoffs to stay solvent.

Despite all the good news that has emerged over the past few months, union officials in Wisconsin and nationwide remain as determined as ever to overturn Act 10 and reinstate compulsory union dues and fees for all types of state and local public employees.

A Huge Setback For Ohio, But a Pyrrhic Victory For Union Officials

And in 2012 Big Labor intends to continue pouring workers’ dues money into expensive recall election campaigns as part of its ongoing program to kill Act 10. First on the new list of recall targets is Scott Walker himself.

In November, Wisconsin union bosses and their allied politicians officially launched a two-month drive to collect the roughly 540,000 signatures needed to force Mr. Walker into a recall election next spring. Several prominent state Democrats, including Mr. Barrett, are openly considering running against Mr. Walker should the recall take place.

Meanwhile, in another Midwestern state that was a 2011 battleground over government forced unionism, taxpayers have already lost.

This fall, union bosses from across the country spent upwards of $50 million to forestall enforcement of an Ohio public-sector labor law reform package enacted the same month as the Badger State’s and similar in key regards.

Ohio’s S.B.5 included provisions protecting the Right to Work of all categories of state and local employees, including public-safety and transportation workers. It also reduced the scope of government union bosses’ monopoly-bargaining privileges in several other ways.

Big Labor first stopped S.B.5 from taking effect, and then dipped deep into its forced dues-funded treasuries to outspend proponents vastly and kill the measure in the cradle. This was a huge setback for Ohio — and, at the same time, a pyrrhic victory for union strategists.

The tactics to which Big Labor resorted in Ohio have a strong potential to backfire on the union brass in the near future.

Major School, Public-Safety Layoffs Appear Inevitable In Buckeye State Next Year

The TV and radio ads with which the union hierarchy flooded the Ohio airwaves from September through early November successfully diverted public attention from what S.B.5 would actually do.

“You would never have guessed it from the Big Labor ads, but S.B.5 would not have reduced at all the amount of money the state of Ohio doles out to local schools and police and fire departments,” noted Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“Had it gone into effect, however, S.B.5 would have made it far less difficult for local elected officials to spend whatever money they did have at their disposal prudently, so as to provide taxpayers good services at a reasonable cost.

“And it would have protected each individual public servant’s freedom to join or not join a union.

“Now Big Labor has quashed this reform, but clearly not convinced Ohio voters their already high taxes should be even higher. That means Ohio localities, unlike Wisconsin localities, will almost certainly have to resort to mass layoffs over the next few months to keep from going broke.

“If union chiefs’ ongoing bid to subject Scott Walker to a recall election succeeds in Wisconsin, by the time he has to face the voters next year he will be able to point to a quite telling contrast between the outlook in Ohio, where Big Labor ultimately got its way in 2011, and in his state, where it didn’t.

“The contrast will not be helpful for the union political operatives who are seeking to punish Mr. Walker.

“And over time, residents of other fiscally troubled government union stronghold states will be able to see for themselves who was telling the truth in Ohio and Wisconsin, and act accordingly. That’s why, all in all, 2011 has been a hopeful year for America.”

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

Minnesota State Senator Mike Parry (R-Waseca) recently caused a stir with strong accusations against Governor Mark Dayton. “It’s no secret that the labor unions helped buy the Governor’s Office for Mark Dayton… he began to return the favor, most recently by trying to help unionize some of Minnesota’s in-home, private child care providers,” said Parry in a fundraising letter.

Sen. Parry’s allegations elicited a strong reaction from Dayton, who called it “inaccurate and deeply offensive.” A review of the facts, however, shows that the real reason the governor is so upset: the truth hurts.

Since 2005, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have been trying to organize child care providers Minnesota. Associated Press found that AFSCME wrote a $125,000 check to Gov. Dayton’s Recount Fund once restrictive campaign contribution limits ceased. Combined AFSCME and SEIU PACs contributed $14,000 to Dayton during his campaign. The Minnesota Family Council calculates that Big Labor stands to gain up to $3.3 million a year in dues from unionizing child care providers.

On November 15, Gov. Dayton issued Executive Order 11-31, calling an election to unionize all licensed, registered, and subsidized child care providers in the state. In defense of his order, the governor claimed that holding a union election would ensure that union membership would be “voluntary” and that child care providers not eligible to vote for unionization would be unaffected. Opponents countered that union dues will be compulsory and costs will rise.

For the most part, child care providers are self-employed. So how could they be unionized? Dayton and the unions have a simple solution: declare them state employees because they receive state aid to serve needy children. Under their view, anyone who receives any form of state aid qualifies as a state employee.

To push back against this power grab, on November 28, a group of 11 child care providers sued to block Dayton’s executive order, arguing that it violates state and federal laws. The National Labor Relations Act and Minnesota Labor Relations Act do not allow employers to form, join, or assist labor organizations.

The Minnesota Labor Relations Act indicates that a union cannot gain exclusive representation of workers, unless a majority of workers choose union representation. Dayton’s mandate blatantly violates that provision, as it excludes a majority of child care providers from the voting process. Only 4,300 government-subsidized providers will cast ballots, but a vote for unionization could also force the state’s 6,700 non-subsidized child care providers into a union.

As a result of the suit, Minnesota District Court Judge Dale Lindman issued an injunction to postpone the union election. He stated that laws must be passed by the legislature and remarked that the order “strikes me as being very harmful to the parties that are involved.”
However, Judge Lindman’s injunction has not dampened Governor Dayton’s commitment to unionize Minnesota child care providers. Gov. Dayton vowed to continue his effort to unionize child care providers and to challenge the court injunction.

As it stands now, child care in Minnesota is among the least affordable and most heavily subsidized in the nation. The National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies study shows it can cost up to $12,900 to care for one infant per year in Minnesota.

Becky Swanson, a child care provider for 18 years and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, commented, “Despite the talking points from the governor and union organizers, unionization will affect all childcare providers, but only a select group of providers is being allowed to vote. Since Minnesota is a ‘fair share’ state, non-members can still be required to pay a portion of union dues.” The concerns raised by child care providers have not been answered by either the governor or the unions.

Dayton’s order and succeeding measures led federal officials to ask him to refrain from becoming involved in a labor dispute between American Crystal Sugar and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union.

On December 5, Governor Dayton wrote to Crystal Sugar and the Minnesota AFL-CIO, offering to mediate. Union officials immediately responded positively, while American Crystal Sugar has yet to respond to the offer. The company would be wise to decline.

American Crystal Sugar had little choice other than to lock out employees on August 1, after union officials rejected its contract offer. The final proposal gave workers a 17-percent wage increase over the life of the contract and retained defined benefit pension plans, which are becoming increasingly rare in the private sector. The company also said it was willing to add a clause protecting unionized employees from losing their jobs to outsourcing.

The only concession the company asked of the union was to increase employee health care contributions to help cover increased costs. The average cost of family insurance plans has risen by 9 percent since 2010, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The union to date has rejected every offer and has yet to offer a counterproposal. Instead, it filed four unfair labor practice charges against American Crystal Sugar with the National Labor Relations Board for failing to bargain in “good faith.” The Board dismissed all four charges.

Dayton’s offer to “mediate” the American Crystal Sugar labor dispute gave the union even more reason to stonewall, given the expectation of a resolution favorable to it based on the governor’s transparently pro-union record. Federal officials made the right call in asking him to stay out of it.

So, the next time Governor Dayton fumes publicly over Senator Parry’s accusation, it’s worth keeping in mind the old saying: When you start catching flak, you’re over the target.

The Right To Work states of Idaho, Virginia, and North Carolina took the top three spots.  States that embrace employee freedom from union conscription dominated the top of the list.

James Sherk

Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs. This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union’s agenda. Several states, including New Hampshire and Indiana, are considering right-to-work laws, which protect workers from being fired for not paying union dues. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income. However, the rest of the economy benefits from right-to-work laws.

States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states.

Right-to-Work

Unions often negotiate contracts requiring all workers to pay union dues or lose their jobs, whether or not they support the union. But many workers reject unions. Some do so because union contracts reduce their pay. Others oppose unions’ political agendas: Unions almost exclusively support Democrats, despite 37 percent of their members voting Republican in the last election.[1]

To prevent workers from being forced to support unions financially, 22 states have passed right-to-work laws. Such laws prevent companies from firing workers who do not pay union dues. Workers may still pay voluntarily, but unions cannot threaten their jobs if they do not join. Lawmakers in several states, including New Hampshire, Indiana, and Michigan, are considering right-to-work bills.

Forced Unionization Is Not an American Value

The government should not force workers to pay for unwanted union representation. In a free society, workers alone should make that choice. Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense. They reduce the incentive for union organizers to target companies that treat their workers well. Since unions hurt businesses, less aggressive union organizing attracts investment—and jobs.

Lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition. Unions could negotiate contracts that apply only to their members—they simply prefer not to. Unions should not be able to force workers to choose between financially supporting them and losing their jobs.

Unions Lose Money When Workers Opt Out

The union movement strongly opposes right-to-work laws. It has self-interested motives in doing so: Union membership fell 15 percent after Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws.[2]

Most of the union-represented workers who choose not to pay dues when given the option are those who do not benefit from union contracts. Disproportionate numbers of highly educated workers, for example, choose not to pay dues—the very workers held back by union seniority systems.[3] Without the threat of losing their jobs, the union movement will not persuade these workers to pay dues.

Making union membership voluntary would save workers—and cost unions—a lot of money. Losing 15 percent of their dues-paying members would cost private-sector New Hampshire unions $1.9 million a year. Right-to-work would similarly save private-sector workers in Indiana $18.4 million a year. In Michigan, right-to-work would save workers $46.4 million a year. [4] Giving workers a choice means less money for unions.

Less Aggressive Union Organizers

For the same reason, right-to-work reduces the aggressiveness of union organizers. Making union membership voluntary reduces the financial incentives for unions to target workplaces where they have lukewarm support. Research shows that union organizing falls 50 percent within five years of a state passing a right-to-work law.[5]

Workers who feel mistreated have the right to unionize. Right-to-work laws encourage union organizers to restrict their attention to such workers.

Increased Investment in Right-to-Work States

Right-to-work states are much more attractive for businesses investment. Unionized firms earn lower profits, invest less, and create fewer jobs than comparable nonunion firms.[6]

Boeing’s decision to build a new plant in South Carolina—a right-to-work state—illustrates a larger trend.

Research suggests that foreign direct investment in Oklahoma and Idaho increased after these states passed right-to-work laws.[8]

More Jobs

States that attract more investment should create more jobs. In fact, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent).[9]

The share of manufacturing jobs in counties in right-to-work states is one-third higher than in adjacent counties in non–right-to-work states.[10] Right-to-work laws attract jobs.

Wage Effects Small

Economic theory does not predict how right-to-work laws affect wages. The additional business investment a right-to-work law attracts usually raises the demand for labor, increasing wages. Yet unions argue that businesses will cut wages if the risk of union organizing falls.

Most studies show that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages in either direction.[11] Right-to-work states do have lower average wages than non–right-to-work states, but this is because they are located primarily in the South, which was once much less developed than the North and still has a lower cost of living. Research controlling for this shows that workers in right-to-work states have, if anything, slightly higher wages.[12]

Members-Only Contracts Permissible

In a free society, workers should not have to financially support organizations they oppose.

Unions do not have to represent workers who do not pay dues. They can negotiate contracts that apply only to their members. The law requires unions to represent nonmembers only if they negotiate as “exclusive bargaining representatives.”[13]  Unions almost never do this.

Consider seniority systems: They ensure that everyone gets raises and promotions at the same rate, irrespective of individual performance. If a union negotiated a members-only contract with a seniority system, high-performing workers would refuse to join. Those workers would negotiate a separate contract with performance pay. The best workers would get ahead faster, leaving less money and fewer positions available for those on the seniority scale. The union wants everyone in the seniority system—especially those it holds back.

We should send out another big tip of the hat to Mark Flatten at the Goldwater Institute for yet another piece of investigative journalism where he discovers some of the rather shocking collisions which take place at the intersection of public employee unions and taxpayer dollars. (A pause here, while I realize that it’s probably no longer shocking at this point.) This incident takes place in Phoenix, Arizona at the offices of AFSCME Local 2960, where one of their trustees – charged with monitoring the prudent spending of union funds – apparently exercised the poor judgement to ask if she should be auditing where some of that money goes, specifically in the handling of a large insurance fund.

Natasha Nimer had a simple question: As a trustee in a local labor union representing City of Phoenix employees, did she have a duty to check the books of a taxpayer-funded insurance account it managed?

So she asked the executive board of AFSCME Local 2960. The response was an emphatic “no.”

She dropped the matter and thought it would end there.

She was wrong.

 

In the months that followed, union officials tried to strip Nimer of her duties as a trustee and steward. They tried twice to force her out of AFSCME, only to have the international headquarters order her reinstated.

Eventually union executives went after Nimer’s job as a civilian employee in the Phoenix Fire Department. They demanded her city phone records, personal and work-related emails, disciplinary files and performance evaluations; even a list of all of the Web sites she had visited. They wanted her computers seized and the hard drives searched for evidence she was doing something wrong.

Oh, she was doing something wrong, alright. She was asking questions about how the massive insurance scheme was being administered and whether she should be seeing if everything was being run in a proper and efficient manner. The result was a series of attacks where her own union tried on multiple occasions to force her from her position as a trustee and even launched an investigation to see if they could force her from her regular, full time job. After the better part of a year she finally gave up and resigned from her position as trustee, saying she felt “beaten down” by the constant pressure and attacks.

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about funds representing dues paid by (mostly) willing members of a private labor union. These are taxpayer dollars. They have people such as Ms. Nimer in place not simply for internal housekeeping, but also to supposedly ensure that taxpayer dollars aren’t being wasted or worse. Apparently that’s all well and good… unless someone actually attempts to do their job.

Forced-dues continue to fill the coffers of unions, as well as, union presidents’  and politicians’ pockets according to this recent study by the Commonwealth Foundation:

Government Unions and Forced Dues

• Almost half of government workers in Pennsylvania are union members, compared to 9.3 percent in the private sector.
  • Pennsylvania is a forced union state, meaning that workers can be forced to join a union or pay a [so-called] “fair share fee” just to keep their job.  Most government units in Pennsylvania are “agency shops,” with a specified union to which workers must pay a fee.
  • When state and local governments automatically deduct dues and fair share fees from government workers’ paychecks—as is the practice in Pennsylvania—employees have little or no say in how their money is used.

Union Bosses

• Union bosses collect hefty salaries derived from member dues and fair share fees. In most cases, the salaries are several times the average union member’s annual pay.
  • While acknowledging that budgets were tight, AFSCME Council 13 President David Fillman got a 6 percent raise in 2010, making his salary higher than Gov. Tom Corbett’s.
• Dues and fees often go towards expensive conferences, outings and junkets.  For example, in 2009-10 the Pennsylvania State Education Association—the state’s largest public sector union—spent:
  • More than $250,000 on a board of directors retreat in Gettysburg.
  • More than $89,000 for a “political institution meeting” at the Radisson Penn Harris in Camp Hill, Pa.
  • $20,000 for advertising in the Pittsburgh Steelers Yearbook.
  • Almost $5,900 at Kimberton Golf Club and more than $5,100 at Concord Country Club in Chadd’s Ford.

Political Activity and Lobbying

• Union interests mean leaders frequently do not advocate for the best policies for their members, or for tax-payers.
  • The PSEA promotes a “last in, first out” policy for teacher lay-offs, meaning seniority, rather than competence, determines who keeps their jobs. This especially hurts excellent, but more junior, teachers.
  • The PSEA opposes options for parents, such as school vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools, which foster competition in education.
  • All four public sector unions profiled here are members of the Coalition for Labor Engagement and Accountable Revenues (CLEAR).  CLEAR advocates for job and retirement protection for government workers “without the threat of layoffs, rolling furloughs or privatization”—a policy that inevitably privileges tax increases over spending cuts.
• Union PAC contributions, while voluntary, are also deducted from workers’ paychecks by state and local government.  These deductions help make government union PACs some of the most well-funded in the state.

On September 25, 2001, Oklahoma voters went to the polls and passed a constitutional amendment—Right to Work (RTW)—which gave workers the choice to join or financially support a union. This made Oklahoma the 22nd state in the union to join the ranks of Right To Work states.

Fast forward to today, and opponents of the law are still at work trying to discredit it. A recent study by the [Big Labor related] Economic Policy Institute (EPI), for example, claimed that Right To Work in Oklahoma has been a dismal failure. One of EPI’s most important pieces of evidence is that manufacturing employment is lower today than it was before Right To Work.

[However,] the EPI study did not consider whether Oklahoma’s manufacturing industry may have chosen to boost productivity instead of hiring more workers. Chart 1 shows the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the manufacturing industry from 2003 to 2010 using a growth index. Oklahoma’s manufacturing GDP has grown 45 percent in that time period, outstripping that of the average manufacturing growth in in non-Right To Work states (22 percent).

This growth in Oklahoma’s manufacturing GDP is a direct result of an increasingly productive workforce. In only a few short years, Oklahoma’s productivity growth (67 percent) soon outgrew non-Right To Work states (55 percent).

More broadly, there is other evidence that Right To Work has been good to Oklahoma’s economy. Simply look at how people are “voting with their feet.” Using data from the Internal Revenue Service, Chart 3 shows the net migration in Oklahoma of households (as proxied by taxpayers), people (as proxied by exemptions), and income (as proxied by Adjusted Gross Income, or AGI) between 1995 and 2008.

Chart 3 shows that, prior to Right To Work, Oklahoma struggled to attract residents from other states. In fact, between 1995 and 2002, Oklahoma lost 10,681 households, 3,461 people, and more than $1 billion in income. From 2003 to 2008, however, Oklahoma has gained 13,215 households, 40,693 people, and $99 million in income. More impressively, the trend line is on the way up, suggesting this in-migration will continue into the foreseeable future.

Another illustrative way to look at these data is to see from where these net in-migrants are coming. Table 1 breaks down the net in-migration between Right To Work states and non-Right To Work states since 2003. In relation to Right To Work to non-Right To Work states, Oklahoma is booming with 11,648 new households, 31,367 new people, and $385 million in new income.

In summary, we have presented new evidence that Right To Work has been a boon for Oklahoma. Manufacturing output and productivity have outpaced the competition, and people from non-Right To Work states are voting with their feet by moving to Oklahoma in increasing numbers. This evidence from Oklahoma should help convince policymakers in other non-Right To Work states that Right To Work is good economic policy. [Emphasis added]

This month marks the centennial of California’s voter initiative process, and Governor Jerry Brown has commemorated the occasion by signing a law that makes it easier for unions to defeat ballot measures they don’t like. Consider it more evidence of Mr. Brown’s disappointing return to Sacramento.

The California constitution stipulates that ballot measures be placed on a general election ballot unless lawmakers call a special election. What constitutes a “general election” was hotly debated during the 1960s and early 1970s. However, when the legislature wanted to put several bond measures on a primary ballot in 1971, Mr. Brown, then the secretary of state, obliged. Initiatives have since appeared on either primary (typically in June) or November ballots.

This has benefitted voters since initiatives receive more scrutiny and debate when there are fewer measures on the ballot. The November ballot is chock full of local and statewide races and measures. Adding more initiatives would make the ballot even more crowded, but that seems to be the union point. This month Mr. Brown signed a law restricting voter-sponsored initiatives to the November ballot only in even years. The same rules, by the way, don’t apply to ballot measures that the legislaturesponsors.

Democrats say this is more democratic because voter turnout is higher than in primary and special elections. But then why does the legislature retain for itself the power to place bond and revenue-raising measures on primary and special-election ballots?

Voter turnout in primaries tends to be more conservative than in general elections because most incumbents are Democrats and thus more Republicans run as primary challengers. Unions would also prefer not to have to mobilize their troops to fight taxpayer-backed initiatives twice each year. Doing so would be particularly challenging in 2012 because unions drained their coffers taking down Republican gubernatorial and Senate candidates Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina last November.

Taxpayer groups are also promoting initiatives to modify government collective bargaining and pensions. Most of the groups are aiming their initiatives for November, but one group filed an initiative for the primary ballot that would bar labor unions from spending members’ dues on political campaigns. Moving all initiatives to November will now give unions a better shot at defeating this and other initiatives.

The new law also postpones to November 2014 from June 2012 a ballot measure to bolster the state’s rainy day fund. Democratic leaders agreed two years ago to place the measure on the 2012 primary ballot in return for Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a few GOP lawmakers supporting a temporary tax hike. Democrats are now double-crossing the GOP, though Republicans were foolish to agree to any deal that raised taxes immediately in return for future spending reforms. This should warn Republicans tempted to compromise with Mr. Brown on taxes in return for illusory pension or regulatory reforms.

Some Californians hoped an older, perhaps wiser, Mr. Brown could pull off a Nixon goes to China his second time around as Governor. Alas, he’s still stuck in Sacramento.

Not only that, Lafer uses a laughable term to describe ‘forced-unionism states;’ he refers to them as “free bargaining states.”  As most know, unions are still able to bargain in Right To Work states.  But, what union bosses cannot do is force employees to pay union fees against their will.  For Lafer to refer to compulsory-unionism states as ‘free bargaining’ illustrates the insincerity of his analysis.

From CAPCON:

Lafer wrote, “Indeed, a series of recent corporate announcements make clear that many auto industry companies continue to prefer Michigan over right-to-work competitors …”

But Lafer never mentioned that some of those businesses cited in his report received deals for millions of dollars in tax incentives to locate in Michigan while the competing states offered no incentives, according to research done by Michigan Capitol Confidential.

In fact, even the Michigan Economic Development Corp. says those companies wouldn’t have picked this state had it not been for the MEDC’s handouts.

MEDC memos received in a Freedom of Information Act request involving the businesses stated in Lafer’s report paint a picture of a state that has difficulty competing with right-to-work states without offering tax breaks. The memos refer to lower taxes and personnel costs in right-to-work states as a reason Michigan has to offer millions in incentives to attract the businesses.

“He (Lafer) is listing successes that are actually evidence of failure,” said James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Hohman said Michigan’s failure was its inability to provide “an attractive business environment where these businesses would set up in lieu of special favors.”

In an email, Lafer defended his decision not to mention that Michigan was the only state offering subsides to those businesses among the states they were considering.

“Whether some of these individual examples were swayed by state incentives or not, this doesn’t change the big picture of economic reality. The list of auto industry companies choosing to locate in Michigan and other free-bargaining states is extremely large, both smallish and very big projects. In general, every state provides some kind of economic development incentives for companies considering locating into their states, for projects of any significant size. This is certainly true of the auto companies locating in the states with ‘right to work’ laws — I believe Mississippi provided over $300 million in benefits for one Toyota plant.  But there are many reasons for the companies, both auto and elsewhere, to choose to locate in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, California, Delaware, and other free bargaining states other than economic incentives provided by the state.  These are detailed in my report and you can find them elsewhere, including in the surveys of actual corporate location decision-makers.”

A “free-bargaining” state is also known as a state where union membership may be made compulsory on an employee.

But the MEDC’s own briefing memos on four businesses cited in Lafer’s report highlight Michigan’s difficulties competing with right-to-work states on a level playing field.

There’s much more separating Richmond and Washington than just 100 miles of interstate.

It’s a Tale of Two Cities.

In Washington they’re bogged down in red ink, spiraling debt, expanding government and overspending – all while the difficult decisions are left to future generations.

Here in Richmond, for the second straight year, we’ve reached the end of our fiscal year in the black —with a surplus this year of more than $500 million.

What does it take to create jobs and bring economic development to Virginia?

It’s really common sense and a focus on getting results, something that is in short supply in Washington.

Businesses want consistency and a level playing field, low taxes, reasonable regulation, good schools and a world-class transportation system.

We are unapologetic supporters of Virginia’s Right-to-Work laws and fighting off the union excesses that is hurting businessmen across the United States.

We’ve kept taxes low on businesses in Virginia.

We’ve worked to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses here in the Commonwealth.

Contrast that with how Washington does businesses.

In Washington, the Administration is using unelected people in appointed boards to do what Congress can’t, like using the NLRB to prohibit companies like Boeing from relocating some of their workforce to Right To Work states.

In Washington, a national healthcare plan was passed which explodes the cost of healthcare that employers must pay, and places an estimated $2.2 billion unfunded mandate on Virginia over the next 10 years.

In Washington, the Democrats beat the redistribution drums for increased taxes on job creators and wealth generators.

What business wants more than anything else from government is to make sure there is certainty and a level playing field —and then get out of the way.

When we took office in January, 2010, we were greeted by a massive budget shortfall, our rest stops were closed, and we were facing outgoing Governor Tim Kaine’s proposal for a job-killing $2 billion tax increase to solve our shortfall.

In the worst economic times we’ve had since the Great Depression, the worst thing we could have done is passed a $2 billion tax increase!

But we do things differently in Richmond than they do in Washington.

Instead of raising taxes and increasing spending, we worked with the legislature to pass a balanced budget by cutting spending. We reduced state spending to 2006/2007 levels. We focused government on its core functions.

In the past 90 days, we’ve seen some of the results:

• In Covington, MeadWestvaco announced plans to invest $285,000,000 in their operations
• In Dinwiddie, Spiniello Co. will establish its first operation in Virginia
• In Halifax, ABB, Inc. will expand its operations, invest $4,600,000
• In Charlottesville, the CFA Institute will invest $24,500,000 to establish its operations center
• Also in Halifax, Presto Products Company will invest $6,000,000 to expand
• In Chesterfield County, Emerson Ecologies will open a distribution facility
• In Staunton, Cadence, Inc. will invest $15,900,000 to expand its operations
• Safety Technologies will invest $5,890,000 to open a manufacturing facility in Lunenburg County
• ITT Excelis announced plans to invest $5,000,000 at its new headquarters in Fairfax County

In the past year and a half, we were also successful in attracting the corporate headquarters of Fortune 100 company, Northrop Grumman, brought new jobs to Southwest Virginia by recruiting DirecTV, Convergys, ATK and Phoenix Packaging, and facilitated a significant $500 million investment in Mecklenburg County by Microsoft.

At the end of June, CNBC named Virginia the “Top State for Business” in the United States, giving Virginia the highest score in the country in their survey. A few weeks ago, Polina research survey did the same.

When vou recognize that it’s private enterprise and the free-market system that creates jobs, vou win.

In Washington, where the Administration believes that it’s the government’s mission to spend more to try to create jobs, you’ve got it backwards. [sic]

[Even Virginia has its roadblocks]

We have had some challenges in getting some of our reform agenda passed in the Virginia Senate.

In this past legislative session, we pushed to support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution, doing our part to get Washington D.C. to live within its means, like we do here in Richmond.

We also pushed for a “Repeal Amendment,” which would restore some much needed balance to our federal system of government by strengthening the 10th Amendment rights of the states.

We pushed to have our job-creating Right To Work status made a constitutional protection for hard-working Virginians – and also ensure that workers voting in union elections get to cast their vote in private, a basic right we all deserve.

We worked to enact substantive reform to the state pension system to tackle our $18 billion unfunded liability and tried to create a modest school choice scholarship bill for needy children.

All this legislation was killed in the Democratic-controlled Senate.