Time Magazine

The Associated Press reports “Indiana’s move to become the Rust Belt’s first “right-to-work” state has intensified debate over the issue in neighboring Michigan.  Supporters of right-to-work laws say they’re more convinced than ever that Michigan should take a similar step in hopes of lessening union clout and attracting more jobs.”

Unfortunately for Michigan workers and taxpayers, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has decided to punt on the issue.  Other members of the Republican establishment including the Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville are unwilling to cross their union boss allies.  This is an effort that will take time.  But have no fear, in order to compete, Michigan will need to break big labor’s stranglehold on its economy with a Right to Work law.  As the Rolling Stones sung, “time is on our side.”

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.

City Journal looks at the success of the Walker reforms that should be a model for other states looking to balance their budgets:  ”The truth, however, is that the reforms not only are saving money already; they’re doing so with little disruption to services. In early August, noticing the trend, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Milwaukee would save more in health-care and pension costs than it would lose in state aid, leaving the city $11 million ahead in 2012—despite Mayor Tom Barrett’s prediction in March that Walker’s budget ‘makes our structural deficit explode.’”

That is just one example.  Well worth the read.

Wisconsin watchdog Citizens for Responsible Government in Racine  reported that Racine native Jeff Demet’s name was found four times on the petition to recall Republican State Senator Van Wanggaard. Finding the same signature four times is bad enough, but when Demet was contacted about the four signatures, he claims he never signed the Wanggaard recall petition at all!

“For more than two years, the Michigan Education Association [MEA] has had a manual that urges its members to use students as propaganda in contract negotiations and also lays out how to organize strikes,” writes Tome Gantert of Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Considering the fact that teacher strikes are illegal in Michigan, some may find it odd that the MEA has been encouraging this sort of behavior. In fact, the MEA has done a lot more than just “encourage” potentially illegal activity. As Gantert reports, the organization produced an anonymously written 28-page manual titled, “Building Full Capacity Locals — Crisis Planning, It’s Never Too Early To Start!”

And of course, what union protest would be complete without the exploitation of children in the bargaining process?

“In terms of a bargaining message, the public responds most positively when we talk about children, quality in the classroom and the future,” the MEA manual states.

The manual even suggests one slogan that it claims has worked for other locals: “It’s not about dollars and cents; it’s about our children.”

Perhaps the most disturbing moment occurs when one section appears to quote almost verbatim Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.”

Alinsky instructs his followers to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Likewise, the MEA manual instructs teachers to “Pick a target—personalize—and polarize the opposition [pg. 17].” And those are just the verbatim quotes; the entire manual is a handbook for creating, managing, and profiting from crises.

 

We will keep you up to date but on thing we do know, Gov. Brewer is not one to back down from a fight.

SOON — PERHAPS AS EARLY AS TODAY — Gov. Mitch Daniels will sign legislation making Indiana the nation’s 23^rd right-to-work state. Labor unions angrily oppose the change, but their opposition has no legitimate or principled basis.

State right-to-work laws, authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, are not anti-union. They are pro-choice: They protect workers from being forced to join or pay fees to a labor union as a condition of keeping a job. In non-right-to-work states, employees who work in a “union shop” are compelled to fork over part of each paycheck to a labor organization — even if they want nothing to do with unions, let alone to be represented by one. Laws like the one Indiana is poised to enact simply make union support voluntary. Hoosiers can’t be required to kick back part of their wages to the Republican Party or the Methodist Church or the Animal Liberation Front; the new measure will ensure that they don’t have to give a cut of everything they earn to labor unions, either.

Most Americans regard compulsory unionism as unconscionable. In a new Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of likely voters say non-union workers should not have to pay dues against their will. Once upon a time, labor movement giants like Samuel Gompers, a founder of the American Federation of Labor, agreed. “I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty — the principles of voluntarism,” declared Gompers in his last speech to the AFL in 1924. “No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion.” Those words can be seen chiseled on Gompers’s memorial in Washington, DC.

So as a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, it is easy to understand why Big Labor long ago embraced what liberal scholar Robert Reich (who served as Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor) dubbed “the necessity for coercion.” In order “to maintain themselves,” Reich said in 1985, “unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast.” Or, as Don Corleone might have put it, to make them an offer they can’t refuse.

But is there any ethical reason — any honorable basis — for the union shop?

To hear them tell it, they only object to “free riders.” Labor leaders claim it would be unjust to allow employees to avoid paying for the unions that negotiate benefits on their behalf. “There’s always going to be a certain amount of the population that will take something for free if they can get it for free,” says Nancy Guyott, head of the Indiana AFL-CIO.

That’s not a principle, it’s a shameless pretext. Unions demand monopoly bargaining power — the right to exclusively represent everyone in a workplace — and then insist that each of those workers must pay for the privilege. This is the “principle” of the squeegee-man who aggressively wipes your windshield when you stop at a red light, then demands that you pay for the service he has rendered you.

By the union’s “free-rider” logic, shouldn’t all voters be forced to subscribe to a daily newspaper, since all of them benefit from its journalism? And shouldn’t every company be compelled to support the Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies on behalf of business whether individual firms ask it to or not?

The passion with which Big Labor fights right-to-work helps explain why so many Americans have abandoned unions. The labor movement was born in freedom and choice. That’s not what it stands for anymore.

In an effort to loosen labor’s grip on workers, two GOP lawmakers want legislation that would require workers to re-affirm the existence of their unions with new votes every three years.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina are pushing the Employee Rights Act that also would place limits on strikes, how fast a union can organize and how membership fees may be used to support political candidates. The bill has yet to receive a committee hearing in either chamber.

Few workers – less than 10 percent of union members – vote to organize. Instead, most workers join an existing union as a condition of employment.

This bill, however, would give workers a chance to voice their opinions. Union officials would be up for re-election every three years. At that time, employees could decide whether to keep or eliminate their union.

“My goal is to make sure that employees of a company make the decision on joining unions,” Mr. Scott said. “This just gives them an opportunity to say, ‘Yes, I want to be a part of the union.’”

“It’s neither anti-union, nor pro-employer,” Mr. Hatch told The Washington Times. “It’s pro-worker.”

“There’s not a single provision in this bill that will empower employers at the expense of the union,” Mr. Hatch said. “The only parties whose position will be improved by the Employee Rights Act are employees.”

“It’s about time we start worrying about the employees and the workers, rather than unions and management people,” Mr. Hatch said. “It is fair to both employers and unions, and, far more importantly, it’s fair to workers.”

Secret-ballot elections, instead of card checks, would be the voting method of choice under the Employee Rights Act, which was introduced last August in both chambers.

It’s not turning out that way: The Apocalypse has not arrived for services, and Mr. Walker was able to balance the state budget without new taxes or looming deficits.

They swore revenge for his offenses, and last week Wisconsin Democrats delivered what they say are a million signatures for the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker… to campaign against reforms that have already saved taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and rescued the state from a budget crisis. Game on.

Since last summer,  Big Labor waged and lost a bitter fight over the election of a state Supreme Court Justice and spent millions trying to recall Republican state senators.

Last year state senator Spencer Coggs called Mr. Walker’s plan “legalized slavery” while others predicted disaster for school districts and public services.

In districts like Wauwatosa, Racine, LaCrosse and Eau Claire, the changes in health and pension contributions prevented layoffs that were expected to be widespread and in some cases allowed the boards not to fire a single teacher.

There are a few unfortunate counter examples—schools had locked themselves into long-term agreements with unions that predated Mr. Walker’s reforms. Unable to take advantage of the changes, Milwaukee and Kenosha, which serve more than 100,000 students altogether, saw layoffs of more than 800 teaching positions for the 2011-2012 school year.

The reforms have also let school districts introduce competition to reduce health-care costs. Under the old rules, most school districts bought health insurance through the WEA Trust, a virtual monopoly provider and a creature of the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

The Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute estimates that the Appleton school district was able to save $3.1 million over the previous year, despite continuing to get insurance through WEA Trust. With other insurance options available, WEA Trust had to cut its prices to keep the business. Based on statewide media reports, MacIver estimates that as of September 74 local units of government were saving some $162 million.

In mid-December, Wisconsin taxpayers got evidence of the direct benefits of reform in their latest property tax bills—an average annual increase of 0.3%, the smallest since 1996. Potential Democratic challengers  will have to explain why the state should punish Mr. Walker for reforms that are helping taxpayers and local governments save money.

The only loser here are government unions that have less control over state and local politics. With the state no longer automatically withdrawing dues for the unions, labor leaders face the prospect of smaller checkbooks to buy politicians and intimidate reformers.

Mr. Walker reduced that influence on behalf of taxpayers, and the only point of the recall is union retribution designed to show other politicians that they don’t dare cross that line. The Wisconsin recall fight is the statewide election of the year, with implications for taxpayers nationwide.

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?

The Fiscal Times

From Bloated Union Contracts Have Busted State Budgets:

Consider the issues making headlines: education reform, busted state budgets, the battle to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, free trade agreements,Occupy Wall Street, the fight to make Indiana a right-to-work state. What these stories have in common is the waning influence of organized labor and the all-out battle by union leaders to hold on.

Take the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top initiative. Education Secretary Duncan recently warned that several states, including New York, might not receive monies earlier awarded through that program because they have not followed through on required reforms. The stumbling block? Teacher evaluations.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg laid out new education initiatives in his recent State of the City address, among them a proposal to give $20,000 raises to the best teachers, in return for changing the way educators are evaluated. Today, teachers are rated either satisfactory or unsatisfactory; 97 percent fall in the former category. UFT President Michael Mulgrew immediately denounced the plan, describing Mr. Bloomberg as “lost in his own fantasy world of education.”

Mr. Mulgrew may be the one living in a fantasy world. Pressure to boost our country’s public schools is one of the rare priorities on both Republicans’ and Democrats’ to-do lists. Americans are appalled by our plummeting world education rankings, and by our graduates’ lack of preparedness for today’s job market. While the decline in our schools stems from a number of sources, most reformers – including Secretary Duncan – see the intransigence of unions on the “job for life” rules that perpetuate mediocre teaching as a major roadblock to progress.

Likewise, the recession has forced politicians to confront bloated public employee contracts that have torpedoed many states’ budgets. Estimated at over $3 trillion, the underfunding of state and local pension plans has been described as one of our most serious fiscal problems. Voters now understand that unless elected officials overhaul pay and benefits packages they will face soaring taxes or reduced services.

Governor Walker’s efforts to rein in unsustainable public employee costs in Wisconsin (and to reduce a sizeable budget deficit) became the rallying point for terrified union leaders who see their only growth opportunity – public employees – under attack. Though Walker proposed terms that were still more generous than the national averages… Union leaders struck back, rallying workers from across the country to their cause; they are now trying to force the governor from office.

These confrontations have left Big Labor bruised but unbowed, and eager to turn public anger elsewhere. They have nurtured and funded the Occupy Wall Street protests for just that reason, ginning up resentment against the “one percent” and especially against banks and bankers. Better to raise taxes on the wealthy than to cut government payrolls. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has over one million members and much to lose from widespread government reform efforts, has been especially eager to support the protests. Stephen Lerner, a highly regarded union organizer and former SEIU official, spoke to students at Pace University last March about his plan to “destabilize” the country through civil disobedience, strikes and large-scale protests. Acknowledging that labor was under pressure and needed to stay out of the spotlight, he insisted that students and community groups take the lead. Welcome to OWS.

Happily, the public is not so gullible. On many fronts, Americans see unions as part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Voters can connect the dots, between the interests of the nation…..and defeating the interests of organized labor.

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.

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.

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

Federal data on the American workforce and employment and unemployment rates show that, even with our country struggling through the most severe recession in decades and a so-far anemic recovery, employer demand for college-educated employees has continued to rise at a surprisingly rapid clip.

From 2000 to 2010, the total population of the U.S., aged 25 and over, grew by 12.1%, but the number of people in that age bracket with at least a bachelor’s degree grew by 29.3%.

And in October 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force participation rate for civilians aged 25 or older with one or more higher-education degrees was 76.4% (not seasonally adjusted), barely lower than it was before the recession started.

That same month, the nationwide unemployment rate for the pool of 47.3 million college-educated adults 25 or over was just 4.2%, well under half the average for the workforce as a whole.

The bottom-line significance of these data is that employers across the country typically have more difficulty finding a qualified college-educated person to fill a position than a college-educated person has finding a good job.

Of course, not everyone who holds a bachelor’s degree and is in the work force is doing well economically. But generally speaking there is still a “seller’s market” for college-educated labor in America today.

Furthermore, many businesses that sustain large numbers of jobs for people with associate’s degrees, high school diplomas, or less education also require a substantial number of college-educated people to operate smoothly.

Therefore, the rate at which a state is gaining college-educated people, relative to the national average, is in itself a good indication of how successful the state is in creating and retaining good jobs.

‘Highly Educated Employees, Like Other Employees, Benefit From Right to Work Laws’

The nine states with the highest percentage growth in their college-educated adult populations over the past decade (see the left column of the table accompanying this article) are located in the Southeastern, Southwestern, Plains, and Rocky Mountains regions of America. And they are culturally as well as regionally diverse.

What these states have in common is that they all have on the books Right to Work laws that make it illegal to force employees to join or pay dues or fees to an unwanted union as a condition of employment.

On the other hand, states without Right to Work protections for employees dominate the ranks of the laggards in increasing their college-educated populations (see the accompanying table’s right column).

Excluding the special case of Louisiana, which lost large numbers of college-educated and other residents after being devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, all of the nine worst performers were forced-dues states.

“The simple fact is, highly educated employees, like other employees, benefit from Right to Work laws,” noted Matthew Leen, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“Employees of all kinds prefer to live in Right to Work states when they can because living costs are lower and real incomes are higher.”

Policymakers Should Pay Heed to Data

Mr. Leen elaborated: “For example, a study by Dr. Barry Poulson, past president of the North American Economics and Finance Association, found that the average household income in Right to Work states, adjusted for interstate differences in cost of living, was more than $4250 higher than the average in forced-unionism states.

“The fact that real household incomes have over the years repeatedly been shown to be higher in Right to Work states than in non-Right to Work states is no coincidence.

“Where forced union dues are legal, union bosses use their power to disrupt labor markets, jack up costs, and bankroll Tax & Spend, regulation-happy state legislators and governors.

“The data clearly show forced-unionism states seeking a ‘brain gain’ should pass Right to Work laws. Policymakers should pay heed.”

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.”

From the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation:

Worker Rights Advocate Blasts Obama’s Unprecedented Recess Appointments to the NLRB

The President’s legally dubious NLRB recess appointments pave the way for another year of forced-unionism giveaways

Washington, DC (January 4, 2012) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s unprecedented NLRB recess appointments:

“Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB, despite there being no formal recess of Congress, show just how much this Administration is in the pocket of Big Labor. In the last two years the Obama Labor Board has repeatedly enacted one power grab after another on behalf of union bosses, to the detriment of the rights of individual employees – especially those who wish to refrain from union activities. The President’s legally dubious NLRB recess appointments pave the way for another year of forced-unionism giveaways.

“Union bosses know their coercive agenda is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people, which is why they’ve turned to unelected administrative agencies like the NLRB to push through much of what they cannot get through Congress. That’s what makes these appointments all the more offensive in the face of Congress affirmatively taking action to block recess nominations.”

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are already exploring possible legal challenges to these unprecedented recess appointments in defiance of Congress.