Grass-Roots Right to Work Efforts Expanding in Midwestern States

Pro-forced unionism politicians like Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich., shown here with former Vice President Gore and President Obama) have lost credibility due to the extraordinarily poor economic performance of forced-unionism states. Credit: Radiospike.com

All across America, Right to Work states have long benefited from economic growth far superior to that of states in which millions of employees are forced to join or pay dues or fees to a labor union just to keep their jobs.

But over the past decade, the contrast between Right to Work states and forced-union-dues states has been especially stark in the Midwest.

Four Midwestern forced-unionism states — Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana — suffered absolute private-sector job declines over the past decade that were worse than those of any of the other 46 states. Midwestern forced-unionism states (the four just mentioned, plus Missouri, Wisconsin and Minnesota) lost a net total of 1.88 million private-sector jobs.

Combined, these seven forced-unionism states had 8.1% fewer private-sector jobs in 2009 than they did back in 1999.

Meanwhile, the five Midwestern Right to Work states (North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa and Kansas) experienced an overall private-sector job increase of 2.3%.

Moreover, from 1999 to 2009, real personal income in Midwestern Right to Work states grew by 17.3% — an increase two-and-a-half times as a great as the combined real personal income growth in Midwestern forced-unionism states.

State Right to Work laws prohibit the firing of employees simply for exercising their right to refuse to join or bankroll an unwanted union.

At this time, 22 states have Right to Work laws on the books. However, because of intensifying grass-roots efforts in many of the remaining 28 forced-unionism states, the number of Right to Work states could be on the rise over the course of the next few years.

Recession’s End Won’t Suffice to Revive Big Labor-Controlled States

“More and more citizens of Big Labor-controlled states like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana recognize that their states require fundamental reform in order to get their economies back on track,” observed National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“The fact is, compulsory unionism impedes private-sector job creation and income growth in every part of the business cycle. It’s clear that the national recession’s end won’t suffice to turn Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana around.

“On the other hand, there is strong evidence that economically troubled states could greatly accelerate their job and income growth by passing Right to Work legislation.”

One recent example of such evidence is a scholarly article by eminent economist Richard Vedder. A professor on the faculty of Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, and a specialist in labor, taxation and education issues, Dr. Vedder is the author of more than 100 academic papers as well as several books.

One of his books, coauthored with fellow Ohio University economist Lowell Galloway, is the acclaimed Out of Work. It received the Sir Anthony Fisher International Memorial Award and was also a Mencken Award Finalist.

In his article entitled “Right to Work Laws: Liberty, Prosperity, and Quality of Life,” appearing in the Winter 2010 edition of Cato Journal, Dr. Vedder reported the results of a regression analysis he did to test the economic impact of Right to Work laws.

Right to Work Law ‘Would Have Increased Per Capita Income by an Extra $2760′

Specifically, Dr. Vedder sought “to relate the rate of growth in real per capita personal income from 1977 to 2007 for the 48 contiguous U.S. states to the existence” of Right to Work laws.

The analysis controlled for each state’s tax burden, the share of its adults with college degrees, land area, and several other variables.

Dr. Vedder found “a very strong and highly statistically significant . . . positive relationship between” Right to Work laws and economic growth. He elaborated: Suppose two states both “had per capita income of $24,000 in 1977.”

Real per capita income in the state without Right to Work protections “would have risen to $36,000 in 2007, compared to $38,760″ in the Right to Work state. Right to Work protections “would have increased per capita income by an extra $2760 — or over $11,000 annually for a family of four.”

Dr. Vedder concluded: While alternative models “might offer somewhat different conclusions, . . . based on existing evidence, a strong case can be made” that Right to Work laws “have a positive impact on U.S. living standards.”

But despite all the evidence of Right to Work laws’ economic benefits, and despite the fact that nearly 80% of Americans who regularly vote support the Right to Work as a matter of principle, passing a state Right to Work law is never easy.

Unions that file federal disclosure forms rake in a total of roughly $20 billion a year in (mostly forced) dues and fees, government grants, rents, interest, and other revenues. And union bosses deploy a huge share of that money for politics and lobbying.

Freedom-Loving Citizens Must Be Mobilized to Pass More Right to Work Laws

If freedom-loving citizens are to counter successfully the might of the union political machine and prevail upon their elected officials to adopt a state Right to Work law, they must first be mobilized.

For years, grass-roots efforts to pass Right to Work legislation in the Midwest have been assisted by state groups like the Lansing-based Michigan Right to Work Committee and the Indianapolis-based Indiana Right to Work Committee.

In state after state this summer, these groups are mobilizing pro-Right to Work citizens to contact their legislative and executive candidates with thousands of postcards, letters, and phone calls urging them to oppose forced unionism.

Already, many politicians who were riding the fence have decided to take a stand in favor of Right to Work.

“Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana have long had reputations as Big Labor strongholds,” commented Mr. Mix. “Union bosses remain very powerful in much of the Midwest, largely because of their government-backed domination of public-sector employment.

“However, when a state’s private-sector job gains are paltry or negative during periods of nationwide economic growth, and its job losses are out-sized during recessions, then its citizens eventually get fed up.

“Once a critical mass of ordinary people become determined to change the way their state operates, union special interests can’t stop them.

“That’s why, in 2010, the pressure on Great Lakes state politicians to support Right to Work is mounting, even in Michigan, of all places!”

Right to Work Laws A Matter of Principle

Mr. Mix added that a desire to make their states more economically successful is not the sole motivation for supporters of state Right to Work legislative efforts:

“The Right to Work is a matter of principle as well as economics. Right to Work laws’ fundamental purpose is to protect the employee’s personal freedom of choice.

“Commitment to principle helps explain why so many National Committee members who live in a state that already has a Right to Work law are eager to offer their assistance to efforts to pass such laws in the remaining 28 forced-unionism states.

“No American should be forced to join or bankroll a union as a condition of employment. That’s why the Committee also continues to work for passage of national Right to Work legislation repealing all federal labor-law provisions that authorize forced union dues and fees.

“Effectively, that would make all 50 states Right to Work states.”

Once they finish their education, droves of young Californians are fleeing to Right to Work states, where real incomes are higher. Golden State Rep. Brad Sherman (center) wants to deny them the chance to flee. Credit: www.house.gov

Union-Label Solon Bringing Back Right to Work Destruction Scheme

Big Labor Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman thinks he knows how to stop employees and employers from fleeing forced-unionism states like his native California: Make sure there’s nowhere in the country they can go where the Right to Work is protected.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2009, a net total of 1.51 million Californians left the Golden State.

And the reason there is a huge net outflow of people, disproportionately young employees and entrepreneurs, from California to other states isn’t because Americans have suddenly grown tired of sunny days and moderate temperatures!

From 2000-2009, Net Total Of Five Million Americans Fled Forced-Unionism States

Rather, people are leaving California, over which forced dues-collecting government union bosses now wield more power than ever before, because they can find much better job opportunities and earn higher real incomes elsewhere — typically in a Right to Work state.

Right to Work laws now on the books in 22 states protect employees, both private- and public-sector, from being fired for refusal to pay dues or so-called “agency” fees to an unwanted union.

Overall, from 2000 to 2009, a net total of 4.97 million Americans moved from forced-unionism states and Washington, D.C., to Right to Work states. That’s on top of a net population transfer of nearly five million Americans to Right to Work states during the 1990′s.

Mr. Sherman Would ‘Level Playing Field’ by Imposing Forced Dues Nationwide

Over the years, respected economists have shown time and again that living costs are lower, and real incomes are higher, in Right to Work states than in forced-union-dues states. Scholars who have reported such findings include Dr. James Bennett, of George Mason University’s Nobel Prize-winning economics department, and Dr. Barry Poulson, past president of the North American Economics and Finance Association.

Both employees and businesses benefit from being able to flee high-cost, high-tax, forced-unionism states like California.

But to forced-unionism zealots like Mr. Sherman, the existence of a Right to Work alternative creates an “unlevel playing field” that must be flattened by a new federal law imposing forced dues and fees nationwide.

This summer, Mr. Sherman is circulating among his colleagues a letter urging them to join him in sponsoring legislation that would wipe out all 22 current state Right to Work laws by repealing Section 14(b) of the federal Taft-Hartley Act, which explicitly authorizes states to enact such laws.

If this scheme were to become law, private-sector employees in Right to Work states would no longer be protected from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a job condition, though states would retain the ability to protect state and local government employees’ Right to Work.

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix recalled that Mr. Sherman had previously introduced his 14(b) Repeal Bill in 2008, before forced-unionism apologist Barack Obama became President.

“Of course, the time was not yet ripe for a full-scale attack on 14(b) in 2008.  Even today, union strategists appear to be nervous about trying to ram such legislation through Congress,” Mr. Mix noted.

Brad Sherman ‘Says What Big Labor Is Thinking’

“Nevertheless, Mr. Sherman’s union-boss patrons clearly don’t mind that he is beating the drum for 14(b) repeal now, because Right to Work destruction is their goal. Brad Sherman says what Big Labor is thinking,” Mr. Mix continued.

“Right to Work supporters should take heed: Unless they can break Big Labor’s stranglehold on Congress this year, they must expect to have to fight in 2011 and 2012 not just against familiar power grabs like the ‘card-check’ forced-unionism bill, but also for the very preservation of state Right to Work laws.

“Big Labor puppet that he is, Congressman Sherman has done Right to Work supporters a favor by reminding them what is at stake.”

Like President Obama, Gov. Joe Manchin has an established record of supporting union monopoly bargaining. As a U.S. senator, Mr. Manchin could help Big Labor corral state and local employees nationwide into unions. Credit: blogs.wvgazette.com

Would-Be U.S. Senators Urged to Stand Up to Big Labor Bosses

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) is an unabashed proponent of labor laws foisting union monopoly bargaining on public employees and government agencies.

As recently as this June, in an interview with the Charleston Daily Mail, Mr. Manchin endorsed a state law forcing local school boards in West Virginia to grant a single teacher union the power to speak for all teachers in their district, including those who don’t want to join.

According to the Daily Mail’s account, the governor actually said that such a monopoly-bargaining law would constitute a “solution” to “West Virginia’s education woes”!

Fortunately for independent-minded public employees and taxpayers, West Virginia legislators have up to now refused to send to the governor’s desk legislation handing government union bosses monopoly power to bargain over public employee salaries, benefits, and work rules.

Unfortunately, Mr. Manchin may soon have the opportunity to mandate union monopoly bargaining over West Virginia’s local public employees without the cooperation of the state’s Senate and House of Delegates.

Next U.S. Senator From West Virginia Could Cast Deciding Vote on Reid Bill

In the Democratic primary late this month to determine the party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Robert Byrd, Joe Manchin is considered the strong favorite. So far polls indicate that, if nominated, he will be the front-runner in the general election as well.

State AFL-CIO union bosses have endorsed Mr. Manchin for senator, making it plain that, if he is elected, they expect him to support “public employee collective [i.e., monopoly] bargaining” in the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Congress is already dangerously close to passing legislation that would mandate union monopoly bargaining over state and local public-safety employees across the country.

And this scheme, introduced in the Senate as S.3194 by Big Labor Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), would pave the way for federal legislation mandating union monopoly bargaining over front-line state and local public employees of all kinds.

“So far, Right to Work members and supporters have, through their dedication and generosity, succeeded in blocking Harry Reid’s Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill,” noted National Right to Work Committee Vice President Doug Stafford.

“But if Joe Manchin becomes West Virginia’s next U.S. senator, and refuses to budge from his current pro-monopoly bargaining stance, he could cast the deciding vote in favor of the Reid bill.

“I know freedom-loving West Virginians will do everything they can to prevent that from happening.”

Federal Survey Program Invites All Candidates to Support Right to Work

Mr. Stafford continued: “This fall, assuming he gets the Democratic nod, Mr. Manchin will face increasing pressure to repudiate public-sector union monopoly bargaining and other forms of forced unionism, thanks to the Committee’s federal candidate Survey 2010.”

As longtime Committee members know, the federal candidate survey invites U.S. congressional candidates to pledge to oppose forced unionism consistently and support national Right to Work legislation if elected.

The survey is one of the Committee’s most effective tools. In West Virginia, Senate candidates in both major parties are now getting a chance to return their surveys and answer 100% in favor of Right to Work.

But in the fall, more and more Right to Work supporters will be mobilized to lobby the Democratic and Republican standard bearers to pledge to support employees’ freedom to get and hold a job without being forced to accept unwanted union “representation” or pay union dues.

“The success of the survey program is key for the Committee’s future ability to defeat Big Labor power grabs in Congress and, ultimately, pass a national Right to Work law,” said Mr. Stafford.

“For that reason, the Survey 2010 is targeting not just the West Virginia Senate race, but critical Senate and House campaigns across the country.”

Unlike Unionized Workers’ Pension Funds, Union Bosses’ Are Secure

Mark Mix: Enactment of a National Right to Work law "would greatly strengthen union officials' incentive to do what's best for the employees they purport to represent, rather than feather their own nests." Credit: C-SPAN

There’s no denying the fact that federal labor law grants union officials extraordinary power over unionized employees. More candid apologists for union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues and fees have long acknowledged that fact.

Authorizing union bosses to get workers who don’t wish to join a union fired for refusing to fork over union dues or fees is coercion, blunt Big Labor apologists concede, but it is for the workers’ “own good.”

In Practice, Forced Unionism Is Impossible to Defend

Big Labor academic Allan Pulsipher once explicitly defended compulsory unionism as a “legitimate form of coercion in a free market economy”!

Reasonable people may disagree about whether it is theoretically possible that a worker could benefit from being forced to allow an unwanted union to have “exclusive” power to negotiate with the business over his or her pay, benefits, and working conditions.

Some well-intentioned people might even be able to defend, in theory, forcing workers to pay dues or fees for Big Labor “services” they didn’t ask for, and don’t want.

However, practical experience shows that union bosses rarely wield their coercive privileges to achieve objectives furnishing long-term benefits to unionized workers. Instead, union dons take care of themselves.

Union Chiefs ‘Know How to Fund a Pension Plan Properly, If They Choose to’

One remarkable example of how forced unionism benefits union bosses, not workers, pertains to pension funds.

As economists Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Andrew Brown pointed out in a well-documented study for the Hudson Institute late last year, the pensions that monopolistic unions negotiate for workers are disproportionately underfunded, compared with other pensions.

In 2006, for example, the last year completely unaffected by the recent recession, only 17% of union-negotiated pension plans were fully funded according to the criteria established by the federal Pension Protection Act (PPA).

Under the PPA, pension funds that have less than 80% of the assets needed to pay out scheduled benefits are considered “endangered.” In 2006, 41% of union-negotiated funds were endangered. In fact, union-negotiated funds were three times as likely to be endangered as nonunion funds.

And union-negotiated plans were 13 times more likely (13% vs. 1%) to fall under the PPA’s “critical” status, reserved for pensions that are less than 65% funded.

As Ms. Furchtgott-Roth pointed out in a follow-up op-ed for the New York Daily News, union chiefs “know how to fund a pension plan properly, if they choose to.”

She and Mr. Brown sampled 30 union professional staff pensions “among unions that sponsor the largest 46 rank-and-file” multiemployer plans and found that union bosses’ own plans “were 93% funded,” whereas the worker plans had only 70% “of the funds needed to satisfy their obligations.”

‘A Worker Is the Best Judge of Whether He or She Benefits From Unionism’

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:

“The recent Hudson Institute study contrasting the pension security of unionized employees with those of union-free employees and of union bosses illustrates the fact that employees are typically harmed, not helped, by compulsory unionism.

“Undoubtedly, some employees believe they benefit from being in a union. But the system only works for employees as a group and for the country when we trust employees to join and pay dues to the union voluntarily.

“A worker is the best judge of whether he or she benefits from unionism.”

Mr. Mix concluded that the Hudson Institute pension study reaffirms the need for passage of the National Right to Work Act, introduced in the current Congress by Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King as H.R.4107.

H.R.4107 would repeal all federal labor-law provisions that authorize the firing of employees for refusal to pay union dues or fees.

Enactment of this bill, Mr. Mix noted, “would greatly strengthen union officials’ incentive to do what’s best for the employees they purport to represent, rather than feather their own nests.”

He encouraged Committee members across the country to contact their congressmen and urge them to cosponsor H.R.4107, the National Right to Work Act, if they have not already done so.

Police Chief Anthony Batts to Oaklanders: If your home is burglarized, don't call us. Credit: AP

(Source: August 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Public-Safety Union Monopoly Undercuts California Law Enforcement

On Tuesday, July 13, Oakland, Calif., became a friendlier place for burglars, embezzlers, car thieves, bad-check passers, extortionists, and an array of other criminals.

That afternoon, Oakland, a major West Coast port city with roughly 400,000 residents, laid off 80 police officers, or 10% of its force, to help eliminate a budget deficit of over $30 million. In response, the city police department implemented a new policy in which officers aren’t being dispatched to take reports for 44 “lower priority” crimes.

Oaklanders whose homes or vehicles are burglarized must now go online or visit a police station to file reports. However, the police department warns them that, even if they do: “There will be no follow-up investigation, and the primary reason for filing the report is for insurance purposes.”

Why is the city recently reported to have the fourth highest violent crime rate in the country slashing the number of cops it employs? Some observers are blaming the recent national recession, which hit California especially hard.

But despite the recession-induced decline in Oakland’s tax revenues over the past couple of years, city officials could still have avoided laying off police this summer — if their hands weren’t tied by California labor policies that promote monopolistic unionism in the public sector.

Decades ago, Big Labor California politicians rubber-stamped legislation forcing local police departments to allow the agents of a single union to speak for all the police on their force, including those who haven’t joined the union and want nothing to do with it, on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules.

Government Union Bosses Prefer Service Cutbacks To Other Alternatives

The same union monopoly-bargaining system was foisted on California fire departments, school districts, prisons, and other government agencies.

As a consequence of government union bosses’ special privileges, California elected officials who face fiscal crises must get Big Labor’s permission before they can attempt to get their budgets back in order by changing the way employees are compensated.

For example, in Oakland, like in many other California jurisdictions, government union-promoted work rules make it almost impossible for police supervisors to schedule officers to work when and where they are needed during their regular eight-hour shifts.

Consequently, local taxpayers rack up enormous overtime costs.

Changing Big Labor scheduling restrictions and other work rules could easily have reduced the Oakland police department’s compensation expenses by as much as laying off 10% of the force does.

However, police union bosses rejected all proposals that would have resulted in a significant net reduction in taxpayers’ compensation costs, making layoffs unavoidable.

“When times are bad, government union bosses generally prefer layoffs that reduce services to other alternatives, partly because they know the layoffs will, very likely, only be temporary,” commented National Right to Work Committee Vice President Matthew Leen. “Consequently, structural problems never get resolved.”

Will U.S. Congress Make Matters Worse?

“That Californians have to deal with this is bad enough,” Mr. Leen continued.

“But incredibly, just as Golden State Congressman Brad Sherman [D] wants to foist private-sector forced union dues on all 50 states [see p. 5 for details], other Big Labor politicians are eager to federalize the public-sector union monopolies that are dragging California cities down.

“Their vehicle is S.3194/H.R.413, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] and union-label Congressman Dale Kildee [D-Mich.]. Unless it is stopped, this legislation could bring Oakland’s woes to other cities across America.”

For more information on S.3194/H.R.413, the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, see pp. 1-2.

Public-Safety Forced Unionism Still High on Capitol Hill Agenda

The American people do not support Big Labor’s legislative scheme to establish a new federal mandate imposing union “exclusive representation” (monopoly bargaining) over state and local police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide.

And powerful union-label politicians like U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) know this public-safety scheme (H.R.413/S.3194) is unpopular. That’s why they have repeatedly tried to sneak it through Congress.

Most recently, in June, Ms. Pelosi and her top lieutenants cut a deal with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and other union bigwigs to attach H.R.413, the House version of the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill, to a massive spending bill that provides funding for U.S. troops.

International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) union boss Harold Schaitberger openly admitted to helping concoct the scheme to tack H.R.413 on to H.R.4899, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act, in a June 30 message to officers of his union subsidiaries. Early last month, the National Right to Work Committee obtained a copy of Mr. Schaitberger’s communication.

Firefighters Union Chief ‘Argued Strongly’ For War Supplemental Strategy

Mr. Schaitberger reported that he had “argued strongly” for attaching H.R.413 “to the War Supplemental funding proposal for our troops in Afghanistan.”

The backroom deal between House leaders and the union hierarchy allowed the public-safety forced-unionism measure to come to the floor so quickly that Right to Work members and their allies had virtually no time to mobilize for the vote.

On July 1, the House rubber-stamped H.R.413 as a provision of H.R.4899. With very few exceptions, the national media overlooked the fact that a pro-forced unionism federal takeover of state and local labor-management relations had been approved as part of an unrelated spending bill.

However, despite the media’s cluelessness, millions of Right to Work members and supporters around the country were well aware of what was going on because the Committee was informing and mobilizing them through e-mails, phone calls, and “snail” mail.

For several weeks in July, freedom-loving Americans mobilized by the Committee campaign contacted their senators again and again, urging them to oppose H.R.4899 on all votes unless and until the public-safety union monopoly-bargaining amendment was removed.

Several organizations representing the interests of local governments and public-safety departments, such as the National Sheriffs’ Association, joined with the Committee in lobbying against the forced-unionism sneak play.

The message clearly got through to a number of senators who normally vote with Big Labor, but are getting antsier and antsier about their next election, regardless of whether they have to face the voters this year, or not until 2012 or 2014.

On the evening of July 22, the Senate voted down the House-passed version of H.R.4899, and then approved a war spending bill without the monopoly-bargaining provision. Finally, on July 27, a chastened House acquiesced to the Senate’s action, and sent a stripped-down war supplemental to President Obama’s desk.

Vast Majority of Americans Reject Monopoly Bargaining

H.R.413 and its Senate companion, S.3194, would force countless police officers, firefighters and EMT’s to accept as their monopoly-bargaining agent a union they never voted for, and want nothing to do with.

Moreover, H.R.413 and S.3194 would, in practice, force tens of thousands of first responders to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs — despite Big Labor claims to the contrary.

“Americans overwhelmingly oppose monopoly bargaining and forced union dues, period,” noted Committee President Mark Mix.

“The public certainly has no interest in backing legislation designed to help Big Labor grab monopoly-bargaining privileges over hundreds of thousands of additional employees.”

Decades of polling confirm this point. Mr. Mix cited one recent scientific nationwide survey.

This poll found that 81% of Americans who regularly vote in statewide elections believe that employees in unionized businesses should retain the right to bargain for themselves. Just 17% of regular voters believe employees should not have that right, while 2% are unsure.

“Forcing union nonmembers to accept public-safety union officials as their monopoly-bargaining agent is what H.R.413 and S.3194 are all about,” explained Mr. Mix.

“Any state law or local ordinance authorizing public-safety union bosses to bargain on behalf of their members only would get tossed in the scrapheap if either measure became law.

“And, as Service Employees International Union second-in-command Anna Burger recently boasted, H.R.413/S.3194 would ‘create a national collective,’ i.e. monopoly, ‘bargaining standard for all public workers.’

“H.R.413/S.3194 simply can’t withstand public scrutiny. And Big Labor congressional leaders know it.”

Right to Work Committee And Its Members Will Keep Turning up the Heat

“Enactment of H.R.413 or S.3194 would be disastrous, not just for independent-minded public-safety officers and Right to Work advocates, but also for taxpayers and citizens who depend on their local police and fire departments,” Mr. Mix continued.

“That’s why the National Right to Work Committee and its members can’t afford to rest on our laurels for a minute. We will keep turning up the heat in preparation for the next Capitol Hill showdown over this legislation.

“Despite their recent setback, Harold Schaitberger, Richard Trumka, and the rest of the union hierarchy are far from ready to give up on their bid to federalize public-safety union monopoly bargaining.

“A number of the senators who helped defeat the public-safety scheme last month, when they were facing intense pressure from pro-Right to Work constituents, are current or previous cosponsors of this power grab.

“Right to Work supporters shouldn’t, and won’t, make the mistake of assuming such senators will be with us if, as is likely, Congress takes up H.R.413/S.3194 again this fall.

“Freedom-loving Americans must even be prepared for a possible showdown on this legislation during a ‘lame duck’ congressional session in November or December, after the elections, but before the new House and Senate are seated.

“Enactment of H.R.413/S.3194 would deal a harsh blow to the Right to Work cause.

“I know Committee members and supporters across the country understand that fact, and will do all they can to stop this legislation.”

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

From 1999 through 2009, the U.S. population increased by nearly 28 million. And, as dietary scolds often remind us, the average American is eating more all the time.

Since 1996, purveyors of "medical" marijuana have generally been able to ply their trade in California without worrying about the cops. But now forced dues-hungry UFCW union bosses are hot on their trail! Credit: Monkey Muck blog

Nevertheless, the number of U.S. grocery workers under union monopoly-bargaining control fell sharply over the past decade — from 666,000 to 531,000, or 20%, according to the respected, Washington, D.C.-based Bureau of National Affairs.

How could the empire of grocery (overwhelmingly, United Food and Commercial Workers, or UFCW) union bosses shrink so much, when the demand for food keeps growing and, obviously, Americans can’t go abroad to buy their food?

UFCW barons’ problem is that the strait-jacket work rules and inefficient benefit plans they foist on grocery employees and their employers, and the counterproductive “hate-the-boss” mentality they foment, have rendered thousands of unionized grocery stores uncompetitive in their markets.

Over the past decade, union-free grocery chains that typically offer their employees benefits superior to the retail industry norm and ample opportunities for advancement have taken away more and more of unionized groceries’ market share.

Big Labor Cash Cow Grazing in the Weed?

This is true even in Big Labor stronghold states like California.

UFCW union kingpins could try to deal with this problem of theirs by changing their ways. For example, they could offer to negotiate new contracts that get rid of productivity-killing work rules. More generally, they could focus on workers’ issues, instead of spending most of their time playing politics with forced union dues. But so far they haven’t.

Instead, today UFCW union organizers are turning more and more to potential forced dues-paying workers outside the grocery industry. And Golden State UFCW officials are especially notable for their creativity.

This month, the UFCW union’s San Jose-based Local 5 is expected to give its official endorsement to the so-called “Control and Tax Cannabis” initiative, which would make possession and use of marijuana for “recreational” purposes legal in California. (“Medical” uses of pot have already been permitted under state law for 14 years.)

Local 5 bosses have apparently decided to back the cannabis initiative, and spend substantial sums of California grocery workers’ forced union dues and fees to help pass it, as part of a quid pro quo with marijuana advocates and medical cannabis dispensaries.

To secure UFCW bosses’ forced dues-funded support for the initiative, which will greatly increase the market for the cannabis dispensaries’ product, dispensary executives have agreed, effectively, to help union organizers acquire monopoly-bargaining privileges over their employees.

‘Forced Dues-Crazed Abandon’

The Right to Work of thousands of “bud tenders,” who purportedly help medical marijuana users select the correct strain for their ailment, and other industry workers may go “up in smoke” as a consequence of the tacitly-acknowledged deal.

National Right to Work Committee Vice President Doug Stafford commented:

“As a part-time musician, over the years I have seen quite a few people acting erratically under the influence of unknown substances.

“I must say, though, union officials’ behavior when they identify a large new potential source of forced dues and fees is especially unsettling to me. When they are in a state of forced dues-crazed abandon, you never know what union bosses will do.

“In California, evidently, it turns out what they will do is endorse an initiative to make it legal to party with pot, as long as you are 21 or over.

“As a single-issue organization, the Right to Work Committee is of course taking no position on the cannabis initiative.

“However, Right to Work supporters suspect that there are many employees who must pay dues to Local 5 to keep their jobs, and oppose legalizing recreational marijuana. And we think it’s wrong for Local 5 chief Ron Lind and his lieutenants to use such workers’ forced dues to back a cause they oppose.”

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

If you want to make a Massachusetts taxpayer shudder, just say the words “Big Dig.”

Onetime "Big Dig" enthusiast Charlie Baker is touting his opposition to union-only PLA boondoggles as he campaigns for the Massachusetts governorship this year. Bay State voters may conclude: "Better late than never!" Credit: John Tlumacki/Boston Globe

For years now, the “Big Dig,” officially referred to as the Central/Artery Tunnel Project, has been widely recognized as a poorly constructed, extraordinarily expensive boondoggle.

The “Big Dig” tunnel system was conceived in the 1970′s to replace Boston’s aging elevated six-lane Central Artery and improve access to Logan Airport and Boston Harbor. In 1987, Congress voted to furnish federal taxpayer funds, and ground was first broken in 1991.

To the dismay of independent construction employees and firms and Right to Work advocates, Massachusetts politicians announced that the “Big Dig” would be subject to a union-only “project labor agreement” (PLA).

Construction firm owners who wished to bid on the project, whether unionized or union-free, would be forced to impose restrictive union work rules on employees and to fill positions through discriminatory union hiring halls.

In 1991, project managers estimated the “Big Dig” would cost $2.6 billion and take seven years to complete. Thirteen years and nearly $15 billion after ground had been broken, the tunnel system was open, but still not complete.

Then, in November 2004, Boston media outlets reported that the “Big Dig” had experienced 1400 leaks in its tunnel wall as well as a wide array of other costly-to-repair damage.

New Taxpayer-Funded PLA Example of What ‘Makes People Crazy About State Government’

The “Big Dig” finally concluded at the end of 2007. It ended up costing $22 billion, including $7 billion in interest, which won’t be paid off until 2038.

In Massachusetts today, public anger about construction defects, missed deadlines, and enormous cost overruns in the “Big Dig” PLA remains intense enough that it represents a significant problem for 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee Charlie Baker.

During the 1990′s, when Mr. Baker was Massachusetts’ chief budget writer, he supported borrowing an additional $1.5 billion for the “Big Dig.” Bay State taxpayers, who are still paying off that debt, don’t see that as a point in his favor!

However, Charlie Baker is singing a different tune about union-only PLA’s nowadays. In a campaign event last month, he blasted a June 14 decision by University of Massachusetts officials to foist a PLA on $750 million (at least) in new taxpayer-funded construction at UMass’s Boston campus.

Flagrantly discriminating against the roughly 80% of Massachusetts construction workers who aren’t unionized while accepting bids for publicly funded construction is the kind of thing “that makes people crazy about state government,” said Mr. Baker.

He pledges to ban PLA’s in state contracts if elected.

Gov. Patrick: ’96% of the Construction’ Is Being Done ‘by Union Workers’

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented: “Charlie Baker is surely a slow learner when it comes to the ill effects of union-only PLA’s. It took him an awfully long time to realize they’re unfair and anti-taxpayer.

“On the other hand, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, now seeking reelection, appears to be a ‘never learner’ when it comes to PLA’s.

“Despite the ‘Big Dig’ fiasco and the many other examples of huge delays and excessive costs in Massachusetts PLA’s over the past two decades, Mr. Patrick continues to be a cheerleader for these special-interest schemes.

“This March, Mr. Patrick actually boasted about the fact that, even though the vast majority of Bay State construction workers have opted against unionization, ’96% of the construction’ on a hospital PLA in Worcester ‘is being carried out by union workers’!

“Because of Mr. Patrick’s cluelessness, and because independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill is dodging the PLA issue, Mr. Baker’s current outspoken stance against PLA’s may well resonate with Bay State voters, despite his past.

“Mr. Baker is savvy enough to see, finally, that public opposition to PLA’s is intense, even in a traditional union stronghold state like Massachusetts.

“And that should give pause to President Barack Obama, who up to now has been relentlessly promoting union-only PLA’s at the federal level, and will have to campaign in all 50 states if he chooses to seek reelection in 2012.”

Union bosses like AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka and Service Employees International Union czarina Mary Kay Henry have long cited a bogus rationale for forced union dues. Now even Big Labor admits it's phony.

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Under both federal and state law, union officials have always had the option to negotiate “members-only” contracts with employers that do not affect the terms of employment of workers who do not wish to join or pay dues to a union.

But from the early 1960′s until recently, Big Labor rarely if ever tried to exercise its members-only option.

Current Law Authorizes Monopolistic Unionism

Instead, union organizers have focused their efforts on imposing monopoly bargaining on all the employees in a so-called “bargaining unit.”

(The National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, vaguely defines a “bargaining unit” as “a group of two or more employees who share a ‘community of interest’ and may reasonably be grouped together for collective bargaining purposes.”)

Monopoly bargaining in the private sector is authorized and promoted by both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and in the public sector by numerous state laws.

Under monopoly bargaining, employees lose the individual right to bargain for themselves over their wages, benefits, and work rules, and must allow a union agent to negotiate in their stead, like it or not.

Monopoly Bargaining Serves As Big Labor Pretext For Forced Union Dues

And once union officials have rejected their members-only option and exploited NLRA, RLA, or state labor law provisions to seize monopoly power, they then use that power as an excuse for demanding that the employer acquiesce to a contract forcing union nonmembers to pay union dues or fees just to get or keep a job.

Of course, Big Labor propaganda has long obscured the fact that union bosses have a members-only option that they scorn because they prefer to wield monopoly power over workers.

Over the past few years, however, forced-unionism propaganda has run foursquare into reality.

More and more officials of AFL-CIO-affiliated and other unions now admit the fact that members-only bargaining has always been permissible under both federal and state laws.

But they also want a new twist.

Three years ago, the bosses of seven large AFL-CIO-affiliated unions filed a petition asking the NLRB to rule that any business without a monopoly union must honor any union’s request for bargaining on a members-only basis — even if most employees don’t want a union.

“For years, union officials brazenly claimed that they should have forced dues because, supposedly, they are forced to represent nonmembers,” commented Matthew Leen, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

Hoary Excuse For Forced Union Dues Obliterated

“But in August 2007, the bosses of seven large unions finally admitted in writing that members-only bargaining is permissible under current law and declared that they wanted their members-only bargaining power expanded,” he continued.

“The following winter, lawyers for the entire six million-member ‘Change to Win’ union conglomerate, which had broken off from the AFL-CIO conglomerate, filed their own NLRB petition asking for more such bargaining power.

“Finally, just last month, a group of 46 pro-forced unionism labor law professors sent an unsolicited brief to the NLRB prodding the agency to mandate members-only collective bargaining.

“Like the AFL-CIO and ‘Change to Win’ petitions that preceded it, the union-label academics’ brief admitted that ‘long-standing case law has expressly validated both the process and the product of employers’ recognizing and bargaining with . . . unions for their members only’ (emphasis in original).

“Neither the union bosses nor their academic apologists want Big Labor’s current monopoly-bargaining power diminished one bit, even though the evidence is clear and compelling that that power is detrimental to the interests of workers who don’t want a union.

“And union bosses, with their academic apologists’ support, also want to retain the power to force workers, as a condition of employment, to pay dues or fees for unwanted monopoly bargaining. But what’s their rationale for retaining the forced-dues option?

“In cases where union bosses refuse to exercise their members-only bargaining option, that’s obviously no excuse for forcing workers to pay for an unwanted monopoly union.

“These recent developments will inspire Committee members to fight even harder for enactment of national Right to Work legislation barring all forced union dues and fees.”

Three of the four current NLRB members who were appointed or reappointed by President Obama are veteran union lawyers. All three are expected to vote in lock-step to expand Big Labor's forced-unionism privileges.

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Since the beginning of 2009, Big Labor has had a cheerleader in the Oval Office. At the same time, ample majorities of both chambers of the U.S. Congress have been willing to vote for virtually any power grab sought by union officials, as long as they could do so without running into intense, across-the-board constituent opposition.

Consequently, top union bosses have expected to see enacted in the current Congress legislation that would help them sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control.

Their original vehicle for achieving this objective was S.560/H.R.1409, the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Sponsored by union-label Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.), S.560/H.R.1409 would grease the skids for Big Labor workplace takeovers in several ways. Most famously, it would effectively end secret-ballot elections in union organizing drives, replacing them with so-called “card checks.”

That means, if S.560/H.R.1409 became law, union organizers would have far more opportunities than they currently do to intimidate individual workers into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to Big Labor control.

Unfortunately for union bigwigs, the National Right to Work Committee and its allies have mobilized massive public opposition to the measure, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form.

New NLRB Made to Order For Union Hierarchy

In response, for many months now Big Labor lobbyists and union strategists have tried to concoct new, passable legislation that would accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means. But “Plan B” has been slow to emerge.

(Video: Watch this video on the post page)

And now, the Obama Administration appears to be considering another, quicker and easier way of intensifying workplace elections’ bias in favor union organizers. And this method has the advantage, from Big Labor’s perspective, of not requiring any direct congressional involvement.

The powerful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which regulates the labor-management relations of businesses employing well over 90% of America’s private-sector employees, will soon be manned entirely by bureaucrats appointed or reappointed by pro-forced unionism President Barack Obama.

As this month’s Newsletter goes to press, four of the five NLRB members are already Obama appointees or reappointees. And three of these four are veteran union lawyers.

Wilma Liebman, originally appointed to the Board by union-label President Bill Clinton and elevated to the chairmanship early last year by Mr. Obama, is an ex-lawyer for the notorious Teamster union.

Obama appointee Mark Pearce was, until this year, a career union lawyer in private practice in Buffalo, N.Y.

Craig Becker, who for years served as counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO, has been Mr. Obama’s most controversial appointee yet.

While Mr. Becker, Mr. Pierce, and Ms. Liebman will very likely almost always agree on the main issues in NLRB cases, Mr. Becker differs from the other two in having a long “paper trail” that from the time of his nomination made it plain to see just how radical he is.

Craig Becker: Union Monopoly Should Be Mandated, Even if Most Workers Don’t Want It

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:

“Over the years, Craig Becker has publicly acknowledged believing that any employee or employer efforts to resist the unionization of a workplace are unacceptable.

“For example, in one ‘labor studies’ journal article, Mr. Becker dismissed the notion that workers should have any say whatsoever, whether as individuals or collectively by secret ballot or ‘card check,’ over whether or not they are unionized.

“Federal policy should not acknowledge employees’ ‘choice to remain unrepresented,’ contended Mr. Becker.

“Their only choice, he explained, should be over which set of union officials get ‘exclusive’ power to negotiate their wages, benefits and work rules.

“Mr. Becker’s publicly aired views are so extreme that even several normally pro-forced unionism senators refused to approve his nomination. For that reason, he has yet to be confirmed. He nevertheless sits on the NLRB today because, on March 27, President Obama bypassed the Senate and ‘recess’ appointed him.

“It’s likely Mr. Becker will take every opportunity to curtail employees’ freedom to oppose unionization of their workplace.

“Ms. Liebman, Mr. Pierce, and he are all expected to vote in lock-step to increase Big Labor’s monopoly-bargaining and forced-dues powers over the individual employee whenever they get the chance.

“And barely more than two months after President Obama did the union bosses’ bidding by personally installing Mr. Becker, the Board signaled how it might bureaucratically proceed to provide Big Labor with tools of intimidation very similar to those the ‘card check’ bill would have furnished.”

On June 9, the NLRB put out a request for information about “electronic voting services for both remote and on-site elections.”

The request has been widely interpreted as a step toward mandating the routine use of remote Internet or telephone balloting in union organizing campaigns.

Remote Voting Facilitates ‘Vote Selling and Coercion’

Under current law, when a unionization election occurs, employees normally cast their votes in private ballot booths, except when circumstances make the use of ballot booths very difficult or impossible.

If the Obama NLRB dispenses with ballot booths, and instead makes it the norm for workers to cast their votes over unionization from, say, their home computers, that will greatly intensify the process’s bias in favor of union organizers.

“Federal labor policy already authorizes professional union organizers to target individual workers by visiting them at their homes, a privilege of which they regularly take advantage,” Mr. Mix pointed out.

“Forcing employees to vote at home would greatly exacerbate the abuses that already occur during such ‘home visits.’ Union organizers would visit workers’ homes to ‘make sure’ they had voted electronically, and even offer to ‘help’ them cast their votes.

“The NLRB request purports to focus solely on ‘secure’ electronic voting from remote locations, but, as Ms. [Wilma] Liebman, Mr. [Mark] Pierce, and Mr. Becker must surely know, that’s a practical impossibility.

“Remote Internet voting, as a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation and published by the Internet Policy Institute concluded a few years ago, ‘can be observed [by outsiders], opening the door to the possibilities of vote selling and coercion.’”

Right to Work Supporters Will Fight Back in Every Possible Way

On June 23, the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, formally submitted comments to the NLRB urging the agency not to proceed with implementing an abuse-ridden electronic balloting scheme.

Mr. Mix, who heads the Foundation as well as the Committee, acknowledged that Wilma Liebman and her cohorts were unlikely to pay heed, but added that going on the record now would be helpful for a future legal challenge.

“Right to Work supporters will fight back against ‘electronic’ voting, also known as ‘card check light,’ in every possible way,” Mr. Mix vowed.

“If the NLRB goes ahead with its scheme, as now seems all but inevitable, the Right to Work movement will lead legislative as well as legal efforts to thwart it.”

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

According to the most recent available federal data, there are roughly 73,000 public elementary and secondary schoolteachers in Massachusetts.

Reportedly, more than 99% of these educators must allow the agents of a single teacher union to negotiate with their employer over matters of pay, benefits and working conditions if they wish to continue working at a public school.

And the vast majority of Bay State teachers under union monopoly bargaining are also compelled to fork over dues or fees to their “exclusive” union bargaining agent, or be fired.

However, as they recently demonstrated, top bosses of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA/NEA) union and its affiliates aren’t content with extracting forced union dues and fees from the vast majority of teachers in the state.

The fact that even one teacher is working in a public school without paying tribute is enough to set them off.

For 14 years, retired U.S. Marine Maj. Stephen Godin has vexed the bosses of the MTA-affiliated Education Association of Worcester (EAW) union by serving as a junior ROTC instructor at North High School without paying them for the privilege.

‘It Just Seems Crazy That They’re Gonna Fire Me Over $500′

This spring, EAW union President Cheryl DelSignore and her lieutenants apparently decided the time had come to crack down on the major. They told him by mail that, by June 15, he would either have to join the union and begin paying dues, or pay a $500 annual nonmember “agency” fee, or they would inform the school district that it had to fire him.

The EAW union brass didn’t care that the senior naval science instructor’s case is truly exceptional. His salary is set by the U.S. military, which never bargains with union negotiators over the amount. Half his salary and all of his benefits are paid for by the military.

Incredibly, Ms. DelSignore has contended that Mr. Godin and other JRTOC instructors “owe” the union because it “permits” them to be on the military pay scale, rather than the union-negotiated one!

But Stephen Godin wouldn’t be extorted, and he wouldn’t quit his job, either. Instead, he took the threatening teacher union letter to the Worcester and Boston media and cried foul.

“It just seems crazy that they’re gonna fire me over $500,” Mr. Godin told the Boston Herald in an interview.

Mr. Godin was in contact with National Right to Work Foundation attorneys as he plotted his strategy for fighting back.

Once Mr. Godin’s story was reported in the media, state Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield), who is running for lieutenant governor this year, recognized that the major’s cause was a popular one.

Junior ROTC Teachers Are Far From Alone in Not Benefiting From Unionism

Almost immediately, Mr. Tisei began pressing the state Legislature to enact a measure protecting high school ROTC instructors’ Right to Work without being forced to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

At first, the MTA union hierarchy and its puppets in the Legislature fought Mr. Tisei’s measure, but they soon recognized they were suffering far too much PR damage over a relatively minuscule amount of forced dues and fees. They then backed down and allowed the measure to become law.

“Maj. Godin deserves commendation for his principled stand and his personal victory,” commented National Right to Work Committee Vice President Matthew Leen. “Big Labor picked the wrong guy to bully.

“Unfortunately, there are, no doubt, thousands of other talented and hard-working teachers in Massachusetts who don’t want a union, and don’t benefit from having one, but continue to be forced to pay union dues, or be fired. Protecting junior ROTC instructors’ Right to Work is but a small first step in the right direction.”

July’s issue contains the following headlines:

Handful of GOP Senators Woo Union Kingpins — Federal Union Monopoly Threatens State, Local Public Employees

‘Big Labor Picked the Wrong Guy to Bully’ – ROTC Instructor Wins Small Victory Over Teacher Union Bosses

Pot of Compulsory Dues For Big Labor? — California Union Bosses, Marijuana Dealers Embark on Joint Effort

Slow Learner vs. ‘Never Learner’ in Bay State? – In Traditional Big Labor Stronghold, Union-Only PLA’s Under Fire

Big Labor Propagandists Refute Themselves – Union-Label Academics Inadvertently Scrub Excuse For Forced Dues

Obama Labor Bureaucrats to Bypass Congress? – ‘Electronic’ Voting Would Facilitate ‘Card Check’-Style Abuses

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Early this year, Chief Executive magazine asked 651 CEOs from around the country to grade all 50 states and the District of Columbia in three general categories that businesses invariably consider when they are contemplating where to make job-creating investments.

As Chief Executive’s editors note, the business leaders were asked to “draw upon their direct experience” to rate each state for a) taxation and regulation, (b) quality of workforce, and (c) living environment.

In its May/June issue, Chief Executive published the survey results. They indicate that, in the wake of the severe 2008-2009 recession, state Right to Work laws may be even more critical for private-sector job and income growth than they were in the generally favorable national economic climate of 1982-2007.

Overwhelmingly, the CEOs judged that, in Right to Work states, employees have superior work ethics, real estate costs are relatively low, and public officials have a much more positive attitude toward business.

Every one of the seven states with the highest overall rankings has a Right to Work law prohibiting the firing of employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union. Nine of the top 10 states are Right to Work states. Thirteen of the top 15 are Right to Work states.

In contrast, forced-unionism states dominated the bottom ranks of the 2010 survey. Not one of the bottom 10 states has a Right to Work law on the books. In 14 of the 15 bottom-ranking states (including the District of Columbia, counted as a “state” for the purposes of the survey), employees may legally be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Long-Term Economic Data Confirm Accuracy of Business Leaders’ Judgment

Long-term economic trends as documented by the U.S. Labor and Commerce Departments confirm that business leaders’ judgment in giving kudos to Right to Work states and “raspberries” to forced-unionism states is spot on.

For example, Labor Department data show that, from 1999 through 2009, private-sector employment nationwide was virtually flat, declining by 0.3%, or 370,000 jobs.

However, Right to Work Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, the top seven states according to Chief Executive’s 2010 survey, experienced an overall private-sector job increase of 4.6%, or 1.186 million jobs.

Meanwhile, forced-unionism California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, Chief Executive’s bottom seven states, suffered an aggregate private-sector job loss of 3.9%, or 1.386 million jobs.

The Commerce Department’s annual personal income data, adjusted for inflation with the help of the Labor Department’s Consumer Price Index, show an even starker contrast in economic growth between Chief Executive’s high-ranking Right to Work states and its low-ranking forced-unionism states.

Right to Work Laws Linked To Higher Real Incomes

From 1999 to 2009, real personal income nationwide grew by 18.1%.

However, in the seven Right to Work states at the top of Chief Executive’s 2010 rankings, aggregate real personal income grew by 25.7%, or nearly half again as fast, and nearly double the growth rate of the seven forced-unionism states at the bottom of Chief Executive’s list.

In addition to enjoying far faster job and income growth, Right to Work states benefit from generally lower costs and higher real incomes than forced-unionism states.

For example, the seven Right to Work states rating highest in Chief Executive had an average 2009 cost of living 22% lower than the seven bottom-ranking forced-unionism states, according to housing, food, energy, and other price data compiled by the nonpartisan Missouri Economic Research and Information Center.

The average cost of living-adjusted 2009 disposable income per capita for the seven Right to Work states was $35,630, more than $3000 higher than the $32,555 average for the seven forced-unionism states.

“It shouldn’t come as any surprise that forced-unionism states as a group, and not just the seven found by Chief Executive to be the worst of all, are lagging behind Right to Work states by all the most significant economic measures,” said National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Big Labor’s counterproductive work rules and fomentation of the ‘hate-the-boss’ mentality lead to slower revenue growth in the unionized businesses themselves.

“That translates into smaller compensation increases for employees and less employment growth or, very frequently, employment losses.

“On top of that, union bosses funnel a huge chunk of the forced dues and fees they collect with federal labor law’s abetment into efforts to elect and reelect state and local, as well as federal, Big Labor politicians who support higher taxes and more red-tape regulation of business.”

Forced-Unionism States’ Disadvantage Likely to Widen in the Future

“The actions of forced-dues funded politicians thus result in less income and job growth, period,” Mr. Mix concluded.

“And, unless union monopolists’ grip over states like California, which received Chief Executive’s booby prize for the second year in a row, can somehow be loosened, their disadvantage is likely to widen in the future.

“Today, Californians fork over a higher share of their incomes in state and local taxes than residents of all but five other states, but still face unfunded public-employee pension liabilities of as much as $500 billion.

“Meanwhile, overall income growth in the once-Golden State has fallen well below the national average in recent years.

“But forced dues-collecting government union officials, who wield monopoly-bargaining control over nearly 60% of California’s public employees, compared to 41% nationwide, are fine with the status quo.

“And they are furiously opposed to all substantive proposals to stop taxpayers’ government compensation costs from spiraling out of control.”

Many States Still Have a Chance to Avoid Becoming ‘Another California’

On a happier note, Mr. Mix added that many of the other 27 forced-unionism states may still avoid becoming “another California” by passing Right to Work legislation within the next few years.

“In this year’s elections,” he explained, “freedom-loving citizens in states like New Hampshire, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico are turning up the pressure on their state legislative and, in some cases, executive candidates to support enactment of state Right to Work laws.

“In multiple state candidate Survey 2010 programs, the National Right to Work Committee and allied regional and state organizations are mobilizing millions of citizens to contact their politicians regarding their compulsory-unionism records.

“Employees and business owners who are determined to see their state avoid California’s predicament may make politicians who refuse to support Right to Work pay a steep price.

“But there’s still time for many politicians who up to now have been Right to Work opponents to make amends with freedom-loving citizens by pledging publicly to oppose forced unionism 100% of the time in the future.”

“State politicians who are running for election or reelection this year can accomplish this objective by completing, signing and returning their Right to Work candidate surveys.”

Committee President Mark Mix: The Right to Work movement and its allies are challenging President Obama’s 2009 executive order promoting union-only "project labor agreements" on federal taxpayer-funded public works.

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor/White House Fog 

Marietta, which has only about 15,000 residents, but enjoys a place of honor as the oldest city of any size in Ohio, is located more than 230 miles outside the Washington, D.C., Beltway. 

And from the vantage point of Marietta’s community building at Lookout Park, where the town council considered adoption of a so-called “project labor agreement” (PLA) on May 13, it appears to be far easier to see and state the obvious than it is at the White House or on Capitol Hill. 

This spring, building trades union bosses lobbied furiously to convince the council’s seven members to impose a Big Labor PLA on employees and firms seeking to participate in the renovation of the town’s former Ohio Bureau of Employment Services building into a new municipal court facility. 

Parkersburg Marietta Construction and Building Trades Council union President Bill Hutchinson claimed, time and again, that the reason he and his cohorts were twisting arms to get a PLA was to ensure that “local” workers got the jobs. 

Finally, at the council’s May 13 meeting, Councilman Jon Grimm decided to test building trades union bosses’ sincerity. 

Mr. Grimm called attention to the provision in the PLA mandating that 50% of any contractor’s employees be registered with the union and pay union dues, even if they weren’t union members, and didn’t want to join. 

Would union officials accept a PLA retaining all the other provisions, but excluding “mandatory union membership”? Mr Grimm asked. 

Vast Majority of ‘Local’ Construction Workers in Marietta Aren’t Unionized 

Marietta law director Roland Riggs, who had hammered out the PLA deal with union officials, bluntly responded: “I don’t believe the folks from the building trades council would be interested in signing an agreement if that were removed.” 

A crowd of union militants, including several union officials, was in the room. No one from the crowd contradicted Mr. Riggs. 

“The plain fact is, the vast majority of ‘local’ construction workers in Marietta, Ohio, are union-free, and show no signs of wanting to be unionized,” observed National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. 

“According to labor scholars Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, just one in four construction workers across the state of Ohio is currently under union monopoly bargaining. And southern Ohio, where Marietta is located, is much less unionized than northern Ohio. 

“Forcing independent local hardhats to pay dues to an unwanted union in order to work on taxpayer-funded projects is no way to ‘help’ them — and a Marietta council majority had no trouble seeing the truth and voting down the PLA. 

“Unfortunately, all too many Inside-the-D.C. Beltway politicians from President Obama on down seem to have a much harder time deconstructing the phony claims of Big Labor bosses demanding union-only PLAs on taxpayer-funded public works. 

“For example, in issuing Executive Order 13502, promoting union-only PLAs for federal taxpayer-funded public works in February 2009, the President mechanically repeated Big Labor propagandists’ contention that PLAs promote ‘economy.’ 

“The truth is exactly the opposite. By discriminating against the union-free majority of construction employees, PLAs jack up taxpayer construction costs by a minimum of 10–20%, according to nonpartisan researchers. 

“Even a recent study commissioned by Obama appointees at the Department of Veterans Affairs predicted that PLAs would raise taxpayer costs in markets like Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. 

“But rather than cancel the PLA executive order after Veterans Affairs found it would fail to accomplish its purported objective, the Obama Administration proceeded to implement it this April!” 

Right to Work Movement Is Fighting Back 

“Fortunately, there’s still hope that the Obama Administration’s anti-taxpayer E.O.13502 can be stopped,” Mr. Mix continued. The legal system is one possible means. 

In April, attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a federal court brief charging that a California PLA illegally discriminates against independent construction workers. (Mr. Mix is president of the Foundation as well as of the Committee.)If the Foundation’s argument in this case (known as Rancho Santiago) prevails, that will raise serious questions about the legal viability of E.O.13502.

President Obama's overarching labor policy seems to be, "The more union monopoly bargaining, the better." Credit: L.A. Times

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Right to Work Fights For Independent Transportation Employees

Over the past three-quarters of a century, federal labor policy has done enormous damage to employees and businesses by authorizing and promoting monopolistic unionism.

Federally-imposed “exclusive” union bargaining undermines efficiency and productivity by forcing employers to reward equally their most productive and least productive employees.

The damage is compounded when the employees already hurt by being forced to accept a union bargaining agent opposed to their interests are forced as well to pay dues or fees to the unwanted union.

Fortunately, Right to Work laws in 22 states, where nearly 40% of the private-sector work force is employed, prohibit the collection of forced dues from the vast majority of employees. (Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress have recognized states’ freedom to protect employees’ Right to Work.)

However, in 1951, when Congress first foisted forced union dues and fees on employees covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), Big Labor senators and representatives opted to deny states the option to protect employees’ Right to Work.

Ever since, Big Labor has had the government-granted power to get airline and railroad employees fired for refusal to bankroll a union in all 50 states, including Right to Work states.

Partly in order to compensate for the unique privileges airline/railroad union bosses enjoy, even relative to other union bosses, federal labor policy has long set a somewhat higher bar for RLA-covered union officials to acquire monopoly-bargaining and forced-dues powers.

New Rule Intensifies Federal Policy’s Pro-Big Labor Monopoly Bias

Until this spring, unlike most private-sector union officials, airline and railroad union bosses have needed the backing of the majority of all of a firm’s employees in a “craft or class,” not merely the majority of those who vote, to be installed as employees’ monopoly-bargaining agent.

This somewhat higher bar hasn’t been a huge problem for airline and railroad union organizers. According to labor economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, in 2009, 42% of “air transportation” employees and 69% of “rail transportation” employees were under union monopoly bargaining, compared to just 8% of all private-sector employees.

Nevertheless, Big Labor’s motto is, “The more monopoly bargaining, the better.” And union strategists know President Barack Obama, who reaffirmed in April that he is a “pro-[forced] union guy” and makes “no apologies for it,” shares that sentiment.

That’s why, last fall, it wasn’t hard at all for union bosses to persuade the two Barack Obama appointees who now constitute a majority of the three-member National Mediation Board (NMB) to rewrite the RLA rules.

As a consequence of the change, starting this month, airline and railroad union officials will need the backing only of a majority of employees who vote to get monopoly-bargaining power.

Because, in practice, only a minority of all potential voters participate in many elections over unionization, this rule will often allow a pro-union minority of workers to foist a union on the majority of their fellow employees who prefer not to have a union.

Right to Work Supporters Already Fighting Back

National Right to Work Committee Vice President Doug Stafford vowed to do everything possible to reverse Obama bureaucrats’ RLA rule change.

On one front, Committee legislative leaders are working with pro-Right to Work Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) on a resolution that could overturn the unwarranted change legislatively.

On a second front, attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, are representing five independent Delta employees in a bid to get the rule overturned in court.

The Foundation motion charges, in part, that Obama NMB appointees Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala should not have voted on the rule change, because, as former airline union officials, they both had a conflict of interest.

Senate candidate Trey Grayson (facing forward) refused to oppose legislation promoting union monopoly bargaining over public employees. He thus reinforced voter concerns that he was a Big Government Republican. Credit: AP

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Refusal to Respond to Right to Work Survey ‘Raised Concerns’

Just a few months ago, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson was widely considered the favorite to win the GOP nomination this year for the U.S. Senate seat now held by pro-Right to Work Republican Jim Bunning, who is retiring after two terms.

A number of pundits contended that the strong support of Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior U.S. senator and the head of the GOP minority in the upper chamber of Congress, would practically guarantee Mr. Grayson’s nomination.

However, the Grayson campaign made serious misjudgments during the final weeks before Kentucky’s May 18 primaries.

Most important to pro-Right to Work Kentuckians, Mr. Grayson refused to pledge to oppose several of the top power grabs now being advanced on Capitol Hill by Organized Labor, the #1 pro-Big Government special-interest group in America today.

More broadly, many voters who were deeply concerned about the rapid growth in federal spending under the George W. Bush Administration as well as under the current one became convinced Mr. Grayson lacked the intestinal fortitude to fight to reduce spending from its current stratospheric level.

‘Any Genuine Opponent of Big Government Would Eagerly Oppose’ Police/Fire Scheme

“One of the top items on Congress’s agenda this year is an intrusive federal mandate that would impair the ability of states and localities to keep their expenditures of taxpayer dollars under control,” noted National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Any genuine opponent of Big Government would eagerly oppose this scheme, union bosses’ Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill [S.3194/H.R.413].

“Yet Trey Grayson refused to say a word against this destructive legislation, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of Committee members and supporters in Kentucky asked him to do so, time and time again.

“And his silence was especially disturbing because a handful of Senate Republicans are already publicly supporting the Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill. Even one more could potentially make the difference.

“Fortunately, in this election Kentucky primary voters had several other candidates to choose from who pledged to oppose public-safety union monopoly bargaining and support Right to Work 100%. And one of them, opthamologist Rand Paul, was a top-tier candidate.”

In the end, Mr. Paul, who had started out the primary campaign as the distinct underdog, soundly defeated Mr. Grayson by a whopping 59% to 35% margin.

Big Government Is Big Labor’s ‘Bread and Butter’

By handing Mr. Paul a decisive victory, Kentucky primary voters sent a clear message to Capitol Hill Republicans that they want candidates who really will fight against the expansion of forced unionism and the increased cost of Big Government it brings, and not just mouth “feel good” rhetoric about this serious and rapidly growing problem.

“Trey Grayson’s refusal to respond to his Right to Work candidate survey this year, especially to the questions concerning public-sector forced unionism, clearly raised concerns that he was going to be just another ‘Big Government Republican,’” observed Mr. Mix.

“Kentucky voters were right to be concerned.

“Over the course of the past few decades, public servants, especially state and local public employees, have become Big Labor’s bread and butter.

“By 2009, union officials wielded monopoly-bargaining power over 7.5 million state and local employees, nearly 43% of all such employees nationwide, compared to just 8% of private-sector workers.

“Moreover, for many years now, Big Labor featherbedding and counterproductive work rules have sharply increased real taxpayer costs for compensation of state and local government employees.

“In fact, from 1998 to 2008 alone, taxpayers’ aggregate real costs for compensation of state and local government employees soared at a rate nearly 50% faster than the total real growth of private-sector employee compensation!”

Mr. Mix continued: “S.3194 and H.R.413, sponsored, respectively, by Big Labor Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and union-label Michigan Democratic Congressman Dale Kildee, would sock it to taxpayers again.

“This legislation would impose a new federal mandate ensuring that government union bosses get monopoly-bargaining privileges over additional hundreds of thousands of state and local public-safety employees.

“And the reason it is now on the verge of passage is that a handful of Senate Republicans are siding with Mr. Reid. In the House as well, a minority of Republicans, along with practically all Democrats, are in favor of the monopoly-bargaining bill.

“But scientific polls and multiple election results show that citizens across America overwhelmingly oppose public-sector union monopoly bargaining.

“The stinging defeat Trey Grayson suffered in Kentucky, after the Committee had notified hundreds of thousands of citizens through the mail and the Internet about his pointed refusal to oppose Reid/Kildee, is only the latest example.

“I’m cautiously optimistic the Kentucky election results will serve as a wake-up call for the D.C. establishment regarding just how deeply unpopular the Reid/Kildee legislation is.”

System That Congress Wants To Expand Is Currently Bankrupting Los Angeles

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, himself a former union organizer, has acknowledged that the skyrocketing costs of monopolistic government unionism could cause his city to run out of money soon. Credit: Lauren Victoria Burke/AP

Reid-Kildee would federally impose union monopoly bargaining by denying localities the option to refuse to grant a single public-safety union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join.

Monopoly bargaining, euphemistically labeled as “exclusive representation,” would be foisted on state and local police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide.

And in most states that already authorize public-safety union monopoly bargaining, S.3194/H.R.413 would widen its scope.

“In every political jurisdiction, public spending tends to grow faster than taxpayers’ incomes, rendering government costs more and more burdensome over time. But decades of experience shows public-sector monopoly bargaining greatly exacerbates this problem,” Mr. Mix commented.

“For example, this summer the skyrocketing costs of public-safety monopoly bargaining are frighteningly close to driving the once-great city of Los Angeles into insolvency. L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa [D], himself a former union organizer, has acknowledged the real possibility.

“Congress must not federalize the very system that is now bankrupting Los Angeles. It’s just that simple.”

Both Candidates in Arkansas Democrat Run-Off Back Forced Unionism

Shortly after this month’s National Right to Work Newsletter goes to press, incumbent U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln will face a run-off contest against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter as she seeks her Democratic Party’s nomination for a third term.

Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Halter ran neck-and-neck in Arkansas’s May 18 primary, and neither received a majority of the votes. (That is why the June 8 run-off is required under Arkansas law.) Most election observers expect the run-off will also be close.

But one thing is already clear in advance of the Lincoln-Halter showdown: The victor will have a track record of supporting forced-unionism power grabs and giving the back of the hand to the overwhelming majority of Arkansas citizens who support their Right to Work law and oppose tampering with it.

The only substantial difference between Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Halter on the forced-unionism issue is that the senator has very recently, with an eye toward the general election this fall, tried to obscure her long history of pro-forced unionism votes.

Ms. Lincoln is now suggesting to freedom-loving Arkansas employees and employers that she is an “independent” voice on labor-policy issues.

Far from it. As recently as 2007, Ms. Lincoln voted to quash a Right to Work filibuster and help Big Labor ram through its notorious “Card-Check” Forced-Unionism Bill. Fortunately, 48 other senators heeded pro-Right to Work Americans and opposed this scheme, so Ms. Lincoln and her cohorts did not prevail.

Lincoln-Backed Bill Paves Way For Dragging All State, Local Employees Into Unions

And even in the current Congress the newly “independent” Ms. Lincoln is continuing to support major forced-unionism power grabs whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

One major example is Ms. Lincoln’s move just before the Senate’s Christmas recess last year to sign on as a cosponsor of the so-called “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act” (S.1611, reintroduced this year as S.3194).

This cynically mislabeled bill would institute a federal mandate foisting union “exclusive representation” (monopoly bargaining) on state and local police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide.

It would also constitute a major step towards Big Labor’s decades-old goal of enacting a federal law that imposes union monopoly bargaining on front-line state and local employees of all types across America.

For his part, Lt. Gov. Halter secured the primary support of many top Big Labor bosses in Washington, D.C., and their lieutenants in Arkansas by vowing to be an even more predictable defender of forced union dues and union monopoly bargaining than Ms. Lincoln.

Publicly, Mr. Halter admits he intends to help union strategists ram through some version of the “card-check” bill that would make it even easier for Big Labor to grab monopoly-bargaining privileges over private-sector workers.

Privately, Mr. Halter is likely committing himself to support for an array of other special privileges for Big Labor.

Candidate Survey Is ‘One of the Committee’s Most Effective Tools’

But whoever prevails in this month’s Democratic run-off will face increasing pressure this summer and fall to repudiate forced unionism, thanks to the National Right to Work Committee’s federal candidate Survey 2010.

As longtime Committee members know, the federal candidate survey asks U.S. congressional candidates to commit themselves to oppose forced unionism consistently and support national Right to Work legislation if elected.

The survey is “one of the Committee’s most effective tools,” observed Committee Vice President Matthew Leen.

“In Arkansas, Senate candidates in both major parties already got a chance during the primaries to return their surveys and answer 100% in favor of Right to Work.

“But Right to Work supporters will again be mobilized this fall to lobby candidates to respond to their Right to Work surveys. The Democratic standard bearer, Ms. Lincoln or Mr. Halter, will be asked to join GOP Senate nominee John Boozman in pledging 100% support for Right to Work.

“The success of the survey program is key for the Committee’s future ability to defeat Big Labor power grabs in Congress and, ultimately, pass a national Right to Work law.

“For that reason, the Survey 2010 is targeting not just the Arkansas Senate race, but critical Senate and House campaigns across the country.”

Union Bigwigs Make Sure Public School Layoffs Are ‘Quality-Blind’

In recent years, forced dues-funded teacher union lobbyists and union negotiators played a major role in convincing public officials to increase the number of instructional employees at K-12 public schools at a blistering clip.

Nationwide, the number of K-12 public school instructional employees (full-time equivalent) grew roughly 3.5 times as much as the number of school-aged children (15.9% vs. 4.5%) from 1998 to 2007.

This spring, Gaylene Hayden was one of just six Indiana K-12 public school teachers to be recognized for their "outstanding service." Teacher union boss-perpetuated seniority rules have since cost her her job. (Fox 59 News, Bloomington, Ind.)

Since an estimated 65% of U.S. public schoolteachers are under union monopoly bargaining, and more than 40% are forced to pay union dues or fees as a job condition, K-12 employment growth that far outpaces the growth of America’s five to 17-year-old population represents a huge windfall for Big Labor.

However, in the wake of the severe 2008-2009 recession, many strapped states now have no choice but to pare back a small portion of the K-12 instructional staff increases of the previous decade.

Hoosier Teachers Recognized For ‘Outstanding Service,’ Then Laid Off

When school officials have the power to restrict layoffs to employees they have identified as the least effective, then occasional recession-related reductions in force of 5–10% are not necessarily detrimental to student achievement, according to education experts like Stanford University’s Eric Hanushek.

In fact, according to Dr. Hanushek, in such cases the advantages to schoolchildren of the removal of the least effective staff probably far outweigh any harm caused by the rise in the number of schoolchildren per teacher.

Unfortunately, in school districts attended by the vast majority of U.S. K-12 children, school officials lack the authority to lay off their worst performers while keeping their best ones. Instead, teacher union officials wield their government-granted monopoly-bargaining power to ensure that layoffs are based on seniority alone.

To the dismay of schoolchildren, parents, and taxpayers, this spring, in school district after school district and state after state, teachers widely recognized as superior are being laid off, while below-average teachers are keeping their jobs, simply because the latter have more seniority.

For example, last month in Indiana, six teachers (out of roughly 60,000) were recognized by the state superintendent of education for “outstanding service to Hoosier students.”

Two of the six, Tippecanoe French teacher Gaylene Hayden and  English teacher Jackie Macal, are being laid off at the end of the school year because of their lack of seniority.

When asked to comment, Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA/NEA) union Vice President Teresa Meredith admitted the losses of two of the very best teachers in the state, plus many other outstanding ones, were “disappointing,” but dismissed the need for any reform of seniority rules.

System Makes Teachers ‘Dependent on The Union’

“It’s no mystery why teacher union bosses love the seniority system,” commented National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“It makes teachers dependent on the union, not their personal knowledge, efforts and accomplishments, to obtain job security and substantial pay increases over time. That makes the union more powerful.

“Too bad for recently hired, talented teachers . . . not to mention students and their parents.”

This year, disgruntled parents and taxpayers and independent educational groups, such as the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based New Teacher Project (NTP), around the country are mobilizing against what NTP President Tim Daly aptly calls “quality-blind” layoffs.

Mr. Mix commended such efforts.

“Reforming state labor laws to restrict the scope of teacher union bosses’ monopoly-bargaining privileges so that they could not prevent school officials from laying off the least effective staff, rather than teachers with the least seniority, would be a step in the right direction,” he said.

“However, seniority rules that hurt schoolchildren, taxpayers, and many good teachers are just one of a wide array of harmful policies teacher union bosses are able to perpetuate, despite growing public opposition, because of their monopoly-bargaining control over educators.

“Major reform of public education, therefore, will require state and local policymakers to eliminate teacher union officials’ monopoly privileges, not just restrict their scope.

“That’s why the National Right to Work Committee will continue pushing harder and harder for flat-out repeal of state public-sector monopoly-bargaining laws.”

June’s issue contains the following headlines:

Primary Voters Rebuke Issue-Dodging Republican — Refusal to Respond to Right to Work Survey ‘Raised Concerns’

Tweedle Dee Lincoln and Tweedle Dum Halter — Both Candidates in Arkansas Democrat Run-Off Back Forced Unionism

‘Too Bad For Recently Hired, Talented Teachers’ — Union Bigwigs Make Sure Public School Layoffs Are ‘Quality-Blind’

‘Mandatory Union Membership’ Is PLA’s Purpose — Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor-White House Fog

Obama Bureaucrats Promote Monopolistic Unionism — Right to Work Fights For Independent Transportation Employees

Business ‘Raspberries’ For Compulsory Unionism — Protecting the Right to Work Improves Overall Job Climate

(Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Nationwide unemployment hovers near 10%.  (U.S. DOL reports unemployment rate of 9.9% for April 2010) Across America today, there is widespread hardship resulting from most businesses’ lingering inability to hire more workers profitably even as the country emerges from the 2008-2009 recession.

What is the response of Big Labor politicians in Washington, D.C.? Sadly, they appear determined to make matters worse.

Last month, union-label U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) admitted to the Hill, a D.C. Beltway publication, that she and other members of her chamber’s Democratic majority were working behind the scenes to concoct an “alternative” version of the mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act” for floor action this year.

In its current form, this legislation (S.560/H.R.1409) is designed to help union bosses sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly control by effectively ending secret-ballot elections in union organizing campaigns.

However, the National Right to Work Committee and its allies have mobilized massive public opposition to the measure, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form.

Monopoly Unionism Negatively Correlated With Private-Sector Job Growth

In response, as Ms. McCaskill recently acknowledged, Big Labor politicians and union lobbyists are now concocting new legislation designed to accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means.

“The Committee and its 2.5 million members have led the opposition to S.560/H.R.1409, because this scheme would greatly exacerbate the harm caused by the current forced-unionism provisions in federal labor law,” commented Right to Work Vice President Doug Stafford.

“The ‘Plan B’ forced-unionism expansion legislation now being hammered out by Big Labor Sen. Tom Harkin [D-Iowa] and cohorts like Claire McCaskill would greatly intensify workplace elections’ bias in favor of union organizers. In the end, it could prove even more harmful than ‘Plan A.’

“And experience indicates enactment of either ‘Plan A’ or ‘Plan B’ would drastically reduce employment opportunities in addition to taking away the freedom of now-independent workers.

“For example, as a group, the 10 states with the highest shares of their private-sector employees under union monopoly-bargaining in 2004 suffered a private-sector job decline of 2.5% over the following five years.

“Meanwhile, the 10 states with the lowest private-sector unionization experienced an aggregate private-sector job gain of 1.9%.

“Incredibly, the avowed goal of S.560 lead sponsor Harkin and other Big Labor politicians in Congress is to ‘level the playing field’ by bringing all states down to the level of forced-unionism strongholds like Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey.”

Union Bigwigs Calculate ‘Plan B’ Can Muster Necessary 60 Senate Votes

Mr. Stafford continued: “Rewriting federal labor law to make Texas’s private-sector unionization rate as high as California’s is today would certainly be a radical move.

“But union bigwigs like incoming Service Employees International Union [SEIU] chief Mary Kay Henry believe that, by dropping S.560′s ‘card check’ provision and modifying others, they can muster the 60 votes they need to bring up this power grab for a final Senate roll call.

“If that happens, it will be virtually impossible to stop the bill from being passed and sent to the White House.

“That’s why Right to Work supporters must not let their guard down.

“However, as long as Committee members and supporters keep turning up the heat on Congress with their postcards, phone calls, signed letters and petitions, I’m confident ‘Plan B’ as well as ‘Plan A’ can be defeated.”

Mr. Stafford urged Right to Work members to continue contacting their senators and congressmen through the Congressional Switchboard, 202-224-3121 and 202-225-3121, asking them to oppose S.560/H.R.1409 and all similar legislation on all votes.