Enacting a Right to Work law in Kentucky would be a boon for jobs and economic prosperity — but don’t just take our word for it.  The Bowling Green Daily News agrees:

Gov. Steve Beshear and the Democrat-controlled House are beholden to labor unions in this state and for that reason, year after year we continue to lose companies and jobs to other Southern states because Kentucky is not a right-to-work state.

Right-to-work laws protect workers’ freedoms by not forcing them to pay dues to a union upon becoming employed or throughout employment. Nearly any citizen in a right-to-work state is protected by a state’s right-to-work law.

Labor unions make up less than 9 percent of Kentucky’s workforce, so it would make sense that Beshear and the House would have more concern for the majority of the workforce. Sadly, they don’t. They need the unions, who contribute millions of dollars every election year through political action committees or other ways to encourage the governor and those in the House to follow part of their agenda, which is not allowing Kentucky to become a right-to-work state.

Kentucky is the only Southern state not to have a right-to-work law. For that reason, many companies don’t even consider our state when choosing plant locations.

Business 101 would tell you that this is simply bad business. The governor and House are hindering our state because they ignore reality. Shame on them. It reflects poor leadership and it holds our state back when competing for jobs that could be coming to Kentucky.

Simpson County Judge-Executive Jim Henderson is a strong supporter of the right-to-work concept.

Henderson said on a number of occasions during the process of trying to get a company to come to Franklin, it was eliminated because of not being a right-to-work state. He said it was communicated through correspondence and other means of communication that not having a right-to-work law is why companies aren’t coming to his city.One only has to look at companies such as Nissan North America. The company admitted that one reason it decided to move its headquarters from California to Tennessee and not Kentucky was because of the lower business costs. Interestingly enough, the average Kentuckian has to work 13 months to make what an average Tennessean can in one year.

The number of jobs created in right-to-work states compared to forced union states like Kentucky are revealing.

According to Freedom Kentucky, between 1996-2004, Georgia brought in more than 500,000 new jobs, Virginia more than 400,000, North Carolina nearly 275,000. Tennessee brought in more than 125,000 new jobs, South Carolina around 125,000 and Kentucky brought in less than 100,000 jobs in that time.

These numbers show a significant problem. A big reason for us underperforming is companies want to do business in right-to-work states. Those who make plant location decisions vote with their wallets.

Bryan Sunderland, vice president of public affairs for the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, said his organization wants Kentucky to become a right-to-work state.

“We do agree it would be a positive aspect for us to look at. A lot of companies don’t look at us because of that. All right-to-work states have that advantage over us in competing for jobs,” Sunderland said.

“It’s part of our legislative agenda. Not being a right-to-work state is absolutely a factor in bringing jobs here. In some cases, it’s a primary factor,” Sunderland said.

State Rep. Jim DeCesare, R-Bowling Green, is a big proponent of Kentucky becoming a right-to-work state. DeCesare has introduced legislation in the House only to see it die in committee.“Less than 10 percent of our workforce is union, and out of that they’re controlling the whole state and where we go. The right-to work-states are the ones getting the jobs,” DeCesare said. “I’m for allowing people to have the option to join a union or not. Some union employees don’t like their money going to political candidates, but they have no choice.”

State Rep. Mike Wilson, R-Bowling Green, has also been a strong proponent for making Kentucky a right-to-work state. State Rep. Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, unfortunately believes that Kentucky doesn’t need to be a right-to-work state.Richards, Beshear and others are part of the problem that is holding us back.

State Sen. David Williams, R-Burkesville, who is running against Beshear for governor, gets it and believes that we should be a right-to-work state.

Unions like to talk about their right to join together and organize. This is well established and protected and very few people would question this freedom of association.If, however, there is a freedom of association, there has to be a corollary freedom not to associate and therein lies the essence of the argument for a right-to-work law.

In the article noting the benefits the state would receive from becoming Right to Work, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the US Senate Minority Leader agrees that lack of a Right to Work law is hurting economic growth in his state. That’s the good news.

The bad news, however, is that  McConnell then displays his lack of knowledge of federal labor law and how union officials got the power to force workers to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment in the first place.  The Republican leader in the Senate indicates his opposition to a National Right to Work law.

What Senator McConnell must not know is that the National Right to Work law S. B. 504 is not a new law at all!  The bill, if passed, would not add a single word to federal law.  The bill, (link here), would simply repeal sections of federal labor law that allow union officials to have workers fired from their jobs if they don’t pay dues.

That’s ALL.  In fact, if Senator McConnell would spend the time to research it, he would find that there is no law on the books in his home state of Kentucky that forces workers in the private sector to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.  That privilege is bestowed on union officials from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is leading the fight for workers nationwide by submitting legislation to protect workers from coast to coast.  It’s time for Sen. McConnell and other hold-outs to join DeMint’s efforts.

From Matt Mayer’s post:

“With Michigan bleeding jobs and tax revenues, Granholm said she followed the corporate playbook in her attempt to close a huge state budget deficit and make Michigan more competitive. ‘In listening to the business community, I cut takes [sic] 99 times, and I ended shrinking government more than any state in the nation. In my two terms, I cut more by far than any state in the nation. And yet, we still have the highest unemployment rate.

There was no correlation.’ Granholm conceded that streamlining business regulations and lowering taxes — Kasich’s economic recovery mantra — are helpful, but they aren’t a panacea…[l]abor costs, help with start-up costs and proximity to markets are other factors.”

Hallett and Governor Granholm fail to mention why streamlining regulations and lowering taxes aren’t helping the northern states (located within 50 percent of the U.S. population and with low start-up costs) compete against the southern and western states. Instead, Hallett ignores the obvious answer and pleads for an end to corporate pork (with which we enthusiastically agree).

The reason Michigan and Ohio can’t compete is that the southern and western states already have fewer regulations and lower taxes, so “catching up” with those states still leaves the proverbial elephant in the room weighing down the northern states. Plus, those states are also pushing for lower taxes and fewer regulations, so the northern states are perpetually behind them. The elephant, which Governor Granholm does hint at, is labor costs, or, more specifically, unionized labor costs (see: General Motors and the United Auto Workers).

As I noted in Six Principles for Fixing Ohio, “Of course, tax and regulatory burdens also impact a state’s economy. Although many of the forced unionization states have heavy tax burdens and many of the worker freedom states have light tax burdens, some heavily taxed worker freedom states (Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) had the strongest sustained job growth from 1990 to today.

Similarly, a few moderately taxed forced unionization states still had weak job growth (Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri). The combination of both a heavy tax burden and forced unionization is deadly when it comes to job growth, as 11 of the 15 worst performing states are ranked in the top 20 for high tax burdens.” If Ohio and the other states from Missouri to Maine want to truly compete with Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, then those states need to enact laws that protect the rights of workers not to join a labor union to get a job.

After all, depending on the National Labor Relations Board to protect unions from competing is not a long-term strategy for success; rather, it is a short-term finger in the dike as the flood of worker freedoms washes over the dike. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data over the last twenty-one years shows why Right to Work laws result in more jobs.

From 1990 to 2011, states that protected the freedom of workers not to join a union to get a job netted 10,742,600 jobs — even after the massive housing and construction job losses in states like Nevada, Florida, and Arizona — as forced unionization states (including Ohio) netted just 6,715,500 jobs.

Keep in mind that the vastly superior net job growth in worker freedom states was done despite having nearly 60,000,000 fewer residents! Over twenty-one years, forced unionization states had private sector job growth change of just 11 percent compared to 34 percent in worker freedom states.

When asked, workers choose freedom, even union workers. In Frank Luntz’ recent poll, 80% of union members chose the Right To Work which allows individuals to freely choose whether or not to belong or pay fees to union.

Here is the question Luntz’ pollsters asked union members across the country and the results are above:

Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: “Workers should have the right to decide whether to join a union. They should never be forced or coerced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.”

For the complete Frank Luntz – National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation 2010 Union Member Survey click here.

Teachers employed in Jefferson County are automatically enrolled as union members and pay union dues unless they register an objection to Jefferson County union officials. Teachers are permitted to resign from formal union membership during a ten day period after an individual teacher’s contract is signed or after the union agrees to a new contract with the local school board.

The suit alleges if a teacher does not register an objection to union membership within either period, he or she is required to remain a union member until the expiration of the union’s five-year contract with the local school board.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the return of dues, a modification of the union contract to allow employees to resign membership at any time and a regular notice from the union to public school employees that they have a right not to join the union.

[NRTW’s Will] Collins said the NEA is named in the teachers’ suit because it allegedly encouraged Jefferson County union officials to continue to block resignations.

Boeing is a huge aerospace corporation that employs directly and indirectly more than 150,000 people and it recently announced that it is searching in the South for sites to build another plant. Unfortunately, Kentucky won’t be in the running because it’s not a right-to-work state.

It sure would have been nice to have been even looked at by Boeing, considering the need for jobs in Kentucky, but wasn’t considered because it isn’t a right-to-work state, unlike most states to the south of us.

People experienced in industrial recruitment will tell you candidly that many companies looking for plant sites eliminate non-right-to-work states right out of the starting gate.

Should it be any surprise that most people prefer choice to compulsion?

If Gov. Steve Beshear and other elected representatives were 100 percent serious about bringing more jobs and businesses to our state, they would give our recruiters all the tools they need.

Statistically, right-to-work states have created jobs faster than states like Kentucky. It is unfortunate many of our political leaders seem oblivious to this reality.

Boeing isn’t going to come to Kentucky, but it sure might have considered it if these politicians we elect would realize the jobs we’re losing to other states and stand up to the union lobby in Frankfort and vote for Kentucky to become a right-to-work state.

Phil Gramm and Mike Solon writing in the Wall Street Journalnote:

The Competitiveness Index created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) identifies “16 policy variables that have a proven impact on the migration of capital — both investment capital and human capital — into and out of states.” Its analysis shows that “generally speaking, states that spend less, especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less, particularly on productive activities such as working or investing, experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more.”

Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful.

The rewards for success were huge. Texas gained 1.7 million net new jobs, Florida gained 1.4 million and Arizona gained 600,000. While the U.S. average job growth percentage was 9.9%, Texas, Florida and Arizona had job growth of 18.5%, 21.4% and 28.9%, respectively.

. . .

There also appears to be a clear difference between union interests and the worker interests. Texas, Florida and Arizona are right-to-work states, while Michigan, Ohio and Illinois are not. Michigan, Ohio and Illinois impose significantly higher minimum wages than Texas, Florida and Arizona. Yet with all the proclaimed benefits of unionism and higher minimum wages, Texas, Florida and Arizona workers saw their real income grow more than twice as fast as workers in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.

Incredibly, the business climate in Michigan is now so unfavorable that it has overwhelmed the considerable comparative advantage in auto production that Michigan spent a century building up. No one should let Michigan politicians blame their problems solely on the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.

Gramm and Solon ask whether any of these facts play into the presidential debate and the positions the candidates have on issues like Right to Work?

So what do the state laboratories tell us about the potential success of the economic programs presented by Barack Obama and John McCain?

Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the “infamous” top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn’t the Rockefellers they’re talking about; it’s the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.

In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.

Mr. Obama would spend all the savings from walking out of Iraq to expand the government. Mr. McCain would reserve all the savings from our success in Iraq to shrink the deficit, as part of a credible and internally consistent program to balance the budget by the end of his first term. Mr. Obama’s program offers no hope, or even a promise, of ever achieving a balanced budget.

Mr. Obama would stimulate the economy by increasing federal spending. Mr. McCain would stimulate the economy by cutting the corporate tax rate. Mr. Obama would expand unionism by denying workers the right to a secret ballot on the decision to form a union, and would dramatically increase the minimum wage. Mr. Obama would also expand the role of government in the economy, and stop reforms in areas like tort abuse.

The states have already tested the McCain and Obama programs, and the results are clear. We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate.

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.” . . .

This is not a theoretical debate. Just ask the working folks of Kentucky who lost a billion-dollar investment by VW to neighboring Tennessee — a Right to Work state.

Will the governor consider long-term effects and all people or be content to grab short-term political gains? If he chooses the latter, Beshear can join a list of marginal leaders that dwarfs the state’s roll call of courageous governors.

Beshear’s fellow Democrats previously rejected the idea of a “right-to-work” policy, which would prevent employees from being forced to join labor unions or pay dues, whether they came with sufficient benefits or not.

Yet “right-to-work” is one of 16 critical economic variables for states in a new American Legislative Exchange Council report co-authored by highly respected economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. Without a right-to-work law, Kentucky ranks No. 46 among states – and dead last in the Southeast – in economic competitiveness, the council report shows.

Laffer and Moore report that having a right-to-work law represents one of two economic factors that stand out as “perhaps the most important in attracting jobs and capital.”

Like so many who have asked the same question, we don’t expect to get a surprise answer. When good ideas, like enactment of a Right to Work law, clash against the interests of Big Labor, most politicians take the easy road — they stand with Big Labor bosses and their political coffers against what’s best for their state. I hope Steve Beshear chooses the better road, but have little expectation his rhetoric, about positive change, will match reality.