Time to Give Indiana an Economic Edge

As Right to Work legislation finds its way back to the top of the legislative agenda in the state capital, Andrea Neal looks at the benefits of enacting a Right to Work bill in the Hoosier State:

It doesn’t take an economist to spot the common thread in these recent economic development headlines:

  • Chattanooga, Tenn., July 29: “Volkswagen hires 2,000th employee.”
  • Shreveport, La., July 28: “NJ-based bag manufacturer to build Louisiana plant.”
  • Decatur, Ala., July 21: “Polyplex to build $185 million plant.”
  • West Point, Ga., July 7: “Kia builds vehicle No. 300,000.”

All four stories have Southern datelines. All come from states with right-to-work laws, which prohibit labor contracts that [force] employees to join a union or pay a union representation fee.

This is the issue that prompted the five-week House Democratic walkout during the 2011 Indiana General Assembly. The Democrats — a minority in both House and Senate — had no other leverage. So when a right-to-work bill came up unexpectedly in a session that was supposed to be about the budget, redistricting and education, they bolted. Republicans capitulated and took the legislation off the table.

In 2012, it will return with a vengeance, and this time Democrats can’t avoid it. Right-to-work has been promised a full public airing. The Interim Study Committee on Employment Issues, chaired by Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, is taking a first crack this summer and hopes to recommend a bill by November. Gov. Mitch Daniels, who didn’t support the bill last session, has hinted he might this time around. (more…)

Matt Mayer of the Buckeye Institute debunks the long-term economic growth without Right To Work freedom is sustainable. Mayer uses a Columbus Dispatch reporter Joe Hatlett column that featured Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to expose the fact that corporate welfare and reduced regulations ignore the “proverbial elephant in the room weighing down” compulsory union states like Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,, and Michigan.

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. (more…)

Right to Work States Perform Better

Mark Perry looks at the economic performance of Right to Work states in comparison to forced unionism states and provides further evidence that Right to Work states foster prosperity. In the economic downturn year of 2009, forced unionism states economic growth fell by 2.42% but in Right to Work states, it only decreased 1.66%.

As Perry states, “In other words, the decline in economic growth growth in forced unionism states (-2.42%) was 0.76% worse in 2009 than the decline in right-to-work states (-1.66%). Further, of the ten states that experienced positive growth in 2009, only two were forced unionism states (Alaska and W. Virginia) and eight were right-to-work states (Nebraska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, Oklahoma and Wyoming). The three top states with the highest growth in 2009 were all right-to-work states: Oklahoma (6.6%), Wyoming (5.4%) and North Dakota (3.9%). “

Melancon Hides Card Check Support

Let’s get this straight.  Rep. Charlie Melacon (D-LA) pleases the union bosses by cosponsoring the Card Check Forced Unionism bill — undermining his own state’s Right to Work law in the process — but then he declares he cosponsored the bill in order to change it!   

Is it a coincidence that he claims he is trying to change a bill he pledged support on only after he announced he was challenging incumbent Sen. David Vitter?   Of course it is.

The Hill reports:

Melancon is an EFCA co-sponsor, but said he was working on making changes to the bill after being asked by local business leaders last week to drop his sponsorship. 

Attendees said the congressman defended his position at a meeting in his congressional district hosted by the St. Mary Industrial Group, but added he was working to amend the bill. 

“His deal is ‘I am on this bill to make it better, trying to make a bad bill better,’ ” said Bob Miller, president of the St. Mary Industrial Group. “I doubt it seriously if anyone in the room believed it.”

Tagged with:
Posted in: Card Check, Louisiana

Harkin's Threat

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is threatening to move the Card Check Forced Unionism bill to the Senate floor as introduced unless a some other forced unionism scheme is worked out.  Frankly, an up-or-down vote on the Harkin bill would be a great opportunity for workers to see what Senators truly believe in forced unionism.  Senators would not have any fig leaf to hide behind.

Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Mark Pryor (D-AK) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) are participating in preliminary talks to find a “compromise.”  Seems like a great list of Senators to contact to voice your objections to any and all versions of the Card Check Forced Unionism bill.  Add Senators Warner (VA), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln-Lambert (AK), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME)  Nelson (NE), Conrad (ND), Johnson (SD), Dorgan (ND) and Reid (NV) to that list as well.  Senators can be reached by calling the Senate Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Ten Governors Oppose Card Check Scam

In a letter to Congress, 10 governors voiced objections to imposition of the Card Check Scam (i.e. the so-called Employee Free Choice Act) on their states.

The letter states:

January 8, 2009

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Boehner,

The “Employee Free Choice Act” is a highly controversial federal bill which seeks to fundamentally alter federal labor laws that run counter to long held traditions that have protected the privacy and security of American workers. We believe that America must maintain and encourage a competitive workforce. To keep America competitive, the federal government must protect the confidential nature of a worker’s vote. Some of the Act’s primary flaws include:

— Violating the elections process that allows employees to choose whether they want union representation through a secret ballot. Currently, neither the union nor the employer knows how an employee votes. The proposed legislation would eliminate this important protection for employees — one supported by a recent poll that showed 75% of Americans believe that a free and impartial secret ballot election is the fairest way for workers to decide on union membership.

— Imposing Contract Terms on Employers which are not actually requested by their workers. The National Labor Relations Board will be de facto authorized to force an employer to implement a collective bargaining agreement imposed by an arbitrator rather than through the long held tradition of unions working independently on an agreement between the employer and employees in order to secure their top priorities. Instead this bill will allow far removed union executives to insert their own priorities without prior consultation with the affected workers. This represents an unprecedented government intrusion on the right to bargain freely over working terms and conditions.

We respectfully request that you join us in opposing this legislation and cast your vote against it.

Sincerely,

Gov. Sonny Perdue,
Georgia

Gov. Bobby Jindal,
Louisiana

Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota

Gov. Haley Barbour,
Mississippi

Gov. Jim Gibbons,
Nevada

Gov. John Hoeven,
North Dakota

Gov. Mark Sanford,
South Carolina

Gov. Mike Rounds,
South Dakota

Gov. Rick Perry,
Texas

Gov. Jim Douglas,
Vermont