The nine states with the greatest 2000-2010 gains in their college-educated adult populations all protect the Right to Work. Of the nine states with the smallest gains, only Hurricane Katrina-devastated Louisiana does so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policymakers Should Pay Heed to Data

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

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

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

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

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.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kris Maher reports:

The AFL-CIO is planning its biggest political campaign ever this year, surpassing the $53 million spent in 2008 to help elect President Barack Obama

Trying to avert a Republican takeover of both the House and Senate in the November midterm elections, the labor federation is focusing on a “firewall” of six states with key congressional elections and relatively high numbers of union households: California, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Sue Lowden (R-NV) is the leading challenger to forced unionism loving Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and that makes her a target for the union bosses that will do anything to keep Reid at the helm of the Senate. The Las Vegas Review Journal reports “The AFL-CIO also is gearing up to help Reid and hit Lowden.”

Despite vehement opposition from the Las Vegas Review Journal and others, Reid keeps carrying big labor’s agenda and the taxpayers are the ones that pay the price.

The poll showed 57 percent of respondents oppose changing the way unions are organized and 64 percent oppose allowing mandatory arbitration to settle organizational disputes between workers and managers, as is proposed under the bill.

The poll also showed more voters would be less likely to support political candidates who would vote for these Big Labor privileges.

Our blog noting ABC’s Ben Brubeck’s blog on a Vegas union’s pension seems to have come from false statements by the union’s spokesman.  According to the update and correction: 

Laborers chief Tommy White wants to make one thing perfectly clear: His union would like to build Las Vegas a new city hall — but not with nearly $80 million from the local’s pension fund, as one of his deputies told the Sun last week.

That deputy, Tom Morley, has been suspended for “speaking out of turn,” White said.Morley, who makes $104,000 a year as political director and spokesman for Laborers Local 872, told the newspaper the union had voted unanimously to use its pension fund to finance up to half the cost of a proposed city hall. City officials estimate the project’s price tag at $157 million, meaning the union would have put up nearly a quarter of its pension fund.

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.

With Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) refusing to back a controversial union organizing bill, Senate Democrats have tapped Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to begin preliminary discussions with a handful of moderate Republicans to try to come up with a new plan for reforming the nation’s labor laws.

Democratic aides said Harkin’s outreach to the GOP is in the early stages and, because of that, declined to identify which Republicans he is courting.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking Friday at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, hinted that Democrats weren’t giving up entirely on the “card check” legislation.

“With Specter backing out on this … I know there are conversations going on with other Republicans” to find a compromise, Reid said.

The Majority Leader also used the forum to harshly criticized opponents of the bill, noting that labor unions represent only 6 percent of the work force, down from a high of 25 percent several decades ago. “I think the business community is flogging a horse that doesn’t deserve it,” he said.

Democratic aides said that should a compromise be reached, it will likely end up somewhere between the card check bill as it’s currently written and an alternative union organizing proposal floated by Starbucks Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc. That plan would retain the use of secret ballots when workers decide to unionize and would not include binding arbitration provisions. It would, however, include a number of other provisions, including allowing unions access to employees during off-work hours and requiring a fixed date for elections.

The alternative has been publicly criticized by Harkin and other pro-labor Democrats as being unacceptable. But privately Democrats acknowledged it was the first sign of movement from the business community that a compromise may be possible.

Democrats predicted they would likely use the existing card check legislation as the underlying bill, with any major changes being made through amendments on the floor.

Harkin, the lead sponsor of the card check bill, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act, said that he had expected amendments would be made and that Specter’s decision to drop his support for the bill would not kill it out right.

“We always expected the bill would be amended, but that does not change the fact that labor reform is needed, as even Senator Specter pointed out. There is no question that the bill will be debated and voted on because workers deserve a share of this recovery. Right now, we are looking for options that all stakeholders can agree to as a way forward to get this bill passed in both the Senate and the House,” Harkin said in a statement Friday.

Harkin is expected to begin reaching out to business interests in the coming weeks, and aides predicted work will likely ramp up during the upcoming recess.

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

Valerie Bischoff, currently a first-year graduate student at Columbia University School of the Arts, was awarded $2,000 as the 2008 recipient of the William B. Ruggles Journalism Scholarship. Majoring in Film Writing and Directing, Mrs. Bischoff is a 2006-2007 Fulbright Scholar, who has won several other awards including Honors in her undergraduate major, Film and Digital Media, at the University of Santa Cruz. Valerie’s essay reflected how the positive experience of living in a Right to Work state, Nevada, allows her to pursue her educational and career goals. As she concluded:

. . . [T]he right to unionize should be one of our fundamental freedoms. However, the validity of this right can only be realized if the members of the union are involved because of choice. Thankfully, in twenty-two states, a Right to Work law protects this freedom.

Lisa Bishara, beginning her first year as a graduate student at Ohio State University, took top honors in the Applegate/Jackson/Parks Future Teachers Scholarship. Mrs. Bishara was awarded $1,000 for her prize-winning essay on the vital importance of teachers’ academic freedom and the Right to Work. As an Elementary/Secondary Curriculum and Administration major, Mrs. Bishara plans to become a curriculum specialist with a defined emphasis on the creative arts. As she explained:

. . . We teach that everyone has choices in all that they do. Children are required to serve consequences for their poor choices, and are rewarded for their superior choices. We teach nonconformity, “If your friends jumped off the highest bridge, does that make it the right choice for you?” No, this is not an acceptable answer. We teach that it is important for the child to opt for traveling their own course regardless of that his or her peers take. How, then, are we to allow ourselves to be forced into compulsory unionization? It is important to support voluntary unionism, which emphasizes the importance of choice.

As the Sun reported, passage of the bill “. . . would for the first time in 60 years, allow workers to organize without putting the issue to a secret-ballot vote.”

The legislation also has a provision that would:

. . . stiffen penalties for employers who commit unfair labor practices during an organizing drive and impose binding arbitration in bargaining cases in which the sides cannot agree.

Taken together, the changes would shake the foundations of modern labor law and likely usher in the largest unionization drive since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Chicago-based Seyfarth Shaw LLP, a leading labor relations law firm, held a Web seminar last month outlining the implications of the bill . . . .

As Amanda Sonneborn, a lawyer with the firm, put it: “. . . you read it and weep.”

This isn’t speculation by Sonneborn. She points to Illinois as an example of the bill’s “cascading effect.”

The state passed mandatory card check in 2003. As a result, union density soared, she said. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, for instance, doubled its number of bargaining units in four years, Sonneborn said.

In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union has tripled its membership over the past 20 years primarily through negotiating voluntary card check agreements with casino companies. The union added 10,000 members from 2002 to 2005 alone — and will add another 6,000 when MGM Mirage’s CityCenter opens in 2009.

In Canada, the effect also has been striking. Thirty-two percent of the country’s workers belong to a union, a density not seen in the United States since the American labor movement’s pinnacle in 1955. Only 12 percent of American workers today belong to a union. Labor benefits from mandatory card check laws in some Canadian provinces. Alberta sports the lowest union density of those places — a whopping 24 percent.

. . . Under the card check bill, employers would face fines for unfair labor practices of up to $20,000 per violation.

According to representatives of Nevada’s Associated Builders and Contractors:

In the executive order, Gibbons stressed that the state has “an obligation to all Nevadans to ensure that tax dollars are used economically, efficiently and in a non-discriminatory manner,” noting that this goal is met “through a process that ensures open and fair competition for state construction projects.”

The executive order noted that “promoting open and fair competition on the bidding and awarding of state construction projects will: allow the state to utilize the best contractor for the job at hand; expand job opportunities, particularly for small and disadvantaged businesses; advance free competition as a way of doing business in Nevada; and reduce construction costs and therefore save taxpayer dollars.”

Gov. Gibbon’s new executive order is a step in the right direction.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, construction contractors and employees have the right to choose to unionize or not to unionize. The vast majority of contractors and their employees – more than 80 percent – have voluntarily opted against unionization.

Because most contractors and employees choose to refrain from unionization when they have the free choice, Big Labor turned to politicians to remove that choice and impose union representation on employees from the top down. The method by which this is done is a project labor agreement, which is also frequently referred to as a “PLA.”

A project labor agreement requires all contractors, whether they are unionized or not, to subject themselves and their employees to unionization in order to work on a government-funded construction project. This is done by including a union collective bargaining agreement in a public construction project’s bid specifications. In order to receive a contract, a contractor must sign the agreement and subject its employees to union control.

Project labor agreements usually require contractors to grant union officials monopoly bargaining privileges over all workers; use exclusive union hiring halls; force workers to pay dues to keep their jobs; and pay above-market prices resulting from wasteful work rules and featherbedding.

The use of a project labor agreement usually results in cost overruns and higher construction costs for taxpayers. Qualified non-union contractors who wish to make lower-cost bids, and employees who wish to work non-union, are locked out of the project. However, politicians and government officials continue to impose project labor agreements to reward the union officials that fund their political campaigns and keep them in power.

Sounds like another day in the union office to us.

Nevada, in particular, has been a beneficiary of its status as a Right to Work state. Ranked second on the study, the Silver State borders California where Big Labor dominates the political and business environment. Businesses seeking to create jobs and escape the regulatory burdens and high taxes of California have found a much better entrepreneurial environment in Nevada.

As reported in the Reno Gazette, the Index cited “Nevada for its lack of personal and corporate income taxes and other costs as well as for being a right-to-work state,” as the main reasons businesses are thriving.