Legislators Look at ‘Oklahoma Model’ For Stronger Economic Growth

It’s been more than seven decades since The Grapes of Wrath, both the John Steinbeck novel and the Hollywood movie it inspired, established the desperate migration of “Okies” from the Dust Bowl to the orchards of California as an icon of the Great Depression.

Times have certainly changed.

As an October 12 USA Today feature story noted, since 1999, “the number of Californians departing the Golden State for Oklahoma has outnumbered those going the opposite direction by more than 21,000 . . . .”

The net influx of people into the Sooner State from California and many other states with sub-par or abysmal job and income growth records is, as USA Today put it, “a sign of Oklahoma’s growing economic prowess.”

To explain the state’s recent record of economic success, the USA Today feature specifically mentioned Oklahoma’s low and relatively stable housing costs, its concentration of aerospace and defense technology expertise, and its oil and natural gas reserves.

But as important as these assets are, Oklahoma had them all in the early 1990′s, when its long-term job and income growth still trailed the national average.

The real turning point for Oklahoma’s transition from an economic laggard to an economic leader was in 1992 — when the National Right to Work Committee teamed up with local grass-roots activists to map out a multi-year campaign to pass a Sooner Right to Work law.

Benefits of Right to Work Campaign Were Evident Long Before State Law Was Passed

“In the early 1990′s, the ‘Dust Bowl’ was already a distant memory, but Oklahoma’s job climate still seemed pretty dry,” commented Matthew Leen, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“From 1984 through 1994, the decade before the Committee program to pass a Right to Work law in Oklahoma was initiated, private-sector employment in Oklahoma increased by less than a third as much as the national average, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

“Over that same decade, inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data show Oklahoma’s real personal income grew by just 2.3%, less than a tenth of the nationwide percentage gain.

“But in 1994, the seeds of change were planted when, thanks to the lobbying and citizen-mobilization efforts of the Right to Work movement, 12 new avowed foes of compulsory unionism were elected to the Oklahoma Legislature.

“Also in 1994, unabashedly pro-Right to Work candidates were elected as governor, lieutenant governor, and labor commissioner.

“It would take additional years of hard work, spanning the 1996, 1998, and 2000 election cycles, for grass-roots activists to get to majority support for the Right to Work in both legislative chambers.

“But the benefits of the Right to Work campaign were evident long before a state law could be passed.

“As more and more union-label legislators were replaced with Right to Work advocates during the 1990′s, the state’s political climate became more amenable to private-sector job and income creation in a host of ways.

“From 1995 to 2001, the year the Right to Work law was finally adopted, private-sector employment in Oklahoma grew by 15.2%, 14% more than the overall national increase.Sooners’ real personal income grew by 24.1%, outpacing the national average.”

Right to Work Edge Clear In Region After Region

“Unfortunately, the adoption of the 2001 Right to Work Amendment prohibiting the termination of employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union did not immediately break Big Labor’s grip over roughly 65,000 private-sector Sooner workers,” Mr. Leen continued.

“Until 2003, union lawyers kept the Right to Work Amendment tied up in court. But since the state Supreme Court rejected Big Labor’s anti-Right to Work lawsuit late that year, Oklahoma has had one of the strongest economies in the country.

“From 2003 through 2009, real income in Oklahoma grew by nearly twice as much as in the U.S. as a whole. The U.S.’s private-sector employment was flat over that period, but Oklahoma’s grew by 4.4%.”

The outstanding recent gains of Oklahoma are of a piece with the long-term economic performance of all 22 Right to Work states, including those whose forced-dues bans have been on the books for decades.

For example, from 1999 to 2009, the five Midwestern Right to Work states (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) experienced aggregate private-sector job growth of 2.3%. Over the same period, the seven Midwestern forced-unionism states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) lost 8.1% of their private-sector jobs.

More and More Citizens Recognize Their States Require Fundamental Reform

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that forced-unionism states are lagging behind Right to Work states by all the most significant economic measures. 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 job growth or, very frequently, job losses.

On top of that, union bosses funnel a huge portion of the forced dues and fees they collect into efforts to elect and reelect state and local, as well as federal, politicians who support more forced unionism, higher taxes, and more red-tape regulation of business.

“More and more citizens of Big Labor-controlled states like Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Maine recognize that their states require fundamental reform in order to get their economies back on track,” noted Mr. Leen.

“That’s one important reason why avowed Right to Work supporters running in slow-growth states racked up a net gain of hundreds of state House and Senate seats in this year’s elections.”

“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 Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Maine around.

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

‘Getting There Is Half the Fun’

Mr. Leen added: “There is a second important point illustrated by the ‘Oklahoma model’: Getting there is half the fun.

“Long before forced union dues and fees were banned in Oklahoma, the state’s economy was already benefiting greatly from the campaign to pass a state Right to Work law.

“From 1994 through 2000, the number of union lackeys in the Oklahoma Legislature diminished in each election cycle thanks in large part to the Right to Work candidate survey program.

“That means, with each election cycle, the Legislature was less apt to hinder job and income growth by approving new unreasonable taxes and regulations. And the Legislature became more apt to reform existing anti-growth policies.

“Even if Big Labor had somehow in the end managed to block enactment of Oklahoma’s Right to Work law, the benefits of ‘getting there’ would have remained.

“Unfortunately, this isn’t true when well-meaning would-be reformers skip over the process of building Right to Work legislative strength and instead try to abolish forced union dues willy‑nilly in a ballot initiative.

“Over the past half century, the track record of efforts to pass new Right to Work laws through ballot initiatives is poor. And unlike legislative lobbying campaigns, ballot initiatives do nothing to improve the quality of a state’s elected officials.

“Concerned citizens who want to transform their state into ‘another Oklahoma’ should look not just at the content of the Sooner Right to Work Amendment, but also at the eight-year process by which it became law.”

(Source: December 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

On November 2, he was one of 13 incumbent governors on the ballot across America. Eleven of these incumbents won, but Mr. Culver lost by a hefty 53% to 43% margin.

What had Chet Culver done to receive such a harsh rebuke from normally amiable Midwesterners? He tried to gut Iowa’s popular Right to Work law — and he was sneaky about it.

After saying nothing about the Right to Work issue during his successful 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Culver announced, almost as soon as the votes were counted, his support for legislation imposing forced union dues and fees on Iowa workers as a condition of employment.

Since Mr. Culver’s fellow Democrats controlled substantial majorities in both chambers of the Iowa Legislature that greeted him upon his inauguration in early 2007, it seemed Big Labor’s stealthy scheme to bring back forced unionism to the state six decades after it had been banned would succeed.

But the National Right to Work Committee and the Iowans for Right to Work Committee were already mobilizing resistance.

Pro-Right to Work Iowan Stopped Forced-Union-Fee Schemes in 2007 and 2009

Even before the new Legislature convened in January 2007, the National Committee began sending out a series of statewide and targeted mailings to members and supporters in Iowa, with a focus on selected House and Senate members in vulnerable seats.

In the end, although a forced-union-fee bill (S.F.413) was rubber-stamped by the Senate, union-label Speaker Pat Murphy (D-Dubuque) and his cohorts were never able to round up the votes to get it through the House. Consequently, they never put it up for a House floor vote.

In 2009, Big Labor-backed Rep. Bruce Hunter (D-Des Moines) introduced another forced-union-fee bill, H.R.555. It too failed to secure a House floor vote due, once again, to well-mobilized Right to Work opposition.

But it wasn’t until November 2, 2010, that Right to Work supporters got a chance to show how they really felt about a governor who wanted to empower Big Labor to compel workers to pay fees to a union they would never voluntarily join.

“While there were other issues in the gubernatorial race, Chet Culver’s pandering to the union bosses and their forced-unionism agenda sufficed in itself to kill his re-election hopes,” commented Greg Mourad, director of legislative affairs for the National Committee.

“Pro-Right to Work Iowans also sent a strong message in state legislative races. Union-label Speaker Murphy’s Democratic House caucus shrank from a 56-44 majority to a 40-60 minority. Union boss-backed incumbents as well as ‘open-seat’ candidates were swept up in the wave.

“In the state Senate, only half of the 50 seats were up for grabs. That allowed Big Labor Majority Leader Mike Gronstal [Council Bluffs] to hold on to his post, but just barely, as his Democrat caucus shrank from 32 to 26.”

While, thanks to National Committee members and grass-roots activists, Iowa’s Right to Work law has remained intact during the Culver years, incoming pro-Right to Work Gov. Terry Branstad (R) and House Speaker Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha) will have a lot of union boss-inspired damage to undo once they take office.

Incoming Governor, House Speaker Will Have to Undo a Lot of Damage

One outrageous and very recent example is outgoing Gov. Culver’s mid-November move to add $200 million to already-beleaguered Iowa taxpayers’ burden over the next two years as a parting contract gift to state employee union bosses.

“Even though they didn’t get the Right to Work destruction law they craved, government union bosses made out big during the Culver Administration,” said Mr. Mourad.

“To get Iowa’s fiscal house back in order, Gov. Branstad and Speaker Paulsen should aim not just to preserve Iowa’s Right to Work law, but also to roll back policies authorizing union monopoly bargaining in the government sector.”

Grass-Roots Right to Work Efforts Expanding in Midwestern States

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.”

But Hawkeye State’s Popular Right to Work Law Still Under Fire

(Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) 

Over the past four years, union lobbyists in Des Moines employed every conceivable tactic to ram through the Hawkeye State Legislature legislation gutting Iowa’s popular, six-decade-old Right to Work law.

Again and again, union officials have threatened to recruit and bankroll primary challengers to run against Democratic legislators who refused to back forced union fees.

This March, one union lobbyist is even alleged to have told a state lawmaker, “You could have $100,000 in your account to fight off any challenger,” if he switched his position and voted for the forced-union-fee bill then pending in the Legislature.

However, the National Right to Work Committee and its grass-roots ally, the Des Moines-based Iowans for Right to Work Committee, energized freedom-loving Iowans to fight back every step of the way.

And this spring, the Big Labor politicians who run the Iowa House and Senate finally backed down and adjourned the 2010 session without ever bringing up for a vote H.F.2420, the Right to Work-gutting measure introduced in the 2009-10 Legislature.

Union Bosses Remain Determined To Destroy Right to Work Law

Not taking anything for granted, the National Right To Work Committee legislative department kept the heat on until the Iowa Legislature called it quits after an unusually short 2010 session on Tuesday, March 30.

And the battle to save Iowa’s Right to Work law is far from over even now.

“Top union bosses in Des Moines and international union politicos in Washington, D.C., remain grimly determined to destroy Iowa’s Right to Work law,” explained National Committee Vice President Matthew Leen.

“Although, thanks to Right to Work supporters’ dedication, the union bosses failed to realize their long-sought objective in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010, they hope that, by intimidating the legislators who have stood in their way up to now, they will be able to muster the votes they need in 2011.

“In this year’s June 8 primaries, union strategists are targeting for defeat Coralville state Rep. David Jacoby, one of just a handful of Democrat legislators who refused to pledge to vote for H.F.2420.

“Ironically, Rep. Jacoby is actually a forced-unionism advocate. But the scope of forced union fees authorized by H.F.2420 was wider than even he could swallow.

“Because of that minor deviation, Iowa union bigwigs are now pouring resources into the campaign of Mr. Jacoby’s 100% pro-forced unionism primary challenger, John Stellmach.

“But earlier, according to Mr. Jacoby, when Big Labor was still hoping to get his vote, union lobbyist Marcia Nichols promised his campaign $100,000 in exchange for backing H.F.2420.”

Ms. Nichols denies the charge. But she also refuses to disclose exactly what she did say to Mr. Jacoby. “I have a lot of conversations with legislators,” she told the Des Moines Register last month. “They’re just personal conversations. I don’t feel comfortable discussing them in the newspaper.”

Forced Union Fees Would Hurt Iowa’s Economy

Mr. Leen predicted that voters’ passionate opposition to any scheme to weaken Iowa’s Right to Work law would be a key factor in this fall’s statewide and state legislative elections.

“Gutting Iowa’s Right to Work law would harm the state’s economy as well as its independent-minded employees,” he added.

“From 2004 through 2009, real personal income grew by 4.4% in Iowa and 6.4% in Midwestern Right to Work states as a group, but just 0.4% in Midwestern forced-unionism states as a group.

“Over the same period, private-sector employment grew by 0.9% in Iowa and 2.2% in Midwestern Right to Work states overall, but fell by 5.6% in Midwestern forced-unionism states.”

To help ensure Iowans retain their vital Right to Work protections, the National Committee and its allies will be reminding freedom-loving Iowans this fall where their candidates stand on the forced-unionism issue, and mobilizing them to contact their candidates, again and again.

“Informed, well-mobilized citizens can unshackle the Iowa Legislature from Big Labor control this fall, and ensure the state’s Right to Work law remains in full force in 2011 and beyond,” Mr. Leen concluded.

(Source: April 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Recently, millions of Americans have been dismayed by reports, based on official U.S. Labor Department Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, that from 1999 through 2009 our country endured a “lost decade” in private-sector employment.

In this context, the term “lost decade” refers to annual BLS statistics showing that in 2009 there were 107.95 million private-sector jobs nationwide, roughly 370,000 fewer than in 1999, when there were 108.32 million.

This marks the first time since the Great Depression that an entire decade has gone by with negative net growth in private-sector employment across the U.S.

However, some of the 50 states have fared far better than others over the past 10 years. And a review of how each state’s job market performed suggests that the U.S. Congress could dramatically improve America’s employment prospects for the next decade by adopting one simple change in federal labor policy.

Private-Sector Employment in Right to Work States up by 1.5 Million Since 1999

Current federal labor law authorizes and promotes the payment of compulsory union dues and fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Under pro-forced unionism provisions in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the 1951 amendments to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), an estimated 6.6 million private-sector employees must pay dues or fees to their Big Labor monopoly-bargaining agent, or face termination from their jobs.

At the same time, thanks to many years of vigilant efforts by freedom-loving Americans, federal labor law continues explicitly to recognize states’ option to protect employees from forced union dues and fees by adopting Right to Work laws.

Currently, 22 states have Right to Work laws on the books prohibiting the firing of employees simply for exercising their right to refuse to join or bankroll an unwanted union.

A huge majority of the 22 Right to Work states actually experienced net gains in private-sector employment from 1999 through 2009. Overall, private-sector employment in Right to Work states is up by roughly 1.5 million since 1999.

Meanwhile, the 28 forced-unionism states collectively endured a “lost decade” in employment growth far more bleak than that of the nation as a whole. In these states, private-sector employment is down by 1.9 million since 1999.

All five of the states enjoying the biggest net absolute increases in private-sector jobs since 1999 have Right to Work laws on the books. Not one of the five states experiencing the worst private-sector job losses has such a law. (See the table above for details.)

“Leading labor economists such as Dr. Richard Vedder of Ohio University have shown repeatedly that forced unionism hinders employment growth,” noted Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“Big Labor’s counterproductive work rules and fomentation of the ‘hate-the-boss’ mentality lead to less employment growth or, very frequently, employment losses in the unionized businesses themselves.

“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 businesses.”

‘Actions of Forced Dues-Funded Politicians . . . Result in Less Job Growth’

“The actions of forced dues-funded politicians thus result in less job growth, period. And, of course, union-label politicians do the most damage in the states where union bosses rake in the most forced-dues money,” Mr. Mix added.

“Moreover, in today’s globalized economy, when Big Labor militancy squashes job-creating business investment in a state, some investment is likely to go overseas. Then no American workers end up getting the jobs.

“But if Congress repealed all the forced-dues provisions in the NLRA and RLA, this massive impediment to employment growth nationwide would immediately be lifted.

“Forced-dues repeal would spur job growth in all 50 states. Businesses based in current Right to Work states would share the benefits as their major out-of-state suppliers and customers were freed from the burden of compulsory unionism.

“Today, there would be an additional 4.42 million U.S. private-sector jobs if private-sector employment nationally had increased exactly as much as it did in Right to Work states over the past decade.

“That gives you some idea of the extent to which American employees and businesses would benefit over the next 10 years if Congress and the President stood up to Big Labor and enacted a national Right to Work law now.”

President, Congress and Governors Remain Beholden To Union Special Interests

Unfortunately, despite nationwide unemployment that hovers near 10% and the widespread economic hardship resulting from most businesses’ lingering inability to hire more workers profitably even as the country reemerges from the 2008-2009 recession, Washington, D.C., keeps moving in the wrong direction.

“In January 2009, when it was already clear the economy and the job market were in dire straits, Sen. Jim DeMint [R-S.C.], working hand-in-hand with the Right to Work Committee, secured a Senate floor roll call on a forced-dues repeal amendment,” recalled Mr. Mix.

“But a majority of senators, including 14 who are seeking reelection or full terms this year, kowtowed to Big Labor and voted for federally-imposed compulsory union dues.

“And a majority of senators and House members and President Obama are all on record in favor of S.560/H.R.1409, the cynically mislabeled ‘Employee Free Choice Act,’ which would enable union bosses to grab forced-dues power over millions of additional private-sector workers.

“This year, several governors are also ignoring the economic facts and endorsing schemes to expand Big Labor’s forced-dues privileges.

“For example, Big Labor Iowa Gov. Chet Culver [D] is backing H.F.2420, legislation that would gut the Hawkeye State’s Right to Work law, even though Iowa’s long-term economic growth is far superior to that of Midwestern forced-unionism states like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.”

Politicians May Pay a Steep Price This Year For Backing Forced Unionism

In the recent past, union-label politicians have sometimes gotten away with supporting anti-growth labor policies, because most voters believed the economy was performing well enough, and didn’t see a pressing need for improvement.

However, in the harsh economic climate of 2010, citizens are unlikely to be so tolerant of federal and state politicians who pander to Big Labor.

“In their federal and state candidate Survey 2010 programs, the National Right to Work Committee and allied regional and state organizations have already begun mobilizing millions of citizens to contact their politicians regarding their compulsory-unionism records,” said Mr. Mix.

“It’s likely politicians will pay a steep price this year for backing compulsory unionism.

“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.

“Federal and state politicians who are running for election or reelection this year can accomplish this objective by completing, signing and returning their 2010 Right to Work candidate surveys.

“Long experience shows that election time is the best time for Right to Work advocates to change Big Labor-appeasing politicians’ minds about the forced-unionism issue. I urge Right to Work members and supporters everywhere to participate in the Survey 2010 program.”

(Source: March 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

For years, the climate for private-sector employees and business owners in Right to Work Iowa has been far superior to that of neighboring forced-unionism Illinois.

For example, from 2003 to 2008, the latest year for which annual U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data are available at this writing, the number of private sector jobs grew by 6.2% in Iowa, more than double Illinois’s 2.7% increase.

Over the same period, inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data show personal income in Iowa grew by a healthy 11.1%, more than half again as much as it did in Illinois.

Right to Work Iowa has also made it through the recent severe national recession in considerably better shape than forced-unionism Illinois.  Preliminary data put Iowa’s December 2009 unemployment rate at 6.6%, far below Illinois’s 10.8%.

So how are Quad City Area AFL-CIO operative Tracy Kurowski and other union bosses proposing to give Hawkeye State employees a “jolt,” as Ms. Kurowski put it in a recent commentary she penned for the pro-Big Labor “Blog for Iowa”? By making Iowa more like slow-growth, high-unemployment Illinois, of course!

‘Forced Union Fees Are The Last Thing’ Iowa Employees and Firms Need

Ms. Kurowski and other union bosses are twisting the arms of state legislators in Des Moines to adopt H.F. 2420, legislation that would force roughly 18,000 state government employees who have chosen not to join a union to fork over an estimated total of roughly $5.3 million a year in forced union fees, or be fired.

In her “Blog for Iowa” commentary, Ms. Kurowski characterized this power grab as a “start” towards the union hierarchy’s goal of corralling all kinds of front-line public and private employees into unions.

And she freely admitted that Illinois, where roughly 800,000 workers are currently forced to fork over union dues or “agency” fees as a job condition, was Big Labor’s role model for Iowa.

Ms. Kurowski quickly brushed aside concerns that Illinois’s net private-sector job and personal income growth are far slower than Iowa’s, and that its unemployment rate is much higher. The “sky hasn’t fallen,” she sneered.

“Tracy Kurowski’s screed makes it plain that, despite their sporadic and half-hearted denials, union bosses see H.F. 2420 as a major step towards complete destruction of Iowa’s popular, 63-year-old Right to Work law,” commented Matthew Leen, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“Ms. Kurowski has also made it plain that Iowa and national union bosses care nothing about the human consequences of their plans. All they care about is increasing their personal and political war chests by making union fees mandatory.

“But forced union fees are the last thing hardworking Iowa employees and firms need.”

Big Labor Knows Its Iowa ‘Window of Opportunity’ Will Likely Close Soon

It’s now been more than three years since freshly-elected Iowa Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, after saying nothing in public about the forced-unionism issue during the 2006 campaign, suddenly declared his support for gutting Iowa’s Right to Work law.

“Mr. Culver’s almost nonstop pandering to Big Labor, perpetuated this winter with a new executive order promoting anti-taxpayer, union-only ‘project labor agreements’ in public works, is a major reason for his gully-low poll numbers,” remarked Mr. Leen.

“So far, stiff opposition from freedom-loving citizens, mobilized by the National Committee and its allies in the state, has denied Mr. Culver the opportunity to sign legislation forcing Iowa employees to bankroll a union in order to work.

“But before Iowa voters can replace Mr. Culver with a pro-Right to Work governor, union bosses seem determined to use every trick in the book to at least get a ‘start’ on overturning Iowa’s ban on forced union dues and fees.

“Knowing their forced-unionism ‘window of opportunity’ will likely be closed after November’s elections, union bosses will fight furiously to ram through H.F. 2420 early this year.”

(Source: March 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

According to a scientific poll conducted by the respected Research 2000 firm, 81% of Americans who regularly vote in statewide elections believe workers in unionized workplaces who don’t want a union should “have the right to bargain for themselves.”

Unfortunately, for three-quarters of a century, federal labor law has actively promoted what Americans, according to the Research 2000 poll and many others, overwhelmingly oppose.

The 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the 1934 Railway Labor Act (RLA) amendments hand union officials the power to force millions of workers, union members and nonmembers alike, to accept a union as their “exclusive” (monopoly) bargaining agent in their dealings with their employer.

Attack on Secret Ballot Only One Trick in Union Monopolists’ Playbook

And this year Congress is very likely to bring up for floor votes legislation that would help Big Labor corral millions of additional workers into unions.

Until recently, union strategists’ primary vehicle for expanding private-sector union monopoly bargaining in the current Congress was S.560/H.R.1409, the cynically mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act.”

This legislation is designed to help union bosses sharply increase the share of all 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 S.560/H.R.1409, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form.

In response, Big Labor Capitol Hill politicians and union lobbyists are now concocting new legislation designed to accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means.

Monopoly Unionism Negatively Correlated With Private-Sector Growth

“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 forced-unionism provisions in the NLRA and RLA,” commented Committee President Mark Mix.

“The ‘Plan B’ forced-unionism expansion legislation now being crafted by Big Labor Sen. Tom Harkin [D-Iowa] and a handful of his cohorts could be even more harmful.

“And experience indicates enactment of either S.560/H.R.1409 or a ‘Plan B’ alternative would drastically reduce employment opportunities in addition to taking away the freedom of now-independent workers.

“For example, as a group, the 10 states that had the highest shares of their private-sector employees under union monopoly bargaining in 2003 experienced barely more than half as much real economic output growth over the next five years as did the 10 states with the lowest private-sector unionization.

“An even more compelling illustration of how Big Labor monopoly snuffs out economic dynamism is the mass movement of young adults out of the states where union bosses wield the most power.”

Mr. Mix noted that U.S. Census Bureau data show that, in states that had private-sector unionization of less than 6.5% in 1998, the total number of 25-34 year olds in 2008 was 12.304 million, an increase of 17.8% over these states’ aggregate population in that age bracket a decade earlier.

Were It Not For ‘Safety-Valve’ States, National Unemployment Would Be Even Worse

Over the same 10-year period, the 25-34 year-old population increased by just 3.7% in states with 1998 private-sector unionization of 6.5% to 11.0%, and decreased by 1.1% in states with 1998 private-sector unionization of more than 11.0%.

By 2008, the 25-34 year-old population of the states where private-sector union bosses wield the least monopoly-bargaining power was higher by 1.28 million than it would have been had it increased at the national average rate over the previous decade.

And other Census data show these states’ outsized growth in their young-adult population was overwhelmingly the result of migration from other states, not higher 1974-1983 birth rates or immigration from abroad.

“Up to now, low-union-density states like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina have furnished a ‘safety valve’ for Big Labor strongholds like New York, New Jersey, Michigan and California,” commented Mr. Mix.

“Young adults who can’t find decent job opportunities in heavily unionized states simply pick up and leave for states like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina, where they routinely fare much better.

“As bad as unemployment is today in union-label New York, New Jersey, Michigan and California, it would be far worse were it not for the ‘safety-valve’ states.

“Incredibly, the avowed goal of S.560 lead sponsor Tom Harkin and other Big Labor politicians in Congress is to eliminate these pockets of long-term job growth! Of course, the vast majority of them are Right to Work states.”

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

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

“But Tom Harkin and union bigwigs like AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka believe that, by dropping the ‘card-check’ provision in S.560 and modifying others, they can muster the 60 votes they need to bring up this power grab for a final Senate roll call so that it can be passed and sent to the White House.

“There are a number of fence-sitting senators like Blanche Lincoln [D-Ark.] and Ben Nelson [D-Neb.] who, even though they voted for ‘card-check’ forced unionism in the past, are having second thoughts on backing S.560 in its current form.

“However, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Nelson, and several other key senators in both parties have left the door open for supporting ‘Plan B’ when it emerges in its final form and arrives on the Senate floor.

“Even recently elected GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who has commendably expressed his opposition to S.560’s ‘card-check’ provision, has yet to say how he would vote on a modified version of this legislation that promoted union monopoly bargaining by tampering with workplace election rules.”

Right to Work Supporters Must Not Let Their Guard Down

“That’s why I think Right to Work supporters would be wrong to brush off Richard Trumka’s recent prediction that the so-called ‘Employee Free Choice Act’ would pass, in one form or another, before this summer,” Mr. Mix observed.

“However, as long as Right to Work members and supporters keep turning up the heat on Congress with their postcards, phone calls, letters, signed petitions, and personal visits, I’m optimistic Mr. Trumka will be proven wrong.

“Now is no time for Right to Work supporters to let their guard down.”