Millions Have ‘Voted With Their Feet’ For Better Opportunities

For a combination of reasons, nationwide the number of young adults aged 25-34 is growing far more slowly than is the number of Americans aged 55 and older.

In 1999, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 37.94 million people aged 25-34 living in the U.S. By 2009, there were 41.57 million people nationwide in that age bracket. That’s a 9.6% increase. Over the same decade, the number of Americans aged 55 and older soared from 57.93 million to 74.36 million, a whopping 28.4% increase!

The nationwide decline in young employees’ population share, relative to that of Americans nearing or in their retirement years, is obviously an impediment to economic growth.

Eleven Non-Right to Work  States Suffered Young-Adult Population Declines

But not all states have been equally affected by the trend. Many have attracted enough young people from other states to achieve young-adult population growth faster than the nation’s overall 12.6% population growth from 1999 to 2009.

And the single most important factor behind whether young people are “voting with their feet” by moving into a state is the presence of a Right to Work law.

In the Right to Work states as a group, the number of 25-34 year-olds increased by 20.0% — more than double the national average — between 1999 and 2009. (Oklahoma, which adopted its Right to Work law in 2001, is counted here as a Right to Work state for the entire period.)

Meanwhile, the 28 states without Right to Work laws collectively saw their 25-34 year-old population grow by just 3.3% — barely over a third of the national average.

Eleven states (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia) endured absolute declines. Not one of these states has a Right to Work law.

Generally, the greatest gains in young-adult population occurred in the eight Rocky Mountain states. But within this region, the five Right to Work states enjoyed an aggregate percentage increase nearly half again as great as that of forced-unionism states.

National Right to Work Law Would Widen Success

State Right to Work laws prohibit forcing private- and public-sector employees to join or pay dues or so-called “agency” fees to an unwanted union as a condition of employment.

Unless private-sector, front-line employees are protected by a state Right to Work law, they are subject to the provisions in federal labor law that authorize and promote the firing of employees for refusal to pay union dues or fees.

“Right to Work laws’ core function is safeguarding the individual employee’s freedom of choice,” commented National Right to Work Committee Vice President Matthew Leen. “They are also strongly correlated with higher living standards.”

As evidence, Mr. Leen cited a study of cost of living-adjusted household incomes for all recognized metropolitan areas in the U.S. by Dr. Barry Poulson, past president of the North American Economics and Finance Association.

Dr. Poulson found that, when the number of households in each metro area is factored into the equation, the average cost of living-adjusted household income in Right to Work state metro areas was roughly $4400 higher than in non-Right to Work state metro areas.

Both to protect the freedom of millions of employees who are still subject to forced unionism and to widen the economic success now being experienced by Right to Work states, said Mr. Leen, America needs a national Right to Work law.

“Right to Work states have certainly benefited from the talents of the millions of young employees and entrepreneurs they have welcomed over the years due to the detrimental impact of federally imposed forced union dues,” he acknowledged.

“But these benefits come at too great a cost to America’s overall prosperity. It is a price our country can’t afford to go on paying.”

 A Democrat Congressman from Massachusetts is raising the stakes in the nation’s fight over the future of public employee unions, saying emails aren’t enough to show support and that it is time to “get a little bloody.”

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.

Capuano’s comments come at a time when there is heightened sensitivity to violent rhetoric in the wake of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-Az.) shooting in January.

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: February 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

As a group, taxpayers strongly believe they are worse off with the combination of taxes and public services they get in states in which more than half of public employees have a union exercising “exclusive” (monopoly) power to negotiate their wages, benefits, and working conditions.

And the compelling evidence that taxpayers prefer not to live in such government union-boss strongholds when they have a choice is furnished by the Statistical Information Service (SIS) of the IRS.

The SIS records the number of personal income tax filers who move (typically with their dependents) across state lines, based on year-to-year changes shown on individual tax returns. SIS data are arranged according to the year taxes are filed.

For example, data for the Tax Filing Year 2008 show that a total of 1.247 million personal income tax filers were residing in a high government-union-density state in 2007, but filed from somewhere else in the U.S. in 2008.

Public-Sector Union Fiefdoms Are Losing Massive Amounts Of Income as Well as People

Meanwhile, a total of 1.071 million tax filers were residing in a high government-union-density state in 2008 after residing somewhere else in the U.S. the year before.

That means, between 2007 and 2008 alone, a net total of 176,000 tax filers moved from a government union fiefdom to a state in which public-sector union bosses wield less power.

Over the last eight years for which data are available (Tax Filing Years 2001-2008), a net total of over 1.53 million tax filers moved from a state in which more than 50% of government workers were subject to union monopoly bargaining as of 2000 to a state in which government forced unionism is less pervasive.

(According to economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, as of 2000 more than half of public-sector employees were unionized in 15 states: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.)

Also over the past eight years, a net total of roughly 950,000 tax filers fled to states that had public-sector unionization of less than 25% as of 2000. And a net total of roughly 580,000 fled to a state in which between 25.0% and 49.9% of public employees were under Big Labor control as of 2000.

The SIS also calculates and makes available to the public the aggregate adjusted gross incomes for households in the year immediately following their move.

While SIS data do not convey how much taxpayers who flee forced-unionism states earn any later than the first year after they depart, forced-unionism states’ losses due to domestic out-migration are clearly recurring and compounding, year after year.

Counting just the income lost by government union stronghold states in the first year after each tax filer moved out, these 15 states lost a net total of $107.9 billion (in constant 2008 dollars) due to domestic out-migration over the 2001-2008 period.

The actual total net loss, including income reported by tax filers in all years subsequent to their migration, is very likely at least four times higher, but cannot be calculated with available data.

Pending Federal Legislation Would Lead to Destruction of State Taxpayer Sanctuaries

State and local taxpayers’ ability to vote with their feet against public-sector union monopoly bargaining and other policies that promote overtaxation is gradually eroding the tax bases of government union boss-controlled states.

However, the Big Labor U.S. Congress is now poised to enact radical legislation (H.R.413/S.1611) that would lead to the imposition of union monopoly bargaining on state and local public employees nationwide — and thus leave beleaguered taxpayers with nowhere to flee.