Indianapolis, Indiana – Today, Mark Mix, President of the 2.6 million-member National Right to Work Committee, praised the Indiana House and Senate for passage of the Indiana Right to Work Law.

Mr. Mix said, “This is a great day for Indiana’s workers and taxpayers.

“After a ten-year struggle involving hundreds of thousands of mobilized Hoosiers, Indiana will finally be able to enjoy all the benefits of a Right to Work law,” said Mr. Mix.

“Today, the Indiana Senate passed the Right to Work Bill by a vote of 28 to 22. The bill has already passed the House, so it now goes straight to Governor Daniels, who has vowed to sign it, making Indiana America’s 23rd Right to Work state,” continued Mix.

Mr. Mix continued, “The Right to Work Law will free nearly 200,000 Hoosiers who have been forced to pay tribute to a union boss for the privilege of getting up everyday and going to work so they can provide for their families.”

Proponents of the bill expect that passage of the Right to Work law will provide significant economic benefits for Indiana and Indiana workers.

For the past decade, non-agricultural employment in Right to Work states grew twice as fast compared to that in non-Right to Work states like Indiana, according to data from the Department of Labor.

“On the job front,” said Mr. Mix, “virtually every site selection consultant on record has testified that as many as half of their clients will not even consider expanding or relocating to non-Right to Work states.”

Governor Daniels experienced this problem firsthand, reporting recently that when Volkswagen was looking to build a production facility in America, he was unable to get the company to even return his phone calls.

Volkswagen ended up choosing to open its new facility in the Right to Work state of Tennessee.

Today’s action makes Indiana the first Right to Work state in the Manufacturing Belt, and supporters say it will give Hoosiers a significant advantage over all of its neighbors and the rest of the 27 non-Right to Work states.

“Besides enjoying an influx of new jobs, Right to Work states also enjoy higher personal income,” said Mr. Mix.

In particular, Mr. Mix drew attention to a study by Dr. Barry Poulson, a past president of the North American Economics and Finance Association and also a professor of economics at the University of Colorado, who compared household incomes in 133 metropolitan areas in Right to Work states with those of 158 metropolitan areas in non-Right to Work states.

“Among other results, he found that the average real income for households in Right to Work state metro areas, when all else was equal, was $4,258 more than non-Right to Work state metro areas,” said Mr. Mix.

Mr. Mix concluded, “I want to take a moment to thank Governor Daniels, House Speaker Bosma, Senate President Long, bill sponsors Jerry Torr and Carlin Yoder, and the men and women of the Indiana Legislature who stood up for the rights of the individual worker and voted to pass Right to Work.

“But most of all, I want to thank the thousands of dedicated Hoosiers who have stood up over the years to demand passage of the Indiana Right to Work Law.”

According to the Illinois Review, “Many attribute Romney’s poor performance to flyers Right to Work supporters passed out at the straw poll highlighting Romney’s failure to support a National Right to Work Act.”

The Review continued:

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix stated the following upon hearing the results:

“Mitt Romney’s lackluster performance in the Ames Straw Poll shows the importance of the Right to Work issue. With America’s economy struggling to survive, the American people want to be free from the damages of forced unionism. Americans know that a Right to Work Law would help restore the economy, and they want a president that will fight for Right to Work.”

Throughout his political career Romney has continuously refused to publicly pledge support for the National Right to Work Act. In fact, he has done everything in his power to avoid the question altogether. The most recent incident was in Concord, New Hampshire earlier this week. Once again, while discussing the Right to Work issue, Romney refused to state whether he would sign a National Right to Work Bill.

Right to Work Committee Begins Lobbying Presidential Hopefuls

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

This summer, New Hampshire is the site of an extended battle over the Right to Work issue, as pro-Right to Work citizens seek to secure two-thirds majority votes in the state House and Senate to override Big Labor Gov. John Lynch’s veto of legislation (H.B.474) prohibiting compulsory union dues and fees.

Because Right to Work has been in the New Hampshire news since both chambers of the state’s General Court approved H.B.474 earlier this year, WMUR-TV (ABC) news anchor Josh McElveen decided to bring up the issue at the June 13 GOP presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

Mr. McElveen asked former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, one of the seven 2012 presidential hopefuls participating in the debate, whether he would, if elected, support “a federal Right to Work law.”

Mr. Pawlenty ignited the debate’s longest and most enthusiastic round of applause with his response:

“We live in the United States of America, and people shouldn’t be forced to belong [to] or be a member in any organization, and the government has no business telling people what group you have to be a member of or not.

“I support strongly Right to Work legislation.”

Mr. Pawlenty thus became the fourth major-party White House aspirant in the 2012 race to endorse repeal of all current provisions in federal labor law that authorize the firing of employees for refusal to join or pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

Previously, the two sitting U.S. representatives seeking the GOP nomination, Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Ron Paul (Texas), had pledged to support a national Right to Work law. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is yet another candidate who has gone on record for forced-dues repeal.

Millions of Citizens Want ‘a Clear Alternative’ to Pro-Forced Unionism Obama Administration

The enthusiastic response for Mr. Pawlenty’s principled stance, evident in a CNN “dial test” of Republicans and Independents watching on TV as well as in the auditorium itself, is something to which all the candidates should pay heed, said National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Millions of Americans want a clear alternative to the Obama Administration’s relentless promotion of compulsory unionism,” Mr. Mix explained.

“Ever since he became President two-and-a-half years ago, Barack Obama has repeatedly championed Big Labor power grabs in Congress and appointed forced-unionism zealots to leadership positions at the National Labor Relations Board, the Labor Department, and other federal bureaucracies.

“Polls show the vast majority of Americans who regularly vote in federal elections believe the Obama Administration is just plain wrong to favor forcing workers to pay union dues to get a job.

“Freedom-loving Americans don’t favor a federal policy of ‘neutrality’ on the question of whether or not workers should be corralled into unions.

“Instead, they believe all federal labor laws should either protect the individual worker’s right to join or not join a union, or be scrapped completely.

“So far, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul have grasped this point. Over the coming months, Committee members in key primary states will be doing everything they can to ensure all the other candidates reach the same conclusion.”

Right to Work States ‘Attract the Most Productive Members of Society’

In addition to the fact that it is repugnant for the government, as Mr. Pawlenty succinctly put it, to tell people “what group you have to be a member of or not,” pro-forced unionism federal labor policies put the brakes on job and income growth. This effect is especially harmful as employees and businesses strive to recover from the severe 2008-2009 recession.

The disparate economic performance of the 22 states with Right to Work laws (explicitly permitted under Section 14(b) of the federal Taft-Hartley Act), which ban forced union dues and fees, and the 28 states without such laws provides a telling, though incomplete, gauge of the damage wrought by forced unionism.

From 2000 to 2010, the inflation-adjusted outlays of private-sector businesses for employee compensation (including wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses) increased by an average of 11.8% in Right to Work states.

That increase is nine times as great as forced-unionism states’ combined 1.3% gain over the same period.

Twenty of the 22 Right to Work states experienced a real compensation increase greater than the national average of 4.9%. And 14 of the 15 states with the lowest real compensation growth lack a Right to Work law.

Because they offer superior opportunities for employees and entrepreneurs, Right to Work states “attract the most productive members of society,” as economist Arthur Laffer, Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore, and tax policy expert Jonathan Williams note in a new report.

Even Right to Work States Are Hurt by Federal Pro-Forced Unionism Policies

From 1998 to 2008, as Dr. Laffer, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Williams point out in the just-published fourth edition of Rich States, Poor States, which they prepared for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC):

“[T]he population of 25-34 year olds in right-to-work states increased by 16.0 percent (from 14.361 million to 16.654 million), while the population in that age bracket for forced union states fell by 0.6 percent (from 24.32 million to 24.17 million).”

“While the 28 states that still fail to shield employees from federal pro-forced unionism labor policies naturally suffer the most as a consequence of those policies, the whole country is harmed,” noted Mr. Mix.

“Union bosses funnel a huge chunk of the forced dues and fees they collect with federal labor law’s abetment into politics. And the union-label politicians who routinely get elected and reelected because of Big Labor’s forced dues-funded support overwhelmingly favor higher taxes and more red-tape regulation of businesses.

“This is true at the federal, state and local levels. Private-sector job growth in all 50 states, including Right to Work states, is hindered by the actions of Big Labor federal politicians.

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

“For economic reasons as well as for moral reasons, Committee members are fighting to repeal all federal labor law provisions that authorize compulsory union dues and fee payments as a job condition, as well as to pass more state Right to Work laws.

“The two federal forced-dues repeal measures now pending in Congress, H.R. 2040 and S.504, would spur job growth in all 50 states. Businesses in current Right to Work states would share the benefits as their out-of-state customers and suppliers were freed from the burden of compulsory unionism.”

Right to Work Movement Strong, Growing in Early 2012 Presidential Battlegrounds

Mr. Mix said he was “optimistic” that several more 2012 hopefuls would soon join Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Pawlenty, Mr. Johnson, and Dr. Paul in endorsing a federal Right to Work law.

“The fact is, the three first battleground states in the presidential primaries — Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — are all home to extraordinarily vibrant, growing Right to Work movements,” Mr. Mix explained.

“All the 2012 candidates, whether they are already in the race or enter some time in the next few months, will have to take into account the large numbers of Iowans, New Hampshirites, and South Carolinians who regard Right to Work as a critical issue.

“Those who are savvy politicians, and aren’t so deep in hock to Big Labor that their freedom of action is constrained, should logically respond to the reality on the ground by coming out in favor of a national Right to Work law.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is coming to Washington just after winning his multi-week battle with Big Labor that gave, among other things, state government employees the choice to pay a union or not. Gov. Walker’s and the WI Legislature’s action undid decades of compulsory unionism that forced all state government employees to handover money to unions or lose their job; essentially conscripting employees into the union. Many union bosses in Wisconsin are terrified that current forced-dues payers will opt out of the union. Walker is no stranger to union boss pressures, as mayor, he fought several battles with Big Labor.

National Right To Work President Mark Mix has personally fought hundreds of political battles and is currently engaged in several with Big Labor Bosses across the country. Since 1955, The National Right To Work Committee has been the prime architect that kept Big Labor at bay while clawing back freedom from compulsory unionism in states like Oklahoma and its passage of its Right To Work law that makes it illegal to force people to pay tributes to union bosses in order to keep or get a job.

No doubt, Big Labor operatives are busy creating talking points and questions for their Democrat congressional committee members. Or, perhaps they are planning another recent favorite tactic of Big Labor Democrats – fleeing to Illinois.

It is safe to say that having Walker and Mix at the same hearing is quite a turnaround from last year; Speaker Nancy Pelosi most certainly would have prevented their voices of freedom from being heard in any congressional hearing room.

For more on the hearing click here.

(Source: March 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Committee Calls on U.S. House Leaders to Block Union Power Grab

On February 4, President Barack Obama’s handpicked head of the Transportation Security Administration publicly announced he would help government union bosses grab monopoly-bargaining control over more than 40,000 airport screeners and other TSA employees.

John Pistole, who was sworn in as TSA chief in July 2010, made the move shortly after Republican John Boehner (Ohio) replaced Big Labor Democrat Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) as speaker of the U.S. House.

The changing of the guard at the House made it impossible, in all probability, for union lobbyists to ram through Congress legislation mandating union monopoly bargaining at the TSA.

Therefore, in order for the Obama Administration to hand federal union officials what they wanted, Mr. Pistole had to act administratively.

Agency Would Likely Become ‘Less Efficient and Flexible’

As a consequence of the Pistole edict, the honchos of one of two large government unions, either the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) or the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), could grab so-called “exclusive” representation power at the TSA within the next few weeks.

If this happens, the already much-reviled federal agency will likely become even “less efficient and flexible,” as National Review Associate Editor Robert Verbruggen pointed out in a February 11 commentary.

Under the Pistole scheme, officers of a recognized union would wield monopoly power to challenge the TSA’s disciplinary actions and negotiate shift bids and transfers.

All front-line employees, including those who don’t want a union and refuse to join, would be forced to rely on union bosses to air their concerns with managers.

Fully understanding that foisting a union monopoly on the TSA, an agency generally viewed as critical for national security, would be controversial and unpopular, the Obama Administration has claimed “security procedures” will not be subject to Big Labor obstruction.

However, matters of discipline, scheduling and overtime at an agency like the TSA obviously do affect managers’ ability to get passengers boarded on planes safely and efficiently. That’s why union “exclusive” representation is banned at national security-related agencies like the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service.

One of the few such agencies where monopoly bargaining is already authorized, the Customs and Border Patrol, lost a 2009 arbitration ruling over how it could discipline an employee for literally falling asleep on the job!

Committee Fights For House TSA Reauthorization Barring Union-Boss Takeover

Almost immediately after Mr. Pistole gave the go-ahead to government union organizers, National Right to Work Committee leaders coordinated with likeminded members of Congress a plan to halt the conquest.

On February 15, pro-Right to Work Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) fired a shot across the bow when he forced a floor vote on an amendment to the pending Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Bill (S.223) that would have prohibited union monopoly bargaining at the TSA.

Union-label Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) successfully corralled every Democrat senator present and voting to block the Wicker amendment. The amendment received 47 votes, and therefore was not added to S.223.

However, Mr. Reid’s inability to persuade a single Republican senator to go along with him, even among those who have sided with government union lobbyists in the past, underscored the fact that public sentiment is moving strongly against Big Labor control of the TSA.

Right to Work President Mark Mix and his team of federal legislative staffers are now pressing hard to ensure that an amendment analogous to Mr. Wicker’s is included in the House version of the TSA reauthorization.

Since Speaker Boehner’s GOP majority caucus, unlike Mr. Reid’s Democrat politicians, is not obsequiously committed to expanding union bosses’ privileges, whenever and wherever they can, there is cause for Right to Work optimism.

“If the House does the right thing and passes a TSA reauthorization rescinding the Obama Administration’s gift to the government union brass, then the battle will move to a legislative conference committee,” explained Mr. Mix.

“With American awareness of the harm inflicted by government union excesses on the rise, I think there is a good chance Right to Work advocates can ultimately prevail and send a reauthorization bill to the President that reverses the Pistole edict.

“Then it will be up to Mr. Obama to decide whether he really wants to keep defying public opinion regarding the TSA.”

(Source: February 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Economic Reality Puts Compulsory-Unionism Apologists on Defensive

In a hand-wringing January 21 commentary for the leftist Huffington Post, international Teamster chieftain Jim Hoffa joined the ranks of prominent union officials bemoaning the recent introduction of legislation prohibiting forced union dues and fees in state capitols across America.

Mr. Hoffa called on his militant followers to “fight like h***” against what he called “dangerous attacks.” In reality, of course, the Right to Work measures he decried would do nothing more than prohibit firing or denying a job to an employee simply because he or she refuses to join or bankroll an unwanted union.

Echoing the rhetoric of his late father Jimmy Hoffa, who filled out his last four years as Teamster czar while serving a federal prison term for jury tampering, attempted bribery and fraud, Mr. Hoffa proffered a conspiracy theory about why Right to Work legislation is being considered in so many states this year.

“A coordinated network of think tanks, business groups, [and other organizations] has for years been working toward passing these right-to-work … laws. Leading the charge is National Right to Work,” he fumed.

Greg Mourad, legislative director for the National Right to Work Committee, said he was flattered by Mr. Hoffa’s willingness to give the Committee the lion’s share of the credit for the proliferation of Right to Work measures in statehouses this year, but added that the real story is rather different.

‘Ever-Mounting Evidence Indicates Forced Unionism Stifles Economic Growth’

“It’s true that the persistence and determination of the 2.6 million Committee members around the country are an important part of the reason why there are substantial and well-coordinated efforts to pass Right to Work laws underway in Missouri, Montana, Kentucky, Indiana, and Wisconsin this year,” said Mr. Mourad.

“And to that already impressive list, you should add Maine and New Hampshire, two states in the Northeast, the only region of the country that hasn’t had any Right to Work laws up to now.

“Plus there are now burgeoning efforts to pass Right to Work legislation in the longtime Big Labor stronghold states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

“Then there’s Colorado, where the Right to Work movement is now slowly regaining strength after a well-intentioned, but misguided and unsuccessful bid in 2008 to prohibit forced union dues and fees through a statewide ballot initiative.

“Big Labor is now busy battling Right to Work legislative campaigns in roughly a dozen of the 28 remaining forced-unionism states partly because of grass-roots activists, who are being assisted by the National Committee, but fundamentally because of economic reality.

“The fact is, ever-mounting evidence indicates forced unionism stifles economic growth. This is the case regardless of whether you compare the 22 states with Right to Work laws already on the books with forced-unionism states nationwide, or only with those located within the same region.”

More and More Citizens Recognize Their States Require Fundamental Reform

“Take the Midwest, where several of the most advanced state Right to Work campaigns are now underway,” Mr. Mourad continued.

“The last decade was undeniably tough for this region.

“But from 1999 to 2009, the five Midwestern Right to Work states experienced aggregate private-sector job growth of 2.3%. Over the same period, the seven Midwestern forced-unionism states lost 8.1% of their private-sector jobs.

“Forced-unionism states are lagging behind Right to Work states partially because Big Labor’s counterproductive work rules and fomentation of the ‘hate-the-boss’ mentality lead to slower revenue growth in the unionized businesses themselves.

“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.

“In today’s slow-growth national economy, such impediments hurt forced-unionism states more severely than they have in the past.

“That’s why more and more citizens recognize their states need fundamental reform.

“And that’s the basic problem for Jim Hoffa and company. The role of the Committee and its members is simply to help mobilize popular opposition to forced unionism and make it more effective.”

Your Signature May Stop the FEC From Trampling on Your Rights

This month the National Right to Work Committee is providing supporters across the country with a much-needed opportunity to protect themselves, one by one, from Big Labor-friendly bureaucrats at the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Given FEC bureaucrats’ long track record of bullying pro-Right to Work Americans who try to exercise their First Amendment rights, this is an opportunity you can’t afford to pass up.

Over the years, FEC lawyers have repeatedly buried Right to Work officers under mountains of harassing subpoenas about the Committee’s survey program, which informs members which U.S. senators and congressmen support Right to Work — and which ones don’t.

FEC’s Biased Definitions Of ‘Member’ Have Been Rejected by Courts

Starting more than a quarter-century ago, the FEC has tried to concoct rules that disqualify some or even all Right to Work members from “true” membership status.

Many members would thus be denied a voice in the legislative process.

Fortunately, Right to Work attorneys and attorneys representing other citizens’ groups have succeeded time and time again in getting the FEC’s biased definitions of “member” and “membership organization” struck down in court.

But as a safeguard, the Committee has long encouraged members to certify each year that they still consider themselves to be members and wish to retain the freedom to participate fully in the Committee’s federal lobbying activities.

Of course, Committee supporters’ signed membership ballots cannot prevent every kind of FEC harassment — such as the sweeping demand for Committee documents made by FEC lawyers a few years ago in connection with the Committee’s successful efforts to overturn key anti-free speech provisions in the so-called “Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.”

(Until the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated this law’s tight restrictions on the ability of the Committee and other grass-roots groups to expose anti-Right to Work politicians’ records through TV and radio ads, it steepened the electoral playing field’s tilt in favor of Big Labor.)

However, your signed and returned ballot will make it almost impossible for the FEC to declare that you have no associational free-speech rights.

To make it easy for Right to Work supporters to certify their Committee membership, Committee President Mark Mix, working with independent attorney Joseph Sadighian, recently sent out letters including membership ballots and pre-posted reply envelopes all around the country.

Mark Mix Urges Members To Return Ballots Promptly

“The Committee is fighting for our freedom to ask all members — including new members who have not yet had an opportunity to fill out a membership ballot — to participate in our efforts to get federal candidates to pledge to support Right to Work,” said Mr. Mix.

“But signing and returning a membership ballot is the quickest and easiest way for each individual Right to Work member to protect his or her rights.

“If you don’t want the FEC ever to tell you that you have no right to be informed where your presidential and U.S. Senate and House candidates stand on Right to Work or to lobby them to change their position when appropriate, then the smartest thing you can do this month is sign and return your ballot to the Committee.

“Please verify that you got your letter and ballot in the mail. And then try to return your ballot immediately, so you can’t possibly forget.”

Letters Also Seek Members’ Input Regarding Committee Legislative Objectives

Mr. Mix’s letters also include surveys allowing members to offer their opinions on how much of the Committee’s resources should be devoted to federal and state lobbying programs over the coming year.

“Many members care most of all about our efforts to secure U.S. House and Senate votes on a national Right to Work law this year,” said Mr. Mix. (For details about the Right to Work measure, see page four.)

“But other members want us to focus on passing new state Right to Work laws and protecting existing ones. These are also very important battles.

“We need a wide variety of members’ input and their ever-more generous financial support in order to combat effectively the Big Labor political machine, which is sure to spend a record amount of forced-dues cash on federal politics in 2011 and 2012.”

January 2011 issue headlines:

Right to Work to Capitol Hill: ‘Keep Your Promises’ — Politicians Pledging to Back Right to Work Take Charge of House

Right to Work’s Electoral Clout Rising — Ongoing Shift in U.S. Economic Base Has Political Implications

Momentum Builds For National Right to Work Act — Forced-Dues Clauses in Federal Labor Statutes Ripe For Repeal

Big Labor Taking ‘Silver’ Out of ‘Silver State’ — Monopoly-Bargaining Repeal Would Safeguard Nevada Taxpayers

Membership Ballot Protects Your Free Speech — Your Signature May Stop the FEC From Trampling on Your Rights

Right to Work Members Win Against Long Odds — Committee Defeats Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Legislation

A case working its way through the National Labor Relations Board could have profound implications for the Girl Scouts if the union bosses get their way.

(see related National Right to Work Committee amicus brief:  For this reason, the Committee strongly urges the Board not to force employers to open their doors to union organizers to make it easier for unions to cram more employees into dues paying union ranks against their will. The Committee asks the Board3 once and for all, to respect the determination of the United States Supreme Court in Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB that  “[b]y its plain terms, … the NLRA confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their nonemployee organizers.” 502 U.S. 527, 532 (1992).)

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.”

The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen is challenged by SEIU and Theissen responded:

The first rule of holes: when you are in one, stop digging.

This truth is lost on Jon Youngdahl, national political director of the Service Employees International Union. He digs the SEIU into an even deeper hole with his letter to the editor challenging my column on whether unions like his are funding their political activities with contributionsfrom foreign and illegal workers. Youngdahl writes:

“Most of the political work of the Service Employees International Union is funded by about 300,000 janitors, nurses’ aides, child-care providers and other members who voluntarily contribute on average $7 per month to SEIU’s Committee on Political Education (COPE). To be eligible to contribute to COPE, you must be a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident.”

Most? Not even close. In May 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that SEIU officials bragged they had spent $85 million during the 2008 campaign season, making them the the single biggest contributor to either party in the last election cycle.

Yet according to the Federal Election Commission, the SEIU’s COPE fund had total expendituresof just $40.9 million during the 2007-2008 campaign. Hmm. Where did the other $44.1 million come from? It appears that “most” of the SEIU’s political expenditures came from sources other than COPE.

… Money the union spends on political activities outside of COPE must come from the union’s general treasury — the same general treasury that collects funds from foreign and illegal workers. Youngdahl does not answer the question posed in my column: Does the SEIU keep track of how many illegal immigrants it has on its union rolls? How much money from these illegal workers (who are by definition foreign nationals) goes toward the tens of millions of dollars the union spends on political activities?

And even these figures don’t account for all SEIU political spending. According to the National Right to Work Committee, mailing and phone banking to union members is considered “member communication,” not political activity — even if the sole purpose of that communication is to get out the vote for the union’s chosen candidate. How does the SEIU pay for such “member communication,” and do foreign or illegal workers contribute to these obviously political expenses? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If the SEIU does not like such questions, it can thank President Obama. It was the president and his allies who opened the door to this line of inquiry. I contacted the SEIU before publishing my column to get them to provide some answers, but they did not reply. Perhaps they will answer when congressional investigators come calling next year.

Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor/White House Fog 

Marietta, which has only about 15,000 residents, but enjoys a place of honor as the oldest city of any size in Ohio, is located more than 230 miles outside the Washington, D.C., Beltway. 

And from the vantage point of Marietta’s community building at Lookout Park, where the town council considered adoption of a so-called “project labor agreement” (PLA) on May 13, it appears to be far easier to see and state the obvious than it is at the White House or on Capitol Hill. 

This spring, building trades union bosses lobbied furiously to convince the council’s seven members to impose a Big Labor PLA on employees and firms seeking to participate in the renovation of the town’s former Ohio Bureau of Employment Services building into a new municipal court facility. 

Parkersburg Marietta Construction and Building Trades Council union President Bill Hutchinson claimed, time and again, that the reason he and his cohorts were twisting arms to get a PLA was to ensure that “local” workers got the jobs. 

Finally, at the council’s May 13 meeting, Councilman Jon Grimm decided to test building trades union bosses’ sincerity. 

Mr. Grimm called attention to the provision in the PLA mandating that 50% of any contractor’s employees be registered with the union and pay union dues, even if they weren’t union members, and didn’t want to join. 

Would union officials accept a PLA retaining all the other provisions, but excluding “mandatory union membership”? Mr Grimm asked. 

Vast Majority of ‘Local’ Construction Workers in Marietta Aren’t Unionized 

Marietta law director Roland Riggs, who had hammered out the PLA deal with union officials, bluntly responded: “I don’t believe the folks from the building trades council would be interested in signing an agreement if that were removed.” 

A crowd of union militants, including several union officials, was in the room. No one from the crowd contradicted Mr. Riggs. 

“The plain fact is, the vast majority of ‘local’ construction workers in Marietta, Ohio, are union-free, and show no signs of wanting to be unionized,” observed National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. 

“According to labor scholars Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, just one in four construction workers across the state of Ohio is currently under union monopoly bargaining. And southern Ohio, where Marietta is located, is much less unionized than northern Ohio. 

“Forcing independent local hardhats to pay dues to an unwanted union in order to work on taxpayer-funded projects is no way to ‘help’ them — and a Marietta council majority had no trouble seeing the truth and voting down the PLA. 

“Unfortunately, all too many Inside-the-D.C. Beltway politicians from President Obama on down seem to have a much harder time deconstructing the phony claims of Big Labor bosses demanding union-only PLAs on taxpayer-funded public works. 

“For example, in issuing Executive Order 13502, promoting union-only PLAs for federal taxpayer-funded public works in February 2009, the President mechanically repeated Big Labor propagandists’ contention that PLAs promote ‘economy.’ 

“The truth is exactly the opposite. By discriminating against the union-free majority of construction employees, PLAs jack up taxpayer construction costs by a minimum of 10–20%, according to nonpartisan researchers. 

“Even a recent study commissioned by Obama appointees at the Department of Veterans Affairs predicted that PLAs would raise taxpayer costs in markets like Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. 

“But rather than cancel the PLA executive order after Veterans Affairs found it would fail to accomplish its purported objective, the Obama Administration proceeded to implement it this April!” 

Right to Work Movement Is Fighting Back 

“Fortunately, there’s still hope that the Obama Administration’s anti-taxpayer E.O.13502 can be stopped,” Mr. Mix continued. The legal system is one possible means. 

In April, attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a federal court brief charging that a California PLA illegally discriminates against independent construction workers. (Mr. Mix is president of the Foundation as well as of the Committee.)If the Foundation’s argument in this case (known as Rancho Santiago) prevails, that will raise serious questions about the legal viability of E.O.13502.