James Sherk

Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs. This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union’s agenda. Several states, including New Hampshire and Indiana, are considering right-to-work laws, which protect workers from being fired for not paying union dues. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income. However, the rest of the economy benefits from right-to-work laws.

States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states.

Right-to-Work

Unions often negotiate contracts requiring all workers to pay union dues or lose their jobs, whether or not they support the union. But many workers reject unions. Some do so because union contracts reduce their pay. Others oppose unions’ political agendas: Unions almost exclusively support Democrats, despite 37 percent of their members voting Republican in the last election.[1]

To prevent workers from being forced to support unions financially, 22 states have passed right-to-work laws. Such laws prevent companies from firing workers who do not pay union dues. Workers may still pay voluntarily, but unions cannot threaten their jobs if they do not join. Lawmakers in several states, including New Hampshire, Indiana, and Michigan, are considering right-to-work bills.

Forced Unionization Is Not an American Value

The government should not force workers to pay for unwanted union representation. In a free society, workers alone should make that choice. Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense. They reduce the incentive for union organizers to target companies that treat their workers well. Since unions hurt businesses, less aggressive union organizing attracts investment—and jobs.

Lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition. Unions could negotiate contracts that apply only to their members—they simply prefer not to. Unions should not be able to force workers to choose between financially supporting them and losing their jobs.

Unions Lose Money When Workers Opt Out

The union movement strongly opposes right-to-work laws. It has self-interested motives in doing so: Union membership fell 15 percent after Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws.[2]

Most of the union-represented workers who choose not to pay dues when given the option are those who do not benefit from union contracts. Disproportionate numbers of highly educated workers, for example, choose not to pay dues—the very workers held back by union seniority systems.[3] Without the threat of losing their jobs, the union movement will not persuade these workers to pay dues.

Making union membership voluntary would save workers—and cost unions—a lot of money. Losing 15 percent of their dues-paying members would cost private-sector New Hampshire unions $1.9 million a year. Right-to-work would similarly save private-sector workers in Indiana $18.4 million a year. In Michigan, right-to-work would save workers $46.4 million a year. [4] Giving workers a choice means less money for unions.

Less Aggressive Union Organizers

For the same reason, right-to-work reduces the aggressiveness of union organizers. Making union membership voluntary reduces the financial incentives for unions to target workplaces where they have lukewarm support. Research shows that union organizing falls 50 percent within five years of a state passing a right-to-work law.[5]

Workers who feel mistreated have the right to unionize. Right-to-work laws encourage union organizers to restrict their attention to such workers.

Increased Investment in Right-to-Work States

Right-to-work states are much more attractive for businesses investment. Unionized firms earn lower profits, invest less, and create fewer jobs than comparable nonunion firms.[6]

Boeing’s decision to build a new plant in South Carolina—a right-to-work state—illustrates a larger trend.

Research suggests that foreign direct investment in Oklahoma and Idaho increased after these states passed right-to-work laws.[8]

More Jobs

States that attract more investment should create more jobs. In fact, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent).[9]

The share of manufacturing jobs in counties in right-to-work states is one-third higher than in adjacent counties in non–right-to-work states.[10] Right-to-work laws attract jobs.

Wage Effects Small

Economic theory does not predict how right-to-work laws affect wages. The additional business investment a right-to-work law attracts usually raises the demand for labor, increasing wages. Yet unions argue that businesses will cut wages if the risk of union organizing falls.

Most studies show that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages in either direction.[11] Right-to-work states do have lower average wages than non–right-to-work states, but this is because they are located primarily in the South, which was once much less developed than the North and still has a lower cost of living. Research controlling for this shows that workers in right-to-work states have, if anything, slightly higher wages.[12]

Members-Only Contracts Permissible

In a free society, workers should not have to financially support organizations they oppose.

Unions do not have to represent workers who do not pay dues. They can negotiate contracts that apply only to their members. The law requires unions to represent nonmembers only if they negotiate as “exclusive bargaining representatives.”[13]  Unions almost never do this.

Consider seniority systems: They ensure that everyone gets raises and promotions at the same rate, irrespective of individual performance. If a union negotiated a members-only contract with a seniority system, high-performing workers would refuse to join. Those workers would negotiate a separate contract with performance pay. The best workers would get ahead faster, leaving less money and fewer positions available for those on the seniority scale. The union wants everyone in the seniority system—especially those it holds back.

(Video: Watch this video on the post page) 

The state came close to living up to its motto when it passed, by large majorities, Right To Work legislation this Spring.  But, Big Labor Gov. John Lynch vetoed the legislation and chose to continue to allow union bosses to forcibly take union dues from New Hampshire workers’ paychecks.

However, New Hampshire legislators are preparing to override the Lynch veto of worker freedom. Before the summer is over, there could be a 23rd Right To Work State. Judging by the enthusiastic response in the debate, the veto override clearly has momentum.

Right-to-work

The new dynamic has revealed itself most directly in the debate over right-to-work legislation. Having functionally taken over the Democratic Party, New Hampshire labor unions have drawn on a few Republican allies to try to sustain Gov. John Lynch’s veto.

Unions currently have monopoly bargaining power for all employees in unionized workplaces. They claim this burden justifies forcing union dues from unwilling workers. In fact, this monopoly prevents unions from having to compete at the bargaining table, driving wages and benefits higher.

Unions and their political allies think this is a good thing, while taxpayers end up paying more. Right-to-work would prevent workers from having to pay union dues as a condition on employment.

For Example: Let’s say Paul is hired by Peter to work. Brutus sees Paul earning money and wants a share. Brutus meets with Peter. Peter and Brutus make a private contract of the kind Gov. Lynch endorses. Peter agrees to pay Brutus a cut from Paul’s paycheck before he pays Paul.  The agreement cost Peter no more money, it gave Brutus some of Paul’s money and Paul gets less money for the same work, an amount exclusivley agreed upon by Peter and Brutus.  Gov. Lynch endorses the idea that Peter and Brutus can force Paul to pay Brutus against his will or lose his job.

This is what Governor Lynch wants to defend as freedom, compelling a third party (any employee) to be part of a private contract?

From National Review’s Brian Bolduc article, Work Free or Die:

New Hampshire is “an island of common sense” in blizzard-blue New England, state representative D. J. Bettencourt tells National Review Online. As the Republican majority leader in the state house of representatives, Bettencourt, along with Speaker William O’Brien, hopes to fortify this bastion of liberty’s defenses by passing a right-to-work bill.

Although H.B. 474 passed the Republican-controlled house by a hefty margin of 225 to 140, Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, promised to veto it.

“We’re reaching out to members of the GOP caucus individually and making the case,” Bettencourt notes.

He makes two points in the bill’s defense: One, “the individual-freedom component,” is that “people who don’t want to join a union shouldn’t be forced to do so.” Two, New England is awash in government, and a right-to-work law would further distinguish New Hampshire from its left-leaning neighbors Vermont and Massachusetts. “To be a right-to-work state carries the potential to be a magnet for small businesses,” Bettencourt argues.

Governor Lynch retorts that the bill smacks of bureaucratic meddling in business decisions. “The governor has maintained for some time now [that] so-called right-to-work legislation has state government dictating to private businesses and their employees what should be included in a contract,” Lynch’s press secretary, Colin Manning, has said. Technically, the bill is written in such a way that it forbids private contracts from including provisions to mandate that employees join unions. [Is freedom from compulsion or mandates a bad thing?]

But Speaker O’Brien is having none of it.Labor relations are “such a heavily regulated activity that for the Democrats to point to one piece of legislation that promotes employee freedom is really disingenuous,” he says. “All we’re trying to do is make sure government doesn’t establish a mandatory regime of employee unionization.”

By way of an example, he cites Franklin A. Partin Jr., for whom the bill is named. “He was working for the Air Force satellite-tracking station in New Boston as a civilian employee,” O’Brien recounts. “The workplace became organized, and he was told he would have to join a union. For personal reasons he said, ‘I do not want to join,’ and he lost his job.”

The bill arrived on the governor’s desk on Friday, and, excluding Sunday, he has five days to respond.

Nonetheless, the unions are trying to finagle a victory. O’Brien contends that they have fostered disagreements between the house and the senate.

Still, Republicans are cautiously optimistic.

“If unions are providing a benefit to employees,” O’Brien says, “then they don’t need to pass a law to force them to join.”

“We continue to see a steady drop in the unemployment rate here in New Hampshire, which is good news for our people, our businesses and our economy in general.

The impact of the national recession was felt by many New Hampshire families and businesses. That is why we must continue our successful economic strategy …”

Will Lynch ignore freedom, too? When Lynch vetoes the New Hampshire Right To Work law will he also claim that coercing people to pay to unions against their will continue New Hampshire’s long history of individual freedom? Forcing people to pay to have or keep a job creates a bar to employment; it will not decrease unemployment, nor is it freedom.  (Note: New Hampshire was free from compulsory unionism for over 150 years.)

Right to Work Passes General Court

Concord, NH – By a vote of 225 to 140, the New Hampshire House concurred with the Senate’s version of the New Hampshire Right to Work Bill (H.B. 474) today, sending the bill to Governor Lynch’s desk.

Once Governor Lynch receives the bill, he has 5 days to either sign the bill into law, let the bill become law without his signature or veto it and send it back to the General Court, where it will take a two thirds vote of each house to override his veto.

If the bill becomes law, New Hampshire would be the twenty-third state to pass a Right to Work law, which simply states that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a labor union just to have a job and feed their families.

Right now, over 68,000 workers in New Hampshire are forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

“A New Hampshire Right to Work law would simply restore workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not to join or pay union dues or ‘fees’ to a union official,” said John Kalb, Executive Director of New England Citizens for Right to Work.

Polls conducted in New Hampshire show that nearly 80% of Granite State citizens believe it is wrong to force workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.

Governor Lynch has publicly stated his intention to veto the bill.

Kalb said, “Governor Lynch has already promised his Big Labor benefactors that he will veto the Right to Work Bill. But if Right to Work supporters keep up the pressure, we have a good chance of overriding the Governor’s veto and making Right to Work the law of the land in New Hampshire.

“This is what the majority of New Hampshire citizens want, so if Right to Work doesn’t become law in New Hampshire this year, you can be sure that those politicians who defied the will of the overwhelming majority of Granite State citizens that oppose forced unionism will pay the price at the ballot box during the next election.

“One of the major reasons Right to Work is so popular in New Hampshire is that our current system of compulsory unionism is robbing Granite State workers of their freedom, and saps our economy of productivity and jobs,” added Kalb.

PHH Fantus, the nation’s longtime leader in business relocation, reported that at least half of all businesses looking to expand or relocate start their search by crossing off states like New Hampshire that don’t have Right to Work laws.

“Passage of Right to Work would be good for New Hampshire,” said Kalb. “The General Court can’t just keep sitting on their hands as the Granite State misses out on jobs when the solution is right there. New Hampshire needs a Right to Work law, and New Hampshire needs it now.”

From 1999-2009, non-agricultural employment in Right to Work states grew over 500% faster in Right to Work states than in New Hampshire.

A recent 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, compared household incomes in 133 metropolitan areas in Right to Work states with those of 158 metropolitan areas in non-Right to Work states.

Dr. Poulson found that the 2002 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.

“In the interests of personal liberty and economic freedom, it’s time for Right to Work in New Hampshire.

“With 80% of Granite States in favor of ending forced unionism, the Right to Work issue won’t go away. Governor Lynch and other politicians can either realize that, or they’ll end up paying the price at the polls.”

####

New England Citizens for Right to Work is a 501 (c)(4) organization dedicated to the principle that no one should be forced to join or support a union just to get a job.

For more information, please contact  John Kalb, Executive Director  john.kalb@necrtw.org

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.”

Gov. John Lynch is a stalwart supporter of the union bosses and in return, the union bosses have flooded Lynch with political contributions.

If Lynch decides to veto the bill as promised, the House and Senate will need to override. Rest assured the union bosses and their ‘organizers’ will be out for all to see.

In an era of economic duress, New Hampshire is sending a message to employees and employers throughout New England – freedom and jobs go together.

The Right To Work Map may be changing soon, from the New England Citizens for Right to Work news release: 

Concord, NH – By a vote of 16 to 8, the New Hampshire Right to Work Bill (H.B. 474) passed the State Senate this morning, and is now on its way back to the House for final concurrence before heading to Governor John Lynch’s desk. If the bill becomes law, New Hampshire would be the twenty-third state to pass a Right to Work law, which simply states that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a labor union just to have a job and feed their families.  Right now, over 68,000 workers in New Hampshire are forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

“A New Hampshire Right to Work law would simply restore workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not to join or pay union dues or ‘fees’ to a union official,” said John Kalb, Executive Director of New England Citizens for Right to Work.

Polls conducted in New Hampshire show that nearly 80% of Granite State citizens believe it is wrong to force workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.

H.B. 474’s next stop is in the House for final concurrence, and then on to Governor Lynch’s desk for his expected veto.

Kalb said, “Governor Lynch has already promised his Big Labor benefactors that he will veto the Right to Work Bill. But if Right to Work supporters keep up the pressure, we have a good chance of overriding the Governor’s veto and making Right to Work the law of the land in New Hampshire.”

With all eyes on Wisconsin this past week, overlooked has been the conservative policy changes that are moving ahead in New Hampshire. In recent days the New Hampshire House, where the GOP controls nearly three-quarters of the 400 seats, passed a bill to repeal the state cap-and-trade law that imposes a tax on energy use and a bill to make New Hampshire a Right-To-Work state.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch has vowed to veto both bills, but my sources in Concord say there’s a chance that the vetoes could be overridden. Meanwhile, Republicans are also set to pass a spending reduction bill with the kinds of public sector pension reforms that have incited protests from the labor unions in the Midwest.

(for Mr. Moore’s complete story, “commentary, political gossip and more subscribe to Political Diary.”)

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) might be the only thing standing between New Hampshire enacting a Right to Work law — maybe.  The law, which passed the state House of Representatives by a huge margin will create a economic enterprise zone in New England giving incentives for companies to stay or locate in the Granite state. 

Deputy House Speaker Pam Tucker was correct when she said “New Hampshire would be the first state in the Northeast to pass right-to-work legislation and would help us become a haven for employers seeking a pro-business environment. Freedom is a core New Hampshire belief, and freedom of association and choice is a fundamental right of every NH citizen.”

Will the bill actually become law with Lynch’s staunch opposition?  Time will tell.  it is a priority for the Republicans in the state Senate but both house will need to overturn a veto.  Stay tuned and active.  We will keep you up to date.

(Source: April 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Federal reports show that, in 2007 and 2008, Big Labor PACs directly contributed $73 million to federal candidates. And Big Labor-operated Section 527 groups spent an additional $57 million on an array of get-out-the-vote efforts for pro-forced unionism candidates.

These two types of political spending officially acknowledged by union bosses add up to $130 million in the 2007-2008 campaign cycle. That’s no mean sum.

But Big Labor’s officially acknowledged campaign expenditures represent only the tip of the iceberg of union electioneering, as union insiders like Jon Tasini, a former union official who now heads the New York-based Labor Research Association, have acknowledged again and again.

In a February 20, 2005 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Tasini reported that several “union political experts” had admitted to him that “unions spend seven to 10 times what they give candidates and [campaign organizations] on internal political mobilization.”

“Following Jon Tasini’s formula, in the 2007-2008 campaign cycle, Organized Labor spent between $900 million and $1.3 billion, mostly forced-dues money, on ‘internal political mobilization,’” noted Matthew Leen, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

Candidate Survey Is ‘One of the Committee’s Most Effective Tools’

“Forced-dues money pays for political phone banks, propaganda mailings, and the salaries and benefits for tens of thousands of campaign ‘volunteers,’” Mr. Leen continued.

“And the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the AFL-CIO hierarchy ‘plans to roll out its biggest political campaign ever’ in 2010.”

To meet union bigwigs’ challenge, the National Right to Work Committee has launched its federal candidate Survey 2010.

As longtime Committee members know, the federal candidate survey asks congressional candidates to commit themselves to oppose forced unionism consistently and support national Right to Work legislation if elected.

The survey is “one of the Committee’s most effective tools,” observed Mr. Leen.

“Senate and House candidates are given several chances to return their surveys and answer 100% in favor of Right to Work,” Mr. Leen explained.

“And millions of Right to Work supporters are mobilized to lobby candidates to respond to their Right to Work surveys.

“The success of the survey program is key for the Committee’s future ability to defeat Big Labor power grabs in Congress and, ultimately, pass a national Right to Work law.”

Survey Will Target Critical Senate and House Contests

The Survey 2010 will target critical Senate races in a number of states, including Pennsylvania and Arkansas, where Big Labor Democrat Sens. Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln, respectively, are both at significant risk of losing their seats.

The survey will encourage Sens. Specter and Lincoln to repudiate unequivocally their records of support for compulsory unionism and call upon their challengers to pledge 100% support for Right to Work if elected.

Other Senate target states include New Hampshire, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada.

In the House, the Survey 2010 is targeting dozens of “open seat” races and races in which potentially vulnerable Big Labor allies are seeking reelection.

“Before Election Day, the citizens these politicians are vying to represent in Congress have a right to know where they stand on Right to Work,” noted Mr. Leen.

“Regardless of whether they are political newcomers or have already cast thousands of recorded votes, Big Labor candidates will have nowhere to hide this year. Candidates in both major parties will feel intense heat to support Right to Work.”

Right to Work Vice President Optimistic Members’ Support Will Continue to Intensify

“I am confident that Committee members’ intensifying support for our survey program will counterbalance the union bosses’ billion-dollar scheme and, as a result, the Right to Work cause will enjoy many important victories throughout the 2010 campaigns,” Mr. Leen continued.

He urged members across the U.S. to be on the lookout for their Survey 2010 mailings, and to send their postcards and letters to their candidates promptly once the mailings arrive.

(Source: March 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Poll after poll indicates that union-label Democratic U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a tough battle to get reelected in Right to Work Arkansas this November.

And Ms. Lincoln clearly knows she has a problem.

That’s why she’s now suggesting to independent employees and employers in her home state that, although she has routinely voted according to Big Labor’s dictates on key forced-unionism issues during her nearly two decades on Capitol Hill, she is now an “independent” voice on such issues.

Freedom-loving Arkansans shouldn’t believe it for a minute.

First of all, even if Ms. Lincoln were consistently opposing compulsory unionism in the current Congress, Arkansas Right to Work supporters would have good reason to doubt she would continue to stand up to the union bosses once she was safely installed for another six-year term.

And the fact is, even in the current Congress, while she is trailing several potential pro-Right to Work general election opponents, Ms. Lincoln continues to support major forced-unionism power grabs whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

Gregg-Kildee Would Pave Way For Dragging All State, Local Employees Into Unions

One major example is Ms. Lincoln’s stealth move just before the Senate’s Christmas recess last year to sign on as a cosponsor of Big Labor-appeasing New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg’s (R) S.1611, the so-called “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.”

The innocent-sounding name of this legislation (also introduced in the U.S. House as H.R.413 by Big Labor Michigan Democrat Congressman Dale Kildee) mocks the reality that it would incite conflict between government agencies and employees and hurt taxpayers.

S.1611/H.R.413 would institute a federal mandate foisting union “exclusive representation” (monopoly bargaining) on state and local police, firefighters, and other public-safety employees nationwide.

This legislation would rewrite the public-sector labor laws of the vast majority of the 50 states to make them more pro-forced unionism.

In Arkansas and other states that haven’t caved in to Big Labor demands for monopoly bargaining, Gregg-Kildee would federally impose it, denying localities the option to refuse to grant a single union the power to speak for all front-line employees, including those who don’t want to join.

And in most states that already authorize public-safety union monopoly bargaining, S.1611/H.R.413 would widen its scope.

Gregg-Kildee would force countless policemen, firefighters and EMT’s to accept as their monopoly-bargaining agent a union they never voted for, and want nothing to do with.

It would also constitute a major step towards Big Labor’s decades-old goal of enacting a federal law that foists union monopoly bargaining on front-line state and local employees of all types across America.

Mark Mix Presses Sen. Lincoln to Withdraw Cosponsorship of S.1611

“Poll after poll shows the public overwhelmingly agrees that a worker who chooses not to join a union should be free as an individual to bargain for himself or herself,” pointed out National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Gregg-Kildee completely rejects that principle. For that reason alone, it lacks popular support.

“Moreover, there is a large and growing body of evidence that public-sector union monopoly bargaining helps drive up wasteful government spending, pouring fuel on the fire for future tax hikes.

“In the current political environment, with federal personal and business taxes already poised to skyrocket over the next few years and cities, towns and counties across America already facing their worst fiscal crisis in decades, popular opposition to schemes like Gregg-Kildee is mounting.

“By mandating public-safety union monopoly bargaining over a range of issues even wider than is currently the case in Big Labor-controlled states like Illinois and Michigan, this power grab could push localities across the country into bankruptcy.

“Does Congress as a whole, and do so-called ‘moderate’ politicians like Blanche Lincoln, really want to bear the responsibility for such a disastrous outcome?

“If Sen. Lincoln wants at last to make her vaunted ‘independence’ a reality, rather than just a hollow campaign slogan, the first thing she should do is withdraw her cosponsorship of S.1611.”

Mr. Mix urged freedom-loving Arkansans to call Ms. Lincoln’s office at 202-224-4843 and personally ask her to repudiate her support for the Gregg-Kildee scheme.