Sick of being FORCED to pay for union bosses' politics? Right To Work is the Answer

Terry Bowman, a UAW member,  writes in the The Detroit News that to end forced-dues-funded politics "the best and easiest solution is to pass a Right To Work law."  And, he is right.  The surest way to end compulsory-dues for politics is to end compulsory-dues. From Mr. Bowman's editorial: A worker's constitutional rights seem to take a back seat to the political privileges of the union. Earlier this year, UAW local 898 officials displayed their political views for everyone who drove by the union hall. "Recall Gov. Snyder, sign up here!" was the message glaring from the parking lot sign for all passers-by to see. A recent Harris poll shows that 60 percent of union households say that unions are too involved in politics, and we know that 40 percent or more of union households vote Republican. Unfortunately, union members who disagree with these partisan political attacks are forced, as a condition of employment, to financially support this message. Federal laws are supposed to restrict union officials from using regular dues for political purposes. Regrettably, it still happens all the time. In a 1988 Supreme Court decision called Communication Workers of America vs. Beck, unions were forbidden to collect full union dues from non-members; only those dues that are supposed to reflect the true cost to the union as a collective bargaining agent. In other words, members could choose to resign their union membership and then only pay what is called the "agency fee" to keep their job. Obviously, there are problems with this ruling. Workers who wish to exercise these rights have to jump through hoops, and they are then persecuted and ridiculed on the job for doing so. The agency fee also includes all the educational and subjective political activities that unions engage in. Union newsletters and magazines are full of political propaganda, and union officials travel the country spewing hateful venom and a destructive worldview, yet their salaries are paid for with regular union dues. And there is so much more.
Maine Fights for Right to Work, Too

Maine Fights for Right to Work, Too

Like New Hampshire, Maine is looking to enact a Right to Work law. Writing for the Bangor Daily News, Matthew Gannon makes the case: Jobs, jobs, jobs. The first, last and often times only things on the mind of voters across the country right now are jobs. Politicians drone on endlessly about “job creation” and attack “job-killing policies” while voters punish those whom they perceive as being uninterested in improving the economy. Despite this, legislatures aren’t holding up their end of the bargain. Some minor things are being done that would help the jobs situation, but let’s be honest, a lot more could be done. Maine has a rather historic opportunity to lead on the issue of job creation, outflanking its more free-market neighbor, New Hampshire. Maine can, and should, pass a right-to-work law. Right-to-work laws exist in roughly half of the states in this country, mostly in the South and West. At their most basic level, these laws prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers which make membership in a union and payment of union dues a condition of employment. In other words, if you want a job but don’t want to join the union, you can’t be forced to as a condition of your employment. Imagine the opportunity that presents. Companies that want to bring their business to a northeastern state would have one option: Maine. That would be an incredible recruiting advantage that could help make Maine one of the most attractive places to do business in New England.Too often our laws have given special favors to unions, because unions play such a big role in elective politics. Unions funnel money into politicians who promise to help make unions more powerful, and in turn those same politicians make unions more powerful. It has always been a very incestuous “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” arrangement, to the detriment of workers.
Manufacturing Needs Right to Work

Manufacturing Needs Right to Work

If America is ever going to get back on its feet, its manufacturing base will need to lead the way and  Bill Fiala argues correctly that Right to Work laws create manufacturing jobs: The pro-job environment in right-to-work states is paying off with new automotive jobs. Tennessee is the home of Volkswagen’s new $1 billion auto assembly plant, as well as plants operated by Nissan and GM. Alabama boasts billion-dollar plants operated by Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Hyundai. Texas enjoys a large automotive manufacturing presence with Peterbilt, GM, International and Toyota. One reason for these states’ growing success in the automotive industry is their strong right-to-work laws embodying a commitment to a worker’s right to choose not to be part of a labor union. Right-to-work laws are an important factor to companies considering where to set up new operations. In the twenty-two states with right-to-work laws, workers cannot be forced to join unions, or to pay union dues if they decide not to join. In non-right-to-work states, workers must join unions or pay union dues to keep their jobs. If an employee working in a non-right-to-work state fails to join the union or pay union dues then the union forces the company to terminate the employee. What does the automotive industry’s decision to set up shop mean for these right-to-work states? It means jobs and increased tax revenues. An analysis by the University of Tennessee predicted that Volkswagen’s recent investment will raise incomes in the region by $511 million annually and will generate more than $55 million per year in new tax revenues. Other automotive manufacturers and component suppliers are spending billions in upgrades and new construction at plants in right-to-work states. Many states have not been as fortunate as Tennessee, Alabama and Texas. For example, states such as New Hampshire have problems attracting businesses and producing job growth partly because union’s have successfully thwarted lawmakers’ repeated attempts to pass right-to-work legislation. The New Hampshire legislature overwhelmingly passed right-to-work legislation earlier this year only to have the legislation vetoed by the governor. New Hampshire would have been the first state in the Northeast to have a right-to-work law. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation reports that right-to-work states “enjoy faster growth and higher real purchasing power than their forced unionism counterparts.”
U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

From U.S. House Education & Workforce Committee press release: NLRB biasis a menaceto business When so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work and America is competing against other countries to land businesses, the National Labor Relations Board continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of job loss and despite not a single worker benefit in Washington State being lost, the NLRB sued Boeing seeking to have it close its South Carolina plant, displace the workers hired, and return the work to Washington State. That is Exhibit A in proving the NLRB has become a sycophant for Big Labor but is by no means the only piece of evidence. Currently, union elections take place on average within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election, but that is not good enough. Unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further toward union seeking employees. By promoting "rush elections," and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, the board severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would have only seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of federal labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision.