Teachers Strike Hurts Families

When you put the interests of your paycheck ahead of the children you're teaching, you shouldn't be surprised that when you go on strike children are hurt.  Jeff Jacoby looks at the impact: The true long-term impact of the Chicago teachers strike may not be known for some time. But there is no mystery about its impact in the immediate term -- anxiety, panic, and disruption for myriad mothers and fathers left in the lurch when 30,000 members of the Chicago Teachers Union walked away from their classrooms last week just as a new school year was getting underway. "Parents and guardians frantically sought last-minute child care, pleaded with their bosses for leniency, and hoped that their kids would return to school sooner rather than later,"reported the Chicago Sun-Times. "Citywide, for thousands of families, stress was high." The paper quoted Martina Watts, a mother in West Garfield Park, one of the city's rougher neighborhoods: "I might be losing my job over this. As long as they're on strike, I can't work. I'm not getting paid." Construction worker Allen Packer told a TV interviewer that he had to switch from full-time work to a part-time night shift so he could be home with his young daughter during the day. "I kind of understand what they're trying to do," he said of the striking teachers. "But this is not just them." He gestured toward his daughter. "It's her education, first of all. Then my paycheck for the food."
Pundits, Labor Policy Specialists Explain Why Right to Work's Right For Indiana, America

Pundits, Labor Policy Specialists Explain Why Right to Work's Right For Indiana, America

(source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) I submit that the real [Right to Work] debate is about unions' fear that if this legislation passes, members will run out the door and their decline will be hastened. Instead of unions fighting [Right to Work], they should ask why their members would want to leave in the first place . . . . Abdul Hakim Shabazz, editor, Indypolitics.com, Indianapolis Star, January 11, 2012 [U]nion contracts do not have to cover nonunion employees. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed unions' ability to negotiate "members only" contracts. Unions voluntarily negotiate contracts covering all workers, members and nonmembers alike. They do so because union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Unions do not want to let the workers they hurt opt out. . . . Unions want everyone under their contract, especially those they hold back. James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics, Heritage Foundation, Miami Herald, January 7, 2012 I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana's workforce is in manufacturing . . . . They have got to be competitive with the southern tier of [Right to Work] states we saw on the map, or those companies will inevitably migrate. There's a lot of outmigration in Indiana right now. The level of real incomes is falling because of all the manufacturing going to the [Right to Work] South. It is a make-or-break deal for Indiana . . . . Dan Henninger, deputy editorial page editor, Wall Street Journal, "Journal Editorial Report," Fox News, January 14, 2012 How significant is the lack of a [Right to Work] law in Indiana? We estimate if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, . . . Indiana's personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana's lack of a [Right to Work] law. Alternative statistical estimates yield slightly smaller but still highly robust results. Richard Vedder, economics professor, Ohio University (and two coauthors) "Right-to-Work and Indiana's Economic Future," January 2011
Pundits, Labor Policy Specialists Explain Why Right to Work's Right For Indiana, America

Pundits, Labor Policy Specialists Explain Why Right to Work's Right For Indiana, America

(source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) I submit that the real [Right to Work] debate is about unions' fear that if this legislation passes, members will run out the door and their decline will be hastened. Instead of unions fighting [Right to Work], they should ask why their members would want to leave in the first place . . . . Abdul Hakim Shabazz, editor, Indypolitics.com, Indianapolis Star, January 11, 2012 [U]nion contracts do not have to cover nonunion employees. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed unions' ability to negotiate "members only" contracts. Unions voluntarily negotiate contracts covering all workers, members and nonmembers alike. They do so because union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Unions do not want to let the workers they hurt opt out. . . . Unions want everyone under their contract, especially those they hold back. James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics, Heritage Foundation, Miami Herald, January 7, 2012 I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana's workforce is in manufacturing . . . . They have got to be competitive with the southern tier of [Right to Work] states we saw on the map, or those companies will inevitably migrate. There's a lot of outmigration in Indiana right now. The level of real incomes is falling because of all the manufacturing going to the [Right to Work] South. It is a make-or-break deal for Indiana . . . . Dan Henninger, deputy editorial page editor, Wall Street Journal, "Journal Editorial Report," Fox News, January 14, 2012 How significant is the lack of a [Right to Work] law in Indiana? We estimate if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, . . . Indiana's personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana's lack of a [Right to Work] law. Alternative statistical estimates yield slightly smaller but still highly robust results. Richard Vedder, economics professor, Ohio University (and two coauthors) "Right-to-Work and Indiana's Economic Future," January 2011
As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced

As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced "the necessity for coercion"

Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, blasts Big Labor's "shameless pretext" for fighting without abandon against Right To Work Freedom: SOON -- PERHAPS AS EARLY AS TODAY -- Gov. Mitch Daniels will sign legislation making Indiana the nation's 23rd right-to-work state. Labor unions angrily oppose the change, but their opposition has no legitimate or principled basis. State right-to-work laws, authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, are not anti-union. They are pro-choice: They protect workers from being forced to join or pay fees to a labor union as a condition of keeping a job. In non-right-to-work states, employees who work in a "union shop" are compelled to fork over part of each paycheck to a labor organization -- even if they want nothing to do with unions, let alone to be represented by one. Laws like the one Indiana is poised to enact simply make union support voluntary. Hoosiers can't be required to kick back part of their wages to the Republican Party or the Methodist Church or the Animal Liberation Front; the new measure will ensure that they don't have to give a cut of everything they earn to labor unions, either. Most Americans regard compulsory unionism as unconscionable. In a new Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of likely voters say non-union workers should not have to pay dues against their will. Once upon a time, labor movement giants like Samuel Gompers, a founder of the American Federation of Labor, agreed. "I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty -- the principles of voluntarism," declared Gompers in his last speech to the AFL in 1924. "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion." Those words can be seen chiseled on Gompers's memorial in Washington, DC. So as a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, it is easy to understand why Big Labor long ago embraced what liberal scholar Robert Reich (who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of labor) dubbed "the necessity for coercion." In order "to maintain themselves," Reich said in 1985, "unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast." Or, as Don Corleone might have put it, to make them an offer they can't refuse. But is there any ethical reason -- any honorable basis -- for the union shop?
As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced "the necessity for coercion"

As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced "the necessity for coercion"

Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, blasts Big Labor's "shameless pretext" for fighting without abandon against Right To Work Freedom: SOON -- PERHAPS AS EARLY AS TODAY -- Gov. Mitch Daniels will sign legislation making Indiana the nation's 23rd right-to-work state. Labor unions angrily oppose the change, but their opposition has no legitimate or principled basis. State right-to-work laws, authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, are not anti-union. They are pro-choice: They protect workers from being forced to join or pay fees to a labor union as a condition of keeping a job. In non-right-to-work states, employees who work in a "union shop" are compelled to fork over part of each paycheck to a labor organization -- even if they want nothing to do with unions, let alone to be represented by one. Laws like the one Indiana is poised to enact simply make union support voluntary. Hoosiers can't be required to kick back part of their wages to the Republican Party or the Methodist Church or the Animal Liberation Front; the new measure will ensure that they don't have to give a cut of everything they earn to labor unions, either. Most Americans regard compulsory unionism as unconscionable. In a new Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of likely voters say non-union workers should not have to pay dues against their will. Once upon a time, labor movement giants like Samuel Gompers, a founder of the American Federation of Labor, agreed. "I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty -- the principles of voluntarism," declared Gompers in his last speech to the AFL in 1924. "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion." Those words can be seen chiseled on Gompers's memorial in Washington, DC. So as a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, it is easy to understand why Big Labor long ago embraced what liberal scholar Robert Reich (who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of labor) dubbed "the necessity for coercion." In order "to maintain themselves," Reich said in 1985, "unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast." Or, as Don Corleone might have put it, to make them an offer they can't refuse. But is there any ethical reason -- any honorable basis -- for the union shop?