Lafe Solomon 'Did What IAM Bosses Told Him To'

Lafe Solomon 'Did What IAM Bosses Told Him To'

E-mails Reveal Why Top NLRB Lawyer 'Screwed up the U.S. Economy' Internal NLRB e-mails show Lafe Solomon (pictured) was disinclined this March to target Boeing for expanding production in Right to Work South Carolina. Then IAM union chiefs, led by Tom Buffenbarger, apparently got to him. Credit: AP/Bruce Smith (Source:  November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) This April 20, Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon ignited a public-policy firestorm by filing a complaint against Boeing for initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. In several public statements, Boeing executives had made no bones about the fact that their decision to expand in a Right to Work state was prompted largely by their desire to avoid or at least mitigate multi-billion-dollar revenue losses stemming from disruptive strikes. Agreeing with International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union kingpins who had repeatedly ordered employees at Boeing's west coast facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claimed these statements showed Boeing was motivated by "anti-union animus." Consequently, the South Carolina expansion was illegal, declared Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon's complaint asked an NLRB administrative law judge to stop Boeing's South Carolina production. Former Clinton-Appointed NLRB Chairman: Boeing Complaint Didn't 'Make Sense'
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.”

Heritage Foundation: Right to Work Creates Jobs and Choice

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation confirms what we have known for decades, enacting Right to Work laws create jobs and promote choice for workers: 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