American Thinker: Right to Work and Individual Rights

Sylvia Bokor outlines the critical connection between the Right to Work and individual rights: The Right to Work clause came into existence in 1935, embedded in the Taft-Hartely Law. It means that (a) employees may not be forced to join a union, that (b) employers need not hire only those who agree to join a union, and (c) that employers need not fire employees for failing to join a union or pay union dues. What does this mean in dollars and cents? Consider one of the worse-case scenarios: the Nelson Index ranks New Mexico, a non-Right to Work state, below the national average. Recently, the Rio Grande Foundation published its study of the effect of Right to Work on business growth and increased personal income in New Mexico. The Foundation concluded that were New Mexico to become a Right to Work state, "[b]y 2020, New Mexico would have 42,300 more people working ... [and that] the state's personal income would be nearly $5 billion higher, and wage and salary income would be $2.2 billion higher." But why? Why does prohibiting the use of force have such a hugely beneficial effect on economic growth and prosperity? The National Institute of Labor Relations Research answers the question. Mr. Greer begins his article by correctly identifying the foundation of the Right to Work clause: "Big Labor propaganda against Right to Work legislation and laws rarely focuses on the principle at stake: freedom of association." Later he states: "... Right to Work laws are not merely or even primarily an economic development tool. Right to Work laws and legislation are really a matter of freedom, not economics." True. But go deeper still. Individual rights are the foundation of freedom. "Freedom is the absence of force." Without individual rights, freedom does not exist. To the extent one's rights are violated, to that extent is one's freedom is curtailed, ultimately to be destroyed altogether. By definition, individual rights include the assurance that no man may violate the rights of another with impunity. A culture permeated by freedom is a culture enjoying the essential condition for prosperity: protection and recognition of individual rights. Philosophically, the Right to Work clause is the recognition of man's right to think for himself, to make his own choices and decisions -- i.e., his right to life. Personal happiness fuels productivity. Prosperity results. So why do union bosses continue to block implementation of the RTW clause?
Why Illinois is Going Broke

Why Illinois is Going Broke

The Chicago Tribune has published a remarkable editorial about the depth of coercive unionization has taken hold among government employees in the state: Across the country, union membership has plunged during the last few decades. Just 6.9 percent of the private-sector workforce is in a labor union today. Organized labor is stronger in the public sector, with unions representing 37 percent of the government workforce. And then there is Illinois. Try to find a state worker who isn't in a union. It's almost impossible. Nearly 96 percent of the state government workforce is unionized. Yes, almost everybody. Bosses, middle managers, front-line workers. Gov. Pat Quinn exacerbated the situation by cutting an election-year deal in 2010 with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The deal guaranteed union workers would not be laid off through June 2012. That meant nonunion workers got stuck with forced furlough days, layoffs and no pay raises. In some cases, they watched the union employees who worked beneath them pass them up on the pay scale. (Recall that, as the ink was drying on this agreement, AFSCME rewarded Quinn with its election endorsement. Don't you love coincidences? Those moments when like-minded people find one another?)
Big Labor Wall Crumbling in California?

Big Labor Wall Crumbling in California?

California is a long ways off from becoming a Right to Work state as the union bosses hold incredible sway over elected officials throughout the state. But Forbes' Joel Kotkin argues a new reform wind is blowing that threatens the old way of doing business: As with the old party bosses in Russia, [Jerry] Brown’s distinct lack of courage has only worsened California’s lurch toward fiscal and economic disaster. Yet as the budget woes worsen, other Californians, including some Democrats, are beginning to recognize the need for perestroika in the Golden State. This was most evident in the overwhelming vote last week in two key cities, San Diego and San Jose, to reform public employee pensions, a huge reversal after decades of ever more expansive public union power in the state. California’s “progressive” approach has been enshrined in what is essentially a one-party state that is almost Soviet in its rigidity and inability to adapt to changing conditions. With conservatives, most businesses and taxpayer advocates marginalized, California politics has become the plaything of three powerful interest groups: public-sector unions, the Bay Area/Silicon Valley elite and the greens. Their agendas, largely unrestrained by serious opposition, have brought this great state to its knees. California’s ruling troika has been melded by a combination of self-interest and a common ideology. Their ruling tenets center on support for an ever more intrusive, and expensive, state apparatus; the need to turn California into an Ecotopian green state; and a shared belief that the “genius” of Silicon Valley can pay for all of this. Now this world view is foundering on the rocks of economic reality. Californians suffer from a combination of high taxes and intrusive regulation coupled with a miserable education system — the state’s students now rank 47th in science achievement — and a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.