Right To Work freedom = Prosperity

Right To Work freedom strongly linked to economic prosperity explains Vincent Vernuccio in his Townhall post: The NLRB’s complaint is in fact a back-handed compliment to right-to-work laws, because it is based on the assumption that right-to-work laws help attract businesses. The preponderance of the evidence favors that position. As Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, from 2000 to 2009 right-to-work states “grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts: 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.” A recent analysis by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) shows that right-to-work states created 1.3 million more jobs in the private sector, had 3.5 percent faster income growth, and 46 percent higher business growth than forced union states between 1993 and 2009. And, according to a recent National Right to Work Committee analysis of Department of Labor data, over the past 10 years, the top five states in creating new jobs are right-to-work states, while the bottom five are forced unionism states. Workers in right-to-work states also have more disposable income than those in forced unionism states. In right-to-work states, unions must demonstrate to workers that their service has value or they will refuse to join. As in other areas of the economy, competition makes providers of goods and services—in this case the representation services of labor organizations—more efficient and responsive.

16 attorneys general join NLRB-Boeing South Carolina employees; NRTW to file appeal for 3 workers denied voice in lawsuit

Sixteen state attorney generals try to stand-up to the Obama NLRB attempt to trample states' rights hours after the NLRB rejected efforts by Boeing employees to be heard.  From Associated Press reporter Meg Kinnard: COLUMBIA -- Attorneys general from South Carolina and 15 other states Thursday weighed in on a lawsuit filed by the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that its complaint against Boeing for building an assembly plant in North Charleston after a strike by Washington state workers hurts states' abilities to keep manufacturing jobs. Alan Wilson and Greg Abbott, the attorneys general in South Carolina and Texas, respectively, asserted in a brief that "the NLRB's proposed action will harm the interests of the very unionized workers whom the general counsel's Complaint seeks to protect." "State policymakers should be free to choose to enact right-to-work laws -- or to choose not to enact them -- without worrying about retaliation from the NLRB," the two officials wrote. "It is logical that some employers will simply avoid creating new jobs or facilities in non-right-to-work States in the first place." The brief also was signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. It points out that the attorneys general represent right-to-work and unionized states, although only two of the signers -- Colorado and Michigan -- fall into the latter category. South Carolina is a right-to-work state where individual employees can join unions voluntarily, but unions cannot force membership across entire worksites.
Taxpayers to Realize More Losses on GM Bailout

Taxpayers to Realize More Losses on GM Bailout

Meanwhile, United Autoworkers Union Bosses Pocket $3.4 Billion (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In late 2008, GOP President George W. Bush "loaned" a total of $19.4 billion in federal taxpayers' money to the Big Labor-controlled General Motors Corporation (GM). Mr. Bush assured taxpayers they would get their money back. But by the spring of 2009, we learned we would never get back any of the money Mr. Bush had handed over to GM shortly before he left office. His successor as President, Democrat Barack Obama, announced GM would never have to settle up with taxpayers. President Obama simultaneously earmarked an additional $30 billion in taxpayers' money to by-then bankrupt GM. In exchange, taxpayers got a 61% stake in the money-losing company. Echoing Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama and his advisors insisted that, when the government eventually sold off its whole stake in GM, taxpayers would get the entire $30 billion back, and perhaps even reap a profit. Just last August, the President said it again. He told a CNBC interviewer: "We expect taxpayers will get back all the money my Administration has invested in GM." 'Government Officials Are Willing to Take the Loss'

"Thanks to my Spider sense, I am freed from those who have deceived me"

Right to Work: Spider Senses Tingling From the Foster's Daily Democrat State Rep. Steve Vaillancourt makes the case for enacting Right to Work: Until the last few weeks, right to work has always been a close call for me. In years past, I have opposed the bill after buying into the argument that one should not benefit from union contracts unless one pays the cost of negotiating them. It was a close call because then as now, I believe the individual should control his or her own life without being coerced into joining anything. Thus, I have always seen a conflict of two principles and have to weigh their importance. This year, with the Daniels amendment, the conflict was removed, and I voted for right to work. It remained a close call, l but the Daniels amendment tipped the scales to supporting the bill. Even with the Daniels amendment gone, I continue to support the right to work bill, and guess what. It's no longer a close call. I'm now a staunch supporter of the bill and urge all my Republican colleagues, especially those who like me have been on the fence in the past, to vote to override the governor's veto. Clearly, unions were using the payment for negotiation argument as nothing more than a red herring. How do I know this? Because, when they refused to budge in their total opposition to the bill, even when the Daniels amendment was added, my Spider senses startled tingling. That's a phrase I use to describe when I begin to realize that I'm being taken for a fool, that those trying to convince me are in fact being less than totally honest.
"Thanks to my Spider sense, I am freed from those who have deceived me"

"Thanks to my Spider sense, I am freed from those who have deceived me"

Right to Work: Spider Senses Tingling From the Foster's Daily Democrat State Rep. Steve Vaillancourt makes the case for enacting Right to Work: Until the last few weeks, right to work has always been a close call for me. In years past, I have opposed the bill after buying into the argument that one should not benefit from union contracts unless one pays the cost of negotiating them. It was a close call because then as now, I believe the individual should control his or her own life without being coerced into joining anything. Thus, I have always seen a conflict of two principles and have to weigh their importance. This year, with the Daniels amendment, the conflict was removed, and I voted for right to work. It remained a close call, l but the Daniels amendment tipped the scales to supporting the bill. Even with the Daniels amendment gone, I continue to support the right to work bill, and guess what. It's no longer a close call. I'm now a staunch supporter of the bill and urge all my Republican colleagues, especially those who like me have been on the fence in the past, to vote to override the governor's veto. Clearly, unions were using the payment for negotiation argument as nothing more than a red herring. How do I know this? Because, when they refused to budge in their total opposition to the bill, even when the Daniels amendment was added, my Spider senses startled tingling. That's a phrase I use to describe when I begin to realize that I'm being taken for a fool, that those trying to convince me are in fact being less than totally honest.

South Carolina Boeing Employees Move to Intervene in Obama Labor Board’s Assault on Right to Work Laws

From the The National Right To Work Legal Defense press release (6/2/2011):  National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helping workers and former Machinist union president challenge attempt to send jobs to Washington Washington, DC (June 2, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Charleston-area Boeing Corporation employees are asking to intervene in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) unprecedented case targeting Boeing for locating production in South Carolina in part due to its popular Right to Work law. That law ensures that union dues and membership are strictly voluntary. The NLRB’s complaint, if successful, would eliminate over 1,000 existing jobs in South Carolina, not to mention several thousand more jobs that would be created once the Boeing plant reaches full production capacity. Further, the case could set a dangerous precedent that allows union bosses to dictate where job providers locate their facilities.
Republicans and Democrats on The NLRB Boeing Ruling

Republicans and Democrats on The NLRB Boeing Ruling

The National Review's Andrew Stiles looks at the battle between the NLRB and elected officials and most interestingly points out that Democrats, elected from Right to Work states, have for the most part, refused to stand for the interests of their constituents. -- A group of GOP senators drafted legislation not only to head off the NLRB’s pending action against Boeing but also to prevent any similar attempts against other companies in the future. But the bill quickly stalled when it became clear that not one of the eleven Senate Democrats representing right-to-work states was willing to stand up to the White House and Big Labor by signing on as cosponsors. Not even Sens. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) and Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), two moderates from right-to-work states facing tough reelection battles next year, would stick up for their states. -- Meanwhile, of the 22 governors in right-to-work states, only two are Democrats. One of them, Mike Beebe of Arkansas, has expressed concern that the NLRB ruling could be “detrimental” to his state’s economic-development efforts.