Wall Street Journal roundtable: Right to Work freedom

Wall Street Journal roundtable: Right to Work freedom "almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana"

The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot, Dan Henninger, James Freeman, Dorothy Rabinowitz, Kim Strassel and Collin Levy discuss the individual freedom and business opportunities that Indiana's Right To Work bills bring to the Hoosier state: Gigot:  The first big labor fight of the year is taking shape in the Hoosier State. How Indiana's right-to-work push could change the political and economic landscape in the Midwest. Gov. Mitch Daniels: The idea that no worker should be forced to pay union dues as a condition of keeping a job is simple and just. But the benefits in new jobs would be large. A third or more of growing or relocating businesses will not consider a state that does not provide workers this protection. Gigot: He was reportedly booed by protesters in the statehouse hallways for those remarks in his annual State of the State Address this week, but Gov. Mitch Daniels is hoping to make Indiana the first state in more than a decade to approve right-to-work legislation. It would allow individual workers to decide if they want to join a union and ban contracts that require nonunion members to pay dues once their work site is organized. Republican leaders in the state have made it their top legislative priority this year, but Democrats and their union allies aren't giving up without a fight. So, Collin, we heard last year, after the brawl in Wisconsin, that somehow this was over for a union reform movement. What's--why is it happening in Indiana now? Levy: Well, I mean, I think it is a really interesting situation you see happening in Indiana, because Indiana's this sort of industrial state of the Midwest. And you have a particular situation now where Indiana is poised to achieve enormous competitive advantages over states in the Midwest like Michigan, like Illinois. These are high-taxed, unionized states. And Gov. Daniels has taken this moment to say, "You know, we've already made sort of some significant gains in terms of improving the business climate here. We saw what happened in Wisconsin. But, look, you know, we have an opportunity to lure an awful lot of businesses here if we can make it clear that workers can act as free agents," you know? Unions are portraying this as a radical change, but it's really just about worker freedom. Gigot: Kim, the nearest right-to-work state in the Midwest is Iowa. So how much economic benefit could there be here, really, when you get down to it, for Indiana? Strassel: It's huge. When Mitch Daniels talks about this, he is looking at the South. That is where the epicenter of most right-to-work states have been and where there has been a flood of manufacturers who have moved from the North to the South over recent decades to take advantage of those lower-cost, nonunionized states. And if Indiana could do this, it would be a sort of central pole for people to remain in the Midwest and locate and give an enormous advantage over competitors. Gigot: The last state to try to do this was New Hampshire, believe it or not, which had elected huge Republican legislative majorities in 2010. Tried to pass right-to-work. They did. It was vetoed by the Democratic governor. Indiana Republicans also have big majorities, and it looks like they are poised to do it. Henninger: And I hope they do. I mean, I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana's workforce is in manufacturing. That's the highest percentage in the United States.
Indiana Workers Demand Their Right to Work

Indiana Workers Demand Their Right to Work

From the Wall Street Journal: The labor reform story of the year is unfolding in Indiana, which Republicans who dominate the legislature are trying to make the nation's 23rd right-to-work state. Democrats are resorting to the old run-and-hide ploy, but this could be a huge economic boon to the Hoosier State. Big Labor portrays right to work as a radical change, but it merely lets individual workers decide if they want to join a union. In non-right-to-work states, workers typically must pay union dues once their worksite is organized—whether they want to pay or not. This enhances union clout and the cash to dominate state politics. Many industrial and manufacturing businesses only consider right-to-work states as locales for expanding their operations. The nearest right-to-work state in the Midwest is Iowa, so Indiana could set itself further apart from such high-tax, unionized havens as Illinois and Michigan. According to Chief Executive Magazine's annual CEO survey, Indiana has climbed to sixth from 16th among state business climates, thanks to reforms since 2004 under Governor Mitch Daniels. But the state's biggest liability remains its labor market. A Forbes survey last year ranked Indiana 34th in business climate, partially because of a dismal 44th rank in labor "supply," which includes unionization. Democrats in the state House played hooky for three days last week in an effort to deny a quorum for voting on the law. They returned to work yesterday after Democratic leader B. Patrick Bauer acknowledged that they "can't stay out forever." House members face penalties of $1,000 per day for walkouts longer than three days, so the obstruction could get expensive.
Big Labor Bosses Fume as Benefits of Wisconsin Reform Spread

Big Labor Bosses Fume as Benefits of Wisconsin Reform Spread

2011 All in All, 'a Hopeful Year For America' Union-label Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (left) is a bitter political foe of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s. Nevertheless, Mr. Barrett admits the governor’s Big Labor-detested Act 10 has helped his city get control over its budget. Credit: AP (Source:  November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) Early this year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) infuriated the union hierarchy, in his own state and nationally, when he introduced legislation (S.B.11) that would abolish forced union dues for teachers and many other public employees and also sharply limit the scope of government union monopoly bargaining. In response, teacher union bosses in Madison, Milwaukee, and other cities called teachers out on illegal strikes so they could stage angry protests at the state capitol and at legislators' residences. Government union militants issued dozens of death threats against Mr. Walker, members of his administration, and their families. Fourteen Big Labor-backed state senators, all Democrats, temporarily fled the state to deny the pro-S.B.11 Senate majority a quorum to pass the bill. In raucous demonstrations, union bigwigs and their radical followers actually suggested Mr. Walker's support for public employees' Right to Work made him similar to Mubarak, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, or even Satan. (This fall, national AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave his personal imprimatur to such ugly vituperation when he likened the Wisconsin governor to "Lucifer" in an interview published in Esquire magazine.) Thanks in part to public support mobilized by the National Right to Work Committee's e-mail and telecommunications activities, pro-Right to Work legislators were able to withstand the Big Labor fury and send S.B.11 to Gov. Walker's desk. On March 11, he signed into law the measure now known as Act 10. Forced-Unionism Supporters Pumped More Than $40 Million Into 2011 'Recall' Elections Act 10, formally known as the Budget Repair Act of 2011, took effect in June after fending off a union boss-inspired legal challenge in state court. Act 10 now protects most public employees from being fired for refusal to bankroll an unwanted union, but leaves untouched the forced-dues privileges of most public safety and transportation union bosses. "Despite its unfortunate exclusions, this law represents a step forward for public employees' free choice," said Committee President Mark Mix. "Not surprisingly, union bigwigs are out for revenge against Mr. Walker and the legislators who helped pass the Budget Repair Act." As part of its ongoing campaign to obtain vengeance and ultimately repeal the Budget Repair Act, early this year Big Labor launched petition campaigns for "recall" elections of many Senate supporters of the measure. In August, special recall elections in which pro-forced unionism candidates challenged six pro-Right to Work senators took place. Three union-label Democrat senators who had opposed Act 10, and temporarily fled the state to stop it from passing, also faced recall votes this summer. Union bigwigs and their Democratic allies pumped more than $40 million into the nine state Senate races. In the end, the unprecedentedly expensive legislative recall push by Big Labor enjoyed some success, as two of the six pro-Act 10 senators went down to defeat, while all three forced-unionism senators held on to their seats. However, the union political machine fell short of capturing the three seats it needed to relegate pro-Act 10 Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (Juneau) to minority status and reassume control of the chamber. Democratic Mayor: Under Act 10, Milwaukee Will Save 'At Least $25 Million a Year' And that same month, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Scott Walker's Democratic opponent in 2010 and a bitter foe of Act 10, publicly admitted that, thanks to this very legislation, his city would save "at least $25 million a year -- and potentially as much as $36 million in 2012 . . . ."
Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a "smack at organized labor" that will "gut unions"

Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a "smack at organized labor" that will "gut unions"

According to Jeff Harris, Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman Right To Work is a "smack at organized labor" and it will "gut unions."  Apparently, AFL-CIO bosses know that if Hoosiers aren't forced to pay union dues, then many Hoosiers will spend their own money on something else.  This may be why the AFL-CIO embraces the anti-free market Occupy America movement, because these union bosses know that 'services' are overpriced and bear no resemblance to free market pricing. So, will  Big Labor convince the Democrats to flee to Illinois again in effort to hide from their legislative responsibilities? We don't know that answer, yet.  But, we do know Big Labor is planning for a January collective hissy fit at the Indiana capitol building. From Associated Press writers Charles Wilson and Ken Kusmer: Indiana’s Republican House leader on Tuesday promised swift movement on a push to make his state the first in more than a decade to ban labor contracts that require employees to pay union fees. Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis told The Associated Press he is confident he can push the “right-to-work” bill through his chamber during the 2012 session that begins Wednesday and is spending a lot “personal capital” to do so. Bosma, who has been the measure’s most ardent supporter, said he hadn’t yet taken a formal tally of supportive votes, but added he “also wouldn’t bring it forward if I wasn’t confident of success.” The proposal would bar private employee unions from seeking contracts that mandate all workers pay union fees regardless of whether they are members. Supporters say the law would help attract new business to the state. Indiana’s House Democrats successfully blocked the measure last year with a five-week walkout that denied House Republicans the numbers needed to conduct daily business. Democratic leaders have so far declined to say whether they will walk out again this session. Indiana would become the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law, the first to do so since Oklahoma in 2001. Republicans hold wide margins in the Indiana Assembly: 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate and GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels has come out with strong support for the measure. “There’s nowhere we are we closer than we are in Indianapolis,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which pushes the measure in Statehouse’s across the country. The group has maintained a state executive director to coordinate volunteer support for the measure over the last few years and recently sent three or more new staff to shore up support in tough districts Indiana.
Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a

Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a "smack at organized labor" that will "gut unions"

According to Jeff Harris, Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman Right To Work is a "smack at organized labor" and it will "gut unions."  Apparently, AFL-CIO bosses know that if Hoosiers aren't forced to pay union dues, then many Hoosiers will spend their own money on something else.  This may be why the AFL-CIO embraces the anti-free market Occupy America movement, because these union bosses know that 'services' are overpriced and bear no resemblance to free market pricing. So, will  Big Labor convince the Democrats to flee to Illinois again in effort to hide from their legislative responsibilities? We don't know that answer, yet.  But, we do know Big Labor is planning for a January collective hissy fit at the Indiana capitol building. From Associated Press writers Charles Wilson and Ken Kusmer: Indiana’s Republican House leader on Tuesday promised swift movement on a push to make his state the first in more than a decade to ban labor contracts that require employees to pay union fees. Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis told The Associated Press he is confident he can push the “right-to-work” bill through his chamber during the 2012 session that begins Wednesday and is spending a lot “personal capital” to do so. Bosma, who has been the measure’s most ardent supporter, said he hadn’t yet taken a formal tally of supportive votes, but added he “also wouldn’t bring it forward if I wasn’t confident of success.” The proposal would bar private employee unions from seeking contracts that mandate all workers pay union fees regardless of whether they are members. Supporters say the law would help attract new business to the state. Indiana’s House Democrats successfully blocked the measure last year with a five-week walkout that denied House Republicans the numbers needed to conduct daily business. Democratic leaders have so far declined to say whether they will walk out again this session. Indiana would become the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law, the first to do so since Oklahoma in 2001. Republicans hold wide margins in the Indiana Assembly: 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate and GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels has come out with strong support for the measure. “There’s nowhere we are we closer than we are in Indianapolis,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which pushes the measure in Statehouse’s across the country. The group has maintained a state executive director to coordinate volunteer support for the measure over the last few years and recently sent three or more new staff to shore up support in tough districts Indiana.
Gov. Mark Dayton (D-Big Labor)

Gov. Mark Dayton (D-Big Labor)

Trey Kovacs looks at Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton's quest to empower union bosses by any means necessary: Minnesota State Senator Mike Parry (R-Waseca) recently caused a stir with strong accusations against Governor Mark Dayton. “It’s no secret that the labor unions helped buy the Governor’s Office for Mark Dayton… he began to return the favor, most recently by trying to help unionize some of Minnesota’s in-home, private child care providers,” said Parry in a fundraising letter. Sen. Parry’s allegations elicited a strong reaction from Dayton, who called it “inaccurate and deeply offensive.” A review of the facts, however, shows that the real reason the governor is so upset: the truth hurts. Since 2005, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have been trying to organize child care providers Minnesota. Associated Press found that AFSCME wrote a $125,000 check to Gov. Dayton’s Recount Fund once restrictive campaign contribution limits ceased. Combined AFSCME and SEIU PACs contributed $14,000 to Dayton during his campaign. The Minnesota Family Council calculates that Big Labor stands to gain up to $3.3 million a year in dues from unionizing child care providers. On November 15, Gov. Dayton issued Executive Order 11-31, calling an election to unionize all licensed, registered, and subsidized child care providers in the state. In defense of his order, the governor claimed that holding a union election would ensure that union membership would be “voluntary” and that child care providers not eligible to vote for unionization would be unaffected. Opponents countered that union dues will be compulsory and costs will rise. For the most part, child care providers are self-employed. So how could they be unionized? Dayton and the unions have a simple solution: declare them state employees because they receive state aid to serve needy children. Under their view, anyone who receives any form of state aid qualifies as a state employee. To push back against this power grab, on November 28, a group of 11 child care providers sued to block Dayton’s executive order, arguing that it violates state and federal laws. The National Labor Relations Act and Minnesota Labor Relations Act do not allow employers to form, join, or assist labor organizations. The Minnesota Labor Relations Act indicates that a union cannot gain exclusive representation of workers, unless a majority of workers choose union representation. Dayton’s mandate blatantly violates that provision, as it excludes a majority of child care providers from the voting process. Only 4,300 government-subsidized providers will cast ballots, but a vote for unionization could also force the state’s 6,700 non-subsidized child care providers into a union. As a result of the suit, Minnesota District Court Judge Dale Lindman issued an injunction to postpone the union election. He stated that laws must be passed by the legislature and remarked that the order “strikes me as being very harmful to the parties that are involved.”

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