It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

The latest poll driven rhetoric from the union bosses is the claim that union compulsion should be a civil right under color of law.  Anthony Davies, a professor at Duquesne University looks behind the rhetoric noting that the problem with Big Labor's proposed law because it makes compulsory unionism a 'right' for Big Labor while taking away from employees' freedom to not join or be compelled to pay tribute to a union boss. A recent op-ed in The New York Times called for new labor laws that will ensure that workers have the right to organize labor unions. These laws already exist, so what are unions griping about? It’s not that workers are being prevented from unionizing. The problem, as unions see it, is that it is too difficult to force workers to unionize. Free workers have weighed the costs and benefits of today’s unions and most have freely chosen to do without them. It is this free will that unions — and their advocates on the country’s op-ed pages — seek to quash. Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 7% not because unions have failed, but because they have done so well that — at least for the present — they are no longer needed. The exploitation of employees by their employers is a thing of the past; in fact, nowadays it seems like we’re more likely to hear about union bosses exploiting union members than about employers exploiting employees. Today, no matter how much labor leaders and their advocates pretend otherwise, labor reform means reforming unions.
Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest

Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest

After years of intensely lobbying their elected officials and mobilizing their fellow citizens, pro-Right to Work Hoosiers saw a measure prohibiting forced union dues and fees signed into law this month. Indiana Becomes the 23rd State to Abolish Forced Union Dues (Source: February 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) Just as this edition of the National Right to Work Newsletter went to press, Indiana became the 23rd state to adopt a Right to Work law prohibiting union officials from taking money from employees' paychecks as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In the late afternoon on January 25, a 54-44 majority in Indiana's state House of Representatives stood up to taunts and threats emanating from the hundreds of union bosses and other Big Labor militants who had been crowding the halls of the capitol for hours. Consequently, H.B.1001, a measure making it illegal to fire employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union, was adopted and sent to the state Senate. On February 1, the Senate, which had already passed another version of the Right to Work legislation, 28-22, approved H.B.1001 and sent it to GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels' desk. Heeding the pleas of thousands and thousands of Hoosiers who passionately oppose compulsory unionism, late last year Mr. Daniels had publicly announced he was strongly in favor of making Indiana a Right to Work state. Keeping his word, Mr. Daniels proceeded to sign the Right to Work measure into law once he got the chance. Landmark Victory Comes Only After Nearly a Decade of Intense Mobilization Efforts Right to Work's Indiana victory could never have occurred without many years of careful preparation. In 2003, Indiana citizens who were determined to free themselves and their fellow Hoosiers from the shackles of compulsory unionism launched what they knew from the start would be a sustained, and often difficult, effort to pass a Right to Work law. Subsequently, the organization these citizens put into high gear in 2003, the Indiana Right to Work Committee, mobilized an ever-loudening drum beat of support for employee freedom and built up opposition to forced unionism in the state Legislature. Over the course of the long campaign, the Indianapolis-based Right to Work group repeatedly benefited from the counsel and experience of the National Right to Work Committee. And National Committee members and supporters who live in the Hoosier State have been the bulwark of the Indiana Right to Work campaign. This campaign undertook major mobilization efforts in the last four election cycles and secured three "unsuccessful" roll-call votes in the state House prior to last month's successful one.
Heritage to Chrysler: Support Right To Work to Help Michigan

Heritage to Chrysler: Support Right To Work to Help Michigan

From the Heritage Foundation an endorsement of Right To Work Freedoms for Michigan: Did you know that there are no Volkswagen manufacturing plants in the Detroit area? Or Mercedes-Benz? Or Kia? Or Hyundai? Or BMW, for that matter? Apart from having their cars assembled in Michigan, it turns out that those three companies have something else in common: the United Auto Workers union (UAW). It also turns out that every other car manufacturer has something in common, too: not wanting the UAW to do to them what it did to the Big Three. Today, President Obama will address the UAW, and he should receive a rousing welcome. After all, his terms of the auto bailout richly rewarded his union allies at the expense of non-union employees and private investors, giving them, among other prizes, a very large stake of ownership in Chrysler. And together, they stand adamantly opposed to "right-to-work" laws that would empower the nation's unemployed to find economic security with a non-union job. They claim they want to protect "the American auto industry," but this is not about "American cars." The controlling interest of Chrysler is Italy-based Fiat and previously was Germany's Daimler-Benz between 1997 and 2008. This is simply about protecting union fortunes. Chrysler can hire actors in Louisiana to play the part of Detroit workers, and it can produce cinematically brilliant television ads. But wouldn't Detroiters have more pride in a job than a commercial? Chrysler and the UAW must drop its opposition to Michigan's right-to-work legislation if it wants to pretend it cares. Right-to-work legislation protects employees from being fired for not paying union dues. Without that protection, workers are forced to support a union financially even if they'd rather spend their hard earned dollars at home, if the union contract harms them, or if they're opposed to the union's agenda. And if they don't, they lose their jobs. Obviously, when given the freedom of choice, many workers choose not to unionize.