Right to Work State Economies Grow Faster

Right to Work State Economies Grow Faster

Private-Sector Employees and Employers Alike Reap Major Benefits (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Today, American employees and employers across the country are working hard and using their ingenuity to help their businesses recover from the severe 2008-2009 recession. Unfortunately, an array of laws and regulations imposed by the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucrats are hindering the efforts of workers, managers, and business owners. And the federal policies that authorize the firing of roughly 6.3 million private-sector employees should they refuse to pay union dues or fees as a job condition are among the very worst, if not the worst, obstacles to economic recovery. One indication of the damage wrought by the pro-forced unionism provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) is the state-by-state gross domestic product (GDP) data reported by the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. According to BEA data, from 2000 to 2010, the combined real output of the 22 states with Right to Work laws protecting employees from the forced-union-dues provisions in the NLRA grew by 21.8%. That percentage gain is well over half again as large as the combined real 2000-2010 growth of the 28 states that still do not protect employees from forced union dues. To put it another way, had the entire country grown by as much as current Right to Work states did over just this ten-year period, by 2010 our national GDP would have been $13.674 trillion in constant, "chained" 2005 dollars, roughly $575 billion above the actual figure. Forced Dues Not Justified, Morally or Economically
Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

  Chairman Wilma Liebman and other Big Labor members of President Obama's NLRB have proposed radical new rules for union organizing campaigns that would drastically curtail independent minded employees' ability to resist unionization. Credit: Radaris.com President's Handpicked Bureaucrats Ignore 2010 Election Results (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 Congresses, Big Labor's top objective was a rewrite of federal labor law making it even easier for union bosses to seize monopoly-bargaining power over millions of employees in the American private sector. Union strategists' legislative vehicle was the cynically mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," introduced by pro-forced unionism Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). After Mr. Kennedy died in 2009, union-label Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin took over as the lead Senate sponsor. The Miller-Kennedy-Harkin measure was more accurately called the "Card-Check" Forced-Unionism Bill. Even without a federal card-check mandate, union bosses have long been able to acquire "exclusive" (monopoly) power to negotiate employees' pay, benefits, and work rules solely through the acquisition of signed "union authorization cards." Consequently, individual workers under the peering eyes of union organizers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control. However, as stacked as current law is in favor of Big Labor's monopoly-bargaining power, employers nevertheless retain the right to stand up for their employees against union-boss intimidation tactics. But Miller-Kennedy-Harkin would have empowered union officials to impose monopoly bargaining through card checks automatically, with no recourse for any pro-Right to Work employee or employer. This legislation was totally contrary to the policy views of the vast majority of citizens, including union members. Last November 2, 31 Card-Check Bill Supporters Lost Their Re-Election Bids "Over the years, polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly oppose union monopoly bargaining, period," explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.
Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

Obama NLRB Unveils New 'Card-Check' Scheme

  Chairman Wilma Liebman and other Big Labor members of President Obama's NLRB have proposed radical new rules for union organizing campaigns that would drastically curtail independent minded employees' ability to resist unionization. Credit: Radaris.com President's Handpicked Bureaucrats Ignore 2010 Election Results (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 Congresses, Big Labor's top objective was a rewrite of federal labor law making it even easier for union bosses to seize monopoly-bargaining power over millions of employees in the American private sector. Union strategists' legislative vehicle was the cynically mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," introduced by pro-forced unionism Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). After Mr. Kennedy died in 2009, union-label Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin took over as the lead Senate sponsor. The Miller-Kennedy-Harkin measure was more accurately called the "Card-Check" Forced-Unionism Bill. Even without a federal card-check mandate, union bosses have long been able to acquire "exclusive" (monopoly) power to negotiate employees' pay, benefits, and work rules solely through the acquisition of signed "union authorization cards." Consequently, individual workers under the peering eyes of union organizers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all of their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control. However, as stacked as current law is in favor of Big Labor's monopoly-bargaining power, employers nevertheless retain the right to stand up for their employees against union-boss intimidation tactics. But Miller-Kennedy-Harkin would have empowered union officials to impose monopoly bargaining through card checks automatically, with no recourse for any pro-Right to Work employee or employer. This legislation was totally contrary to the policy views of the vast majority of citizens, including union members. Last November 2, 31 Card-Check Bill Supporters Lost Their Re-Election Bids "Over the years, polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly oppose union monopoly bargaining, period," explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.
Boeing Workers Battle Big Labor, Obama NLRB

Boeing Workers Battle Big Labor, Obama NLRB

South Carolina Boeing employee Dennis Murray, a quality assurance inspector, doesn't mince words regarding IAM union bosses' aims: "They're trying to spank us like unruly children, by having all of our jobs taken away." Credit: WCBD-TV (Charleston, S.C.) Right to Work Offers Legislative as Well as Legal Assistance (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In 2008, Dennis Murray went to work at Vought Aircraft Industries' facility in North Charleston, S.C. The facility built a key structure, aft fuselage, for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner airplane. At that time, International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses had recently acquired monopoly-bargaining privileges over Vought's North Charleston employees, but no union contract was yet in place. Later that year, IAM union chiefs obtained a contract that cemented their power, but excluded important medical, dental, short-term disability, and other benefits Vought workers had had when they were union-free. Union officers sneakily secured approval of this contract, Mr. Murray charges, by notifying just a dozen of the facility's 200 union members about the meeting at which it was to be considered. The union contract ended up getting ratified by a vote of 12-1! Not surprisingly, Vought employees were angry about what the IAM brass had done. Their anger was soon exacerbated by layoffs lasting from three weeks to five months. In July 2009, Boeing purchased Vought's South Carolina operations for roughly a billion dollars. Shortly afterward, Mr. Murray led a successful decertification campaign in which a 199-68 majority of workers, including many union members as well as nonmembers, voted out the IAM union. Suit Charges IAM Bigwigs With Illegal Retaliation Against South Carolina Employees

Forced Unionism on the War Path

The National Labor Relations Board has become nothing more than puppets for the union bosses who were unable to achieve their goals legislatively and have now set their sights on forcing workers into unions administratively. WFI's Fred Wszolek looks at the three-headed monster of schemes the board is proposing to foist coercive unionism on workers across the employment spectrum. The NLRB and DoL are working to enact three sweeping rule changes that would restrict the freedoms of employers, while significantly shifting workplace power into the hands of Big Labor. Workers who would be directly and negatively affected by these changes are largely unaware that Washington, D.C. has declared war against them and jobs by advancing bureaucratic regulations that will increase unemployment and restrict hard-won liberties. The NLRB is currently pushing two changes: quickie union elections and the formation of micro units. Both of these change decades-old board law and procedure that have not hurt unions, instead allowed them to win the majority of organizing elections and strengthened the collective bargaining unit that has been formed. Successful union elections are still taking place with a 67.6 percent success rate. It is reported that unions brought in $8.8 billion in dues in 2010. So why the need for these rules changes? A closer examination shows that, quite simply, the Obama Administration is bailing out Big Labor with little to no regard for implications on workers due to the fact union membership has declined. The proposed quickie election rule shortens the time for union elections from a median time of 38 days to as little as 10, depriving employees of the ability to make an informed choice on perhaps the most important issue they will face in the workplace: whether to unionize. The aim? To catch businesses off guard and leave them scrambling so that a vote happens before employees can study the facts. During an already difficult economic time, the proposal for quickie elections would place additional costs and burdens on small business owners, who lack the resources and legal expertise to navigate and fully comprehend the NLRB’s election processes.