Click here to download a copy Senate Green-Lights NLRB ‘Card-Check’ Scheme — Big Labor Senators Let Obama Bureaucrats Do Their Dirty Work Did Top NLRB Lawyer Violate Ethics Rules? — Inspector General Asked to Investigate Ex Parte…
March National Right to Work Committee newsletter Special Supplement online Here’s a quote: Abby Rapoport, a staff writer for the pro-forced unionism American Prospect, fears the…
March National Right to Work Committee newsletter Special Supplement online Here’s a quote: Abby Rapoport, a staff writer for the pro-forced unionism American Prospect, fears the…
The April 2012 issue of The National Right to Work Committee Newsletter is available for download for your convenience to read and share. It is…
Mark Mix: President Barack Obama is jeopardizing the very constitutional balance of the United States in order to pay off his union benefactors. But Right to Work officers and supporters are fighting back. Credit: Fox News Legislative Challenge to 'Ambush' Election Scheme Now Pending (source: National Right To Work Committee March 2012 Newsletter) On Capitol Hill, in federal court, and at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Right to Work proponents are now helping spearhead efforts to stop the Obama Administration and Big Labor from dragooning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional workers into forced-dues-paying ranks every year. President Barack Obama instigated his latest showdown with Right to Work proponents on January 4, when he installed three new members on the five-member NLRB through "recess appointments," despite the fact that the U.S. Senate was manifestly not in recess. "The phony 'recess' appointments to the NLRB that President Obama made at the beginning of this year illegally circumvented at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution," charged National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "First, Article II, Section 2 grants to the chief executive the power to appoint 'officers of the United States,' but only 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' "The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when 'vacancies happen during recesses of the Senate' may the President make temporary 'recess' appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber." President Claims Constitutional Definition of 'Recess' Can't Be Used to Limit His Power "Second, Mr. Obama and his Justice Department have attempted to justify his so-called 'recess' appointments by effectively asserting that it is the President's prerogative to declare that the Senate is in recess at any moment when the chamber is not actually conducting business," Mr. Mix continued. "But the constitutional definition of 'recess' in Article I, Section 5 contradicts this theory. That's why the White House is now contending this provision can't be used to restrict the President's appointment power."
The March 2012 issue of The National Right to Work Committee Newsletter is available for download March 2012 Newsletter in an Adobe pdf format for your convenience…
Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."
Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."
Union-label Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has run up his state's public spending and debt to Greece-like levels. Credit: www.chicagonow.com Compulsory-Unionism Stronghold State Drowning in Taxes and Debt (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) In early 2012, as the national economy continues struggling to recover from the severe 2008-2009 national recession, many states are in financial dire straits. But Big Labor-dominated Illinois is very arguably the worst fiscal basket case of all. Early last month, Moody's Investors Service downgraded Illinois debt to A2, finding its creditworthiness to be the worst of any of the 50 states, including even government union-controlled California. In its report, Moody's specifically berated Illinois's "weak management practices." On January 22, a Chicago Tribune editorial observed: "Deadbeat Illinois owes some $8.5 billion in old bills, tax refunds, employee health insurance and interfund borrowing debts. That's roughly one-fourth the state's spending this year from its general funds." Over and above that, Illinois has "nearly $200 billion in debts and unfunded obligations." Burdened by labor policies authorizing union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues and fees in both the private and public sectors and a tax and regulatory climate that are hostile to private-sector job and income growth, the Prairie State has been in trouble for a long time. Big Labor 'Cure-All' For Rapidly Rising Government Debt: Massive Tax Hikes But Illinois's outlook grew even bleaker after union-label Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and like-minded legislators acted in January 2011 to put the state, in the governor's words, "back on sound fiscal footing."
Union-label Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has run up his state's public spending and debt to Greece-like levels. Credit: www.chicagonow.com Compulsory-Unionism Stronghold State Drowning in Taxes and Debt (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) In early 2012, as the national economy continues struggling to recover from the severe 2008-2009 national recession, many states are in financial dire straits. But Big Labor-dominated Illinois is very arguably the worst fiscal basket case of all. Early last month, Moody's Investors Service downgraded Illinois debt to A2, finding its creditworthiness to be the worst of any of the 50 states, including even government union-controlled California. In its report, Moody's specifically berated Illinois's "weak management practices." On January 22, a Chicago Tribune editorial observed: "Deadbeat Illinois owes some $8.5 billion in old bills, tax refunds, employee health insurance and interfund borrowing debts. That's roughly one-fourth the state's spending this year from its general funds." Over and above that, Illinois has "nearly $200 billion in debts and unfunded obligations." Burdened by labor policies authorizing union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues and fees in both the private and public sectors and a tax and regulatory climate that are hostile to private-sector job and income growth, the Prairie State has been in trouble for a long time. Big Labor 'Cure-All' For Rapidly Rising Government Debt: Massive Tax Hikes But Illinois's outlook grew even bleaker after union-label Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and like-minded legislators acted in January 2011 to put the state, in the governor's words, "back on sound fiscal footing."
Mark Mix: "The only reason Hoosiers had to battle against the Big Labor machine for years to enact a Right to Work law is that Congress imposed forced unionism on their state . . . ." Credit: wsj.com Indiana Right to Work Battle 'Really Resonates With Americans' (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Hoosier legislators' approval early this year, by decisive margins in both chambers of the General Assembly, of H.B.1001, a measure making Indiana America's 23rd Right to Work state, is giving a boost to freedom-loving citizens' efforts to secure votes in the U.S. Congress on national Right to Work legislation. Wall Street Journal "Potomac Watch" columnist Kim Strassel alluded to the potential impact of a Right to Work victory in Indiana on a Fox News broadcast aired January 14, just as the battle at the state capitol in Indianapolis was heating up: "This is an issue in Indiana that really resonates with Americans . . . 'Are you going to be forced to join a union and pay dues?' Most Americans don't agree with that. If Republicans can frame that in a national debate, it definitely helps them." Bad Federal Policy Is the Reason Indiana Had to Pass a Right to Work Law Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, later commented on Ms. Strassel's observation: "Of course, scientific surveys regularly show rank-and-file Democrats and Independents, as well as rank-and-file Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose compulsory unionism.
(source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) I submit that the real [Right to Work] debate is about unions' fear that if this legislation passes, members will run out the door and their decline will be hastened. Instead of unions fighting [Right to Work], they should ask why their members would want to leave in the first place . . . . Abdul Hakim Shabazz, editor, Indypolitics.com, Indianapolis Star, January 11, 2012 [U]nion contracts do not have to cover nonunion employees. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed unions' ability to negotiate "members only" contracts. Unions voluntarily negotiate contracts covering all workers, members and nonmembers alike. They do so because union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Unions do not want to let the workers they hurt opt out. . . . Unions want everyone under their contract, especially those they hold back. James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics, Heritage Foundation, Miami Herald, January 7, 2012 I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana's workforce is in manufacturing . . . . They have got to be competitive with the southern tier of [Right to Work] states we saw on the map, or those companies will inevitably migrate. There's a lot of outmigration in Indiana right now. The level of real incomes is falling because of all the manufacturing going to the [Right to Work] South. It is a make-or-break deal for Indiana . . . . Dan Henninger, deputy editorial page editor, Wall Street Journal, "Journal Editorial Report," Fox News, January 14, 2012 How significant is the lack of a [Right to Work] law in Indiana? We estimate if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, . . . Indiana's personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana's lack of a [Right to Work] law. Alternative statistical estimates yield slightly smaller but still highly robust results. Richard Vedder, economics professor, Ohio University (and two coauthors) "Right-to-Work and Indiana's Economic Future," January 2011
(source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) I submit that the real [Right to Work] debate is about unions' fear that if this legislation passes, members will run out the door and their decline will be hastened. Instead of unions fighting [Right to Work], they should ask why their members would want to leave in the first place . . . . Abdul Hakim Shabazz, editor, Indypolitics.com, Indianapolis Star, January 11, 2012 [U]nion contracts do not have to cover nonunion employees. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed unions' ability to negotiate "members only" contracts. Unions voluntarily negotiate contracts covering all workers, members and nonmembers alike. They do so because union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Unions do not want to let the workers they hurt opt out. . . . Unions want everyone under their contract, especially those they hold back. James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics, Heritage Foundation, Miami Herald, January 7, 2012 I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana's workforce is in manufacturing . . . . They have got to be competitive with the southern tier of [Right to Work] states we saw on the map, or those companies will inevitably migrate. There's a lot of outmigration in Indiana right now. The level of real incomes is falling because of all the manufacturing going to the [Right to Work] South. It is a make-or-break deal for Indiana . . . . Dan Henninger, deputy editorial page editor, Wall Street Journal, "Journal Editorial Report," Fox News, January 14, 2012 How significant is the lack of a [Right to Work] law in Indiana? We estimate if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, . . . Indiana's personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana's lack of a [Right to Work] law. Alternative statistical estimates yield slightly smaller but still highly robust results. Richard Vedder, economics professor, Ohio University (and two coauthors) "Right-to-Work and Indiana's Economic Future," January 2011
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: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 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's 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.
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.
The February 2012 issue of The National Right to Work Committee Newsletter is available for download February 2012 Newsletter in an Adobe pdf format for your convenience…
Mark Mix: Forced unionism is "an economic albatross for many states and for America as a whole." Credit FOXBusiness.com National Right to Work Law Could Finally Stop the Hemorrhaging (Source: January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) Perhaps the single most effective tool for measuring the long-term, ongoing migration of taxpayers and income out of forced-unionism states and into Right to Work states is furnished by the Statistics of Income (SOI) division of the IRS. And today any interested person can easily access SOI data through a data bank maintained on the web site of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation. Forced-Unionism States Are Losing Massive Amounts of Income as Well as People The SOI records the number of personal income tax filers who move (typically with their dependents, if they have any) across state lines, based on address changes shown on individual tax returns. The SOI data are arranged according to the year taxes are filed. For example, data for the Tax Filing Year 2010 show that a total of 1.35 million personal income tax filers were residing that year in a Right to Work state after residing somewhere else in the U.S. the previous year.
In southwestern Washington last September, overpowered police were unable to prevent bat- and ax handle-wielding union toughs from systematically sabotaging a multi-million-dollar grain terminal. Credit: AP Georgia Congressman Strives to Abolish 'Union-Thug Exemption' (Source: January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) In today's America, prosecutions of Big Labor arson, assaults, death threats, and other serious crimes are extraordinarily difficult. Such prosecutions are frequently hindered because of a loophole in federal law that exempts extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pursuant to so-called "legitimate union objectives." And one objective that federal law clearly deems to be "legitimate" is to expand the number of employees who are forced to accept union representation and pay union dues as a condition of employment. "Time and again, federal prosecutors have amassed extensive evidence that Big Labor bosses have orchestrated, authorized and/or ratified violence, vandalism and threats for union organizing purposes," noted Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee. "Nevertheless, because of the pro-union violence loophole in the federal Hobbs Act, extortion prosecutions of the implicated union officials ultimately fail -- or never even get off the ground." In its controversial 1973 Enmons decision, Mr. Mix explained, a divided U.S. Supreme Court exempted threats, vandalism and violence perpetrated to secure "legitimate" union goals. Union Goons in Buffalo Accused of Sabotage, Assault With a Knife, Rape Threat What this means in practice can be illustrated by a federal criminal case, now before U.S. District Judge William Skretny in New York, against 10 former officers and militants of the Buffalo-based Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.