Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Writing for the Indianapolis Political Examiner, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz confronts Big Labor's misinformation campaign against Right to Work laws head-on: While at the Statehouse on Organization Day, I took some time to speak to some of the protesters in the hallways about potential ‘Right to Work” (RTW) legislation.  I made it a point to keep an open mind and listen to their arguments against RTW.  After speaking to about half a dozen or so, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments against RTW are not based on logic, but based on emotion; albeit the emotion is fear and it is the most powerful of emotions, but it still a pathos-driven argument. I reached the conclusion that the arguments were emotionally-based, because the “logical” arguments against RTW aren’t very logical at all.  Allow me to walk through the main points. Right to Work is really right to work for less The data shows that when adjusted for costs of living, salaries in right to work states are comparable to non-RTW states. RTW is a way to break the unions Unions still exist under RTW laws, membership just can’t be compelled.  If a union is providing quality service and responding to its members needs, it shouldn’t have to worry about members bolting and leaving their ranks. RTW allow non-union workers to “freeload” off the union. When the employees agree to form a union, they can decide whether the collective bargaining agreement applies only to members or all employees.  So if a union decides to represent people who aren’t members and aren’t paying dues then that sounds like a personal problem to me. RTW interferes with an employer’s right to contract I find this argument the most intriguing.  Primarily since it usually comes from people who have no problem imposing government regulations on business (i.e. smoking bans), but for some reason this regulation they have some concern.

Sick of being FORCED to pay for union bosses' politics? Right To Work is the Answer

Terry Bowman, a UAW member,  writes in the The Detroit News that to end forced-dues-funded politics "the best and easiest solution is to pass a Right To Work law."  And, he is right.  The surest way to end compulsory-dues for politics is to end compulsory-dues. From Mr. Bowman's editorial: A worker's constitutional rights seem to take a back seat to the political privileges of the union. Earlier this year, UAW local 898 officials displayed their political views for everyone who drove by the union hall. "Recall Gov. Snyder, sign up here!" was the message glaring from the parking lot sign for all passers-by to see. A recent Harris poll shows that 60 percent of union households say that unions are too involved in politics, and we know that 40 percent or more of union households vote Republican. Unfortunately, union members who disagree with these partisan political attacks are forced, as a condition of employment, to financially support this message. Federal laws are supposed to restrict union officials from using regular dues for political purposes. Regrettably, it still happens all the time. In a 1988 Supreme Court decision called Communication Workers of America vs. Beck, unions were forbidden to collect full union dues from non-members; only those dues that are supposed to reflect the true cost to the union as a collective bargaining agent. In other words, members could choose to resign their union membership and then only pay what is called the "agency fee" to keep their job. Obviously, there are problems with this ruling. Workers who wish to exercise these rights have to jump through hoops, and they are then persecuted and ridiculed on the job for doing so. The agency fee also includes all the educational and subjective political activities that unions engage in. Union newsletters and magazines are full of political propaganda, and union officials travel the country spewing hateful venom and a destructive worldview, yet their salaries are paid for with regular union dues. And there is so much more.

Sick of being FORCED to pay for union bosses' politics? Right To Work is the Answer

Terry Bowman, a UAW member,  writes in the The Detroit News that to end forced-dues-funded politics "the best and easiest solution is to pass a Right To Work law."  And, he is right.  The surest way to end compulsory-dues for politics is to end compulsory-dues. From Mr. Bowman's editorial: A worker's constitutional rights seem to take a back seat to the political privileges of the union. Earlier this year, UAW local 898 officials displayed their political views for everyone who drove by the union hall. "Recall Gov. Snyder, sign up here!" was the message glaring from the parking lot sign for all passers-by to see. A recent Harris poll shows that 60 percent of union households say that unions are too involved in politics, and we know that 40 percent or more of union households vote Republican. Unfortunately, union members who disagree with these partisan political attacks are forced, as a condition of employment, to financially support this message. Federal laws are supposed to restrict union officials from using regular dues for political purposes. Regrettably, it still happens all the time. In a 1988 Supreme Court decision called Communication Workers of America vs. Beck, unions were forbidden to collect full union dues from non-members; only those dues that are supposed to reflect the true cost to the union as a collective bargaining agent. In other words, members could choose to resign their union membership and then only pay what is called the "agency fee" to keep their job. Obviously, there are problems with this ruling. Workers who wish to exercise these rights have to jump through hoops, and they are then persecuted and ridiculed on the job for doing so. The agency fee also includes all the educational and subjective political activities that unions engage in. Union newsletters and magazines are full of political propaganda, and union officials travel the country spewing hateful venom and a destructive worldview, yet their salaries are paid for with regular union dues. And there is so much more.
U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

From U.S. House Education & Workforce Committee press release: NLRB biasis a menaceto business When so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work and America is competing against other countries to land businesses, the National Labor Relations Board continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of job loss and despite not a single worker benefit in Washington State being lost, the NLRB sued Boeing seeking to have it close its South Carolina plant, displace the workers hired, and return the work to Washington State. That is Exhibit A in proving the NLRB has become a sycophant for Big Labor but is by no means the only piece of evidence. Currently, union elections take place on average within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election, but that is not good enough. Unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further toward union seeking employees. By promoting "rush elections," and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, the board severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would have only seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of federal labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision.
The Government Workers Union Albatross

The Government Workers Union Albatross

Phillip K. Howard examines how union bosses for government workers are fleecing the taxpayers: The indictment of seven Long Island Rail Road workers for disability fraud last week cast a spotlight on a troubled government agency. Until recently, over 90% of LIRR workers retired with a disability—even those who worked desk jobs—adding about $36,000 to their annual pensions. The cost to New York taxpayers over the past decade was $300 million. As one investigator put it, fraud of this kind "became a culture of sorts among the LIRR workers, who took to gathering in doctor's waiting rooms bragging to each [other] about their disabilities while simultaneously talking about their golf game." How could almost every employee think fraud was the right thing to do? The LIRR disability epidemic is hardly unique—82% of senior California state troopers are "disabled" in their last year before retirement. Pension abuses are so common—for example, "spiking" pensions with excess overtime in the last year of employment—that they're taken for granted. Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio this year have led well-publicized showdowns with public unions. Union leaders argue they are "decimat[ing] the collective bargaining rights of public employees." What are these so-called "rights"? The dispute has focused on rich benefit packages that are drowning public budgets. Far more important is the lack of productivity. "I've never seen anyone terminated for incompetence," observed a long-time human relations official in New York City. In Cincinnati, police personnel records must be expunged every few years—making periodic misconduct essentially unaccountable. Over the past decade, Los Angeles succeeded in firing five teachers (out of 33,000), at a cost of $3.5 million. Collective-bargaining rights have made government virtually unmanageable. Promotions, reassignments and layoffs are dictated by rigid rules, without any opportunity for managerial judgment. In 2010, shortly after receiving an award as best first-year teacher in Wisconsin, Megan Sampson had to be let go under "last in, first out" provisions of the union contract. Even what task someone should do on a given day is subject to detailed rules. Last year, when a virus disabled two computers in a shared federal office in Washington, D.C., the IT technician fixed one but said he was unable to fix the other because it wasn't listed on his form. Making things work better is an affront to union prerogatives. The refuse-collection union in Toledo sued when the city proposed consolidating garbage collection with the surrounding county. (Toledo ended up making a cash settlement.) In Wisconsin, when budget cuts eliminated funding to mow the grass along the roads, the union sued to stop the county executive from giving the job to inmates.