Fact: Union Members Benefit from Right To Work Laws

Fact: Union Members Benefit from Right To Work Laws

The continues Investors Business Daily its excellent job of defining and promoting Right to Work: Should workers be forced to join unions or pay them dues as a condition of employment? Indiana recently became the 23rd state to say "no," and polls show support for similar right-to-work laws in union bastions like Minnesota, Michigan and Ohio. In Michigan, unions are so fearful that they are pushing to amend the state constitution to prevent such a law. The presumption is that if such laws passed, many employees would drop out of unions or stop paying dues, weakening labor. There's just one thing: There is little evidence that right-to-work laws cause people to leave unions. In fact, what evidence there is suggests the vast majority stick with their unions. That may be in part because the laws force unions to be more attentive to members' needs. "Somebody asked me how many workers got out because of right-to-work and I said, well, we don't track that number," said Jimmy Curry, president of Oklahoma AFL-CIO, whose state adopted a right-to-work law in 2001. He claims that no more than 10% of his members even register complaints.
The Auto Workers Obama Left Behind

The Auto Workers Obama Left Behind

Michele Malkin looks behind the president's rhetoric and self congratulations over "saving" the American auto worker to remind us of those the president choose to leave behind -- workers who were not part of the Big Labor machine in Michigan: The White House fairy tale about the Happily Ever After Auto Bailout is missing a crucial, bloody page. While President Obama bragged about "standing by American workers" at a rowdy United Auto Workers meeting Tuesday, he failed to acknowledge how the Chicago-style deal threw tens of thousands of nonunion autoworkers under the bus. In a campaign pep rally/sermon billed as a "policy speech," Obama nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back for placing his "bets" (read: our money) on the $85 billion federal auto industry rescue. "Three years later," he crowed, "that bet is paying off for America." Big Labor brass cheered Obama's citation of GM's "highest profits in its 100-year history" as the room filled with militant UAW chants of "union made." "Union made" -- but who paid? Scoffing at the criticism that his bailout was a massive union payoff, Obama countered that all workers sacrificed to save the auto industry. "Retirees saw a reduction in the healthcare benefits they had earned," Obama told the congregation, er, crowd. "Many of you saw hours reduced," he sympathized, "or pay and wages scaled back." Let's clear the fumes (again), shall we? The bailout pain was not distributed equally. It was redistributed politically.
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.
Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar digging into Indiana Caterpillar has been a mainstay Illinois-based company for generations but no longer.  The power and influence of big labor has impacted the company for too long, damaging its bottom-line and hurting workers. Now that Illinois' neighbor, Indiana, has become a Right to Work state, Caterpillar is exploring their options, according to The Detroit News' Robert Laurie: Back in 2009, Barack Obama announced that Caterpillar had promised to rehire some of its laid-off workforce if his stimulus proposal passed. This week, the nation's largest manufacturer of mining and construction equipment announced that it would be moving a factory from Canada to Indiana. In the process, it will create 450 new jobs in the state. You'd think the president would be happy, but this is not quite what he had bargained for. Take note, Governor Snyder. Caterpillar's move came almost immediately after Indiana passed a right-to-work law, which will make union dues voluntary in the state. Labor officials claim Right To Work will deplete union funds, making it much more difficult for them to organize factories. Coincidence? Workers who were formerly employed at the London, Ontario factory have been locked out since the beginning of the year after their union refused to accept pay cuts which would have kept the operation profitable. As a result of Big Labor's obstinance, these jobs have been permanently eliminated and the plant relocated. The work will now be done in Muncie, [Indiana].
Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar digging into Indiana Caterpillar has been a mainstay Illinois-based company for generations but no longer.  The power and influence of big labor has impacted the company for too long, damaging its bottom-line and hurting workers. Now that Illinois' neighbor, Indiana, has become a Right to Work state, Caterpillar is exploring their options, according to The Detroit News' Robert Laurie: Back in 2009, Barack Obama announced that Caterpillar had promised to rehire some of its laid-off workforce if his stimulus proposal passed. This week, the nation's largest manufacturer of mining and construction equipment announced that it would be moving a factory from Canada to Indiana. In the process, it will create 450 new jobs in the state. You'd think the president would be happy, but this is not quite what he had bargained for. Take note, Governor Snyder. Caterpillar's move came almost immediately after Indiana passed a right-to-work law, which will make union dues voluntary in the state. Labor officials claim Right To Work will deplete union funds, making it much more difficult for them to organize factories. Coincidence? Workers who were formerly employed at the London, Ontario factory have been locked out since the beginning of the year after their union refused to accept pay cuts which would have kept the operation profitable. As a result of Big Labor's obstinance, these jobs have been permanently eliminated and the plant relocated. The work will now be done in Muncie, [Indiana].
SEIU Tries to Grab Dues Money from Taxpayer Subsidies

SEIU Tries to Grab Dues Money from Taxpayer Subsidies

From the Washington Examiner: In-home health care workers in Connecticut, like their counterparts in Michigan, may see so-called union dues deducted from paychecks they receive through a state subsidy for the poor . . . The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is trying to unionize in-home health care workers, based on the theory that they qualify as public employees because the money paid to them is subsidized by the state. "The only notice home health care workers receive concerning a union election is a nondescript mailing asking them if they wish to join the union," says the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). "Under this process, the union only needs to receive a majority of returned cards—not a majority of all workers—to be recognized as those workers’ exclusive bargaining representative." The SEIU achieved this goal in Michigan, with the result that even low-income families who receive a Medicaid subsidy to take care of their adult, disabled children are losing $30 a month to the union. "Our daughter is 34 and our son is 30," retired police officer Robert Haynes said of the Michigan unionization. "They have cerebral palsy. They are basically like 6-month-olds in adult bodies. They need to be fed and they wear diapers. We could sure use that $30 a month that's being sent to the union."